COLLIER COUNTY Planning Commission AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 March 19, 2026 9:00 AM Joseph Schmitt, Environmental - Chairman Chuck Schumacher - Vice-Chair Paul Shea, Environmental - Secretary Randy Sparrazza Michelle L. McLeod Mike Petscher Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selected to speak on behalf of an organization or group are encouraged and may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item if so recognized by the chairman. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the CCPC shall be submitted to the appropriate county staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners if applicable. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda Page 1 of 17429. Advertised Public Hearing 9.A. PL20240001182 - Capling SR 29 Mine (CU) - North of Oil Well Road and east of State Road 29 - A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, providing for the establishment of a Conditional Use for earth mining with excavation, blasting, and processing of material, pursuant to Sections 2.03.01.A.1.c.1 and 4.08.05 of the Collier County Land Development Code, on property zoned Rural Agricultural District (A) with a Mobile Home Overlay (MHO), and within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Zoning District (RLSAO) and Area of Critical Concern (A-MHO-RLSAO-ACSC/ST), on 1,401.8± acres located north of Oil Well Road and east of State Road 29, in Sections 4, 8, 9 and 10, Township 48 south, Range 30 east, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Planner III, GMCDD, Zoning Division] (2026-424) 9.B. PL20230018359 - Jay II Rezone (RZ) - 1331 Jaybird Way - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Single Family 2 (RSF-2) zoning district for property located at 1331 Jaybird Way, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 6.86+/- acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager] (2026-446) 9.C. PL20250004748 - Moorings Park at Grande Lake (PUDA) - intersection of Airport Road (C.R. 31) and Golden Gate Parkway (C.R. 886) - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 07-40, as amended, the Grey Oaks MPUD, by increasing the Floor-to-Area Ratio to 0.6 for assisted living facilities on the 55.5+/- acre parcel designated as Residential (R) and Lake (L) known as Moorings Park Grande Lake located one-quarter mile west of Livingston Road, south of Golden Gate Parkway, limiting the maximum cumulative building area to 1,127,590 square feet, and by providing an effective date. The subject MPUD consisting of 1,601+/- acres is located at the northeast, northwest, and southeast quadrants of the intersection of Airport Road (C.R. 31) and Golden Gate Parkway (C.R. 886), in Sections 24, 25, and 26, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager] (2026-447) 9.D. PL20240010212-Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA - North side of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road, east and west of Corkscrew Road - The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 1,446.59+/- acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area zoning overlay district as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA), which will allow development of a maximum of 4,502 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 and a maximum of 238,606 square feet of commercial development in the Village Center Context Zone; and a 100,000 square feet of indoor self storage use in the Village Center Context Zone; a minimum of 45,020 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses in the Village Center Context Zone; senior housing including assisted living facilities and continuing care retirement communities limited to 300 units in the SRA; 362 of the maximum 4,502 residential dwelling units in the Affordable Housing Context Zone; no commercial uses in the Neighborhood General Context Zone; and 8.50+/- acres of amenity area in the Neighborhood General Context Zone; all subject to a Page 2 of 1742 maximum pm peak hour trip cap; and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement for Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area and establishing that 11,703 stewardship credits are being utilized by the designation of the Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property, consisting of 1,446.59± acres, is located on the north side of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road, east and west of Corkscrew Road, in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, Township 46 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM, Planner III, GMCDD, Zoning Division] (2026-449) 10. Old Business 11. New Business 12. Public Comments 13. Adjourn Page 3 of 1742 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: MARCH 19, 2026 SUBJECT: CU-PL20240001182; CAPLING SR29 MINE PROPERTY OWNER/AGENTS: Owner: Sunniland Properties, LLC P.O. Box 1997 Labelle, FL 33975 Agents: Jessica Harrelson, AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Peninsula Engineering Coleman, Yovanovich & 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Koester, P.A. Naples, FL 34105 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida for the establishment of a Conditional Use for earthmining with excavation, pursuant to Sections 2.03.01.A.1.c.1 and 4.08.05 of the Collier County Land Development Code, on property zoned Rural Agricultural District (A) with a Mobile Home Overlay (MHO), and within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Zoning District (RLSAO) and Area of Critical Concern (A-MHO-RLSAO-ACSC/ST), on 1,401.8± acres. CU-PL20240001182, CAPLING SR29 MINE Revised Date: February 20, 2026 Page 1 of 12 Page 4 of 1742GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located north of Oil Well Road and east of State Road 29, in Sections 4, 8, 9, and 10, Township 48 South, Range 30 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the following page) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject property consists of 1,401.8± acres. The purpose of this Conditional Use (CU) application is to permit earthmining with excavation within the Rural Agricultural District (A) with a Mobile Home Overlay (MHO), and within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Zoning District (RLSAO) and Area of Critical Concern (A-MHO-RLSAO-ACSC/ST), known as the Capling SR29 Mine. CU-PL20240001182, CAPLING SR29 MINE Revised Date: February 20, 2026 Page 2 of 12 Page 5 of 1742SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the boundaries of the subject property, which is developed with agriculture and zoned Rural Agricultural District (A) with a Mobile Home Overlay (MHO), and within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Zoning District (RLSAO) and Area of Critical Concern (A- MHO-RLSAO-ACSC/ST). North: Undeveloped with a current zoning designation of Rural Agricultural District (A) with a Mobile Home Overlay (MHO), and within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Zoning District (RLSAO) and Area of Critical Concern (A-MHO-RLSAO- ACSC/ST). East: Undeveloped with a current zoning designation of Rural Agricultural District (A) with a Mobile Home Overlay (MHO), and within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Zoning District (RLSAO) and Area of Critical Concern (A-MHO-RLSAO- ACSC/ST). South: Developed agricultural with a current zoning designation of Rural Agricultural District (A) with a Mobile Home Overlay (MHO), and within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Zoning District (RLSAO) and Area of Critical Concern (A- MHO-RLSAO-ACSC/ST). West: Undeveloped with a current zoning designation of Rural Agricultural District (A) with a Mobile Home Overlay (MHO), and within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Zoning District (RLSAO) and Area of Critical Concern (A-MHO-RLSAO- ACSC/ST). To the south, it should be noted that an approximately one-half mile segment of the southwestern portion of Capling SR 29 Mine property abuts SR29 (two lane arterial) with the Horse Trials SRA property across the street to the west. To the south is developed agricultural with a current zoning designation of Rural Agricultural District (A) with a Mobile Home Overlay (MHO), and within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Zoning District (RLSAO) and Area of Critical Concern (A-MHO-RLSAO- ACSC/ST). Intentionally blank CU-PL20240001182, CAPLING SR29 MINE Revised Date: February 20, 2026 Page 3 of 12 Page 6 of 1742 Aerial (Peninsula Engineering) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed this request and offered the following comments: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural, Agricultural /Rural Mixed Use, and within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) as shown on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). On the Stewardship Overlay Map, part of the FLUM series, the site is designated “Open.” CU-PL20240001182, CAPLING SR29 MINE Revised Date: February 20, 2026 Page 4 of 12 Page 7 of 1742Relevant to this petition, the Agricultural/Rural Land Use Designation applies to areas that are remote from the existing development pattern, lack public facilities and services, are environmentally sensitive, or are in agricultural production. Urbanization is not promoted, therefore most allowable land uses are of low intensity in an effort to maintain and promote the rural character of these lands. The proposed earthmining and related processing is listed as an allowable use in this designation in the FLUE. The FLUE also states that the goal of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay is to address the long-term needs of residents and property owners within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment by retaining agricultural activities, directing incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, enabling the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that employs creative land use planning techniques through the use of established incentives. RLSA Policies 1.4 and 1.5 provide that properties in the RLSA may develop per the “Baseline Standards” (uses allowed by the underlying “A” zoning and Agricultural/Rural FLUM designation), which allow earth mining by conditional use. Based upon the above analysis, the proposed Conditional Use may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. (See Attachment B – FLUE Consistency Memo) Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicants’ March 25, 2025, Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the 2024 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). 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. CU-PL20240001182, CAPLING SR29 MINE Revised Date: February 20, 2026 Page 5 of 12 Page 8 of 1742 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: According to the TIS provided with this petition, the proposed Capling SR-29 Mine development will generate a projected total of +/- 172 PM peak hour trips on the adjacent roadway, State Road 29. The trips generated will occur on the following adjacent roadway network links: Roadway/Link Link Current Peak Projected P.M 2024 Level 2024 Hour Peak Peak of Service Remaining Direction Hour/Peak (LOS) Capacity Volume/Peak Direction Direction Project Traffic (1) (2) State Road Oil Well 900/NB 60/SB C 311 29/83.0 Road to 24/NB CR-29 South Oil Well Ave Maria 800/EB 51/WB B 494 Road/122.0 Blvd to SR-29 1. Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is March 25, 2025; Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner. 2. Road link is FDOT jurisdiction. Based on the TIS provided by the applicant, the 2024 AUIR, the subject PUD can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval. Stormwater Review: Stormwater Staff have reviewed the Conditional Use petition to assess the potential for any associated stormwater issues. Implementation of the project will require approval through the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) process with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (F.D.E.P.) as well as excavation permit approval consistent with the Collier County Excavation Ordinance Sec 22-111. These processes will ensure that prescribed Best Management Practices, Erosion Control Measures, and Pollution Prevention Plan will be incorporated into the mine operation. The County excavation permit process is ongoing, and it will address issues of concern, which include, potential impacts to groundwater associated with the depth of excavation, as well as potential impacts to water levels in the adjacent SR29 Canal. The proposed mining will be subject to Chapter 62-330 Environmental Resource Permitting and mandatory reclamation requirements of F.D.E.P. Chapter 62C- 39, Florida Administrative Code. CU-PL20240001182, CAPLING SR29 MINE Revised Date: February 20, 2026 Page 6 of 12 Page 9 of 1742Landscape Review: The buffers labeled on the Conceptual Master Plan are consistent with the LDC. Utility Review: The project will be served by private well and septic systems, as connections to Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) services are not required. The project lies within the CCWSD's regional potable water service area and the northeast wastewater service area. Water and wastewater services are available via existing infrastructure within the adjacent right- of-way. Sufficient water and wastewater treatment capacities are available. Any improvements to the CCWSD’s water or wastewater systems necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the County at the time of utilities acceptance. The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable GMP goals and objectives regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by county staff responsible for the jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and staff have concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commitments to minimize impact to the Level of Service (LOS). Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff have reviewed the conditional use petition to address environmental concerns. The property is located within Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay (RLSO) and the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). The minimum required preserve is 205.87 acres (90% of 228.74). The preservation area will meet all the standards established by LDC Section 4.08.05.E. The environmental data indicate that the proposed project is in an area that may contain a variety of protected animal species. Several alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) were observed onsite. Consultation with the Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) will be conducted to minimize any impact on alligators. The property contains habitat commonly occupied by caracaras (Caracara cheriway). One caracara nest was observed approximately 600 feet outside the property boundary. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and FWCC regarding guidelines and permitting requirements will be required prior to construction. The Environmental Data indicates the subject property falls within the FWS Primary Florida Panther (Felis concolor coryi) habitat. There were no observations of panthers on-site; however, the telemetry data indicate that Florida panthers are present within the boundary of the proposed project. Consultation with FWS to obtain panther mitigation is likely. Panther Habitat Unit (PHU) credits are what will be needed to offset proposed impacts. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) wildlife data indicates the presence of Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) in the area. A black bear management plan will need to be included in PPL or SDP review. The proposed project is located within the FWS consultation area for Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus). Although there are native vegetated areas present onsite, no evidence was found indicating the trees were being utilized by Bonneted Bat. Additionally, the property contains potential habitat for Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais couperi). Consultation with the US Federal Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) regarding guidelines and permitting requirements will be required before construction. CU-PL20240001182, CAPLING SR29 MINE Revised Date: February 20, 2026 Page 7 of 12 Page 10 of 1742Finally, the subject property is located within core foraging ranges for three Wood stork (Mycteria americana) colonies. However, consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regarding mitigation is unlikely, as the wetland found on-site doesn’t appear to provide high-quality foraging habitat for the wood stork. The site also contains foraging habitat for the Florida Sandhill Crane (Grus candensis pratensis). Suitable foraging habitats for both the Florida Sandhill Crane and Wood Stork are present within the subject property (Drainage ditches, preserved marsh areas); however, no individuals were observed onsite. Consultation with USFWS and FWCC regarding guidelines and permitting requirements will be required prior to construction. Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff have found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site is 1,401.80 acres and includes former citrus groves, row crops, and cattle grazing uses. The subject property contains 228.74 acres of native vegetation on site. A minimum of 205.87 acres preservation is required; provided and dedicated to Collier County. Historic Preservation Review: Per county GIS historical maps, the land within the proposed CU contains areas of historical/archaeological probability and historic materials. Accordingly, the applicant submitted a Cultural Resource Assessment Survey for the Capling SR 29 Mine. This cultural resource assessment was heard before the Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board (HAPB) at its January 17, 2025, meeting and was approved by a vote of 5-0. HAPB accepted the report and all findings; no conditions were added to this approval. (See Attachment D – Backup Materials) STAFF ANALYSIS: When considering a Conditional Use petition, the CCPC must make findings that: 1) approval of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property of uses in the same district of neighborhood; and 2) all specific requirements for the individual Conditional Use will be met; and 3) satisfactory provisions have been made concerning the following matters, where applicable: 1. Section 2.03.01.A.1.c.1 and 4.08.05, of the LDC permits conditional uses in the Rural Agricultural-Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) and Rural Agricultural-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay and Area of Critical Concern (A- MHO-RLSAO-ACSC/ST): The requested use for an earthmining facility is allowed as a conditional use in the Rural Agricultural-Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) and Rural Agricultural-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay and Area of Critical Concern (A-MHO- RLSAO-ACSC/ST), subject to the standards and procedures established in section 10.08.00, conditional uses procedures, of the LDC. CU-PL20240001182, CAPLING SR29 MINE Revised Date: February 20, 2026 Page 8 of 12 Page 11 of 17422. Consistency with the Land Development Code (LDC) and the Growth Management Plan (GMP). This request is consistent with the GMP, and with the conditions proposed by staff, this project will be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Land Development Code (LDC). 3. Ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. Ingress and egress to the subject property will be limited to a single access point on SR 29, as shown on the master site plan. Based on the TIS provided by the applicant, the 2024 AUIR, the subject PUD can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. As noted above, Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including, but not limited to, any plats and/or site development plans, are sought. 4. The effect the Conditional Use would have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic, or odor effects. The excavation operation will have no negative effects on neighboring properties, including noise, glare, economic impact, or odor. Mining activities have been designed to provide significant setbacks from all property boundaries. The property is adjacent to undeveloped land and/or lands used for agricultural purposes along most boundaries. Setbacks and vegetation will sufficiently screen the proposed development from neighboring properties, mitigating potential impacts. Moreover, regarding compatibility with the Horse Trails SRA property to the west, SRAs are developed with a berm/wall combination along major external rights-of-way; in this case, it’s SR 29. Both this mining operation and Horse Trials SRA have permitted buffer requirements, and SR 29 does bisect both projects. This mining operation also contains blasting conditions. Currently, no concerns have been voiced over compatibility between Horse Trials SRA and this proposed mining operation. 5. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. If the proposed Conditions of Approval are adopted, the proposed earthmining facility can be found compatible with adjacent properties and other properties in the immediate area. Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations as outlined in this staff report be recommended for approval. CU-PL20240001182, CAPLING SR29 MINE Revised Date: February 20, 2026 Page 9 of 12 Page 12 of 1742ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) REVIEW: This project requires the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review because it falls within the EAC's scope of land development project reviews, as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Specifically, Section 2-1193(m)(4) a conditional use of a commercial mine requires EAC approval. Environmental Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed petition. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The NIM was scheduled for Thursday, April 3, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. at the Ave Maria Association Office located at 5080 Annunciation Circle, Unit#101, Ave Maria, FL 34142. No members of the public were present or participated remotely, and therefore, no recording or transcript was available. A copy of the NIM advertising is included in Attachment D – Backup Materials. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s Office reviewed the staff report on February 19, 2026. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) approve Petition CU- PL20240001182, subject to the following conditions, including staff’s Landscape Condition: 1. The Capling SR29 Mine Conditional Use shall be limited to what is depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan, dated November 2025, and prepared by Peninsula Engineering. 2. Per LDC Section 10.08.00 J., insubstantial changes in the location and siting of buildings, structures, and improvements authorized by this conditional use may be approved administratively at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat. 3. Prior to any vehicular use of the site, the owner shall post two (2) signs along the entry drive, clearly visible to vehicles entering and leaving the site, providing information regarding potential panther presence and notifying drivers of the need to use caution. Sign wording, placement, and size will be subject to review and approval by Collier County Environmental Staff. The owner shall submit, and receive approval of, the proposed signage plan in conjunction with the first to occur of either the Site Development Plan process or other local development order, as may be required, which may allow vehicular use of the site. 4. Evidence of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) accepted mitigation for impacts to panthers, woodstorks, Florida black bear, and other listed species will be required prior to the pre- construction meeting with Staff. CU-PL20240001182, CAPLING SR29 MINE Revised Date: February 20, 2026 Page 10 of 12 Page 13 of 1742 5. A littoral shelf planting area to commence during the reclamation phase of the project shall be shown on the excavation permit for this petition and shall meet the current standards of the Land Development Code at time of submittal of the Commercial Excavation Permit. 6. The Owner/Petitioner shall obtain a South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Agricultural Surface Water Management Permit or permit modification for this site, if applicable. 7. The maximum total daily trip generation for the CU shall not exceed 82 two-way AM and PM peak hour two-way net 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 excavation permit approval, whichever comes first. The maximum number of one-way trucks per day (maximum one-way loads per day) is 430. 8. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., 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 for fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. 9. Mining operations are permitted between 6:30 am and 5:00 pm Monday through Friday, and between 7:00 am and 3:00 pm on Saturday. 10. The Owner/Petitioner shall be responsible for all maintenance of the internal haul roadways and the connection to State Road 29 for the duration of the mining operation. The area surrounding and between State Road 29 and the tire-wash system depicted on Sheet #4 of the Conceptual Site Plan shall be paved consistent with the weigh stations shown on the master plan, and/or be a minimum of 22 feet in width and a depth of 1.5 inches of asphalt or asphalt millings with minimum LDC required base. The internal haul roadway does not require paving past the tire-wash system depicted on Sheet #4 of the Conceptual Site Plan. A Dust Control Plan shall be submitted with the Excavation Permit. The tire-wash system shall be installed to wash dust from the wheels and underbody of all haul trucks exiting the facility. This system will direct water under pressure at the wheels and the underside of each vehicle as it passes through. 11. Haul trucks will not be permitted to park or stage along public rights-of-way. Applicant may allow haul trucks to stage or park on the project’s internal roadway prior to 6:30 a.m. 12. Upon completion of excavation activities, all buildings, equipment, and berms shall be removed within twelve months, or used in the reclamation process or for agricultural purposes. 13. The Board of Zoning Appeals may revoke the approval of this Conditional Use if the Collier County Code Enforcement Board finds that the mine operator has violated or has CU-PL20240001182, CAPLING SR29 MINE Revised Date: February 20, 2026 Page 11 of 12 Page 14 of 1742 not fully complied with all conditions of approval including completion of improvements indicated on the Conditional Use Master Plan and the mine operator has failed to remedy the violation or come into compliance within the time period established by the Code Enforcement Board. 14. The mining operations shall be conducted in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida, Collier County Government, and the Federal Government. 15. The lifespan of the mine is 35 years from the date of Conditional Use approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals. 16. Blasting Conditions: a) Blasing will be in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Office of the Florida State Fire Marshall. b) Pre-blast inspections are to be conducted on structures within 1,500 feet of where blasting will occur. c) A twenty-four (24) hour notice shall be provided to residents within 1,500 feet of where blasting will occur. d) All blasts are to be recorded by a seismograph. e) The subject mine will meet Chapter 55 of the Code of Ordinances, as applicable. 17. A 10-foot-high berm and 10’ Type A landscape buffer shall be installed south of the excavation limits, as depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan. 18. The maximum allowable depth of excavation varies from 39’ to 44’, as depicted on Exhibit D, “Maximum Excavation Depths”. 19. County will send a copy of the application to the Florida Department of Commerce commensurate with the ACSC zoning designation. Attachments: A) Proposed Resolution B) FLUE Consistency Memo C) Letters of Opposition D) Backup Materials CU-PL20240001182, CAPLING SR29 MINE Revised Date: February 20, 2026 Page 12 of 12 Page 15 of 1742 RESOLUTION NO. 2026 - _____ A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE FOR EARTHMINING WITH EXCAVATION, BLASTING, AND PROCESSING OF MATERIAL, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 2.03.01.A.1.c.1 AND 4.08.05 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ON PROPERTY ZONED RURAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (A) WITH A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY (MHO), AND WITHIN THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT (RLSAO) AND AREA OF CRITICAL CONCERN (A-MHO-RLSAO-ACSC/ST), ON 1,401.8± ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF OIL WELL ROAD AND EAST OF STATE ROAD 29, IN SECTIONS 4, 8, 9 AND 10, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (PL20240001182) WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67–1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals (“Board”), being the duly appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a Conditional Use to allow earthmining with excavation, blasting, and processing of material, within the Rural Agricultural District (A) with a Mobile Home Overlay (MHO), within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Zoning District (RLSAO), and Area of Critical State Concern Special Treatment Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO-ACSC/ST), pursuant to sections 2.03.01.A.1.c.1 and 4.08.05 of the Collier County Land Development Code on the property hereinafter described, and the Collier County Planning Commission has made findings that the granting of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest and the specific requirements governing the Conditional Use have been met and that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 10.08.00.D. of the Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented. [24-CPS-02576/2002733/1]79 Capling SR29 Mine / PL20240001182 1 of 2 2/20/26 Page 16 of 1742 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Petition Number CU-PL20240001182 filed by Jessica Harrelson, AICP, of Peninsula Engineering and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., representing Sunniland Properties, LLC, with respect to the property described in Exhibit “A”, be and the same is hereby approved for a Conditional Use to allow earthmining with excavation, blasting, and processing of material, within the Rural Agricultural District (A) with a Mobile Home Overlay (MHO), within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Zoning District (RLSAO), and Area of Critical State Concern, pursuant to sections 2.03.01.A.1.c.1 and 4.08.05 of the Collier County Land Development Code, in accordance with the Conceptual Master Plan described in Exhibit “B” subject to the Conditions of Approval described in Exhibit C, and the Maximum Excavation Depths in Exhibit D. Exhibits A, B, C and D are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second, and super majority vote of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, this _____ day of _____________, 2026. ATTEST: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: __________________________ By: __________________________________ , Deputy Clerk Dan Kowal, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: _____________________________ Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A – Legal Description Exhibit B– Conceptual Master Plan Exhibit C – Conditions of Approval Exhibit D – Maximum Excavation Depths [24-CPS-02576/2002733/1]79 Capling SR29 Mine / PL20240001182 2 of 2 2/20/26 Page 17 of 1742 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1: ALL OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 2: THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF AND LANDS LYING WITHIN STATE ROAD 29 RIGHT OF WAY. PARCEL 3: THE NORTH 1/2 AND THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THE EAST 30 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 9. LESS AND EXCEPT THE NORTH 200 FEET OF THE WEST 30 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 9. LESS AND EXCEPT THE WEST 200 FEET OF THE NORTH 30 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 9. LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 FEET OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION. PARCEL 4: THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 5: THE SOUTH 30 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, LYING EAST OF STATE ROAD 29 RIGHT OF WAY, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 6: THE NORTH 30 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST 14 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING EAST OF THE STATE ROAD 29 RIGHT-OF-WAY. PARCEL 7: THE SOUTH 30 FEET OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 8: THE EAST 30 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 9: THE WEST 200 FEET OF THE NORTH 30 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 10: THE NORTH 200 FEET OF THE WEST 30 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING A TOTAL OF 1401.80 ACRES MORE OR LESS Page 18 of 1742 9. Mining operations are permitted between 6:30 am and 5:00 pm Monday through Friday, and between 7:00 am and 3:00 pm on Saturday. 10. The Owner/Petitioner shall be responsible for all maintenance of the internal haul roadways and the connection to State Road 29 for the duration of the mining operation. The area surrounding and between State Road 29 and the tire-wash system depicted on Sheet #4 of the Conceptual Site Plan shall be paved consistent with the weigh stations shown on the master plan and/or be a minimum of 22 feet in width and a depth of 1.5 inches of asphalt or asphalt millings with minimum LDC required base. The internal haul roadway does not require paving past the tire-wash system depicted on Sheet #4 of the Conceptual Site Plan. A Dust Control Plan shall be submitted with the Excavation Permit. The tire-wash system shall be installed to wash dust from the wheels and underbody of all haul trucks exiting the facility. This system will direct water under pressure at the wheels and the underside of each vehicle as it passes through. 11. Haul trucks will not be permitted to park or stage along public rights-of-way. Applicant may allow haul trucks to stage or park on the project’s internal roadway prior to 6:30 a.m. 12. Upon completion of excavation activities, all buildings, equipment, and berms shall be removed within twelve months, or used in the reclamation process or for agricultural purposes. 13. The Board of Zoning Appeals may revoke the approval of this Conditional Use if the Collier County Code Enforcement Board finds that the mine operator has violated or has not fully complied with all conditions of approval including completion of improvements indicated on the Conditional Use Master Plan and the mine operator has failed to remedy the violation or come into compliance within the time period established by the Code Enforcement Board. 14. The mining operations shall be conducted in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida, Collier County Government, and the Federal Government. 15. The lifespan of the mine is 35 years from the date of Conditional Use approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals. 16. Blasting Conditions: a) Blasing will be in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Office of the Florida State Fire Marshall. b) Pre-blast inspections are to be conducted on structures within 1,500 feet of where blasting will occur. c) A twenty-four (24) hour notice shall be provided to residents within 1,500 feet of where blasting will occur. d) All blasts are to be recorded by a seismograph. e) The subject mine will meet Chapter 55 of the Code of Ordinances, as applicable. Capling SR29 Mine (CU-PL20240001182) November 14, 2025 2 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Page 24 of 1742 17. A 10-foot-high berm and 10’ Type A landscape buffer shall be installed south of the excavation limits, as depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan. 18. The maximum allowable depth of excavation varies from 39’ to 44’, as depicted on Exhibit D, “Maximum Excavation Depths”. Capling SR29 Mine (CU-PL20240001182) November 14, 2025 3 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Page 25 of 1742 1" = 2000' SCALE: Maximum_Excavation_Depths\Rev01\Sheet_Files\P-HARK S.R. 29 39' QUARRY LAKE AREA = ±99.8AC 44' PROJECT LIMITS 39' LEGEND [Original Size: 8.5X11] [Path: P:\Active_Projects\P-HARK-001\001-CaplingSR29Mine\Drawings-Civil\C00-Exhibits\X07-Exhibit_D- [Original Size: 8.5X11] [Path: SOIL BORING LOCATIONS PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXCAVATION DEPTH (FT) (MEASURED FROM EX. GRADE) LAKE (QUARRY EXCAVATION AREA) HISTORIC SITE 8CR01649 HABITAT STEWARDSHIP AREA FLOWWAY PROJECT: TITLE: CLIENT: REVISIONS: SEC:TWP: RGE: No: Revision: Date: Designed by: JAW Drawn by: JAW EXHIBIT "D" - Date: 09/2025 CAPLING SR-29 Drawing Scale: 1" = 2000' • • MAXIMUM HARKER FARMS, LLC • • File Name: P-HARK-001-001-C00-X07.dwg • • MINE 2600 Golden Gate Pkwy EXCAVATION DEPTHS Project Number: P-HARK-001-001 Naples, FL 34105 Pen-Eng.com Sheet ID: Florida Engineering C.A #28275 X07 Sheet Number: of [Save Date: 10/27/2025 8:51:10 AM] [By: ASpagnola] [Plot Date: Antonette Spagnola][Save Date: 10/27/2025 8:51:10 AM] [By: 12/15/2025 8:22:50 AM] [By: Florida Landscape C.A #LC26000632 01 01 Page 26 of 1742 Growth Management Community Development Department Zoning Division CONSISTENCY REVIEW MEMORANDUM To: Timothy Finn, Planner III, Zoning From: Stephenne Barter, Planner II, Comprehensive Planning Date: January 5, 2025 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PL20240001182 PETITION NAME: Capling SR29 Mine (CU) REQUEST: To obtain a Conditional Use (CU) for a ±1,022-acre site request is to allow for the proposed commercial excavation operation. LOCATION: The subject site abuts the east side of SR 29, with the proposed excavation site approximately 0.5 miles north of Oil Well Road, within portions of Sections 4, 8, 9, and 10, Township 48 South, and Range 30 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural, Agricultural /Rural Mixed Use, and within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) as shown on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). On the Stewardship Overlay Map, part of the FLUM series, the site is designated “Open.” Relevant to this petition, The Agricultural/Rural Land Use Designation is for those areas that are remote from the existing development pattern, lack public facilities and services, are environmentally sensitive, or are in agricultural production. Urbanization is not promoted, therefore most allowable land uses are of low intensity in an effort to maintain and promote the rural character of these lands. The proposed earthmining and related processing is listed as an allowable use in this designation in the FLUE. The FLUE also states that the goal of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay is to address the long-term needs of residents and property owners within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment by retaining agricultural activities, directing incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, enabling the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that employs creative land use planning techniques through the use of established incentives. RLSA Policies 1.4 and 1.5 provide that properties in the RLSA may develop per the “Baseline Standards” (uses allowed by the underlying “A” zoning and Agricultural/Rural FLUM designation) which allow earth mining by conditional use. Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.colliercountyfl.gov/ Page 27 of 1742In reviewing Policies 5.6 and 7.1 - 7.4 (shown below) of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) staff provides the following analysis in [bracketed bold text.] FLUE Policy 5.6 requires development to be compatible with, and complementary to, surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code. Comprehensive Planning leaves these reviews for, and determinations for making further recommendations on, compatibility and complementary matters to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. 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. [The subject property fronts on SR 29 a principal arterial roadway.] 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 conceptual site plan shows an internal accessway designed to provide adequate vehicular circulation and movement. Given the site and the use proposed as an excavation of a single development project, no road has been proposed. Additionally, staff finds it unnecessary to provide a loop road due to the nature of the proposed use.] 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. [The applicant’s “Narrative & Evaluation Criteria” states, “Interconnections with adjoining neighborhoods, or other developments, is not feasible due to the proposed use and adjacent zoning/land uses. Staff believes interconnections to adjacent land sites may not be appropriate or beneficial.] 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 Policy addresses development characteristics mostly not applicable to the commercial excavation operation being proposed. The site will not be open to the public. Sidewalks/pathways will be provided only as necessary for employees within the site.] Based upon the above analysis, the proposed Conditional Use may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc: James Sabo, AICP, Planning Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Section Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.colliercountyfl.gov/ Page 28 of 1742 October 3, 2025 sent via email Timothy Finn, Planner III, Growth Management Department- Timothy.Finn@collier.gov Derek Perry, County Attorney- Derek.Perry@collier.gov RE: CU-PL20240001182; Capling SR29 Mine Dear Mr. Finn and Mr. Perry, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida writes on behalf of our over 4,500 supporting families and members. We would like to share our concerns that the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) protections are upheld in light of the pending application for the Capling SR29 Mine, CU- PL20240001182. The Capling Mine is a non-agricultural activity that proposes to impact 73% of the site within the ACSC and exceeds the limitations for site alterations within this legislatively-delineated area with Florida Administrative Code (FAC) Section 28-35, Land Planning Part III – Boundary and Regulations, for Big Cypress ACSC. The Project In November 2024, an application was submitted to Collier County to permit a commercial excavation mine to be known as Capling SR29 Mine in the Rural Land Stewardship Area of eastern Collier County. The property is within the Rural Agricultural Zoning District, Mobile Home Overlay, and Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO). The property is also located within the Big Cypress ACSC- Special Treatment Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO-ACSC/ST) (see Attachment A). The project involves six (6) separate parcels, collectively consisting of 1,401.8 acres, located in eastern Collier County within portions of Sections 4, 8, 9, and 10, Township 48 South and Range 30 East. The proposed excavation area encompasses ±1,022-acres and accessory uses/structures include, but are not limited to, a scale house, a tire wash system to minimize dust pollution, and a wash plant. This means that the plan is to alter 1,022 acres or 73% of the site. Our reading of the ACSC language in the Florida Administrative Code (FAC) seems very clear, and it limits site alteration to 10% of the total site, as seen at: 28-25.006 Site Alteration. (1) Site alteration shall be limited to 10% of the total site size, and installation of nonpermeable Page 29 of 1742 Capling SR29 Mine pg. 2 surfaces shall not exceed 50% of any such area. However, a minimum of 2,500 square feet may be altered on any permitted site. The FAC specifically defines “site alteration” as to include “damage to vegetation… filing, ditching, dredging, draining, excavation, earth moving, water containment and changes to the natural flow regime, or the effects of such actions,”1 which would include a large portion of the proposed activities onsite. The applicant states that “the County’s Growth Management Plan does not limit what is allowed per the current zoning; therefore, the request is consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the GMP.”2 We disagree. While Collier County is allowed to establish rules and regulations regarding land development within the County boundary, these rules cannot be less restrictive than the FAC (See FAC 28-25.013 Relation to Local Codes). And, in fact, the County’s local planning documents mirror the FAC, as specified below: Growth Management Plan - V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES3 A. Area of Critical State Concern Overlay 1. Site Alteration a. Site alteration shall be limited to ten percent (10%) of the total site size, and installation of non-permeable surfaces shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of any such area. However, a minimum of two thousand, five hundred (2,500) square feet may be altered on any permitted site. Land Development Code - 4.02.14 Design Standards for Development in the ST and ACSC-ST Districts C. Site alteration within the ACSC-ST. 1. Site alteration shall be limited to ten (10) percent of the total site size, and installation of nonpermeable surfaces shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of any such area. However, a minimum of 2,500 square feet may be altered on any permitted site. However, the applicant for this proposed mine seems to be making the claim that the site alteration requirements for lands located in the ACSC applies to only native vegetation. This is based on statements in documents submitted to Collier County by the applicant, which state: • The preservation requirement for lands that are located within the ACSC is 90% of the total existing native vegetation on-site. The subject property contains 229.01 acres of existing native vegetation: 229.01 acres x 90% = 206.11 acres of preserve required. The conceptual site plan 1 28-25.003, F.A.C. Definitions. 2 Submittal 2 - Project Narrative, Eval Criteria and Consistency, uploaded to Collier County CityView in February 2025 3 https://www.collier.gov/files/assets/county/v/1/growth-management/documents/growth-management- plan/flue-amended-ord-202446.pdf Page 30 of 1742 Capling SR29 Mine pg. 3 depicts the location of the required preserve, which contains mostly FSA and HSA-designated lands per the RLSAO.4 • The site is within the ACSC and a minimum of 90% of the native vegetation will be preserved. Approximately ±18.86-acres of on-site, native vegetation will be impacted and will be mitigated for. Total existing native vegetation on-site: 228.74 acres 90% requirement: 205.87 acres required to be preserved Native vegetation preserved: 205.87 acres5 • The preservation requirement for lands that are located within the ACSC is 90% of the total existing native vegetation on-site. The subject property contains 228.74 acres of existing native vegetation: 228.74 acres x 90% = 205.87 acres of preserve required. The conceptual site plan depicts the location of the required preserve, which contains mostly FSA and HSA-designated lands per the RLSAO.6 The applicant discusses retaining required preserves, per the RLSAO, and the subject property does contain Flowway and Habitat Stewardship Areas, which do not appear to be impacted by the proposed use. However, this does not negate the applicant’s obligation to meet State law and conform with the requirements of the ACSC, as contained in the FAC. As stated above, the ACSC requirements cap site alterations, which includes more activities than just impact to vegetation. Conclusion This application should be denied since it is inconsistent with the FAC and Collier County requirements. As you move forward with the review of this proposal, please confirm that: 1. FAC Section 28-25.006 does indeed limit non-agricultural site alteration to 10% of the spatial extent of the site, and should not be misinterpreted as a limitation on only alteration of native vegetation onsite. 2. While land in the ACSC may be altered for legally valid agricultural purposes, once a property owner decides to engage in non-agricultural uses of the land, FAC Section 28-25.004 Agricultural Exemption, applies, which states, in part, “whenever any person carries out any activity defined in Section 380, F.S., as development or applies for a development permit, as defined in Section 380, F.S., to develop exempted land, these regulations shall apply to such application and to such land.” This Section’s reference to “these regulation shall apply” includes the 10% site alteration limitation, as contained in FAC Section 28-25.006. Please reach out if you have any questions or need additional information. 4 Submittal 2 - Project Narrative, Eval Criteria and Consistency, uploaded to Collier County CityView in February 2025 5 Submittal 2 - Project Narrative, Eval Criteria and Consistency, uploaded to Collier County CityView in February 2025 6 Submittal 2 - Project Narrative, Eval Criteria and Consistency, uploaded to Collier County CityView in February 2025 Page 31 of 1742 Capling SR29 Mine pg. 4 Sincerely, Julianne Thomas Senior Environmental Planning Specialist (239) 262-0304 x 252 juliannet@conservancy.org Cc: Jessica Harrelson, AICP Peninsula Engineering - jharrelson@pen-eng.com Page 32 of 1742 Capling SR29 Mine pg. 5 Attachment A Page 33 of 1742Timothy Finn From: Nativo Estates Sent: Friday, April 25, 2025 5:49 PM To: Timothy Finn; planning@colliercountyfl.gov Subject: Capling SR29 Mine 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 Tim, I hope this email finds you well. I’m reaching out to you regarding the mining proposal for Capling SR29 Mine. My property is adjacent to the proposed mine, I will be impacted in a big way if this gets approved. I have a residential home as my primary residence there, my address is 6062 state route 29 Immokalee Fl 34142. The proposed mine is literally 50 yards from my property line and would destroy the property value and make living there unbearable. I was not notified about the public hearing on April 4. Additionally, in their project narrative they state: Most immediately surrounding lands are undeveloped and/or are being used for Agricultural purposes. Setbacks and existing vegetation will sufficiently screen the proposed development from neighboring properties to mitigate any potential impacts. I don’t see how allowing a 1400 acre mine right at our doorstep will not impact our quality of life both financially and physically, with all the dust and debris. I would like to request the hearing notice records, as I was not made aware of the public hearing on April 4 and if I was, I would have shown up and objected to the project. I really appreciate your time and your help with this Thank you very much Eli Eichenblatt 1 Page 34 of 1742 Aliese Price Priddy JB Ranch I, LLC Sunniland Family Limited Partnership P.O. Box 930 Immokalee, FL 34143 Phone 239-289-0065 LPJBRANCH@GMAIL.COM April 14, 2025 Ms. Jessica Harrelson, AICP Sent Via Email Peninsula Engineering 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105 RE: Capling SR 29 Mine; Petition CU-PL20240001182 Dear Jessica: Thank you for the Neighborhood Information Meeting presentation yesterday about the proposed Capling SR 29 Mine. Sunniland Family Limited Partnership, of which I am the managing member, owns property which is at the most southern point of the subject property where the properties of Eliyahu Ben-Tzion Eichenblatt and Wildflowerz Ranch also meet. A photo of this corner is included with this email. I have several concerns and comments about the proposed project: • The site is not conducive to a rock mine. (1) The majority of the adjacent property is owned by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection which may have uses planned for their property which are not conducive to being next to a mine. (2) It is zoned for agricultural use while a mine is an industrial use. (3) It is in an Area of Critical State Concern and will alter more than 10% of the site for non-residential purposes. (4) It is in the primary panther zone. • If the project moves forward, I am requesting that the portion of the proposed project which drops down and is bordered on the west side by Blocker Ranch and Eliyahu Ben-Tzion Eichenblatt, on the east by Oakes Farm Op and on the south by Wildflowerz Ranch be removed from the proposed project. Since our property may be sold for residential purposes in the future, the neighboring property being a mine will decrease the value of our property and also the property of Mr. Eichenblatt. No amount of buffer can mask the noise and dust pollution emanating from a mining operation and the equipment, dirt and truck noises that accompany it. • The proposed mine intends to operate beginning at 6:30. I am requesting that if the project is approved the mine not be allowed to open before 7:00 due to the noise the rock trucks make which will disturb residents in the area. I request that the owner of the subject property take these concerns and comments into consideration and that Collier County not approve the Conditional Use application which has been submitted. Best regards, Aliese P. Priddy Aliese P. Priddy Managing Member c: Timothy Finn, Collier County Page 35 of 1742 Page 36 of 1742 Need Help? GMCD Public Portal Online Payment Guide E-Permitting Guides ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N A-MHO-RLSAO-ACSC/ST Undeveloped/Agricultural S A-MHO-RLSAO-ACSC/ST Undeveloped/Agricultural E A-MHO-RLSAO-ACSC/ST Undeveloped/Agricultural W A-MHO-RLSAO SR 29/Undeveloped/Agricultural If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property: (If space is inadequate, attach on a separate page) Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: Metes & Bounds Description: CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST DETAIL Type of Conditional Use: This application is requesting a conditional use as allowed, pursuant to LDC section 2.03.00, of the A-MHO-RLSAO-ACSC/ST zoning district for Earth Mining (type of use). Present Use of the Property: Agriculture/Row Crops/Undeveloped Revised 2024 Page 3 of 12 Page 39 of 1742 Need Help? GMCD Public Portal Online Payment Guide E-Permitting Guides EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to LDC section 10.08.00 and Chapter 3 C.1 of the Administrative Code, staff’s recommendation to the reviewing body shall be based upon a finding that the granting of the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and that the specific requirements governing the individual conditional use, if any, have been met. Further, satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning the following matters, where applicable. On a separate page, provide a narrative statement describing a request for a conditional use and a detailed response to the criteria listed below. Specify how and why the request is consistent with each of the criteria. a. Describe how the project is consistent with the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan. Include information on how the request is consistent with the applicable section or portions of the Future Land Use Element. b. Describe the existing or planned means of ingress and egress to the property and proposed structure thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. c. Describe the effect the conditional use will have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic impact, and odor. d. Describe the site’s and the proposed use’s compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. e. Please provide any additional information which you may feel is relevant to this request. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? N/A Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? x No Yes (If yes please provide copies.) Revised 2024 Page 4 of 12 Page 40 of 1742 Need Help? GMCD Public Portal Online Payment Guide E-Permitting Guides RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer at their expense shall record in the Public Records of Collier County a Memorandum of Understanding of Developer Commitments or Notice of Developer Commitments that contains the legal description of the property that is the subject of the land use petition and contains each and every commitment of the owner or developer specified in the Ordinance. The Memorandum or Notice shall be in form acceptable to the County and shall comply with the recording requirements of F.S. §695. A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be provided to the assigned Principal Planner, Zoning Services Department, within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. Revised 2024 Page 7 of 12 Page 41 of 1742 Need Help? GMCD Public Portal Online Payment Guide E-Permitting Guides Pre-Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: X A Conditional Use to be heard by the Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals A Minor Conditional Use to be heard by the Office of the Hearing Examiner Chapter 3 of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting, and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. Not Requirements for Review Required Required Completed Application Cover letter briefly explaining the project X Pre-Application Notes X Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized Completed Addressing Checklist Property Ownership Disclosure Form Warranty Deed(s) X Boundary Survey X Conceptual Site Plan 24” X 36” plus (one 8 ½ X 11 copy) X Plans showing proposed location for utilities, if required x Plans for screening and buffering the use with reference as to type, dimensions, X and character, if required Plans showing the proposed landscaping and provisions for trees protected by x County regulations, if required Plans showing the proposed signs and lighting, including type, dimensions, and X character, if required Architectural Rendering of Proposed Structure(s), if applicable X Current aerial photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project X boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. Statement of utility provisions (with all required attachments & sketches) X Environmental Data Requirements, pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 X Environmental Data Requirements collated into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) at time of public hearings. Coordinate with project planner at time X of public hearing. Listed Species Survey; less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys. X Traffic Impact Study (TIS) or waiver X Historical and Archeological Survey, or waiver X Electronic copy of all documents and plans X Revised 2024 Page 8 of 12 Page 42 of 1742 I, Robert Wayne Ca piing Jr: (print name), as Manager, (title, if applicable) of Sunniland Properties, LLC company, if applicable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one): The owner _X_ applicant __ contract purchaser_ and 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. 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. We/I authorize Jessica Harrelson, AICP and Richard Yovanovich, Esq. to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. 6. Applicant is the owner of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed submittal; that all the answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest information, all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best of Applicant's knowledge and belief; and that if Applicant is not providing an attorney's opinion oftitle, that the information Applicant provided to the surveyor is sufficient to prepare an accurate boundary survey for this application, and is honest and true to the best of Applicant's knowledge and belief. 7. Applicant understands that the information requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed, shall not be altered. Applicant further understands that if Public Hearings are required, they will not be advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted. *Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the corp. pres. or v. pres. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company {L.L.C.} or Limited Company (L.C.}, then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner" of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee". • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated in it are true. £- Signature( . ST ATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoini in. str ment was sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me on /O/2t,,, /-6 (date) by __ l<)fl'/at:. C/L{)///1-.f!_ . (name of person providing oath or affirmation), as __________ _ whc5is person£11y knaki to me or who has produced-------= (type of identification) as identification. 1 J C<,,/4<1/4(.:L) • 11':i{M & STAMP/ P -t- VALERIE PASALO0OS Signature of Notary Public : r:\ Notary Public• State of Florida '(// Commission# HH 367352 .. OFr,.;,.. / My Comm. Expires Jun 22, 2027 Bonded through National Notary Assn. Page 47 of 1742 Growth Management Community Development Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: (239) 252-1036 | Email: GMDClientServices@colliercountyfl.gov www.colliercountyfl.gov 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 percentage of such interest: Name and Address % of Ownership b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address % of Ownership Sunniland Properties, LLC 100% Robert Wayne Capling JR 50% Jerry Emmert 25% James Emmert 25% c. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Name and Address % of Ownership 01/2023 Page 1 of 3 Page 48 of 1742 Growth Management Community Development Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: (239) 252-1036 | Email: GMDClientServices@colliercountyfl.gov www.colliercountyfl.gov 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 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 officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners: Name and Address % 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 _______________12/1/2021 Leased: Term of lease ____________ years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: 01/2023 Page 2 of 3 Page 49 of 1742INSTR 6169023 OR 6051 PG 1410 RECORDED 12/5/2021 9:20 AM PAGES 3 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $42,000.00 REC $27.00 CONS $6,000,000.00 Prepared by and return to: Thomas K. Boardman, P.A. P.O. Box 2197 •'\ _:,/: J LaBelle, FL 33975 t,,/f .•iC''\ 863-674-1027 / i"- .,, .,, File Number: 21-54 '?'(/;_"\ '\ Parcel Identification Nuri:tli r:; 0 . 3,J640006 et al ---------"-"' 0,,:"-'>""'--- ··""-\,-',\ , _(Space Above This Line For Recording Data ------------- -;, ,_'.?r• '.;,:./•\)) e,,- ' .. ,§ p cial Warranty Deed This Special Warranty Deed{ ii' ! his 1st day of December, 2021 between Sunniland Groves, LLC, a Florida limited liability comp'in.;;,:.,ip!;?se post office address is 1222 Forrester Ave., Immokalee, FL 34142, grantor, and Sunniland l>( e. i s LLC, a Florida limited liability company, whose post office address is PO Box 1997, LaBeller F½. 75, grantee: '\ ('.\;\<'\ (Whenever used herein the terms grantor\•itnd gt{l\Jee include all the parties to this instrument and the ::::; !;, •:r:r:::;u•atives, and assigns o('11 d the successors and assigns of corporations, Witnesseth, that said grantor, for and in onsi f ;''. l?[ the sum. TEN ANJ? NO/1 ?0 DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable cons1derat10n Q1 grantor m hand paid by said grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granteg/fa aip. ed, and sold to the said grantee, and grantee's heirs and assigns forever, the following des ,f} )d, situate, lying and being in Collier County, Florida, to wit: '\ :,,' ' ••;L,F .. /2)' .·\:,,i\ ··•.·•, } ·<\,,'\_,.,,: ,' "\,,,- ..... See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereoj(i 5ully set forth herein. Subject to covenants, conditions, restrictions, easem mti;iyeservations and limitations of record, if any, as well as to taxes for the curren6 tiJu.bsequent years. , ·-, Together with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances £ ging or in anywise appertaining. t t.,.,,\ '{/''__ , To Have and to Hold, the same in fee simple forever. And the grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the grantor hereby warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, through or under grantor but against no others. DoubleTime ® Page 51 of 1742*** OR 6051 PG 1412 *** Exhibit A Parcel 1: All of Section 4, Township 48 South, Range 30 East, Collier County, Florida. ,, Parcel 2: ,i' /;•\ The Northeast 1/4 o - .• 's ,, wns ip South, Range East, Collier County, Florida. LESS AND EXCEPT the _48 O North 30 feet thereof a ttspmg w1thm State Road 29 nght of way. Parcel 3: \,,-·:'••·' ·:[ \ The North 1/2 and th e West 1{2'.oPfh outhwest 1/4 of Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 30 East, Collier County, Florida. - LESS AND EXCEPT the East 30 feetofth\: Northeast 1/4 of said Section 9. LESS AND EXCEPT the North 2O().feif fthe West 30 feet of th e Northwest 1/4 of said Section 9. LESS AND EXCEPT the West 200 feit. f the North 30 feet of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 9. LESS AND EXCEPT the South 30 fe t of the We t 1/2 of the South west 1/4 of said Section 9. /rr"')\: Parcel 4: . \'_: ·':i:\ The Northwest 1/4 of Section 10, Township"4 $ , { •-) nge 30 East, Collier County, Florida. :,, \ \) ,, c l \ :: ; o! h 30 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of Sec:;: _,j s\ip 48 South, Range 30 East, lying East of State Road 29 right of way, Collier County, Florida. (/ ,:/ \ ·-,,. Parcel 6: ., ,,;\./"' •i,. The North 30 feet of tbe Northeast 1/4 of Section 8, Tow •r ,outh, Range 30 East, lying East of State Road 29 • tf rig h t of way, Collier County, Florida. '::/'\_·11_·_ ?._-••.)\2,.:.';-.•.-.:' .. Parcel 7: (p:': -f' \ of the We,t 112 of the S<>uthwe,t 114 of Sel>\ : {n,Mp 48 South, Range 30 East, Collie, ::.s; o!'.d!'." Parcel 8: . \\., The East 30 feet of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, Township 48 South, Rang .. JO_E-nst, Collier County, Florida. Parcel 9· /,(\_ ·•',>) \,/., · The 200 feet o_f the. North 30 feet of the Northwest 1/4 of said Secti - ip 48 South, Range 30 East, _We;t :(}owp,. Colher County, Florida. , \''""''·' ./ ,.. • \.,. {,/_,\ Parcel 10: (,;, The North 200 feet of.the West 30 feet of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 9, Townsii't'p,.5)).., :1' South , Range 30 East, Collier County, Florida. ,,· •-:- { - File Number: 21-54 Double Time® Page 53 of 1742 CAPLING SR29 MINE PROJECT NARRATIVE & EVALUATION CRITERIA Request The purpose of this conditional use is to permit a commercial excavation mine within the Rural Agricultural Zoning District, Mobile Home Overlay, Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, and Area of Critical State Concern Special Treatment Overlay, known as the Capling SR29 Mine. Pursuant to LDC Section 10.08.00, granting the conditional use request will not adversely affect the public and satisfactory provisions and arrangements have been made for the following matters: • Consistency with the Land Development Code • Consistency with the Growth Management Plan • Ingress and egress to the property, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control and access in case of fire or catastrophe. • Effects on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects • Compatibility with adjacent properties Location: The project involves six (6) separate parcels, collectively consisting of 1,401.8 acres, located in eastern Collier County within portions of Sections 4, 8, 9, and 10, Township 48 South and Range 30 East (the “property”). The proposed excavation lake encompasses ±100 acres of the site. Accessory uses/structures include, but are not limited to, a scale house, a tire wash system to minimize dust pollution, a wash plant, and an internal haul route. Refer to the Location Map prepared by Peninsula Engineering. Zoning & Future Land Use: The property is within the Rural Agricultural Zoning District, Mobile Home Overlay, and Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. The property is also located within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern- Special Treatment Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO-ACSC/ST). Refer to the Zoning and Future Land Use Maps, prepared by Peninsula Engineering. Capling SR29 Mine (CU-PL20240001182 November 13, 2025 1 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Page 54 of 1742EVALUATION CRITERIA a. Describe how the project is consistent with the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan. Include information on how the request is consistent with the applicable section or portions of the Future Land Use Element. Response: The subject property is within the Rural Agricultural Zoning District, Mobile Home Overlay, Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay, and Area of Critical State Concern Special Treatment Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO- ACSC/ST); refer to the Zoning and RLSAO Maps prepared by Peninsula Engineering. Per LDC Section 2.03.01.A.1.c.1, earthmining is a permitted conditional use within the Rural Agricultural Zoning District. In addition, according to LDC Section 4.08.05, Baseline Standards of the RLSAO are applied since the property is not an SSA or SRA. The request for an earthmining operation is consistent with the LDC. Policy 5.2 of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan requires that all ACSC regulatory standards apply, including those that strictly limit non- agricultural clearing. The site complies with ACSC Standards. The County’s Growth Management Plan does not limit what is allowed per the current zoning; therefore, the request is consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the GMP. The conceptual site plan and application materials identify all required elements for a conditional use, as required by the LDC and Growth Management Plan. b. Describe the existing or planned means of ingress and egress to the property and proposed structure thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. Response: The proposed development will have one direct access connection to State Road 29, an existing point of ingress/egress to the agricultural operations occurring on the property. An internal accessway/haul route has been designed to provide sufficient vehicular circulation and to also allow for sufficient stacking and staging of haul trucks on-site. Truck staging within the public right-of-way is prohibited per Condition #11. c. Describe the effect the conditional use will have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic impact, and odor. Response: The property has historically been used for agricultural purposes (pasture lands and row crops) and will continue to be used for agricultural purposes outside of the proposed earth mining activities. The excavation operation will have no negative impacts on neighboring properties with respect to noise, glare, economics, or odor. Mining activities have been designed to provide sufficient setbacks from all property boundaries. Most immediately surrounding lands are undeveloped and/or are being used for Agricultural Capling SR29 Mine (CU-PL20240001182 November 13, 2025 2 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Page 55 of 1742 purposes. Setbacks and existing vegetation will sufficiently screen the proposed development from neighboring properties to mitigate any potential impacts. A 10-foot-high vegetated berm will be installed south of the proposed excavation limits to minimize impacts on neighboring properties. The State has recently acquired the lands north, northwest, and west of the site, which is part of the Florida Forever program, and those lands are not planned for development. d. Describe the site’s and the proposed use’s compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. Response: The subject property has historically been used for agricultural purposes, and the proposed use is compatible with surrounding land use patterns. Most immediately surrounding lands are undeveloped and/or are being used for agricultural purposes. Proposed setbacks, landscape buffers, and existing vegetation will sufficiently screen the proposed development from neighboring properties and mitigate any potential impacts. Earth mining will follow the hours of operation outlined in the Conditions of Approval. The site is also limited to a maximum total daily trip generation, also outlined in the Conditions of Approval. A 10- foot-high vegetated berm will be installed south of the excavation limits to minimize impacts on neighboring properties. The State has recently acquired the lands north, northwest, and west of the site, which is part of the Florida Forever program, and those lands are not planned for development. e. Please provide any additional information which you may feel is relevant to this request. Response: The subject property has historically been used for agricultural purposes and the proposed use is compatible with surrounding land use patterns. Proximity to surrounding uses, setbacks, existing/proposed vegetation, and conditions of approval address compatibility with the surrounding area. As a result of coordinating with adjacent property owners, a 10-foot-high vegetated berm will be installed south of the excavation limits. The state has also recently acquired the lands north, northwest, and west of the site, which is part of the Florida Forever program, and those lands are not planned for development. The natural resources to be extracted are critically needed construction materials for a fast-growing area. The excavation is planned on a site that has already been legally cleared for agricultural purposes. The site is located within the rural area of Collier County, having no impact on adjacent property owners. Capling SR29 Mine (CU-PL20240001182 November 13, 2025 3 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Page 56 of 1742FUTURE LAND USE POLICIES 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). Response: The proposed development will be compatible and complementary to surrounding land uses. The development will comply with design standards established for the Agricultural Zoning District. The subject property has historically been used for agricultural purposes, and the proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses. Proposed mining activities have been strategically located to eliminate potential impacts on surrounding land uses and rights-of-way. Sufficient setbacks, existing native vegetation, proposed buffers, and conditions of approval address compatibility with adjacent uses. 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. Response: The proposed development will have one direct access connection to State Road 29, which is an existing point of ingress/egress to the property. 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. Response: The internal accessway has been designed to provide adequate vehicular circulation and movement. In addition, the site has been designed to allow for staging/stacking of haul trucks on-site to prevent congestion along SR 29. Policy 7.3 All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. Response: Interconnections with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments are not feasible due to the proposed use and adjacent zoning/land uses. Capling SR29 Mine (CU-PL20240001182 November 13, 2025 4 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Page 57 of 1742Policy 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. Response: Not applicable. The request is for an excavation mining operation. RLSAO GROUP 5 POLICIES Group 5 ‒ Policies that protect water quality and quantity and the maintaining of the natural water regime and protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats on land that is not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program. Policy 5.1: To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in areas mapped as FSAs and designated Restoration Areas as shown on the Overlay Map prior to the time that they are designated as SSAs under the Stewardship Credit Program. Residential Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, except those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall not be allowed in FSAs. Infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses may be exempt from this restriction, provided that designs seek to minimize the extent of impacts to any such areas. 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. Response: The subject property contains Flowway and Habitat-designated lands, but they are not impacted by the proposed development and will be preserved. Excavation activities will occur within already impacted Open- designated lands, which have been deemed more appropriate for development under the RLSAO. 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. Response: All ACSC regulatory standards will be followed. Capling SR29 Mine (CU-PL20240001182 November 13, 2025 5 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Page 58 of 1742Policy 5.3: To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs on the Overlay Map that are not within the ACSC, if a property owner proposes to utilize such land for a non-agricultural purpose under the Baseline Standards referenced in Policy 1.5 and does not elect to use the Overlay, these Group 5 Policies, 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. Response: The subject property is located within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC), and development will comply with all regulatory standards. Earth mining is a permitted conditional use within the Rural Agricultural Zoning District, per LDC Section 2.03.01.A.1.c. Policy 5.4: Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies concerning the provision of wildlife crossings at locations determined to be appropriate. A map of these potential crossing locations will be initiated by (12 months of the adoption of this Ordinance), updated periodically, and shall be incorporated into community, cultural and historical, and transportation planning for the RLSA, including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies. Response: The applicant will work with appropriate Local, State, and Federal agencies concerning the provision of mitigation efforts, as appropriate and/or if necessary. Policy 5.5: For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, non-agricultural development, excluding individual single-family residences, shall be directed away from the listed species and species of special local concern (SSLC), as defined by Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, and their habitats by complying with the following guidelines and standards. 1. A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species or SSLC are known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site or where listed species or SSLC are directly utilizing the site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines. The County shall notify the FFWCC and USFWS of the existence of any listed species or SSLC that may be discovered. Response: A wildlife survey has been conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines. Capling SR29 Mine (CU-PL20240001182 November 13, 2025 6 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Page 59 of 17422. Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species or SSLC and for those protected species identified below shall be submitted for County approval. A plan shall be required for all projects where the wildlife survey indicates listed species or SSLC are utilizing the site, or the site is capable of supporting wildlife and can be anticipated to be occupied by listed species or SSLC. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats. a. Management plans shall incorporate proper techniques to protect listed species or SSLC and their habitats from negative impacts of proposed development. The most current and completed data and local, state and federal guidelines and regulations shall be utilized to prepare the required management plans. Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be provided to minimize development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and encourage wildlife to use wildlife corridors. Appropriate roadway crossings, underpasses and signage shall be used where roads must cross wildlife corridors. Mitigation for impacting listed species or SSLC habitat shall be considered in the management plans, as appropriate. i. The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by the USFWS and FFWCC, subject to the provision of paragraph 3 of this policy. Response: Acknowledged. ii. When listed species or SSLC are utilizing a site or indicate by evidence, such as denning, foraging, or other indications, as minimum of 40% of native vegetation on-site shall be retained, with the exception of clearing for agricultural purposes. The County shall also consider the recommendation of other agencies, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this policy. Response: Acknowledged. b. Management plans shall include provisions for minimizing human and wildlife interactions. Low-intensity land uses (e.g. parks, passive recreational areas, golf courses) and vegetation preservation requirements, including agriculture, shall be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities. Consideration shall be given to the most current Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission guidelines and regulations on techniques to reduce human wildlife conflict. The management plans shall also require the dissemination of information to local residents, businesses and governmental services about the presence of wildlife and practices (such as appropriate waste disposal methods) that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife, while minimizing opportunities for negative interactions, such as appropriate waste disposal practices. Response: A Human-Wildlife Coexistence Plan may be prepared and submitted for the development, if necessary. Capling SR29 Mine (CU-PL20240001182 November 13, 2025 7 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Page 60 of 1742 c. The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments greater than 10 acres. Response: Acknowledged. 3. The County shall, consistent with applicable policies of this Overlay, consider and utilize recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and recommendations from the US Fish and Wildlife Service in issuing development orders on property containing listed species. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case-by-case basis, may change the requirements contained within these wildlife protection policies and any such change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Response: Acknowledged. Policy 5.6: For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, Collier County shall direct non-agricultural land uses away from high-functioning wetlands by limiting direct impacts within wetlands. A direct impact is hereby defined as the dredging or filling of a wetland or adversely changing the hydroperiod of a wetland. This Policy shall be implemented as follows: 1. There are two (2) major wetlands systems within the RLSA, Camp Keais Strand and the Okaloacoochee Slough. These two systems have been mapped and are designated as FSA’s. Policy 5.1 prohibits certain uses within the FSA’s, thus preserving and protecting the wetlands functions within those wetland systems. Response: The on-site FSA-designated lands will not be impacted by the proposed development. 2. The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are WRA’s as described in Policy 3.3. These areas are protected by existing SFWMD Environmental Resource Permits for each area. Response: Acknowledged. The subject property does not contain any WRA-designated lands. 3. FSAs, HSAs and WRAs, as provided in Policy 5.3, and the ACSC have stringent site clearing and alteration limitations, nonpermeable surface limitations, and requirements addressing surface water flows which protect wetland functions within the wetlands in those areas. Other wetlands within the RLSA are isolated or seasonal wetlands. These wetlands will be protected based upon the wetland functionality assessment described below, and the final permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management District. a. The County shall apply the vegetation retention, open space and site preservation requirements specified within this Overlay to preserve an appropriate amount of native vegetation on site. Wetlands shall be preserved as part of this vegetation requirement according to the following criteria: Capling SR29 Mine (CU-PL20240001182 November 13, 2025 8 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Page 61 of 1742 i. The acreage requirements specified within this Overlay shall be met by preserving wetlands with the highest wetland functionality scores. Wetland functionality assessment scores shall be those described in paragraph (b) of this Policy. The vegetative preservation requirements imposed by Policies 5.3 and 5.5 shall first be met through preservation of wetlands having a functionality assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method score of 0.7, or greater. The County shall apply specific criteria in the LDC to be used to determine those instances in which wetlands with a WRAP functionality assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method score of 0.7, or greater must be preserved in excess of the preservation required by Policy 5.3. Response: Acknowledged. Refer to the environmental data and conceptual site plan. ii. Wetlands and contiguous upland buffers that are utilized by listed species or SSLC or serving as corridors for the movement of listed species or SSLC shall be preserved on site. Wetland flowway functions through the project shall be maintained. Response: Acknowledged. iii. Proposed development shall demonstrate that ground water table drawdowns or diversions will not adversely change the hydroperiod of preserved wetlands on or offsite. Detention and control elevations shall be set to protect surrounding wetlands and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and water tables. In order to meet these requirements, projects shall be designed in accordance with Sections 4.2.2.4, 6.11 and 6.12 of SFWMD’s Basis of Review, January 2001, as amended. Upland vegetative communities may be utilized to meet the vegetative, open space and site preservation requirements of this Overlay when the wetland functional assessment score is less than 0.65. Response: Acknowledged. b. In order to assess the values and functions of wetlands at the time of project review, applicants shall rate functionality of wetlands using the South Florida Water Management District’s Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP), as described in Technical Publication Reg-001, dated August 1999, as amended, and or the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method, identified as F.A.C. Chapter 62-345. The applicant shall submit to County staff agency- accepted WRAP scores, or Uniform Wetlands Mitigation Assessment scores. County staff shall review this functionality assessment as part of the County’s Environmental Data provisions and shall use the results to direct incompatible land uses away from the highest functioning wetlands according to the requirements found in paragraph 3 above. Response: Acknowledged. Capling SR29 Mine (CU-PL20240001182 November 13, 2025 9 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Page 62 of 1742 c. All direct impacts shall be mitigated for pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (f) of this Policy. Response: Acknowledged. d. Single-family residences shall follow the requirements contained within Policy 6.2.7 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Response: Acknowledged. e. The County shall separate preserved wetlands from other land uses with appropriate buffering requirements. The County shall require a minimum 50-foot vegetated upland buffer abutting a natural water body, and for other wetlands a minimum 25-foot vegetated upland buffer abutting the wetland. A structural buffer may be used in conjunction with a vegetative buffer that would reduce the vegetative buffer width by 50%. A structural buffer shall be required abutting wetlands where direct impacts are allows. Wetland buffers shall conform to the following standards: i. The buffer shall be measured landward from the approved jurisdictional line. Response: Acknowledged. ii. The buffer zone shall consist of preserved native vegetation. Where native vegetation does not exist, native vegetation compatible with the existing soils and expected hydrologic conditions shall be planted. Response: Acknowledged. iii. The buffer shall be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Response: Acknowledged. iv. The following land uses are considered to be compatible with wetland functions and are allowed within the buffer: (1) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks and recreational shelters; (2) Pervious nature trails; (3) Water management structures; (4) Mitigation areas; (5) Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses. Capling SR29 Mine (CU-PL20240001182 November 13, 2025 10 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Page 63 of 1742 Response: Acknowledged. v. A structural buffer may consist of a stem-wall, berm, or vegetative hedge with suitable fencing. Response: Acknowledged. f. Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetland in order to result in no net loss of wetland functions. Mitigation Requirements: i. “No net loss of wetland functions” shall mean that the wetland functional score of the proposed mitigation equals or exceeds the wetland functional score of the impacted wetlands. Priority shall be given to mitigation within FSA’s and HSA’s. Response: Acknowledged. ii. Loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to wetlands shall be compensated for by providing an equal amount of storage or conveyance capacity on site and within or abutting the impacted wetland. Response: Acknowledged. iii. Protection shall be provided for preserved or created wetland or upland vegetative communities offered as mitigation by placing a conservation easement over the land in perpetuity, providing for initial exotic plant removal (Class I invasive exotic plants defined by the Florida Exotic Plan Council) and continuing exotic plant maintenance, or by appropriate ownership transfer to a state or federal agency along with sufficient funding for perpetual management activities. Response: Acknowledged. iv. Exotics removal or maintenance may be considered acceptable mitigation. Response: Acknowledged. v. Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site alteration, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (f) i, ii, and iii of this Policy and SFWMD standards. If agency permits have not provided mitigation consistent with this Policy, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that of the jurisdictional agencies. Response: Acknowledged. Capling SR29 Mine (CU-PL20240001182 November 13, 2025 11 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Page 64 of 1742 g. Wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be identified or platted as separate tracts. In the case of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), these areas shall also be depicted on the PUD Master Plan. These areas shall be maintained free from trash and debris and from Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Land uses allowed in these areas shall be limited to those listed above (3.e.iv.) and shall not include any other activities that are detrimental to drainage, flood, control, water conservation, erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation and preservation. Response: Acknowledged. 4. All landowners shall be encouraged to consider participating in any programs that provide incentives, funding or other assistance in facilitating wetland habitat restoration on private lands, including, but not limited to, federal farm bill agricultural conservation programs, private or public grants, tax incentives, easements, and fee or less than fee sale to conservation programs. Response: Acknowledged. Policy 5.7 Any development not participating in the RLS Program shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Within one year of the effective date of this Policy, LDC regulations shall be implemented for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy and enhance safety and security. Response: Acknowledged. Conservation and Coastal Management Element CCME Policy 6.1.1 For the County’s Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation Designated Area, and Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District, Rural-Industrial District and Rural-Settlement Area District as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the following minimum preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) where the ACSC standards referenced in the Future Land Use Element shall apply. Notwithstanding the ACSC requirements, this Policy shall apply to all non-agricultural development except for single-family dwelling units situated on individual parcels that are not located within a watershed management conservation area identified in a Watershed Management Plan developed pursuant to Policies supporting Objective 2.1 of this Element. For properties not previously within the Coastal High Hazard Area but now within the Coastal High Hazard Area due to adoption of a revised Coastal High Hazard Area boundary in 2013, the native vegetation preservation and retention standards of the Non-Coastal High Hazard Area shall continue to apply. (Reference the Coastal High Hazard Area Comparison Map in the Future Land Use Element.) Response: The development will follow all ACSC regulations. The development does not impact any FSA or HSA-designated lands within the ownership boundary. Capling SR29 Mine (CU-PL20240001182 November 13, 2025 12 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Page 65 of 1742CCME Objective 7.1 Direct incompatible land uses away from listed animal species and their habitats. (The County relies on the listing process of State and Federal agencies to identify species that require special protection because of their endangered, threatened, or species of special concern status. Listed animal species are those species that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has designated as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern, in accordance with Rules 68A-27.003, 68A-27.004, and 68A-27.005, F.A.C. and those species designated by various federal agencies as Endangered and Threatened species published in 50 CFR 17.) Response: The potential impact to state-listed species will be addressed through consultation with FWC, and the potential impact to federally listed species will be addressed through Technical Assistance with FWS, the proposed project is consistent with CCME Policy 7.1. A Protected Species Survey was prepared by Earth Tech Environmental and included for review. USFWS and/or FWC will be obtained and adhered to as necessary for listed species. Capling SR29 Mine (CU-PL20240001182 November 13, 2025 13 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Page 66 of 1742 ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO-ACSC/ST USE: UNDEVELOPED/AGRICULTURAL 1" = 2000' SCALE: ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO USE: UNDEVELOPED/AGRICULTURAL ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO-ACSC/ST USE: UNDEVELOPED ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO-ACSC/ST USE: AGRICULTURAL S.R. 29 1,055.8 AC PASTURE PIT OFFICE AND LAND / ROW CROPS HISTORIC SITE TIRE WASH WITH SCALE HOUSE, TO REMAIN 8CR01649 PAVED ROADWAY FOR SEE SHEET 03 EGRESS TO S.R. 29 INGRESS/EGRESS TO S.R. 29 PROJECT 20' TYPE 'D' QUARRY LAKE LIMITS BUFFER AREA = ±99.8AC LEGEND INGRESS/EGRESS ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO PROPERTY / OWNERSHIP USE: UNDEVELOPED/AGRICULTURAL 10' HIGH BERM BOUNDARY (1,401.8 AC) 10' TYPE 'A' BUFFER EXCAVATION MINE PROJECT BOUNDARY (140.1 AC) PROPERTY BOUNDARY LAKE (QUARRY EXCAVATION ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO-ACSC/ST AREA) USE: UNDEVELOPED/AGRICULTURAL HISTORIC SITE 8CR01649 HABITAT STEWARDSHIP AREA ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO-ACSC/ST USE: UNDEVELOPED/AGRICULTURAL FLOWWAY STEWARDSHIP AREA PROJECT: TITLE: CLIENT: REVISIONS: SEC: TWP: RGE: No: Revision: Date: Designed by: JAW PENINSULA 1 COLLIER COUNTY RAI 01/22/25 Drawn by: JAW ENGINEERING CAPLING SR-29 CONCEPTUAL SITE 2 COLLIER COUNTY RAI 03/13/25 Date: 11/2025 3 CLIENT REVISIONS 11/13/25 Drawing Scale: 1" = 2000' • CIVIL ENGINEERING • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE HARKER FARMS, LLC • PLANNING AND ZONING • SURVEYING File Name: P-HARK-001-C01-004LP.dwg • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES• LAND DEVELOPMENT MINE PLAN 2600 Golden Gate Pkwy 239.403.6700 Project Number: P-HARK-001 Naples, FL 34105 Pen-Eng.com Sheet ID: Florida Engineering C.A #28275 C-004 Sheet Number: of [Save Date: 11/13/2025 8:16:56 AM] [By: ASpagnola] [Plot Date: 11/13/2025 8:34:56 AM] [By: Antonette Spagnola] [Original Size: 8.5X11] [Path: P:\Active_Projects\P-HARK-001\001-CaplingSR29Mine\Drawings-Civil\C01-CU\Active\Sheet_Files\P-HARK-001-C01-004LP.dwg] [Plot Date: Antonette Spagnola]ASpagnola] [Save Date: 11/13/2025 8:34:56 AM] [By: 11/13/2025 8:16:56 AM] [By: [Original Size: 8.5X11] [Path: Florida Landscape C.A #LC26000632 01 04 Page 67 of 1742 SITE DATA: TOTAL PROJECT SIZE: ±1,401.80 ACRES CURRENT ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO/ACSC/ST CURRENT LAND USE: UNDEVELOPED/AGRICULTURAL FUTURE LAND USE: AGRICULTURAL RURAL MIXED-USE DISTRICT RLSAO GENERAL NOTES: 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATIONS. 2. RETAINED NATIVE VEGETATION MAY BE USED TO SATISFY LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AFTER EXOTIC VEGETATION REMOVAL. IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION 4.06.02 AND 4.06.05.E.1 SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGS WITH NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC 3.05.07. PER LDC SECTION 4.08.05.I "BASELINE STANDARDS" AND LDC SECTION 4.02.14 "DESIGN STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE ACSC" NON-AGRICULTURAL SITE CLEARING IS LIMITED TO 10% TOTAL SITE SIZE: 1,401.8 ACRES TOTAL EXCAVATION MINE PROJECT SIZE: 140.1 ACRES TOTAL EXISTING ON-SITE NATIVE VEGETATION 228.74 ACRES TOTAL NATIVE VEGETATION TO BE IMPACTED WITHIN MINING PROJECT BOUNDARY: 1.8 ACRES THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH NON-AGRICULTURAL SITE CLEARING LIMITATIONS OPEN SPACE: MINIMUM OPEN SPACE REQUIRED AND PROVIDED = 30% BUILDING SETBACKS: MINIMUM FRONT AND REAR YARDS: 50' MINIMUM SIDE YARDS: 30' EXCAVATION: 50' (FROM RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE / EASEMENT AND ALL PROPERTY LINES) EXCAVATION (FROM RESIDENTIAL): 100' PROJECT: TITLE: CLIENT: REVISIONS: SEC: TWP: RGE: No: Revision: Date: Designed by: JAW PENINSULA 1 COLLIER COUNTY RAI 01/22/25 Drawn by: JAW ENGINEERING CAPLING SR-29 2 COLLIER COUNTY RAI 03/13/25 Date: 11/2025 3 CLIENT REVISIONS 11/13/25 Drawing Scale: 1" = 10' • CIVIL ENGINEERING • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE NOTES HARKER FARMS, LLC • PLANNING AND ZONING • SURVEYING File Name: P-HARK-001-C01-005NT.dwg • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES• LAND DEVELOPMENT MINE 2600 Golden Gate Pkwy 239.403.6700 Project Number: P-HARK-001 Naples, FL 34105 Pen-Eng.com Sheet ID: Florida Engineering C.A #28275 C-005 Sheet Number: of [Save Date: 11/5/2025 4:15:04 PM] [By: ASpagnola] [Plot Date: 11/13/2025 8:35:28 AM] [By: [By: [Original Size: 8.5X11] [Path: [Save Date: P:\Active_Projects\P-HARK-001\001-CaplingSR29Mine\Drawings-Civil\C01-CU\Active\Sheet_Files\P-HARK-001-C01-005NT.dwg] 11/5/2025 4:15:04 PM] [Plot Date: Antonette Spagnola] ASpagnola] Florida Landscape C.A #LC26000632 02 04 Page 68 of 1742 ZONING SCALE: 1" = 200' CURRENT ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO CURRENT LAND USE: VACANT / AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY LINE EXISTING PASTURE PARKING CALCULATIONS LAND / ROW CROPS TO REMAIN LDC SECTION 04.05.04 OFFICE/SCALEHOUSE: 1 PER 300 SF ADA SPACES: 1 SPACE PER 25 REGULAR SPACES PROJECT AREA 1 PER 300 SF @ 1,500 SF = 5 REQUIRED PARKING SPACES (140.1 AC) PROVIDED: 7 SPACES (INCLUDES 1 ADA SPACE) BUILDING SETBACKS MIN. FRONT AND REAR YARDS: 50 FT SCALE (BY MIN. SIDE YARD: 30 FT DEVELOPMENT AREA/OUTDOOR OTHERS) EXCAVATION: 50 FT STORAGE, WASH PLANT AND EQUIPMENT/MINING OPERATIONS TIRE WASH, OPTIONAL (BY FUTURE SCALE OTHERS) HOUSE / OFFICE (±1,500 SF) ±510.3 INTERNAL HAUL ROUTE (TYP) DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE (BY OTHERS) LEGEND PROPERTY / OWNERSHIP BOUNDARY (1,401.8 AC) EXISTING PASTURE LAND / ROW CROPS EXCAVATION MINE PROJECT TO REMAIN BOUNDARY (140.1 AC) LAKE (QUARRY EXCAVATION AREA) PROJECT: TITLE: CLIENT: REVISIONS: SEC: TWP: RGE: No: Revision: Date: Designed by: JAW PENINSULA 1 COLLIER COUNTY RAI 01/22/25 Drawn by: JAW ENGINEERING CAPLING SR-29 2 COLLIER COUNTY RAI 03/13/25 Date: 11/2025 3 CLIENT REVISIONS 11/13/25 Drawing Scale: 1" = 200' • CIVIL ENGINEERING • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLAN - OFFICES HARKER FARMS, LLC • PLANNING AND ZONING • SURVEYING File Name: P-HARK-001-C01-121SP.dwg • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES• LAND DEVELOPMENT 11/13/2025 8:22:04 AM] [By: ASpagnola] [Plot Date: 11/13/2025 8:49:25 AM] [By: Antonette Spagnola] [Original Size: 8.5X11] [Path: P:\Active_Projects\P-HARK-001\001-CaplingSR29Mine\Drawings-Civil\C01-CU\Active\Sheet_Files\P-HARK-001-C01-121SP.dwg] [Plot Date: Antonette Spagnola]ASpagnola] 11/13/2025 8:49:25 AM] [By: 11/13/2025 8:22:04 AM] [By: [Original Size: 8.5X11] [Path: MINE 2600 Golden Gate Pkwy 239.403.6700 Project Number: P-HARK-001 Naples, FL 34105 Pen-Eng.com Sheet ID: Florida Engineering C.A #28275 C-121 Sheet Number: of [Save Date: Florida Landscape C.A #LC26000632 03 04 Page 69 of 1742 EXIST. 100' ACCESS, DRAINAGE, EXIST. MAINTENANCE EASEMENT SCALE: 1" = 100' S.R. 29 ROW (OR 5332, PG 2320) PROJECT 30' SIDE YARD SETBACK LIMITS PROP. ±30' INTERNAL HAUL ROUTE TIRE WASH (BY OTHERS) ±150' ±40' PROP. ±30' INTERNAL HAUL ROUTE 50' FRONT YARD SETBACK 20' TYPE 'D' BUFFER PROP. ±30' INTERNAL HAUL ROUTE PROPERTY LINE LEGEND PROPERTY / OWNERSHIP BOUNDARY (1,401.8 AC) LAKE EXCAVATION MINE PROJECT BOUNDARY (140.1 AC) LAKE (QUARRY EXCAVATION AREA) PROJECT: TITLE: CLIENT: REVISIONS: SEC: TWP: RGE: No: Revision: Date: Designed by: JAW PENINSULA 1 COLLIER COUNTY RAI 01/22/25 Drawn by: JAW ENGINEERING CAPLING SR-29 SITE PLAN - WHEEL 2 COLLIER COUNTY RAI 03/13/25 Date: 11/2025 3 CLIENT REVISIONS 11/13/25 Drawing Scale: 1" = 100' • CIVIL ENGINEERING • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE HARKER FARMS, LLC • PLANNING AND ZONING • SURVEYING File Name: P-HARK-001-C01-122SP.dwg • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES• LAND DEVELOPMENT WASH 11/13/2025 8:29:15 AM] [By: ASpagnola] [Plot Date: 11/13/2025 8:50:47 AM] [By: Antonette Spagnola] [Original Size: 8.5X11] [Path: P:\Active_Projects\P-HARK-001\001-CaplingSR29Mine\Drawings-Civil\C01-CU\Active\Sheet_Files\P-HARK-001-C01-122SP.dwg] [Plot Date: Antonette Spagnola]ASpagnola] 11/13/2025 8:50:47 AM] [By: 11/13/2025 8:29:15 AM] [By: [Original Size: 8.5X11] [Path: MINE 2600 Golden Gate Pkwy 239.403.6700 Project Number: P-HARK-001 Naples, FL 34105 Pen-Eng.com Sheet ID: Florida Engineering C.A #28275 C-122 Sheet Number: of [Save Date: Florida Landscape C.A #LC26000632 04 04 Page 70 of 1742 FT. 13. Grant of Easement to Lee County Electric Cooperative recorded in O.R. Book 890, Page 17. Notice of interest in Land Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 704.05 and Florida MYERS 1859, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. (As to Parcel 3) Statutes Chapter 712 recorded in Book 4587, Page 3167, Public Records of Collier S.R. 82 1 1 County, Florida. (As to All Parcels) S.R. 29 Response: 12' Utility Easement covering the power lines in the West 2 of the Southwest 4 Response: Not a Survey matter. FELDA of Section 9. U.S. 41 11. Oil, gas, mineral, or other reservations as set forth in deed by Barron Collier, Jr. and I-75 Barbara May Collier and Miles Collier and Isabel U. Collier recorded in Deed Book 22, Page 99, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. No determination has been made as to the 14. Easement contained in instrument recorded December 3, 1985, under 0.R. Book 1167, Page 18. Drainage, Access and Maintenance Easement (SR-29 Canal) recorded in 0.R. Book 5332, 1-8 are not survey matters. current record owner for the interest excepted herein. (As to All Parcels) 218, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. (As to Parcels 2 and 3) Page 2320, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. (As to Parcel 2) ESTERO 1 1 IMMOKALEE Response: Mineral rights affects all parcels. Response: 12' Utility Easement covering power lines in the Northeast 4 of Section 8, The Response: 100' Easement along the East Right of Way of SR 29 in the Northeast 4 of 9. Terms, conditions, and agreements contained in the instrument recorded in Deed Book 4, Northwest 1, The Northeast 1 and the West 1 of the Southwest 1 of Section 9. Section 8. (shown on survey) Page 360, Public Records of ``Collier County, Florida. (As to Parcels 2 and 5) 4 4 2 4 19. Resolution Number 2020-147 by the Board of County Commissioners recorded in O.R. BONITA Response: Rail road Right of Way now SR 29. SPRINGS 12. Grant of Easement to Lee County Electric Cooperative recorded in 0.R. Book 890, Page 15. Easement contained in instrument recorded June 10, 1988, under O.R. Book 1356, Page Book 5815, Page 1287, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. (As to All Parcels) 10. Right-of-Way Deed given by Lee Cypress Company to Humble Oil & Refining Company ORANGETREE 1858, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. (As to Parcel 2) 2270, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. (As to Parcel I) Response: Not a Survey matter. NORTH dated August 6, 1948 and recorded in Deed Book 12, Page 483, Public Records of Collier 1 Response: 16' Utility Easement covering the power lines in Section 4. NAPLES County, Florida. (As to All Parcels) Response: 12' Utility Easement covering power lines in the Northeast 4 of Section 8. Response: Mineral rights, however does not give a specific location just lands owned by S.R. 29 GOLDEN GATE Collier Company and Lee Cypress Company. 16. Grant of Easement recorded in 0.R. Book 1728, Page 1790, Public Records of Collier I-75 County, Florida. (As to Parcel 5) U.S. 41 NAPLES PHONE (561) 478-7178 I-75 NORTH Response: Easement covering the South 30' of Section 8 lying East of SR 29. Web Site: www.frssurvey.com 2257 VISTA PARKWAY, SUITE 4 LOCATION MAP WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33411 NOT TO SCALE LEGAL DESCRIPTION CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO. LB 4241 PARCEL 1: LAND SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS ALL OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. N 00°00'43" W S 89°52'48" E 5588.25' PARCEL 2: N 89°04'30" E 2755.84' N 89°07'14" E 2528.98' NORTH LINE SECTION 4, BASIS OF BEARING N 89°01'48" E 5289.83' 1 THE NORTHEAST 4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, SET 5/8" IRON ROD/CAP SET MAG NAIL/DISK FOUND 3"x3" FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF AND LANDS LYING WITHIN STATE ROAD "FRS LB 4241" CONCRETE 29 RIGHT OF WAY. FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE "FRS LB 4241" MONUMENT WITH BRASS DISK QUARTER CORNER MONUMENT MONUMENT WITH BRASS DISK SECTION CORNER STAMP WITH SECTION USING MAP DISTANCE PROPORTION "HW 1677" STAMP WITH SECTION SET BY DOUBLE PROPORTION NUMBERS. COLLIER COMPANY PARCEL 3: COLLIER COMPANY MAP NUMBERS. COLLIER COMPANY FD ROD AND CAP "FDOT LB 7917" THE NORTH 1/2 AND THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, 4.19' SOUTH ¬ RANGE 30 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THE EAST 30 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 9. LESS AND EXCEPT THE NORTH 200 FEET OF THE WEST 30 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 9. LESS AND EXCEPT THE WEST 200 FEET OF THE NORTH 30 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 9. LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 FEET OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION . PARCEL 4: N 00°53'13" W 2651.86' W 00°53'13" N N 00°21'45" W 2654.51' THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. N 01°56'41" W 2653.75' W 01°56'41" N 4 PARCEL 5: N 89°06'31" E 2577.77' S 89°06'31" W 2780.34' PARCEL 1 THE SOUTH 30 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, LYING EAST OF STATE ROAD 29 RIGHT OF WAY, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. SECTION 4 FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE FOUND5/8 IRON ROD/CAP 6 MONUMENT WITH BRASS DISK NOT LEGIBLE PARCEL 6: STAMP WITH SECTION 1 THE NORTH 30 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, NUMBERS. COLLIER COMPANY 5 3 4 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING EAST OF THE STATE ROAD 29 RIGHT-OF-WAY. S 00°01'10" W 5307.53' S 00°22'07" E 5236.14' SR 29 PARCEL 7: 1 THE SOUTH 30 FEET OF THE WEST 2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. RIGHT OF WAY VARIES WAY OF RIGHT SET MAG NAIL/DISK FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE PARCEL 8: "FRS LB 4241" MONUMENT WITH BRASS DISK THE EAST 30 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE QUARTER CORNER STAMP WITH SECTION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. N 00°53'29" W 2654.10' W 00°53'29" N MONUMENT WITH BRASS DISK N 00°42'39" W 2654.52' W 00°42'39" N MONUMENT WITH BRASS DISK USING MAP DISTANCE PROPORTION NUMBERS. COLLIER COMPANY COLLIER COMPANY MAP STAMP WITH SECTION STAMP WITH SECTION PARCEL 9: NUMBERS. COLLIER COMPANY N 01°56'43" W 2654.17' W 01°56'43" N NUMBERS. COLLIER COMPANY THE WEST 200 FEET OF THE NORTH 30 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 48 N 89°15'10" E 2675.57' SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. N 89°06'01" E 2788.71' N 89°06'01" E 2573.07' N 89°03'09" E 5341.33' S 89°22'51" W FD IRON ROD 1360.18' PARCEL 10: 18.00' WEST OF FOUND 3"x3" THE NORTH 200 FEET OF THE WEST 30 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 48 SET 5/8" IRON ROD/CAP N 00°48'08" W CORNER CONCRETE SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE "FRS LB 4241" 698.65' PARCEL 9 MONUMENT MONUMENT WITH BRASS DISK SECTION CORNER N 30' OF W 200' "HW 1677" CONTAINING A TOTAL OF 1401.80 ACRES MORE OR LESS PARCEL 6 1 SET BY DOUBLE PROPORTION 1 NW 4 OF SECTION 9 STAMP WITH SECTION N 30' OF NE 4 PARCEL 10 SURVEYOR'S NOTES NUMBERS. COLLIER COMPANY FD ROD AND CAP "FDOT LB 7917" SECTION 8 E 30' OF N 200' PARCEL 4 1 PARCEL 8 NW 1/4 SECTION 10 2.00' SOUTH NW 4 OF SECTION 9 E 30' OF 1. BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO S 89° 52' 48" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE SECTION OF NE 1/4 SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, STATE PLANE GRID SYSTEM. ALL OTHER PARCEL 2 SECTION 9 1 BEARINGS ARE RELATIVE THERETO. NE 4 SECTION 8 PARCEL 3 1000.52' LESS N 30' N 1/2 SECTION 9 CALCULATED POSITION OF COLLIER COMPANY MONUMENT 2. ALL DISTANCES AND BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE GRID DISTANCES AND GRID BEARINGS N 00°44'42" W 00°44'42" N AND ARE SHOWN IN U.S. SURVEY FEET. SET ROD AND CAP S 00°30'16" E 2655.74' BASED ON SURVEY BY HORACE 8 2654.63' E 01°31'24" S S 01°50'50" E 2653.87' E 01°50'50" S S 00°54'09" E 2650.51' E 00°54'09" S "FRS LB 4241" WILKISON SURVEY DATED 10.00' WEST OF RIGHT OF WAY FOUND 3"x3" 01/11/91. UNABLE TO ACCESS DUE 3. THE LANDS SHOWN HEREON WERE NOT ABSTRACTED BY THIS FIRM FOR RIGHTS-OF-WAY, N 00°55'00" W FOUND 3"x3" CONCRETE CONCRETE TO DEEP SLOUGH, WILL VERIFY 2654.24' E 00°39'04" S EASEMENTS, OWNERSHIP, OR OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF RECORD THAT MAY AFFECT THE 952.90' MONUMENT "HW 1677" MONUMENT DURING DRY SEASON. SUBJECT SITE. 0.70' SOUTH "HW 1677" 4. PER CLIENTS REQUEST INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS DIRT ROADS, DITCHES, 1345.20'1345.20' S 89°13'17" W 2682.37' N 89°07'55" E 2783.43' S 89°07'55" W 2620.56' S 89°25'30" W 4034.69' CULVERTS, IRRIGATION PADS, UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND FOUNDATIONS ARE NOT 7 S 89°25'30" W LOCATED OR SHOWN. SET 5/8" IRON ROD/CAP SET 4"x4" CONCRETE "FRS LB 4241" SET MAG NAIL/DISK MONUMENT "FRS LB 4241" 5. ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 SECTION CORNER "FRS LB 4241" BY PROPORTION (N.A.V.D. '88). 9 FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE CENTER OF SECTION DISTANCE FROM HORCE 10 SET BY SINGLE PROPORTION MONUMENT WITH BRASS DISK FD ROD AND CAP "FDOT LB 7917" USING MAP DISTANCE PROPORTION WILKISON SURVEY 6. COORDINATES SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM 1983 STAMP WITH SECTION 1.00' SOUTH COLLIER COMPANY MAP DATUM WITH THE 2011 ADJUSTMENT FOR FLORIDA EAST ZONE. FD MAG NAIL AND DISK ORB 5116 , PG 777 NUMBERS. COLLIER COMPANY REVISIONS "FDOT LB 7917" 4.51' SOUTH PARCEL 3 FOUND 3"x3" CONCRETE W1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 7. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL USED: NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY (NGS) MONUMENT "HW 1677" SECTION 9 MONUMENTS "T-520" NORTHING = 723573.15, EASTING = 543827.62, ELEVATION = 22.44; ¬ ¬ 0.70' SOUTH "U-520" NORTHING = 717951.54, EASTING = 543909.90, ELEVATION = 21.73. UPDATE SURVEY ADDED NEW TITLE SET ROD AND CAP 8. THE RIGHT-OF-WAYS, EASEMENTS AND ENCUMBRANCES SHOWN HEREON ARE ACCORDING N 00°47'18" W 2651.38' W 00°47'18" N N 00°54'09" W 2650.51' W 00°54'09" N "FRS LB 4241" FOUND 5/8" PARCEL 7 TO THE TITLE COMMITMENT REPORT PREPARED BY OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE N 00°56'29" W 1 10.00' WEST OF IRON ROD/CAP S 30' OF W 2 INSURANCE COMPANY ORT FILE NUMBER 24076305, EFFECTIVE DATE JULY 8, 2024 @ 11:00 S 01°31'21" E 2652.29' E 01°31'21" S 30.00' RIGHT OF WAY "DESTROYED" 2652.69' W 01°51'32" N OF SW 1/4 PM, ALL RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND ENCUMBRANCES CONTAINED THEREIN ARE SET FORTH IN SECTION 9 N 89°09'02" E 2674.72' THIS SURVEY. S 89°09'02" W 2778.16' S 89°09'02" W 2675.20' S 89°25'15" W 9. THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED UTILIZING TRIMBLE REAL TIME KINEMATIC GPS (RTK GPS) FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE SURVEY EQUIPMENT FOR THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON. DATE: 1329.62' 07/25/24 FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE SET MAG NAIL/DISK PARCEL 5 MONUMENT "BROKEN" MONUMENT WITH BRASS DISK "FRS LB 4241" QUARTER CORNER S 30' OF SE 1 4 CERTIFIED TO: SUNNILAND GROVES, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (as to All BY: STAMP WITH SECTION GPW USING MAP DISTANCE PROPORTION SECTION 8 FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE Parcels), RICHARD H. JOHNSON AND KEVIN JOHNSON (as to Parcel 5), OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL NUMBERS. COLLIER COMPANY COLLIER COMPANY MAP SET ROD N 01°51'32" W MONUMENT WITH BRASS DISK TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, PAUL KRASKER, ESQUIRE, THOMAS K. BOARDMAN, P.A., METLIFE AND TOP BROKEN AND CAP STAMP WITH SECTION SUNNILAND PROPERTIES, LLC DRAWN BY: 30.00' NUMBERS. COLLIER COMPANY "FRS LB LAND SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT T. C. MULLIN 4241" APPROVED BY: 10.00' WEST BOUNDARY SURVEY OF JOHNSON SUNNILAND GROVES FOR DICK JOHNSON WE HEREBY STATE THAT THE MAP OF SURVEY SHOWN HEREON IS A TRUE AND CORRECT G. P. WILLIAMS OF RIGHT PREPARED BY HORCE WILKISON PLS 1677, DATED 01/11/91 REPRESENTATION OF THE BOUNDARY SURVEY, MADE UNDER OUR DIRECTION, AND IS ACCURATE TO SCALE: OF WAY THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY MAP SECTION 1" = 800' NORTH 15 P.B. = PLAT BOOK 16 03080-2514 FOR SR 29, DATED 08/14/81 THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY CERTIFIES THAT THIS SURVEY CONFORMS TO THE STANDARDS OF DATE: 10/18/2021 O.R.B. = OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK PRACTICE AS OUTLINED IN CHAPTER 5J-17, F.A.C. AS THEY PERTAIN TO A "BOUNDARY SURVEY" 17 MISCELLANEOUS WARRANTY DEEDS FIELD BOOK/PAGES ADOPTED BY THE FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS & MAPPERS, PURSUANT TO 18 PG. = PAGE NA SECTION 472.027, FLORIDA STATUTES. NOT VALID UNLESS SEALED WITH SURVEYOR'S EMBOSSED L.B. = LICENSED BUSINESS OIL WELL ROAD COLLIER COMPANY TOWNSHIP MAP, DATED 02/06/43 BY FRANK SAMEC AND SEAL AND SIGNATURE. F.R.S. AND ASSOCIATES, INC. P.O.C. = POINT OF COMMENCEMENT APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY JOB NUMBER: 08/02/43. P.O.B. = POINT OF BEGINNING 5 = TITLE COMMITMENT ITEM NUMBER INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY MCKIM AND CREED, INC FROM A CANCELED FDOT GARY P. WILLIAMS, R.L.S. PROJECT. SHEET: FLORIDA CERTIFICATION No. 4817 FOR THE FIRM D:\FRS-T\Draw\Johnson Grove Sunniland\21-049 Sunniland Boundary Survey.dwg, 11/19/2024 7:57:53 AM, AutoCAD PDF (High Quality Print).pc3, Page 71 of 1742 F.R.S. & Associates, Inc, (561) 478-7178 DETAIL FENCE TIE SCALE: 1" = 40' 16.7'N, 9.0' W FOUND 3"x3" CONCRETE MONUMENT FENCE TIE "HW 1677" 9.0'N, 26.7' E CANAL CANAL DETAIL SCALE: 1" = 40' BARB WIRE FENCE TYP. FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE PHONE (561) 478-7178 S 89°52'48" E 5588.25' MONUMENT WITH BRASS DISK Web Site: www.frssurvey.com STAMP WITH SECTION 2257 VISTA PARKWAY, SUITE 4 N 89°07'14" E 2528.98' WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33411 N 89°04'30" E 2755.84' NUMBERS. COLLIER COMPANY FOUND 3"x3" SET MAG NAIL/DISK CONCRETE CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO. LB 4241 "FRS LB 4241" MONUMENT PUMP LAND SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS QUARTER CORNER "HW 1677" FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE USING MAP DISTANCE PROPORTION MONUMENT WITH BRASS DISK COLLIER COMPANY MAP STAMP WITH SECTION NUMBERS. COLLIER COMPANY ¬ ¬ WOOD POWER POLE TYP. OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES TYP. OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL W OHL OHL W OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL W OHL OHL W GATE 12 OHL P.B. = PLAT BOOK O.R.B. = OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK GROVES HAVE BEEN REMOVED OHL PG. = PAGE BASELINE SURVEY N 01°56'41" W 2653.75' W 01°56'41" N L.B. = LICENSED BUSINESS PER R/W MAP SECTION: NORTH N 00°53'13" W 2651.86' W 00°53'13" N 03080-2514 P.O.C. = POINT OF COMMENCEMENT DATED 08/14/81 P.O.B. = POINT OF BEGINNING RIGHT OF WAY LINE PER R/W MAP SECTION: OHL 12 5 = TITLE COMMITMENT ITEM NUMBER 03080-2514 DATED 08/14/81 DETAIL OHL = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES SCALE: 1" = 40' OHL FOUND5/8 IRON ROD/CAP OHL 4 (NOT LEGIBLE) PARCEL 1 N 89°06'31" E 2577.77' GATE SECTION 4 S 89°06'31" W 2780.34' OHL GATE OHL FENCE TIE 10.0' ASPHALT CHIP ROAD OHL BARB WIRE FENCE TYP. OHL S 00°22'07" E 5236.14' E 00°22'07" S SR 29 FOUND5/8 IRON ROD/CAP 5 (NOT LEGIBLE) OHL OHL 3 RIGHT OF WAY VARIES WAY OF RIGHT N 00°53'29" W 2654.10' W 00°53'29" N DETAIL SET MAG NAIL/DISK OHL WOOD POWER POLE TYP. "FRS LB 4241" 2654.10' SCALE: 1" = 40' OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES TYP. N 00°53'29" W 00°53'29" N 15 QUARTER CORNER WELL WELL WELL W OHL W OHL OHL OHL OHL W OHL OHL OHL USING MAP DISTANCE PROPORTION OHL OHL W OHL OHL OHL COLLIER COMPANY MAP WELL PUMP OHL GUARD RAIL OHL OHL 2788.71' 55.52' N 89°06'01" E FD IRON ROD 18.00' WEST OF 100' X 38' METAL BLDG. OHL CORNER 15 OHL HEADWALL GATE 2654.17' W 01°56'43" N GROVES HAVE BEEN REMOVED ASPHALT CHIP ROAD OHL CULVERT 2651.38' OHL FENCE TIE 9.6' 80' X 40' METAL BLDG. N 00°47'18" W 00°47'18" N HEADWALL WELL SET MAG NAIL/DISK FENCE W "FRS LB 4241" FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE TIE 10.2' CONC. PAD QUARTER CORNER MONUMENT WITH BRASS DISK REVISIONS OHL OHL OHL STAMP WITH SECTION OHL OHL OHL OHL FENCE TIE USING MAP DISTANCE PROPORTION ASPHALT CHIP ROAD NUMBERS. COLLIER COMPANY 35.0' E COLLIER COMPANY MAP BARB WIRE FENCE TYP. N 89°15'10" E 2675.57' OHL N 89°06'01" E 2573.07' W 15 OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL W OHL OHL UPDATE SURVEY ADDED NEW TITLE GATE 14 BARB WIRE FENCE TYP. N 89°06'01" E 12 14 FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE 2788.71' OHL DETAIL OHL MONUMENT WITH BRASS DISK SCALE: 1" = 100' MONUMENT WITH BRASS DISK STAMP WITH SECTION STAMP WITH SECTION PARCEL 9 NUMBERS. COLLIER COMPANY NUMBERS. COLLIER COMPANY PARCEL 6 N 30' OF W 200' 1 1 N 30' OF NE 4 NW OF SECTION 9 PARCEL 10 OHL 4 SECTION 8 E 30' OF N 200' OHL NW 1 OF SECTION 9 4 GROVES HAVE BEEN REMOVED N 00°48'08" W DATE: 14 07/25/24 18 698.65' ASPHALT CHIP ROAD 100' EASEMENT 12 PARCEL 8 2651.38' OHL E 30' OF (ORB 5332, PG 2320) BY: GPW OHL GROVES HAVE BEEN REMOVED NE 1/4 SECTION 9 13 DRAWN BY: 14 T. C. MULLIN OHL APPROVED BY: N 00°44'42" W OHL G. P. WILLIAMS 1000.52' WELL WELL WELL W OHL W PARCEL 4 WELL W SCALE: OHL OHL OHL W OHL W NW 1/4 SECTION 10 1" = 200' WOOD POWER POLE TYP. DATE: OHL OVERHEAD UTILITY PUMP LINES TYP. 10/18/2021 RIGHT OF WAY LINE PARCEL 2 1 2654.24' E 00°39'04" S FIELD BOOK/PAGES PER R/W MAP SECTION: NE 4 SECTION 8 03080-2514 LESS N 30' GPS 16 & 17 DATED 08/14/81 OHL GROVES HAVE BEEN REMOVED N 00°47'18" W 00°47'18" N PARCEL 3 JOB NUMBER: 8 GROVES HAVE BEEN REMOVED N 1/2 SECTION 9 N 00°55'00" W SHEET: 952.90' OHL D:\FRS-T\Draw\Johnson Grove Sunniland\21-049 Sunniland Boundary Survey.dwg, 11/19/2024 7:57:54 AM, AutoCAD PDF (High Quality Print).pc3, Page 72 of 1742 F.R.S. & Associates, Inc, (561) 478-7178 OHL WOOD POWER POLE TYP. OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES TYP. WELL W OHL W OHL OHL OHL OHL W OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL W OHL OHL OHL P.B. = PLAT BOOK 15 WELL O.R.B. = OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK WELL WELL PUMP OHL PG. = PAGE L.B. = LICENSED BUSINESS BASELINE SURVEY P.O.C. = POINT OF COMMENCEMENT PER R/W MAP SECTION: OHL P.O.B. = POINT OF BEGINNING 03080-2514 PARCEL 1 DATED 08/14/81 SECTION 4 5 = TITLE COMMITMENT ITEM NUMBER 15 RIGHT OF WAY LINE PER R/W MAP SECTION: OHL = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES 03080-2514 OHL S 00°22'07" E 5236.14' E 00°22'07" S DATED 08/14/81 PHONE (561) 478-7178 FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE GROVES HAVE BEEN REMOVED Web Site: www.frssurvey.com MONUMENT WITH BRASS DISK 2257 VISTA PARKWAY, SUITE 4 FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE STAMP WITH SECTION WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33411 N 01°56'43" W 2654.17' W 01°56'43" N MONUMENT WITH BRASS DISK NUMBERS. COLLIER COMPANY OHL STAMP WITH SECTION FENCE TIE CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO. LB 4241 35.0' E NUMBERS. COLLIER COMPANY LAND SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS N 89°15'10" E 2675.57' N 89°06'01" E 2573.07' W 15 OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL W OHL OHL OHL GATE ASPHALT CHIP ROAD 9 14 WELL OHL OHL PARCEL 9 PARCEL 6 N 30' OF W 200' 1 1 N 00°48'08" W N 30' OF NE 4 OHL NW OF SECTION 9 18 PARCEL 10 4 OHL SECTION 8 E 30' OF N 200' 698.65' 100' EASEMENT NW 1 OF SECTION 9 (ORB 5332, PG 2320) 4 14 PARCEL 8 E 30' OF 2651.38' 9 NE 1/4 OHL SECTION 9 OHL SET MAG NAIL/DISK "FRS LB 4241" 14 CENTER OF SECTION OHL WOOD POWER POLE TYP. PARCEL 2 OHL USING MAP DISTANCE PROPORTION OVERHEAD UTILITY PARCEL 4 1 LINES TYP. WELL NE 4 SECTION 8 COLLIER COMPANY MAP WELL WELL NW 1/4 SECTION 10 W OHL W W LESS N 30' WELL OHL OHL OHL FD MAG NAIL AND DISK W OHL W "FDOT LB 7917" 4.51' SOUTH 14 WELL 1000.52' OHL PUMP N 00°44'42" W 00°44'42" N ASPHALT CHIP ROAD SET ROD AND CAP GROVES HAVE BEEN REMOVED EP OHL "FRS LB 4241" 2654.24' E 00°39'04" S 2651.38' 10.00' WEST OF RIGHT N 00°47'18" W 00°47'18" N OF WAY 8 55.07' PARCEL 3 CALCULATED POSITION OF N 89°07'55" E N 1/2 SECTION 9 COLLIER COMPANY MONUMENT 2783.43' OHL BASED ON SURVEY BY HORACE N 00°47'18" W 00°47'18" N WILKISON SURVEY DATED TOP OF BANK 01/11/91. UNABLE TO ACCESS DUE N 00°55'00" W EP 952.90' SET ROD AND CAP GUARDRAIL TO DEEP SLOUGH, WILL VERIFY 2651.38' DURING DRY SEASON. "FRS LB 4241" DETAIL OHL 10.00' WEST OF RIGHT W 00°47'18" N SCALE: 1" = 100' OF WAY PUMP N 89°07'55" E 2783.43' S 89°25'30" W 4034.69' S 89°13'17" W 2682.37' S 89°07'55" W 2620.56' FOUND 3"x3" CONCRETE OHL MONUMENT SET MAG NAIL/DISK SET 4"x4" CONCRETE "HW 1677" FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE "FRS LB 4241" MONUMENT "FRS LB 4241" MONUMENT WITH BRASS DISK CENTER OF SECTION BY PROPORTION GROVES HAVE BEEN REMOVED OHL STAMP WITH SECTION USING MAP DISTANCE PROPORTION DISTANCE FROM HORCE NUMBERS. COLLIER COMPANY COLLIER COMPANY MAP WILKISON SURVEY FD MAG NAIL AND DISK 14 "FDOT LB 7917" 4.51' SOUTH 13 OHL 9 10 SET 4"x4" CONCRETE MONUMENT "FRS LB 4241" N 00°47'18" W 00°47'18" N BY PROPORTION DITCH CULVERT DISTANCE FROM HORCE OHL WILKISON SURVEYORB 5116 , PG 777 CULVERT DITCH W FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE WELL MONUMENT "BROKEN" DETAIL SCALE: 1" = 40' PARCEL 3 DITCH ¬ ¬ W1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 SECTION 9 DETAIL SCALE: 1" = 50' GROVES HAVE BEEN REMOVED 2652.29' E 01°31'21" S REVISIONS N 01°51'32" W 2652.69' W 01°51'32" N PARCEL 7 RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOUND 5/8" 1 SR 29 S 30' OF W 2 2651.38' PER R/W MAP SECTION: IRON ROD/CAP OF SW 1/4 03080-2514 SECTION 9 DATED 08/14/81 "DESTROYED" FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE RIGHT OF WAY VARIES WAY OF RIGHT MONUMENT WITH BRASS DISK UPDATE SURVEY ADDED NEW TITLE SET ROD AND CAP STAMP WITH SECTION 16 N 01°51'32" W FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE "FRS LB 4241" 30' EASEMENT NUMBERS. COLLIER COMPANY MONUMENT "BROKEN" N 00°56'29" W 10.00' WEST OF (ORB 1728, PG 1790) 30.00' 30.00' RIGHT OF WAY N 89°09'02" E 2674.72' S 89°09'02" 2778.16' S 89°09'02" W 2675.20' S 89°25'15" W 1329.62' DATE: 07/25/24 SET MAG NAIL/DISK PARCEL 5 1 "FRS LB 4241" QUARTER CORNER SET ROD AND CAP S 30' OF SE 4 "FRS LB 4241" SECTION 8 BY: USING MAP DISTANCE PROPORTION GPW 10.00' WEST OF COLLIER COMPANY MAP SET ROD AND CAP RIGHT OF WAY "FRS LB 4241" FOUND 5/8" DRAWN BY: EP EP 10.00' WEST OF IRON ROD/CAP T. C. MULLIN RIGHT OF WAY PUMP APPROVED BY: "DESTROYED" NORTH G. P. WILLIAMS 2651.38' N 00°56'29" W DITCH SCALE: S 89°09'02" W 00°47'18" N 30.00' 1" = 200' 2778.16' 49.99' DITCH DITCH DATE: 10/18/2021 SET ROD AND CAP FIELD BOOK/PAGES "FRS LB 4241" N 01°51'32" W 30.00' FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE NA 10.00' WEST OF EP MONUMENT WITH BRASS DISK EP GUARDRAIL RIGHT OF WAY STAMP WITH SECTION JOB NUMBER: SET MAG NAIL/DISK NUMBERS. COLLIER COMPANY "FRS LB 4241" QUARTER CORNER USING MAP DISTANCE PROPORTION COLLIER COMPANY MAP DETAIL DETAIL SHEET: SCALE: 1" = 60' SCALE: 1" = 40' 15 D:\FRS-T\Draw\Johnson Grove Sunniland\21-049 Sunniland Boundary Survey.dwg, 11/19/2024 7:57:56 AM, AutoCAD PDF (High Quality Print).pc3, Page 73 of 1742 F.R.S. & Associates, Inc, (561) 478-717817 16 Traffic Impact Statement Capling SR 29 Mine Conditional Use Collier County, Florida 03/25/2025 Prepared for: Prepared by: Peninsula Engineering Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2600 Golden Gate Parkway 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34105 Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-403-6700 Phone: 239-566-9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee* – $500.00 Fee Collier County Transportation Review Fee* – Major Study – $1,500.00 Fee Note – *to be collected at time of first submittal. Page 74 of 1742Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 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. Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, PTOE, PE FL Registration No. 47116 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 2 Page 75 of 1742Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 Table of Contents Project Description .......................................................................................................................... 4 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................... 5 Trip Distribution and Assignment ................................................................................................... 6 Background Traffic .......................................................................................................................... 8 Existing and Future Roadway Network ........................................................................................... 9 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network-Link Analysis ............................................................ 10 Site Access Turn Lane Analysis ...................................................................................................... 12 Improvement Analysis .................................................................................................................. 12 Mitigation of Impact ..................................................................................................................... 12 Appendices Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan .......................................................................................... 13 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) ................................................... 15 Appendix C: Project Access Turning Movements ........................................................................ 22 Appendix D: FDOT Sources ........................................................................................................... 27 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 3 Page 76 of 1742 Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 Project Description The Capling SR29 Mine is located to the east of SR 29 and north of Oil Well Rd. and lies within Sections 9, Township 48 South, Range 30 East, in Collier County, Florida. Refer to Figure 1 – Project Location Map and Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. Figure 1 – Project Location Map N Project SR 29 Location Oil Well Rd The Capling SR29 Mine is a commercial excavation operation. This Traffic Impact Statement is in support of the Conditional Use application for the operation. The land is currently vacant and zoned agriculture. The mine is expected to produce a maximum of 6,000 CY per average weekday. The mining operation will be operating from 6:30 am to 5:00 pm (10.5 hours) Monday through Friday and operating from 7 am to 3 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 4 Page 77 of 1742 Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 pm on Saturday. The Capling SR29 mine will have a minimum lifespan of 18 years and a maximum lifespan of 35 years. Project access will consist of a full movement connection to SR 29. A methodology meeting was held with the Collier County Transportation Planning staff on August 20, 2024, via email (ref. Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting)). Trip Generation The operations of this mine will perform in such a way that the maximum allowed volume of material exported off the site on an average weekday is 6,000 cubic yards (CY). The hauling trucks expected to remove the material from the property will be 14 CY. The average daily two-way trips are based on the number of trucks needed to remove the maximum amount of fill. The mining operation is expected to generate 860 daily two-way trips (6000/14 x 2). Over a 10.5-hour workday, the project will generate 82 peak hour two-way trips (860/10.5=82): 41 enter and 41 exit trips for both the AM and PM peak hours. No reductions for internal capture or pass-by trips have been considered in this TIS. Based on Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition, Exhibit 15-11, a factor of 1.9 will be applied to the trip generation to account for the passenger car equivalents of trucks. 82 x 1.9=156. Table 1- Trip Generation A 10% adjustment factor was applied to account for any visitor or vendor trips to the site. 156 x 1.1=172. The project trip generation summary is shown in Table 1. Daily Two- AM Peak Hour* PM Peak Hour* Land Use Factor Way Volume Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Mine 860 41 41 82 41 41 82 Passenger Car Equivalents for 1.9 1,634 78 78 156 78 78 156 Trucks (ET) 10% Adjustment 1.10 1,797 86 86 172 86 86 172 Factor Note(s): *Peak Hour Volume = Daily Traffic/ 10.5 hours. Directional distribution assumption is 50%/50% In agreement with the Collier County TIS guidelines, significantly impacted roadways are identified based on the proposed project highest peak hour trip generation (net new total trips) and consistent with the Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 5 Page 78 of 1742Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. Based on the information contained in Collier County 2024 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), the peak hour for the adjacent roadway network is PM peak hour and the peak direction for SR 29 is northbound. Trip Distribution and Assignment The traffic generated by the proposed project is assigned to the adjacent roadways using the knowledge of the area and engineering judgement. The percentage distribution is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 – Project Trip Distribution by Percentage 5% CR 846 20% N Immokalee Rd 0% 1 Project 0% 3 Camp Rd Keais % 5 70% 55% 55% 60% 70% Oil Well Rd % 0 SR 29 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 6 Page 79 of 1742 Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 Table 2 contains the road segments on which the project impact was reviewed. Roadway configuration and minimum standard service volumes are from the 2024 AUIR. The distribution percentages are the averages at the segment endpoints in Figure 2. The calculations that Table 2 contains are performed with more decimal places than those displayed. Using only the displayed decimals may yield slightly different results. The project significantly impacts some adjacent roadway segments. Table 2 –Project Traffic Distribution and PM Peak Hour Impact Peak Direct- Peak ion Hour Project PM PM Peak Traffic Percent Peak Peak LOS Direct- Signif- as Per- of Total Hour Hour Mini- ion icance centage Signif- Project Project Project Config- mum Service Thres- of icant AUIR Roadway Traffic Traffic Traffic uration Stan- Volume hold (%) Service Impact ID # Link From To (1) N/E (2) S/W (2) (3) dard (3) (4) Volume Y/N Oil Well Oil Well Ave Maria 121.2 55.0 47 48 4D D 2000 3 2.4 No Road Grade Blvd Oil Well Ave Maria 122.0 Camp Keais 60.0 52 51 2U D 800 3 6.5 Yes Road Blvd Oil Well Camp 122.0 SR 29 70.0 60 60 2U D 800 2 7.5 Yes Road Keais Oil Well Hendry 122.0 SR 29 0.0 0 0 2U D 800 2 0.0 No Road County Line Oil Well 82.0 SR 29 I-75 0.0 0 0 2U D 900 2 0.0 No Road Oil Well Project 83.0 SR 29 70.0 60 60 2U D 900 2 6.7 Yes Road Entrance Project 83.0 SR 29 CR 846 27.5 24 23 2U D 900 2 2.7 Yes Entrance CR 29A 83.0 SR 29 CR 846 20.0 17 17 2U D 900 2 1.9 No South Ave Pope John 1029.0 Maria Oil Well Rd Paul II 5.0 4 5 4D D 2000 3 0.3 No Blvd Boulevard Camp Oil Well Immokalee 61.0 10.0 9 8 2U D 1000 3 0.9 No Keais Road Road SR 29/SR Hendry 1030.0 CR 846 5.0 4 5 2U D 1000 3 0.5 No 29 Bypass County Line Notes: 1) Average of the endpoint values, Figure 2 2) Percentage times PM peak hour net new external directional project traffic totals Table 1. 3) 2024 AUIR and approved future roadway improvements 4) Collier County TIS Guidelines Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 7 Page 80 of 1742Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Solutions, Consulting Trebilcock decimals will slightlyyield results.different are performedcontains decimal more with places than displayed. those theUsing displayed only two Th assumed after five years. AUIR, consistent year annual the isAlso analysis with five percent growth years, ifthe two is beyond using the average annual growth rate for the segment used in the AUIR for future volume estimating. In Traffic Background Capling SR29 Mine e e Table 3 Table above above results is used , for the significantly impacted segments result is compared with the 20 – C onditional Use onditional 2027 2027 estimated the as Growth Rate Table Existing Based Peak – Year AUIR Peak Hour TIS 3 – – Peak Annual Hour Peak March 2027 Background Traffic without Project without Traffic Background 2027 Hour Percent Peak Direct- future background traffic volume Peak Growth Direction ion Back- 2025 24 Direct- Rate for Trip Back- AUIR + ground ion Peak First 5 Growth Bank ground Trip Traffic the of higher The volume. bank trip the plus volume AUIR AUIR Roadway Existing Volume Direct- years Factor Volume Traffic Bank Volume ID # Link From To Year (1) ion (1) (1) (2) (1) Volume Volume (3) , Oil Well Project backgroundfuture traffic volumes are estimated 83.0 SR 29 2024 510 N 2.0% 1.061 79 541 589 589 Road Entrance Project 83.0 SR 29 CR 846 2024 510 N 2.0% 1.061 79 541 589 589 Entrance Oil Well Ave Maria Camp 122.0 2024 200 E 2.0% 1.061 106 212 306 306 Road Blvd Keais . Oil Well Camp table the calculations that The 122.0 SR 29 2024 200 E 2.0% 1.061 106 212 306 306 Road Keais Notes: 1) 2024 AUIR 2) IF it is relevant, Growth Factor assumes 2% annual growth after the first 5 years. 3) Greater of Growth based estimate or Existing + Trip Bank | 8 | Page Page 81 of 1742Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Solutions, Consulting Trebilcock existingThe and future conditions roadway are illustrated in improvements existingThe roadway are conditions from the Collier County 20 Existing and Future Roadway Network Capling SR29 Mine displayed decimals displayed that conditions. traffic background future and under conditions in existing service of level Improvement (TIP) Plan Improvement Capital or program (CIP) are five the within be constructed to scheduled are or construction under currently Table Table 4 contains contains are performed morewith decimal places than displayed. those Using only the Table Table are programmed for the subject roadways. – C onditional Use onditional may may 4 – yield different slightly results. Existing and Future Background Traffic Condition without without Condition Traffic Background and Future Existing 2027 2027 2027 2027 2027 – Peak TIS Existing Existing Hour – Peak Year Peak Peak Level March Hour Peak Hour Direction of Serv- Peak Hour Level of Peak Back- ice Existing Direct- Peak Exist- Service Future Direct- ground Back- Defic- 2025 Config- ion Serv- Direct- ing Defic- Config- ion Serv- Traffic ground iency AUIR Roadway uration ice Vol- ion Vol- Year iency uration Im- ice Vol- Volume Traffic Yes/ ID # Link From To (1) ume (1) ume (2) V/C Yes/ No (1) proved ume (1) (3) V/C No Oil Well Project 83.0 SR 29 2U 900 510 0.57 No 2U No 900 589 0.65 No Road Entrance Project 83.0 SR 29 CR 846 2U 900 510 0.57 No 2U No 900 589 0.65 No Entrance Table Table Oil Well Ave Maria Camp 122.0 2U 800 200 0.25 No 2U No 800 306 0.38 No 24 Road Blvd Keais AUIR 4 Oil Well Camp . The segments 122.0 SR 29 2U 800 200 0.25 No 2U No 800 306 0.38 No Road Keais . Roadway improvements arethat Notes: 1) 2024 AUIR committed improvements. No 2) 2024 AUIR or future committed improvement. 3) Table 3 Project operate - year Transportation The calculations at acceptableat | 9 | Page Page 82 of 1742 Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network-Link Analysis Table 5 adds the project traffic volumes developed in Table 2 to the 2027 background traffic volumes developed in Table 3. In cases where the peak direction of project traffic aligns with the peak direction of background traffic, the background traffic portion of the total traffic is the peak hour peak direction volume from Table 3. In any cases where the two peak directions (background and project) are opposed, a D factor of 0.56 is assumed for the background traffic, the average of the values used for interrupted flow facilities in the FDOT Generalized Service Volume Table for Urbanized Areas (see Appendix D) or from FDOT AADT reports on state facilities. This factor is used to estimate the background two-way volume, and hence to establish the two directional components of that two-way volume, as applicable. Directional project traffic volumes from Table 2 are added and the maximum of the resulting two total traffic directional volumes is used as the basis of analysis. The significantly impacted segments are operating at acceptable level of service when project traffic is added to future background traffic. The calculations that the table contains are performed with more decimal places than those displayed. Using only the displayed decimals may yield slightly different results. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 10 Page 83 of 1742 Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 Table 5 –2027 Future Roadway Total Traffic Conditions 2027 2027 2027 2027 Peak Hour Peak Peak Level Direct- Back- PM PM Back- Hour of ion Back- ground Peak Peak ground Total Peak Service ground Traffic Hour Hour Traffic Back- Back- Traffic Direct- Defic- Traffic Peak Project Project Direct- ground ground Total Total Analy- ion Serv- Total iency AUIR Roadway Volume Direct- Traffic Traffic ional Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic sis Vol- ice Vol- Traffic Yes/ ID # Link From To (1) ion (1) N/E (2) S/W (2) Split (3) N/E S/W N/E S/W ume ume (4) V/C No Oil Well Project 83.0 SR 29 589 N/E 60 60 649 900 0.72 No Road Entrance Project 83.0 SR 29 CR 846 589 N/E 24 23 613 900 0.68 No Entrance Oil Well Ave Maria Camp 122.0 306 N/E 52 51 358 800 0.45 No Road Blvd Keais Oil Well Camp 122.0 SR 29 306 N/E 60 60 366 800 0.46 No Road Keais Notes: 1) Table 3 2) Table 2 3) As needed, FDOT sources. 4) Table 4 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a ge | 11 Page 84 of 1742 Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 The analyzed roadway segments are not located within the Collier County’s Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA). In addition, the proposed development is not situated within the County’s designated Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA). The TCEA’s and TCMA’s designations are provided in Policy 5.4 and 5.6 of the Transportation Element – Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). Site Access Turn Lane Analysis SR 29 is a 2-lane, undivided roadway under FDOT jurisdiction with a posted speed limit of 60 mph (design speed of 65 mph). The access location will comply with FDOT spacing requirements for a Class 4 facility. Turn lane lengths required at build-out conditions are analyzed based on the number of turning vehicles in an average one-minute period for right-turning movements, and two-minute period for left-turning movements, within the peak hour traffic. The minimum queue length is 25 feet, and the queue/vehicle is 25 feet. Because the turning vehicles are primarily trucks, 30 feet were used for the queue/vehicle. Project access turning movements as percentage and during the AM and PM peak hours can be found in Appendix C. For SR 29, the project is expected to generate 26 vph southbound left-turning movements during the PM peak hour. According to FDOT Multimodal Access Management Guidebook 2023, Figure 78, for a three- leg intersection, a left turn lane is warranted. According to the Florida Design Manual (FDM), Chapter 212, Exhibit 212-1, for a design speed of 65 mph, the minimum turn lane length is 460 ft (including taper). A two-minute arrival rate is one vehicle. With a queue of 30 ft, the turn lane should be at least 490 ft to accommodate projected traffic. The project is expected to generate 60 vph northbound right-turning movements during the PM peak hour. According to FDOT Multimodal Access Management Guidebook 2023, facilities with a high volume of buses, trucks, or trailers exceeding 2 or 3 per hour should provide a dedicated right turn lane. Based on the project generating 60 vph right turn movements and most of the project traffic being trucks, a right turn lane is recommended at this location. According to the Florida Design Manual (FDM), Chapter 212, Exhibit 212-1, for a design speed of 65 mph the minimum turn lane length is 460 ft (including taper). A one-minute arrival rate is one vehicle. With a queue of 30 ft, the turn lane should be at least 490 ft to accommodate projected traffic. Improvement Analysis Based on the results illustrated within this traffic analysis, the proposed project is not a significant and adverse traffic generator for the roadway network at this location. Based upon the results of the turn lane analysis, left and right turn lanes are warranted at the access on SR 29. Mitigation of Impact The developer proposes paying the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project, as applicable. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 12 Page 85 of 1742Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 13 Page 86 of 1742Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 14 Page 87 of 1742Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 15 Page 88 of 1742Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 16 Page 89 of 1742Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 17 Page 90 of 1742Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 18 Page 91 of 1742Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 19 Page 92 of 1742Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 20 Page 93 of 1742Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 21 Page 94 of 1742Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 Appendix C: Project Access Turning Movements Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 22 Page 95 of 1742Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 AM Project Traffic New - Enter Percent 3 30.0 30.0 0.0 Project Entrance 30.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 70.0 70.0 SR 29 5 70.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 70.0 70.0 Oil Well Rd 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 23 Page 96 of 1742Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 AM Project Traffic New - Exit Percent 3 30.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 Project Entrance 70.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 70.0 SR 29 5 70.0 70.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.0 Oil Well Rd 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 24 Page 97 of 1742Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 AM Project Traffic Total Net New Volume 3 52 26 26 26 Project Entrance 26 60 172 0 86 0 86 0 60 60 60 120 SR 29 5 120 60 60 60 0 60 0 60 0 120 60 Oil Well Rd 0 0 0 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 25 Page 98 of 1742Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 PM Project Traffic Total Net New Volume 3 52 26 26 26 Project Entrance 26 60 172 0 86 0 86 0 60 60 60 120 SR 29 5 120 60 60 60 0 60 0 60 0 120 60 Oil Well Rd 0 0 0 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 26 Page 99 of 1742Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 Appendix D: FDOT Sources Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 27 Page 100 of 1742Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 28 Page 101 of 1742Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 29 Page 102 of 1742Capling SR29 Mine – Conditional Use – TIS – March 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 30 Page 103 of 1742CAPLING SR29 MINE Environmental Data for Conditional Use (CU) SECTIONS 04/08/09/10, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST Prepared For: Collier County Growth Management Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Prepared By: Earth Tech Environmental, LLC 10600 Jolea Avenue Bonita Springs, FL 34135 239.304.0030 www.eteflorida.com February 6, 2025 Page 104 of 1742 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FOR CU APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Full Size Exhibits • Exhibit 1 – Location Map • Exhibit 2 – Aerial Map • Exhibit 3 – FLUCCS Map with Aerial • Exhibit 4 – Native Vegetation Map • Exhibit 5 – Wetland Limits Map • Exhibit 6 – Wetland Impacts Map APPENDIX B: Earth Tech Environmental Staff Qualifications APPENDIX C: Protected Species Survey APPENDIX D: Indigo Snake Protection Measures Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 105 of 1742 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FOR CU INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to satisfy the Environmental Data requirements (LDC Section 3.08.00) for a Conditional Use (CU) on the property referred to as the Capling SR29 Mine (Subject Property). This information is in response to the items outlined in the CU Pre-Application Notes as provided by Collier County. PROPERTY LOCATION The project involves six (6) separate parcels, collectively consisting of 1,401.8 acres, located in eastern Collier County within portions of Sections 4, 8, 9, and 10, Township 48 South and Range 30 East, (the “property”). The proposed excavation area encompasses ±1,027-acres and proposed accessory uses/structures include, but are not limited to, scale houses, a tire wash system to minimize dust pollution, and a wash plant. Conditional Use Data criteria is bolded; responses are italicized and not in bold 1. Please provide Environmental Data: Please provide FLUCFCS aerial map of the subject property, please include the invasive exotic plant percentage amounts and indicate which FLUCFCS are being considered Native Vegetation. Identify on a current aerial the acreage, location and community types of all upland and wetland habitats on the project site, according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS), and provide a legend for each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified. Aerials and overlay information must be legible at the scale provided. Provide calculations for the acreage of native vegetation required to be retained on-site. In a separate report, demonstrate how the preserve selection criteria pursuant to 3.05.07 have been met. Where applicable, include in this report an aerial showing the project boundaries along with any undeveloped land, preserves, natural flow ways or other natural land features, located on abutting properties. See Exhibit 3 in the Appendices for FLUCCS Map. The property is within the Rural Agricultural Zoning District, Mobile Home Overlay, and Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. The property is also located within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern-Special Treatment Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO- ACSC/ST). Per LDC Section 2.03.01.A.1.c.1, earth mining is a permitted conditional use within the Rural Agricultural Zoning District. In addition, per LDC Section 4.08.05, Baseline Standards of the RLSAO are applied since the property is not an SSA or SRA. Preserve calculations may be found below the FLUCCS information, see Exhibit 4 in the Appendices for Existing Native Vegetation map. TABLE 2. FLUCCS COMMUNITIES AND CORRESPONDING ACREAGES FLUCCS CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE 211 Improved Pastures 608.23 211H Hydric Improved Pastures 19.44 213 Woodland Pastures 0.50 213H Hydric Woodland Pastures 35.74 214 Row Crops 501.61 400-E3 Upland Forest (51-75% Exotics) 0.61 Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 106 of 1742 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FOR CU 400D-E4 Upland Forest (Disturbed) (>75% Exotics) 2.6 422 Brazilian Pepper 2.71 422H Hydric Brazilian Pepper 2.67 428-E1 Cabbage Palm (<25% Exotics) 16.40 434-E2 Hardwood - Conifer Mix (26-50% Exotics) 3.13 500 Other Surface Waters (OSW) 0.23 510 Canal 2.71 513 Ditches 30.43 621-E2 Cypress (26-50% Exotics) 1.80 630-E2 Wetland Forested Mix (26-50% Exotics) 12.68 630-E3 Wetland Forested Mix (51-75% Exotics) 22.68 631-E1 Wetland Shrub (<25% Exotics) 24.39 631-E2 Wetland Shrub (26-50% Exotics) 12.79 631-E3 Wetland Shrub (51-75% Exotics) 12.73 641-E1 Freshwater Marshes (<25% Exotics) 85.31 740 Disturbed Land 2.40 Site Total: +/- 1,401.80 FLUCCS DESCRIPTIONS * = Exotic vegetation species FLUCCS 211, Improved Pastures This community is found in the northern portion of the Subject Property and consists of open land with drainage ditches running east-to-west throughout the property, with another drainage ditch surrounding the community. The canopy and midstory are void of vegetation, with ground cover consisting of various grasses and weeds. FLUCCS 211H, Hydric Improved Pastures This community is found in the eastern portion of the Subject Property outside of the agricultural areas. A minimal canopy is present, made up of cabbage palms (Sabal palmetto) and sparse laurel oak (Quercus Laurifolia). Midstory is void of vegetation. Groundcover consists of various grasses. FLUCCS 213, Woodland Pastures This community is found in the eastern portion of the Subject Property and is similar to the 211 FLUCCS community with a denser canopy made of cabbage palm and laurel oaks. FLUCCS 213H, Hydric Woodland Pastures This community is found in the eastern portion of the Subject Property and is similar of the 213 FLUCCS community with more hydric vegetation in the ground cover such as dollarweed (Hydrocotyle umbellata), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata). FLUCCS 214, Row Crops This community is found in the southern portion of the Subject Property and consists of watermelon row crops. 400-E3, Upland Forests (51-75% Exotics) Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 107 of 1742 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FOR CU This community is found in the southwestern portion of the Subject Property that extends out to State Road 29. Vegetation consists of various oaks, cabbage palm, *earleaf acacia, and *Brazilian pepper. 400D-E3, Upland Forests (>76% Exotics) This community is found in the western portion of the Subject Property boarding the roadside canal of State Road 29. Vegetation of all strata dominated by *earleaf acacia, with some *Brazilian pepper and cabbage palm. FLUCCS 422, Brazilian Pepper This community is found in the southern portion of the Subject Property with the vegetation of all strata dominated by *Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia). FLUCCS 422H, Hydric Brazilian Pepper This community is found in the southeast corner of the Subject Property and is very similar to the 422 FLUCCS community with hydrologic indicators present. FLUCCS 428-E1, Cabbage Palm (<25% Exotics) This community is found in the southeastern portion of the Subject Property and consists of a berm running northwest-to-southeast in between two wetlands. The canopy and midstory are dominated by cabbage palms. Groundcover is minimal. FLUCCS 434-E1, Hardwood – Conifer Mix (<25% Exotics) This community is found in the southeastern portion of the Subject Property. The canopy consists of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), live oak (Quercus virginiana), cabbage palm, and laurel oak. Mid-story consists of slash pine, cabbage palm, *Brazilian pepper. Groundcover looks to be mowed and maintained, consists of various species of grass. FLUCCS 434-E2, Hardwood – Conifer Mix (26-50% Exotics) This community is found in the southern portion of the Subject Property. This community is similar to the 434 FLUCCS community but contains higher density of *Brazilian pepper. FLUCCS 500, Other Surface Waters (OSW) This community is made up of two ponds on the eastern portion of the Subject Property. FLUCCS 510, Canal This community borders the western edge of the Subject Property and consists of the roadside canal to State Road 29. FLUCCS 513, Ditches This community runs throughout the Subject Property, mostly as drainage for the row crops. FLUCCS 621-E2, Cypress (26-50% Exotics) This community is found in the southeastern portion of the Subject Property and is isolated within the 214 FLUCCS community. The canopy is dominated by bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). Midstory and groundcover consists of *Brazilian pepper. FLUCCS 630-E2, Wetland Forested Mix (26-50% Exotics) Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 108 of 1742 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FOR CU This community is found in two small areas in the eastern portion of the Subject Property. The canopy consists of red maple (Acer rubrum), cabbage palm, laurel oak, and *java plum (Syzygium cumini). Mid-story consists of Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), and *Brazilian pepper. Groundcover consists of sawgrass, swamp fern, St. John’s wort (Hypericum spp.), maidencane (Hymenachne hemitomon), chalky bluestem (Andropogon virginicus var. glaucus), dollarweed (Hydrocotyle spp.), and gray nicker (Guilandia bonduc). FLUCCS 630-E3, Wetland Forested Mix (51-75% Exotics) This community is found in the southeastern portion of the Subject Property. The canopy consists of slash pine, red maple, cabbage palm, dahoon (Ilex cassine var. cassine). Mid-story consists of slash pine, cabbage palm, coco plum, myrsine (Myrsine cubana), Carolina willow, *melaleuca, *earleaf acacia, *Brazilian pepper, and *java plum. Groundcover consists of sawgrass, swamp fern, St. John’s wort (Hypericum spp.), maidencane (Hymenachne hemitomon), chalky bluestem (Andropogon virginicus var. glaucus), dollarweed (Hydrocotyle spp.), and gray nicker (Guilandia bonduc). FLUCCS 631-E1, Wetland Shrub (<25% Exotics) This community is found in the eastern portion of the Subject Property. The canopy is sparse and consists of scattered bald cypress. Mid-story consists of Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), and *Brazilian pepper. Groundcover consists of Jamaican sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), swamp fern (Telmatoblechnum serrulatum), St. John’s wort (Hypericum spp.), maidencane (Hymenachne hemitomon), chalky bluestem (Andropogon virginicus var. glaucus), dollarweed (Hydrocotyle spp.), swamp sedge (Carex virgata), alligator flag (Thalia geniculata), primrose willow (Ludwigia spp.), and gray nicker (Guilandia bonduc). FLUCCS 631-E2, Wetland Shrub (26-50% Exotics) This community is found scattered throughout the Subject Property within both the 211 and 214 FLUCCS communities. Vegetation is similar to the 631-E1 FLUCCS community, with higher densities of exotics, mostly *Brazilian pepper. FLUCCS 631-E3, Wetland Shrub (51-75% Exotics) This community is found scattered throughout the Subject Property within the 211 FLUCCS community. Vegetation is similar to the 631-E1 and 631-E2 FLUCCS communities, with majority of the midstory consisting of *Brazilian pepper. FLUCCS 641-E1, Freshwater Marshes (<25% Exotics) This community is found in the southeastern portion of the Subject Property. The canopy is sparse but consists of cabbage palm and red maple around the edges of the community. Midstory consists of Carolina willow with sparse *Brazilian pepper. The ground cover consists of southern cattail (Typha domingensis), alligator flag, swamp sedge, and primrose willow. FLUCCS 740, Disturbed This community is found in the southeastern portion of the Subject Property and consists of a berm that runs along the southern property boundary. The only vegetation in the community are various grasses. Based on Exhibit 4 and the property’s preservation requirements, the preserve calculations are as follows: See Master Plan provided by Peninsula Engineering and Exhibit 4 in this document. Total existing native vegetation: 228.74 Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 109 of 1742 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FOR CU 90% requirement: 205.87 required to be preserved Native vegetation impacted in the mine area: 18.86 Native vegetation preserved: 205.87 See attached CU Master Plan provided by Peninsula Engineering for proposed locations of preserves. 2. Please provide a current Listed species survey, which should include listed plants for the subject property. Provide supporting exhibits (i.e. Panther zones etc.) be sure to include Black Bear, and Florida Bonneted Bat as part of the evaluation. Provide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Provide a survey for listed plants identified in 3.04.03. A Protected Species Survey was conducted over multiple days in January to April 2024. Evidence of utilization by multiple listed species has been observed/documented on the Subject Property. All appropriate surveys, permits, BMPs, and technical assistance will be obtained and implemented prior to any clearing or construction activities. See Appendix C for Protected Species Survey. 3. Provide calculations on site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be retained, the max. amount and ratios permitted to be created on-site. Exclude vegetation located within utility and drainage easements from the preserve calculations (LDC 3.05.07.B-D; 3.05.07.F; 3.05.07.H.1.de). (40%, 80%, and 90% preservation as required.) Label the Master plan with preservation locations. See Master Plan provided by Peninsula Engineering and Exhibit 4 in this document. Total existing native vegetation: 228.74 90% requirement: 205.87 required to be preserved Native vegetation impacted in the mine area: 18.86 Native vegetation preserved: 205.87 4. Please address how the proposed project is consistent with Conservation Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 6.1 and Objective 7.1. CCME Policy 6.1.1 For the County’s Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation Designated Area, and Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District, Rural-Industrial District and Rural-Settlement Area District as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the following minimum preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) where the ACSC standards referenced in the Future Land Use Element shall apply. Notwithstanding the ACSC requirements, this Policy shall apply to all non-agricultural development except for single-family dwelling units situated on individual parcels that are not located within a watershed management conservation area identified in a Watershed Management Plan developed pursuant to Policies supporting Objective 2.1 of this Element. For properties not previously within the Coastal High Hazard Area but now within the Coastal High Hazard Area due to adoption of a revised Coastal High Hazard Area Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 110 of 1742 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FOR CU boundary in 2013, the native vegetation preservation and retention standards of the Non-Coastal High Hazard Area shall continue to apply. (Reference the Coastal High Hazard Area Comparison Map in the Future Land Use Element.) Preservation requirement is 40%, 80%, and 90%. The property is within the Rural Agricultural Zoning District, Mobile Home Overlay, and Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. The property is also located within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern-Special Treatment Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO-ACSC/ST). See Master Plan provided by Peninsula Engineering and see discussion in #1 above. CCME Objective 7.1 Direct incompatible land uses away from listed animal species and their habitats. (The County relies on the listing process of State and Federal agencies to identify species that require special protection because of their endangered, threatened, or species of special concern status. Listed animal species are those species that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has designated as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern, in accordance with Rules 68A- 27.003, 68A-27.004, and 68A-27.005, F.A.C. and those species designated by various federal agencies as Endangered and Threatened species published in 50 CFR 17.) The property and surrounding area contain evidence of utilization by listed species including Audubon’s crested caracara, Florida black bear, sandhill crane, Florida panther, and listed wading birds. A Protected Species Survey was prepared by Earth Tech Environmental in May 2024 (see Appendix C). All preserve requirements will be adhered to in order to minimize loss of habitat for listed species. Habitat impacts are specifically being limited to portions of the property already impacted by active agricultural activities. Prior to any work commencing on the Subject Property, another survey will be required to examine the clearing areas for evidence of listed species. Species-specific management plans/guidelines, BMPs, necessary permits, and technical assistance with USFWS and/or FWC will be obtained and adhered to for the aforementioned listed species. PHUs may be purchased to offset Florida panther impacts, or the applicant may propose alternative mitigation on or in closer proximity to the property as part of a more comprehensive mitigation strategy. A wood stork impact analysis will be prepared to offset potential impacts to wood stork nesting and foraging habitat. Technical assistance with USFWS for crested caracara and other Federally listed species will be initiated during mine permitting. Foraging and nesting surveys for crested caracara were completed from January – April 2024. No evidence of indigo snakes has been observed on the Subject Property, but due to their nature of being difficult to observe, it may be assumed that their presence is a possibility. See Appendix D for the Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake provided by USFWS. 5. Explain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation requirements and minimizes impacts to listed species as required in the CCME. (The preservation Requirement is 40%, 80%, and 90%). See #1 above. 6. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to listed species. Describe the measures that are proposed as mitigation for impacts to listed species. (If found onsite). Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 111 of 1742 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FOR CU Impacts to listed species shall be minimized by meeting the preserve requirements, whose location was selected in part based on continuity with contiguous onsite and offsite habitat. Development itself is limited to areas already impacted by agriculture. See response to CCME Objective 7.1 above. 7. Indicate wetlands to be impacted and the effects of the impact to their functions and how the project's design compensates for wetland impacts. See Exhibits 5 & 6, Wetland Limits and Wetland Impact Maps in the Appendices. A total of 230.24 acres of wetlands and 33.38 acres of Other Surface Waters (OSW) have been identified on the site. 18.86 acres of direct wetland impacts are proposed. 18.00 acres of OSW impacts are proposed. Wetland impacts will be permitted through the FDEP Division of Mines and mitigation will be provided accordingly. Mitigation may be a combination of onsite and offsite mitigation. 8. Soil groundwater testing will be required at review of the SDP / PPL per LDC Section 3.06.12. Understood. The appropriate testing will be done at time of SDP. 9. Please provide a condition to address signage for truck driver awareness of protected species along the mining haul route. See engineer’s plan set. Signage addressing protected species at the mine entrance will be installed. The specifics of the signs 10. Please provide any written correspondence from the State of Florida regarding ACSC interpretation of the Site Alteration limitations. The applicant has not been provided with anything in writing. Jaime Cook is aware of the interpretation that all previously impacted areas are not included in the preserve calculation requirements. Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 112 of 1742 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FOR CU APPENDIX A FULL SIZED EXHIBITS Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 113 of 1742 O TALLAHASSEE (! JACKSONVILLE (! PANAMA CITY (! SUBJECT PROPERTY OCALA (! SR 29 SR 15TH ST N ORLANDO CR 846 E (! MAIN ST E SR 29 CR 858 TAMPA (! 1ST ST S ST 1ST THOMAS FARM RD FARM THOMAS SR 29 SUBJECT CAPE CORALFT MYERS (! (! PROPERTY NAPLES (! FT LAUDERDALE CR 858 CR 858 COLLIER (! COUNTY MIAMI (! Section: 4 Township: 48 Range: 30 G:\ETEnv Documents\PROJECTS\COLLIER\CaplingG:\ETEnv Mine\GIS\Location Map.mxd PM / 2:02:31 Project Exhibit Map Type Date Capling SR 29 Mine Exhibit 1 Location Map 10/03/24 Collier County, Florida EARTHEARTH TECHTECH ENVIRONMENTAL,ENVIRONMENTAL, LLCLLC 1060010600 JOLEAJOLEA AVENUEAVENUE BONITABONITA SPRINGS,SPRINGS, FLORIDAFLORIDA 3413534135 PHONEPHONE (239)(239) 304-0030304-0030 FAXFAX (239)(239) 324-0054324-0054 WWW.ETEFLORIDA.COMWWW.ETEFLORIDA.COMPage 114 of 1742 SR 29 SR O Note: 1. Subject Property boundary and 2024 Aerials obtained from Collier County Property Appraiser 0 600 1,200 2,400 Feet Subject Property G:\ETEnvDocuments\PROJECTS\COLLIER\Capling Mine\GIS\11x17 Aerial Map Horizontal.mxd 2:28:28 / PM Project Exhibit Map Type Date Capling SR 29 Mine Exhibit 2 Aerial Map 10/03/24 EARTHEARTH TECHTECH ENVIRONMENTAL,ENVIRONMENTAL, LLCLLC 1060010600 JOLEAJOLEA AVENUEAVENUE BONITABONITA SPRINGS,SPRINGS, FLORIDAFLORIDA 3413534135 PHONEPHONE (239)(239) 304-0030304-0030 FAXFAX (239)(239) 324-0054324-0054 WWW.ETEFLORIDA.COMWWW.ETEFLORIDA.COM Page 115 of 1742 Subject Property FLUCCS Mapping 211, Improved Pastures 631-E3 211H, Hydric Improved Pastures 213, Woodland Pastures 213H, Hydric Woodland Pastures 214, Row Crops 513 513 400-E3, Upland Forest (51-75% Exotics) 631-E2 400D-E4, Upland Forest (Disturbed) (>75% Exotics) 513 422, Brazilian Pepper 211 631-E2 422H, Hydric Brazilian Pepper 631-E2 428-E1, Cabbage Palm (<25% Exotics) 513 513 434-E2, Hardwood - Conifer Mixed (26-50% Exotics) 641-E1 630-E2 500, Other Surface Waters (OSW) 500 SR 29 SR 510, Canal 631-E2 428-E1 513, Ditches 513 631-E3 631-E2 621-E2, Cypress (26-50% Exotics) 513 513 513 631-E2 631-E2 428-E1 630-E2, Wetland Forested Mix (26-50% Exotics) 631-E3 631-E2 630-E3, Wetland Forested Mix (51-75% Exotics) 631-E2 631-E3 631-E1, Wetland Shrub (<25% Exotics) 641-E1 631-E2, Wetland Shrub (26-50% Exotics) 631-E2 513 631-E1 513 513 631-E3, Wetland Shrub (51-75% Exotics) 428-E1 434-E2 631-E1 510 513 211H 641-E1, Freshwater Marshes (<25% Exotics) 641-E1 631-E1 630-E2 740, Disturbed Land 213H 631-E2 631-E2 513 500 428-E1 513 513 513 513 631-E1 513 510 513 631-E2 641-E1 400D-E4 630-E2 621-E2 513 641-E1 214 630-E3 631-E2 422H 630-E2 630-E3 631-E2 513 740 513 513 513 631-E2 O 513 631-E2 Note: 513 1. Subject Property boundary and 2024 Aerials obtained from Collier County Property Appraiser 422 0 600 1,200 2,400 513 422 513 213 513 400-E3 213 Feet G:\ETEnvDocuments\PROJECTS\COLLIER\Capling Mine\GIS\FLUCCS Map.mxd / 1:52:08 PM Project Exhibit Map Type Date Capling SR 29 Mine Exhibit 3 FLUCCS Map with Aerial 10/03/24 EARTHEARTH TECHTECH ENVIRONMENTAL,ENVIRONMENTAL, LLCLLC 1060010600 JOLEAJOLEA AVENUEAVENUE BONITABONITA SPRINGS,SPRINGS, FLORIDAFLORIDA 3413534135 PHONEPHONE (239)(239) 304-0030304-0030 FAXFAX (239)(239) 324-0054324-0054 WWW.ETEFLORIDA.COMWWW.ETEFLORIDA.COM Page 116 of 1742 Subject Property FLUCCS Mapping 211, Improved Pastures 631-E3 211H, Hydric Improved Pastures 213, Woodland Pastures 213H, Hydric Woodland Pastures 214, Row Crops 513 513 400-E3, Upland Forest (51-75% Exotics) 631-E2 400D-E4, Upland Forest (Disturbed) (>75% Exotics) 513 211 422, Brazilian Pepper 631-E2 422H, Hydric Brazilian Pepper 631-E2 428-E1, Cabbage Palm (<25% Exotics) 513 513 434-E2, Hardwood - Conifer Mixed (26-50% Exotics) 641-E1 630-E2 500, Other Surface Waters (OSW) 500 SR 29 SR 510, Canal 631-E2 428-E1 513, Ditches 513 631-E3 631-E2 513 621-E2, Cypress (26-50% Exotics) 513 513 631-E2 631-E2 631-E3 631-E2 630-E2, Wetland Forested Mix (26-50% Exotics) 428-E1 630-E3, Wetland Forested Mix (51-75% Exotics) 631-E2 631-E3 631-E1, Wetland Shrub (<25% Exotics) 641-E1 631-E2, Wetland Shrub (26-50% Exotics) 631-E2 513 513 631-E1 513 631-E3, Wetland Shrub (51-75% Exotics) 434-E2 631-E1 510 513 211H 641-E1, Freshwater Marshes (<25% Exotics) 641-E1 631-E1 630-E2 740, Disturbed Land 213H 631-E2 Existing Native Vegetation, 228.74 Ac 631-E2 513 500 428-E1 513 513 513 513 631-E1 513 631-E2 510 513 641-E1 400D-E4 621-E2 630-E2 513 641-E1 214 631-E2 630-E3 422H 630-E2 630-E3 631-E2 513 740 513 513 513 631-E2 O 513 631-E2 Note: 513 1. Subject Property boundary and 2024 Aerials obtained from Collier County Property Appraiser 422 0 600 1,200 2,400 513 422 513 213 513 400-E3 213 Feet G:\ETEnvDocuments\PROJECTS\COLLIER\Capling Mine\GIS\11x17 Native Vegetation Map.mxd / 11:20:24 AM Project Exhibit Map Type Date Capling SR 29 Mine Exhibit 4 Native Vegetation Map 10/03/24 EARTHEARTH TECHTECH ENVIRONMENTAL,ENVIRONMENTAL, LLCLLC 1060010600 JOLEAJOLEA AVENUEAVENUE BONITABONITA SPRINGS,SPRINGS, FLORIDAFLORIDA 3413534135 PHONEPHONE (239)(239) 304-0030304-0030 FAXFAX (239)(239) 324-0054324-0054 WWW.ETEFLORIDA.COMWWW.ETEFLORIDA.COM Page 117 of 1742 Subject Property FLUCCS Mapping 513 211, Improved Pastures 631-E3 211H, Hydric Improved Pastures 213, Woodland Pastures 213H, Hydric Woodland Pastures 214, Row Crops 513 513 400-E3, Upland Forest (51-75% Exotics) 631-E2 400D-E4, Upland Forest (Disturbed) (>75% Exotics) 211 422, Brazilian Pepper 631-E2 631-E2 422H, Hydric Brazilian Pepper 428-E1, Cabbage Palm (<25% Exotics) 513 513 434-E2, Hardwood - Conifer Mixed (26-50% Exotics) 630-E2 641-E1 500, Other Surface Waters (OSW) 500 SR 29 SR 631-E2 510, Canal 428-E1 513 513, Ditches 631-E3 631-E2 513 513 513 621-E2, Cypress (26-50% Exotics) 631-E2 631-E2 428-E1 631-E3 631-E2 630-E2, Wetland Forested Mix (26-50% Exotics) 630-E3, Wetland Forested Mix (51-75% Exotics) 631-E3 631-E2 631-E1, Wetland Shrub (<25% Exotics) 641-E1 631-E2, Wetland Shrub (26-50% Exotics) 631-E2 513 631-E1 513 513 428-E1 434-E2 631-E1 631-E3, Wetland Shrub (51-75% Exotics) 510 513 211H 641-E1, Freshwater Marshes (<25% Exotics) 641-E1 631-E1 213H 740, Disturbed Land 630-E2 631-E2 631-E2 Anticipated Jurisdictional Wetlands (230.24 Ac) 513 Other Surface Waters (33.38 Ac) 500 428-E1 513 513 513 513 631-E1 513 510 513 631-E2 641-E1 630-E2 400D-E4 621-E2 513 641-E1 214 631-E2 630-E3 630-E2 630-E3 422H 631-E2 513 740 513 513 513 631-E2 O 513 631-E2 Note: 513 1. Subject Property boundary and 2024 Aerials obtained from Collier County Property Appraiser 422 0 550 1,100 2,200 513 422 513 213 513 400-E3 213 Feet G:\ETEnvDocuments\PROJECTS\COLLIER\Capling Mine\GIS\11x17 Wetland MapHorizontal.mxd / 2:13:56 PM Project Exhibit Map Type Date Capling SR 29 Mine Exhibit 5 Wetland Limits Map 10/03/24 EARTHEARTH TECHTECH ENVIRONMENTAL,ENVIRONMENTAL, LLCLLC 1060010600 JOLEAJOLEA AVENUEAVENUE BONITABONITA SPRINGS,SPRINGS, FLORIDAFLORIDA 3413534135 PHONEPHONE (239)(239) 304-0030304-0030 FAXFAX (239)(239) 324-0054324-0054 WWW.ETEFLORIDA.COMWWW.ETEFLORIDA.COM Page 118 of 1742 Subject Property Site Plan 513 Wetland Limits 631-E3 Anticipated Jurisdictional Wetlands (230.24 Ac) Other Surface Waters (33.38 Ac) Wetland Impacts (36.85 Total Ac) 513 513 Direct Wetland Impacts (18.86 Ac) Direct Other Surface Water (OSW) Impacts (18.00 Ac) 631-E2 FLUCCS Mapping 211 211, Improved Pastures 631-E2 631-E2 211H, Hydric Improved Pastures 513 513 213, Woodland Pastures 213H, Hydric Woodland Pastures 630-E2 641-E1 500 214, Row Crops 631-E2 428-E1 400-E3, Upland Forest (51-75% Exotics) 513 400D-E4, Upland Forest (Disturbed) (>75% Exotics) 631-E3 631-E2 513 513 513 631-E2 631-E2 428-E1 422, Brazilian Pepper 631-E3 631-E2 422H, Hydric Brazilian Pepper 631-E2 428-E1, Cabbage Palm (<25% Exotics) 631-E3 434-E2, Hardwood - Conifer Mixed (26-50% Exotics) 641-E1 631-E2 513 631-E1 500, Other Surface Waters (OSW) 513 513 428-E1 434-E2 631-E1 510 513 211H 510, Canal 641-E1 631-E1 513, Ditches 213H 630-E2 631-E2 621-E2, Cypress (26-50% Exotics) 631-E2 513 630-E2, Wetland Forested Mix (26-50% Exotics) 500 428-E1 513 513 513 513 631-E1 630-E3, Wetland Forested Mix (51-75% Exotics) 513 510 513 631-E2 641-E1 630-E2 631-E1, Wetland Shrub (<25% Exotics) 400D-E4 621-E2 631-E2, Wetland Shrub (26-50% Exotics) 513 641-E1 214 631-E3, Wetland Shrub (51-75% Exotics) 631-E2 630-E3 630-E2 630-E3 422H 631-E2 641-E1, Freshwater Marshes (<25% Exotics) 513 740 513 513 740, Disturbed Land 513 631-E2 O 513 631-E2 Note: 513 1. Subject Property boundary and 2024 Aerials obtained from Collier County Property Appraiser 422 0 600 1,200 2,400 513 422 213 513 400-E3 513 213 Feet G:\ETEnvDocuments\PROJECTS\COLLIER\Capling Mine\GIS\11x17 Site Plan.mxd 3:12:20 / PM Project Exhibit Map Type Date Capling SR 29 Mine Exhibit 6 Wetland Impacts Map 10/03/24 EARTHEARTH TECHTECH ENVIRONMENTAL,ENVIRONMENTAL, LLCLLC 1060010600 JOLEAJOLEA AVENUEAVENUE BONITABONITA SPRINGS,SPRINGS, FLORIDAFLORIDA 3413534135 PHONEPHONE (239)(239) 304-0030304-0030 FAXFAX (239)(239) 324-0054324-0054 WWW.ETEFLORIDA.COMWWW.ETEFLORIDA.COM Page 119 of 1742 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FOR CU APPENDIX B EARTH TECH ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF QUALIFICATIONS Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 120 of 1742 Mr. Sterk has been an environmental consultant in Southwest Florida since 1994 and has worked on projects throughout the State of Florida. His varied experience spans marine, upland, and estuarine habitats and includes extensive work with a wide variety of listed species. Relevant Experience In addition to authoring dozens of habitat and species management plans, in 2007, Jeremy co-authored the first habitat conservation plan (HCP) in the nation to address incidental take issues for both red cockaded woodpeckers (RCW) and Florida panther on the same property. In 1998, he wrote an ecological assessment computer model for the South Florida Water Management District as part of the South Lee County Watershed Study. JEREMY STERK, CEP Early in his career, Jeremy was the principal investigator of a field research project in the Partner \ Principal Bahamas that utilized telemetry tracking to study the swimming speed of sub-adult lemon Environmental Consultant sharks. Jeremy’s work experience includes: FWC Approved Shorebird Monitor Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) e: jeremys@eteflorida.com USFWS Bald Eagle Monitor Turbidity Monitoring t: 239.304.0030 Vegetation & Habitat Mapping Wetland & Water Level Monitoring m: 239.595.4929 USFWS Section 7 & Section 10 Permitting Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) Water Use Monitoring & Compliance Project Management Preserve Management Plans GIS / GPS Mapping & Exhibits Years’ Experience RCW Surveys & Habitat Evaluations Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments Environmental Land Use Planning Phase II Environmental Site Assessments 28 years Native Vegetation Restoration Plans Lake Management Plans Site and Aerial Photography Due Diligence Reports Education/Training Scrub Jay Surveys Wetland Jurisdictional Determinations Mangrove Assessments & Restorations Bonneted Bat Surveys B.S. Aquatic Biology Hard Bottom & Soft Bottom Benthic Surveys Seagrass Surveys St. Cloud State University Artificial Reef Deployments Manatee Observer (1994) Certifications/Credentials . Certified Environmental Professional #1692037, Academy of Board-Certified Professional Affiliations Environmental Professionals Academy of Board-Certified . Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Authorized Gopher Tortoise Environmental Professionals Agent (Permit No. GTA-09-00192) #16992037 . Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Burrowing Owl Registered Agent (No. RAG-18-00080) Florida Association of . PADI Research Diver Certified Environmental Professionals . SSI Nitrox Diver Certified (FAEP) . Florida Association of Environmental Professionals – member since January 1995; served on the Board of Directors for the Southwest Florida Chapter from (2008 – 2012). Past Secretary, Vice President, & President. . State of Florida Real Estate License (2003 to Present) Appointed by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners to:  Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, Chairman of the Lands Evaluation and Management Subcommittee. (2009 to 2014).  Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) (2015 to Present).  FWC Local Rule Review Committee (Manatee Protection Speed Zones) (2016). Publications Sundström, L.F., J. Sterk, & S.H. Gruber. 1998. Effects of a speed-sensing transmitter on the swimming speed of lemon sharks. Bahamas J. Sci. 6 (1): 12-22. 239.304.0030 | www.eteflorida.com Page 121 of 1742 Mr. Goulding joined Earth Tech Environmental LLC (ETE) in April 2019 and holds the position of Environmental Consultant. He graduated from Virginia Tech with a Bachelor of Science degree in Natural Resource Conservation. Relevant Experience Conor’s familiarity with southwest Florida ecosystems encompasses estuarine and marine ecosystems. Before ETE, Conor worked at Mote Marine Laboratory as the in-house photographer, who maintained the research institute’s photo archives and produced photos for marketing and research purposes. He also assisted in projects such as snook tagging, spotted eagle ray tagging, and whale shark identification photography. Conor was originally hired at ETE as a GIS Technician, where he created various exhibits, including tracking maps, FLUCCS maps, and site plans. Since joining ETE, Conor has gained valuable experience in a multitude of fields in both terrestrial and marine ecosystems, which includes protected species surveys, ecological assessments, wetland determinations and delineations, vegetation monitoring, bald eagle monitoring, crested CONOR GOULDING caracara surveying, environmental resource permitting, artificial reef fish monitoring, Environmental Consultant submerged resource surveys, and turbidity monitoring. Conor has also become a certified drone pilot to conduct vegetation monitoring, bird rookery monitoring, and time-lapses for site development. Conor has also become an Authorized Gopher Tortoise Agent in the e: conorg@eteflorida.com designated activities of gopher tortoise surveying, gopher tortoise capture, and t: 239.304.0030 transportation of gopher tortoises. m: 239.331.0168 Conor’s work experience includes: Protected Species Surveys Shorebird Monitoring Years’ Experience Artificial Reef Fish Monitoring Submerged Resource Surveys 5 years Site and Aerial Photography Seagrass Surveys Mangrove Monitoring Artificial Reef Deployments Education/Training Seagrass Monitoring Drone Mapping and Photography Preserve Monitoring Wetland Determinations B.S. Natural Resource Conservation Georeferencing Imagery Native Tree Surveys / Inventories Virginia Tech GIS / GPS Mapping and Exhibits Urban Forest Mapping (2014) Vegetation & Habitat Monitoring Turbidity Monitoring Software Experience Crested Caracara Surveying Bald Eagle Monitoring Gopher Tortoise Surveys Gopher Tortoise Permitting ArcGIS Adobe Lightroom Adobe Photoshop Adobe InDesign Geo Tremble 7x Relevant Certifications/Credentials SSI Advanced/ Rescue Diver, SCUBAdventures, 2014 Professional Affiliations Nitrox Certified Diver, SCUBAdventures, 2014 Remote Pilot – Small Unmanned Aircraft System Certification, FAA, 2020 Florida Association of BoatU.S. Foundation’s Online Boating Safety Course, 2021 Environmental Professionals (FAEP) Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Authorized Gopher Tortoise Agent (Permit No: 22-00058) Operator of Uninspected Passenger Vessels (OUPV) Captain’s License, 2023 239.304.0030 | www.eteflorida.com Page 122 of 1742 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FOR CU APPENDIX C PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 123 of 1742CAPLING SR 29 MINE PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 48, RANGE 30 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Prepared For: Peninsula Engineering 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105 Prepared By: Earth Tech Environmental, LLC 10600 Jolea Avenue Bonita Springs, FL 34135 239.304.0030 www.eteflorida.com May 2024 Page 124 of 1742 Protected Species Survey TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 LOCATION ................................................................................................................................................ 3 3.0 SPECIES SURVEY MATERIALS & METHODS ............................................................................................. 3 4.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................... 5 5.0 RESULTS................................................................................................................................................. 10 6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 17 EXHIBITS Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Aerial Map Figure 3 FLUCCS Map with Aerial Figure 4 FLUCCS Map Figure 5 Transect & Field Results Map Figure 6 Crested Caracara Consultation Map Figure 7 Crested Caracara Nest Location Map Figure 8 Wood Stork Foraging Map Figure 9 Bald Eagle Information Figure 10 Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation Area Figure 11 Florida Panther Information Figure 12 Florida Black Bear Information Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 125 of 1742 Protected Species Survey 1.0 INTRODUCTION Earth Tech Environmental (ETE) conducted a Protected Species Survey (PSS) to search for listed species on the property referred to as Capling SR 29 Mine (Subject Property). This assessment was conducted over dates from January to April 2024 by ETE ecologists. The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate the Subject Property for the potential presence of listed species of concern based on the determined Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) vegetation. ETE warrants that the findings contained in this report have been prepared in general conformance with current professional practices at the time of report preparation and have not been verified by regulatory agencies. Future changes in standards, practices, or regulations cannot be anticipated and have not been addressed. The observations and recommendations presented in this report are time-dependent and the findings presented in this report apply solely to site conditions existing at the time when the assessment was performed. 2.0 LOCATION The Subject Property for this report consists of six (6) parcels (Folio: 00231640006, 00232040401, 00232200005, 00232240007, 00232320008, 00231800008) located off State Road 29 in Collier County, Florida. According to the Collier County Property Appraiser GIS data, the Subject Property totals approximately 1,357.05 acres. See Figure 1 below for a location map. Figure 1. Site Location Map 3.0 SPECIES SURVEY MATERIALS & METHODS The species survey was conducted using a methodology similar to that discussed in the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) publication “Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) Populations Found on Lands Slated for Large-scale Development in Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 126 of 1742 Protected Species Survey Florida.” This methodology is as follows: Existing vegetation communities or land-uses on the Subject Property are delineated on a recent aerial photograph (Collier County 2023) using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS). FLUCCS mapping for this property is detailed below in Figures 3-4. The resulting FLUCCS codes are cross-referenced with a list of protected plant and animal species. The lists were obtained from two agency publications: ❖ “Florida’s Endangered Species, Threatened Species & Species of Special Concern-Official Lists”, December 2022. ❖ “Notes on Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Plants”, Bureau of Entomology, Nematology and Plant Pathology, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 2010. In the field, each FLUCCS community was searched for listed species or signs of listed species. This was accomplished by walking a series of pedestrian transects through the Subject Property to achieve approximately 80% coverage. Signs or sightings of all listed and non-listed species were then recorded. Based on the habitat types found on the Subject Property, particular attention was paid to the presence or absence of gopher tortoises, Big Cypress fox squirrel, Florida bonneted bat cavities, and wading birds. If a potentially occupied burrow, nest, or tree cavity was observed, it was flagged, numbered, and marked with GPS coordinates. Approximately 52.5 hours were logged into the Subject Property in total during this species survey (see Table 1). Table 1. Field Time During Species Survey No. Date Start Time End Time Man Hours Ecologists January 10, 2024 10:30am 2:00pm 1 1.5 January 12, 2024 7:30 am 12:30 pm 2 6 February 3, 2024 10:30am 1:00pm 1 2.5 February 7, 2024 10:30am 1:00pm 2 5 February 8, 2024 7:15 am 10:15 am 2 6 February 10, 2024 10:30am 2:00pm 1 3.5 February 18, 2024 10:30am 1:00pm 1 2.5 February 22, 2024 10:30am 2:00pm 1 3.5 March 6, 2024 7:15 am 10:30 am 1 3.25 March 7, 2024 11:00 am 1:00 pm 1 2 March 10, 2024 11:20 am 1:20 pm 1 2 March 22, 2024 7:15 am 10:30 am 1 3.25 March 28, 2024 11:20 am 1:20 pm 1 2 March 31, 2024 11:20 am 1:20 pm 1 2 April 4, 2024 11:20 am 1:20 pm 1 2 April 18, 2024 7:20 am 10:20 am 1 3 April 24, 2024 7:15 am 9:45 am 1 2.5 Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 127 of 1742 Protected Species Survey 4.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The Subject Property consists of mostly agricultural land including row crops for watermelons in the south. The northern area has improved pastures which used to be utilized as agricultural and is currently not maintained. Throughout the agricultural lands wetland pockets are present for drainage. The eastern portion of the Subject Property consists of a mix of wetland marshes and maintained pastures communities. State Road 29 is directly west of the Subject Property. See Figure 2 below for an Aerial Map. The Subject Property has the following surrounding land uses: North Agriculture/Undeveloped East Undeveloped South Agriculture/Undeveloped West Agriculture/Undeveloped/SR 29 Figure 2. Aerial Map Listed below are the FLUCCS communities identified on the site. The community descriptions correspond to the mappings on the FLUCCS maps below (Figures 3 & 4). See Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (Department of Transportation, Surveying & Mapping Geographic Mapping Section, 1999) for definitions. The Florida Invasive Species Council’s (FISC) list of invasive species contains Category I and Category II species that may be found on the Subject Property. Category I species are invasive exotics that are altering native plant communities by displacing native species, changing community structures or ecological Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 128 of 1742 Protected Species Survey functions, or hybridizing with natives (FISC). Category II species are invasive exotics that are increasing in abundance or frequency but have not yet altered Florida plant communities (FISC). A significant factor in mapping vegetative associations and local habitats is the invasion of these species such as Brazilian pepper, ear leaf acacia, melaleuca, Caesarweed, and air potato. Levels of exotic density were mapped using field observations and photo interpretation as shown in Figure 3. Modifiers, or “E” designators, are appended to the FLUCCS codes to indicate the approximate density of exotics in the canopy and/or sub- canopy. The following table is a summary of FLUCCS communities and corresponding acreages: TABLE 2. FLUCCS COMMUNITIES AND CORRESPONDING ACREAGES FLUCCS CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE 211 Improved Pastures 622.28 211H Hydric Improved Pastures 19.5 213 Woodland Pastures 18.01 213H Hydric Woodland Pastures 35.74 214 Row Crops 511.66 422 Brazilian Pepper 3.64 422H Hydric Brazilian Pepper 2.67 428-E1 Cabbage Palm (<25% Exotics) 13.50 434-E2 Hardwood - Conifer Mix (26-50% Exotics) 3.13 500 Other Surface Waters (OSW) 0.87 510 Canal 2.68 513 Ditches 26.22 621-E2 Cypress (26-50% Exotics) 1.88 630-E2 Wetland Forested Mix (26-50% Exotics) 1.91 630-E3 Wetland Forested Mix (51-75% Exotics) 23.70 631-E1 Wetland Shrub (<25% Exotics) 27.74 631-E2 Wetland Shrub (26-50% Exotics) 14.54 631-E3 Wetland Shrub (51-75% Exotics) 17.75 641-E1 Freshwater Marshes (<25% Exotics) 80.90 740 Disturbed Land 3.00 Site Total: +/- 1,399.97 Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 129 of 1742 Protected Species Survey Figure 3. FLUCCS Map with Aerial Figure 4. FLUCCS Map Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 130 of 1742 Protected Species Survey * = Exotic vegetation species FLUCCS 211, Improved Pastures This community is found in the northern portion of the Subject Property and consists of open land with drainage ditches running east-to-west throughout the property, with another drainage ditch surrounding the community. The canopy and midstory are void of vegetation, with ground cover consisting of various grasses and weeds. FLUCCS 211H, Hydric Improved Pastures This community is found in the eastern portion of the Subject Property outside of the agricultural areas. A minimal canopy is present, made up of cabbage palms (Sabal palmetto) and sparse laurel oak (Quercus Laurifolia). Midstory is void of vegetation. Groundcover consists of various grasses. FLUCCS 213, Woodland Pastures This community is found in the eastern portion of the Subject Property and is similar to the 211 FLUCCS community with a denser canopy made of cabbage palm and laurel oaks. FLUCCS 213H, Hydric Woodland Pastures This community is found in the eastern portion of the Subject Property and is similar of the 213 FLUCCS community with more hydric vegetation in the ground cover such as dollarweed (Hydrocotyle umbellata), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata). FLUCCS 214, Row Crops This community is found in the southern portion of the Subject Property and consists of watermelon row crops. FLUCCS 422, Brazilian Pepper This community is found in the southern portion of the Subject Property with the vegetation of all strata dominated by *Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia). FLUCCS 422H, Hydric Brazilian Pepper This community is found in the southeast corner of the Subject Property and is very similar to the 422 FLUCCS community with hydrologic indicators present. FLUCCS 428-E1, Cabbage Palm (<25% Exotics) This community is found in the southeastern portion of the Subject Property and consists of a berm running northwest-to-southeast in between two wetlands. The canopy and midstory are dominated by cabbage palms. Groundcover is minimal. FLUCCS 434-E1, Hardwood – Conifer Mix (<25% Exotics) This community is found in the southeastern portion of the Subject Property. The canopy consists of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), live oak (Quercus virginiana), cabbage palm, and laurel oak. Mid-story consists of slash pine, cabbage palm, *Brazilian pepper. Groundcover looks to be mowed and maintained, consists of various species of grass. FLUCCS 434-E2, Hardwood – Conifer Mix (26-50% Exotics) This community is found in the southern portion of the Subject Property. This community is similar to the 434 FLUCCS community but contains higher density of *Brazilian pepper. Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 131 of 1742 Protected Species Survey FLUCCS 513, Roadside Canal This community borders the western edge of the Subject Property and consists of the roadside canal to State Road 29. FLUCCS 621-E2, Cypress (26-50% Exotics) This community is found in the southeastern portion of the Subject Property and is isolated within the 214 FLUCCS community. The canopy is dominated by bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). Midstory and groundcover consists of *Brazilian pepper. FLUCCS 630-E2, Wetland Forested Mix (26-50% Exotics) This community is found in two small areas in the eastern portion of the Subject Property. The canopy consists of red maple (Acer rubrum), cabbage palm, laurel oak, and *java plum (Syzygium cumini). Mid-story consists of Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), and *Brazilian pepper. Groundcover consists of sawgrass, swamp fern, St. John’s wort (Hypericum spp.), maidencane (Hymenachne hemitomon), chalky bluestem (Andropogon virginicus var. glaucus), dollarweed (Hydrocotyle spp.), and gray nicker (Guilandia bonduc). FLUCCS 630-E3, Wetland Forested Mix (51-75% Exotics) This community is found in the southeastern portion of the Subject Property. The canopy consists of slash pine, red maple, cabbage palm, dahoon (Ilex cassine var. cassine). Mid-story consists of slash pine, cabbage palm, coco plum, myrsine (Myrsine cubana), Carolina willow, *melaleuca, *earleaf acacia, *Brazilian pepper, and *java plum. Groundcover consists of sawgrass, swamp fern, St. John’s wort (Hypericum spp.), maidencane (Hymenachne hemitomon), chalky bluestem (Andropogon virginicus var. glaucus), dollarweed (Hydrocotyle spp.), and gray nicker (Guilandia bonduc). FLUCCS 631-E1, Wetland Shrub (<25% Exotics) This community is found in the eastern portion of the Subject Property. The canopy is sparse and consists of scattered bald cypress. Mid-story consists of Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), and *Brazilian pepper. Groundcover consists of Jamaican sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), swamp fern (Telmatoblechnum serrulatum), St. John’s wort (Hypericum spp.), maidencane (Hymenachne hemitomon), chalky bluestem (Andropogon virginicus var. glaucus), dollarweed (Hydrocotyle spp.), swamp sedge (Carex virgata), alligator flag (Thalia geniculata), primrose willow (Ludwigia spp.), and gray nicker (Guilandia bonduc). FLUCCS 631-E2, Wetland Shrub (26-50% Exotics) This community is found scattered throughout the Subject Property within both the 211 and 214 FLUCCS communities. Vegetation is similar to the 631-E1 FLUCCS community, with higher densities of exotics, mostly *Brazilian pepper. FLUCCS 631-E3, Wetland Shrub (51-75% Exotics) This community is found scattered throughout the Subject Property within the 211 FLUCCS community. Vegetation is similar to the 631-E1 and 631-E2 FLUCCS communities, with majority of the midstory consisting of *Brazilian pepper. FLUCCS 641-E1, Freshwater Marshes (<25% Exotics) This community is found in the southeastern portion of the Subject Property. The canopy is sparse but consists of cabbage palm and red maple around the edges of the community. Midstory consists of Carolina Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 132 of 1742 Protected Species Survey willow with sparse *Brazilian pepper. The ground cover consists of southern cattail (Typha domingensis), alligator flag, swamp sedge, and primrose willow. FLUCCS 740, Disturbed This community is found in the southeastern portion of the Subject Property and consists of a berm that runs along the southern property boundary. The only vegetation in the community are various grasses. 5.0 RESULTS All relevant species observed on the Subject Property are detailed in Table 3 and any protected species observed are specifically noted. See Figure 5 for field results. Figure 5. Transect Map & Field Results TABLE 3. SPECIES OBSERVED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LISTED COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME OBSERVATIONS STATUS SPECIES? BIRDS American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos DV N MBTA American kestrel Falco sparverius DV N MBTA Anhinga Anhinga anhinga DV N MBTA Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus DV N MBTA Black vulture Coragyps atratus DV N MBTA Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea DV N MBTA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 133 of 1742 Protected Species Survey Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata DV N MBTA Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus DV N MBTA Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis DV N MBTA Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula DV N MBTA Common ground dove Columbia passerine DV N MBTA Crested caracara Caracara plancus cheriway DV Y ST Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auratus DV N MBTA Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna DV N MBTA Eastern phoebe Satornis phoebe DV N MBTA European starling Sturnus vulgaris DV N - Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis N DV N MBTA Great blue heron Ardea Herodias DV N MBTA Great egret Ardea alba DV N MBTA Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca DV N MBTA House wren Troglodytes aedon DV N MBTA Killdeer Charadrius vociferus DV N MBTA Limpkin Aramus guarauna DV N MBTA Little blue heron Egretta caerulea DV Y ST Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus DV N MBTA Mourning dove Zenaida macroura DV N MBTA Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis DV N MBTA Northern harrier Circus cyaneus DV N MBTA Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos DV N MBTA Palm warbler Setophaga palmarum DV N MBTA Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus DV N MBTA Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus DV N MBTA Reddish egret Egretta rufescens DV Y ST Sandhill crane Grus canadensis DV Y ST Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis DV N MBTA Snail kite Melanerpes carolinus DV Y ST Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor DV N MBTA Turkey vulture Cathartes aura DV N MBTA White ibis Eudocimus albus DV N MBTA Wood stork Mycteria americana DV Y ST Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata DV N MBTA MAMMALS Coyote Canis latrans DV N - Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus DV N - Florida black bear Ursus americanus floridanus DV N - Marsh rabbit Sylvilagus palustris DV N - North American river otter Lontra canadensis DV N - Racoon Procyon lotor DV N - REPTILES Eastern racer Coluber constrictor DV N - Brown anole Anolis sagrei DV N - = protected species Observations: Status: DV = Direct Visual MBTA = The Migratory Bird Treaty Act ST = State Threatened Several listed species of birds were observed utilizing the Subject Property, including crested caracara, little blue herons, reddish egret, sandhill crane, snail kite, and wood stork. Several American alligators were observed in ditches within the improved pasture FLUCCS community. Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 134 of 1742 Protected Species Survey Listed Wading Birds During the species survey, wading bird species including little blue heron, roseate spoonbill, reddish egret, and wood stork were observed foraging, resting and flying overhead. No signs of nesting were observed, and no nests have been identified on the property. Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis pratensis) Sandhill cranes were observed on multiple occasions flying overhead throughout the property, and foraging within the central portions of the property, as well as in the pasture offsite. Sandhill crane nesting season is December – August. No nesting sandhill cranes or young were observed on the property. Figure 6. Crested Caracara Information Crested Caracara (Polyborus plancus audubonii) The Subject Property falls within the USFWS Crested Caracara Consultation Area (See Figure 6 above). The property contains suitable nesting habitat for caracara including abundant pastureland containing individual as well as grouped cabbage palm trees. The nesting season occurs from November – April. ETE conducted crested caracara foraging and nesting surveys bi-monthly on the property throughout the 2024 nesting season (January through April 2024). During all field surveys, multiple caracaras were observed flying/perching. One successful caracara nest was identified in the foraging and nesting survey, located in a live cabbage palm located approximately 600 feet outside of the Subject Property boundary (see Figure 7 below for locations). Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 135 of 1742 Protected Species Survey USFWS defines a primary protection zone of 985 feet and a secondary protection zone of 4,920 feet from the nest tree. Nests and nest trees are protected year-round by both Federal and State law. Technical assistance from USFWS for caracara will be required for this project. Figure 7. Crested Caracara Nest Location Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 136 of 1742 Protected Species Survey Figure 8. Wood Stork Information Wood Stork (Mycteria amaericana) The Subject Property falls within the core foraging area (estimated at 18.6 miles) of three (3) known wood stork colonies in Collier County (see Figure 8). Due to the lack of suitable nesting trees on the property, wood stork nesting is unlikely. The Subject Property does contain suitable habitat for wood stork foraging, and wood stork were observed foraging during fieldwork. Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 137 of 1742 Protected Species Survey Figure 9. Bald Eagle Information Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) No Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)-documented bald eagle nests have been documented within 660-feet (USFWS Protection Zone) of the Subject Property and no nests were observed on the site (see Figure 6). Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 138 of 1742 Protected Species Survey Figure 10. Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation Area Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) The Subject Property falls within the USFWS’s Consultation Area for the Florida bonneted bat (see Figure 7). During the species survey, no tree cavities nor signs of Florida Bonneted Ba utilization were observed on the Subject Property. Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 139 of 1742 Protected Species Survey Figure 11. Florida Panther Information Florida Panther (Felis concolor coryi) The Subject Property falls within the USFWS Florida Panther Consultation Area and Primary Panther Habitat (see Figure 8). Multiple telemetry points from tracked panthers fall on and within the vicinity of the property. The most recent documentation of a panther on the property is 2020, and the most recent documentation of a panther within a two-mile radius of the property is also 2020. An independent Florida panther impact assessment will need to be conducted on the Subject Property and be provided to the USFWS during consultation. Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 140 of 1742 Protected Species Survey Figure 12. Florida Black Bear Information Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) The Subject Property falls within abundant black bear habitat with numerous black bear-related calls falling in the general proximity of the property (see Figure 9). A black bear was observed in the northern portion of the Subject Property during site visits. The County may require the Client to implement Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)-approved bear-proof waste receptacles on the Subject Property. Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 141 of 1742 Protected Species Survey 6.0 REFERENCES Ashton, Ray E. and Patricia S. “The Natural History and Management for the Gopher Tortoise.” Krieger Publishing Company. Malabar, Florida. 2008. Atlas of Florida Plants. Institute for Systematic Botany. Accessed January 2024. https://florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/ Collier County Property Appraiser. Accessed January 2024. http://www.collierappraiser.com Cox, James; Inkley, Douglas; and Kautz, Randy. “Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) Populations Found on Lands Slated for Large-Scale Development in Florida.” Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 4. December 1987. http://www.fwspubs.org/doi/suppl/10.3996/062015-JFWM-055/suppl_file/062015-jfwm- 055.s2.pdf?code=ufws-site “Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species”- Official List. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Updated December 2022. https://myfwc.com/media/1945/threatened-endangered-species.pdf http://myfwc.com/imperiledspecies/ Florida Invasive Species Council. “2019 FISC List of Invasive Plant Species.” http://floridainvasivespecies.org/plantlist.cfm Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification (FLUCCS) Handbook. Florida Department of Transportation. January 1999. http://www.fdot.gov/geospatial/documentsandpubs/fluccmanual1999.pdf http://www.fdot.gov/geospatial/doc_pubs.shtm Weaver, Richard E. and Anderson, Patti J. “Notes on Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Plants.” Bureau of Entomology, Nematology and Plant Pathology – Botany Section. Contribution No. 38, 5th Edition. 2010. http://freshfromflorida.s3.amazonaws.com/fl-endangered-plants.pdf http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Plant-Industry/Bureaus-and-Services/Bureau-of- Entomology-Nematology-Plant-Pathology/Botany/Florida-s-Endangered-Plants Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 142 of 1742 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FOR CU APPENDIX D INDIGO SNAKE PROTECTION MEASURES Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Page 143 of 1742 EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE Observations have been conducted on the property over several years. All surveys were conducted according to guidelines of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). No evidence of any indigo snakes has been observed but given the nature of these animals and the difficulty in observing them without being right on top of them it must be assumed that their presence on the property is a possibility. Prior to any work commencing on the property, another survey will be required to examine the clearing areas for evidence of listed species including indigo snakes. Occurrence on Site While no individuals of this federally listed snake were observed on site during the threatened and endangered species survey and subsequent updates, the presence of suitable habitat allows the possibility that the site may be home to or part of the territory of the species. Thus, the management plan below provides specific measures for species protection should an individual be located. Site Development Considerations and Species Management Protocol FWS has developed standard Indigo Snake Management Guidelines which take the form of an educational program for all personnel associated with construction on the site. A copy of the 3- page FWS hand-out is attached and will be distributed prior to the start of work, in addition to the construction site poster (also attached) that will be laminated and located in prominent areas. Prior to clearing or construction, construction personnel will be briefed on indigo snakes and given appropriate directives and contact information should any snakes be observed during the construction activities. Page 144 of 1742 STANDARD PROTECTION MEASURES FOR THE EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service December 2023 The Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake (Plan) below has been developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in Florida and Georgia for use by project proponents and their construction personnel help minimize adverse impacts to eastern indigo snakes. However, implementation of this Plan does not replace any state of federal consultation or regulatory requirements. At least 30 days prior to any land disturbance activities, the project proponent shall notify the appropriate USFWS Field Office (see Field Office contact information) via e-mail that the Plan will be implemented as described below. As long as the signatory of the e-mail certifies compliance with the below Plan (including use of the approved poster and pamphlet (USFWS Eastern Indigo Snake Conservation webpage), no further written confirmation or approval from the USFWS is needed regarding use of this Plan as a component of the project. If the project proponent decides to use an eastern indigo snake protection/education plan other than the approved Plan below, written confirmation or approval from the USFWS that the plan is adequate must be obtained. The project proponent shall submit their unique plan for review and approval. The USFWS will respond via e-mail, typically within 30 days of receiving the plan, either concurring that the plan is adequate or requesting additional information. A concurrence e-mail from the appropriate USFWS Field Office will fulfill approval requirements. STANDARD PROTECTION MEASURES BEFORE AND DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: • All Project personnel shall be notified about the potential presence and appearance of the federally protected eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi). • All personnel shall be advised that there are civil and criminal penalties for harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, capturing, or collecting the species, in knowing violation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. • The project proponent or designated agent will post educational posters in the construction office and throughout the construction site. The posters must be clearly visible to all construction staff and shall be posted in a conspicuous location in the 1 December 2023 Page 145 of 1742 Project field office until such time that Project construction has been completed and time charges have stopped. • Prior to the onset of construction activities, the project proponent or designated agent will conduct a meeting with all construction staff (annually for multi-year projects) to discuss identification of the snake, its protected status, what to do if a snake is observed within the project area, and applicable penalties that may be imposed if state and/or federal regulations are violated. An educational pamphlet including color photographs of the snake will be given to each staff member in attendance and additional copies will be provided to the construction superintendent to make available in the onsite construction office. Photos of eastern indigo snakes may be accessed on USFWS, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and/or Georgia Department of Natural Resources websites. • Each day, prior to the commencement of maintenance or construction activities, the Contractor shall perform a thorough inspection for the species of all worksite equipment. • If an eastern indigo snake (alive, dead or skin shed) is observed on the project site during construction activities, all such activities are to cease until the established procedures are implemented according to the Plan, which includes notification of the appropriate USFWS Office. The contact information for the USFWS is provided below and on the referenced posters and pamphlets. • During initial site clearing activities, an onsite observer is recommended to determine whether habitat conditions suggest a reasonable probability of an eastern indigo snake sighting (example: discovery of snake sheds, tracks, lots of refugia and cavities present in the area of clearing activities, and presence of gopher tortoises and burrows). • Periodically during construction activities, the project area should be visited to observe the condition of the posters and Plan materials and replace them as needed. Construction personnel should be reminded of the instructions (above) as to what is expected if any eastern indigo snakes are seen. • For erosion control use biodegradable, 100% natural fiber, net-free rolled erosion control blankets to avoid wildlife entanglement. POST CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: Whether or not eastern indigo snakes are observed during construction activities, a monitoring report should be submitted to the appropriate USFWS Field Office within 60 days of project completion (See USFWS Field Office Contact Information). USFWS FIELD OFFICE CONTACT INFORMATION Georgia Field Office: Phone: (706) 613-9493, email: gaes_assistance@fws.gov Florida Field Office: Phone: (352) 448-9151, email: fw4flesregs@fws.gov 2 December 2023 Page 146 of 1742 POSTER & PAMPHLET INFORMATION Posters with the following information shall be placed at strategic locations on the construction site and along any proposed access roads (final posters for Plan compliance are available on our website in English and Spanish and should be printed on 11 x 17in or larger paper and laminated (USFWS Eastern Indigo Snake Conservation webpage). Pamphlets are also available on our webpage and should be printed on 8.5 x 11in paper and folded, and available and distributed to staff working on the site. POSTER CONTENT (ENGLISH): ATTENTION Federally-Threatened Eastern Indigo Snakes may be present on this site! Killing, harming, or harassing eastern indigo snakes is strictly prohibited and punishable under State and Federal Law. IF YOU SEE A LIVE EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE OR ANY BLACK SNAKE ON THE SITE: • Stop land disturbing activities and allow the snake time to move away from the site without interference. Do NOT attempt to touch or handle the snake. • Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and documentation purposes. • Immediately notify supervisor/agent, and a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Ecological Services Field Office, with the location information and condition of the snake. • If the snake is located near clearing or construction activities that will cause harm to the snake, the activities must pause until a representative of the USFWS returns the call (within one day) with further guidance. IF YOU SEE A DEAD EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE ON THE SITE: • Stop land disturbing activities and immediately notify supervisor/applicant, and a USFWS Ecological Services Field Office, with the location information and condition of the snake. • Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and documentation purposes. • Thoroughly soak the dead snake in water and then freeze the specimen. The appropriate wildlife agency will retrieve the dead snake. DESCRIPTION: The eastern indigo snake is one of the largest non-venomous snakes in North America, reaching up to 8 ft long. Named for the glossy, blue-black scales above and slate blue below, they often have orange to reddish color (cream color in some cases) 3 December 2023 Page 147 of 1742 in the throat area. They are not typically aggressive. SIMILAR SPECIES: The black racer resembles the eastern indigo snake. However, black racers have a white or cream chin, and thinner bodies. LIFE HISTORY: Eastern indigo snakes live in a variety of terrestrial habitat types. Although they prefer uplands, they also use wetlands and agricultural areas. They will shelter inside gopher tortoise burrows, other animal burrows, stumps, roots, and debris piles. Females may lay from 4 to 12 white eggs as early as April through June, with young hatching in late July through October. PROTECTED STATUS: The eastern indigo snake is protected by the USFWS, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Any attempt to kill, harm, harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect, or engage eastern indigo snakes is prohibited by the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Penalties include a maximum fine of $25,000 for civil violations and up to $50,000 and/or imprisonment for criminal offenses. Only authorized individuals with a permit (or an Incidental Take Statement associated with a USFWS Biological Opinion) may handle an eastern indigo snake. Please contact your nearest USFWS Ecological Services Field Office if a live or dead eastern indigo snake is encountered: Florida Office: (352) 448-9151 Georgia Office: (706) 613-9493 POSTER CONTENT (SPANISH): ATENCIÓN ¡Especie amenazada, la culebra Índigo del Este, puede ocupar el área! Matar, herir o hostigar culebras Índigo del Este es estrictamente prohibido bajo la Ley Federal. SI VES UNA CULEBRA ÍNDIGO DEL ESTE O UNA CULEBRA NEGRA VIVA EN EL ÁREA: • Pare excavación y permite el movimiento de la culebra fuera del área sin interferir. NO atentes tocar o recoger la culebra. • Fotografié la culebra si es posible para identificación y documentación. • Notifique supervisor/agente, y la Oficina de Campo de Servicios Ecológicos del Servicio Federal de Pesca y Vida Silvestre (USFWS) apropiada con información acerca del sitio y condición de la culebra. 4 December 2023 Page 148 of 1742 • Si la culebra está cerca de un área de construcción que le pueda causar daño, las actividades deben parar hasta un representante del USFWS regrese la llamada (dentro de un día) con más orientación. SI VES UNA CULEBRA ÍNDIGO DEL ESTE MUERTA EN EL ÁREA: • Pare excavación. Notifique supervisor/aplicante, y la Oficina de Campo de Servicios Ecológicos apropiada con información acerca del sitio y condición de la culebra. • Fotografié la culebra si es posible para identificación y documentación. • Emerge completamente la culebra en agua y congele la especie hasta que personal apropiado de la agencia de vida silvestre la recoja. DESCRIPCIÓN. La culebra Índigo del Este es una de las serpientes sin veneno más grande en Norte América, alcanzando hasta 8 pies de largo. Su nombre proviene del color azul-negro brilloso de sus escamas, pero pueden tener un color anaranjado-rojizo (color crema en algunos casos) en su mandíbula inferior. No tienden a ser agresivas. SERPIENTES PARECIDAS. La corredora negra, que es de color negro sólido, es la única otra serpiente que se asemeja a la Índigo del Este. La corredora negra se diferencia por una mandíbula inferior color blanca o crema y un cuerpo más delgado. HÁBITATS Y ECOLOGÍA. La culebra Índigo del Este vive en una variedad de hábitats, incluyendo tierras secas, humedales, y áreas de agricultura. Ellas buscan refugio en agujeros o huecos de tierra, en especial madrigueras de tortugas de tierra. Las hembras ponen 4 hasta 12 huevos blancos entre abril y junio, y la cría emergen entre julio y octubre. PROTECCIÓN LEGAL. La culebra Índigo del Este es clasificada como especie amenazada por el USFWS, la Comisión de Conservación de Pesca y Vida Silvestre de Florida y el Departamento de Recursos Naturales de Georgia. Intento de matar, hostigar, herir, lastimar, perseguir, cazar, disparar, capturar, colectar o conducta parecida hacia las culebras Índigo del Este es prohibido por la Ley Federal de Especies en Peligro de Extinción. Penalidades incluyen un máximo de $25,000 por violaciones civiles y $50,000 y/o encarcelamiento por actos criminales. Solos individuales autorizados con un permiso o Determinación de toma incidental (Incidental Take Statement) asociado con una Opinión Biológico del USFWS pueden recoger una Índigo del Este. Por favor de contactar tu Oficina de Campo de Servicios Ecológicos más cercana si encuentras una culebra Índigo del Este viva o muerta: Oficina de Florida: (352) 448-9151 Oficina de Georgia: (706) 613-9493 5 December 2023 Page 149 of 1742 ATTENTION Federally-Threatened Eastern Indigo Snakes may be present on this site! Killing, harming, or harassing eastern indigo snakes is strictly prohibited and punishable under State and Federal Law. Credit: Dirk Stevenson If you see a LIVE eastern indigo snake on the site: • Stop land disturbing activities and allow the snake time to move away from the site without interference. Do NOT attempt to touch or handle the snake. • Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and documentation purposes. • Immediately notify supervisor/agent, and a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Ecological Services Field Office, with the location information and condition of the snake. • If the snake is located near clearing or construction activities that will cause harm to the snake, the activities must pause until a representative of the USFWS returns the call (within one day) with further guidance. If you see a DEAD eastern indigo snake on the site: • Stop land disturbing activities and immediately notify supervisor/applicant, and a USFWS Ecological Services Field Office, with the location information and condition of the snake. • Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and documentation purposes. • Thoroughly soak the dead snake in water and then freeze the specimen. The appropriate wildlife agency will retrieve the dead snake. Eastern indigo snake. Credit: Dirk Stevenson DESCRIPTION. The eastern indigo snake is one of the largest non-venomous snakes in North America, reaching up to 8 ft long. Named for the glossy, blue- black scales above and slate blue below, they often have orange to reddish color (cream color in some cases) in the throat area. They are not typically aggressive. SIMILAR SPECIES. The black racer resembles the eastern indigo snake. However, black racers have a white or cream chin, and thinner bodies. Gopher tortoise and burrow. Credit: James Hunt LIFE HISTORY. Eastern indigo snakes live in a variety of terrestrial habitat types. Although they prefer uplands, they also use wetlands and agricultural areas. They will shelter inside gopher tortoise burrows, other animal burrows, stumps, roots, and debris piles. Females may lay from 4 to 12 white eggs as early as April through June, with young hatching in late July through October. PROTECTED STATUS. The eastern indigo snake is protected by the USFWS, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Please contact your nearest USFWS Commission, and Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Ecological Services Field Office if a Any attempt to kill, harm, harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, live or dead eastern indigo snake is trap, capture, collect, or engage eastern indigo snakes is encountered: prohibited by the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Penalties include a maximum fine of $25,000 for civil violations and up to Florida Office: (352) 448-9151 $50,000 and/or imprisonment for criminal offenses. Only Georgia Office: (706) 613-9493 authorized individuals with a permit (or an Incidental Take Statement associated with a USFWS Biological Opinion) may handle an eastern indigo snake. Page 150 of 1742 ATENCIÓN ¡Especie amenazada, la culebra Índigo del Este, puede ocupar el área! Matar, herir o hostigar culebras Índigo del Este es estrictamente prohibido bajo la Ley Federal. Foto: Dirk Stevenson Si ves una culebra Índigo del Este VIVA en el área: • Pare excavación y permite el movimiento de la culebra fuera del área sin interferir. NO atentes tocar o recoger la culebra. • Fotografié la culebra si es posible para identificación y documentación. • Notifique supervisor/agente, y la Oficina de Campo de Servicios Ecológicos del Servicio Federal de Pesca y Vida Silvestre (USFWS) apropiada con información acerca del sitio y condición de la culebra. • Si la culebra está cerca de un área de construcción que le pueda causar daño, las actividades deben parar hasta un representante del USFWS regrese la llamada (dentro de un día) con más orientación. Si ves una culebra Índigo del Este MUERTA en el área: • Pare excavación. Notifique supervisor/aplicante, y la Oficina de Campo de Servicios Ecológicos apropiada con información acerca del sitio y condición de la culebra. • Fotografié la culebra si es posible para identificación y documentación. • Emerge completamente la culebra en agua y congele la especie hasta que personal apropiado de la agencia de vida silvestre la recoja. Una culebra Índigo del Este. Foto: Dirk Stevenson DESCRIPCIÓN. La culebra Índigo del Este es una de las serpientes sin veneno más grande en Norte América, alcanzando hasta 8 pies de largo. Su nombre proviene del color azul-negro brilloso de sus escamas, pero pueden tener un color anaranjado-rojizo (color crema en algunos casos) en su mandíbula inferior. No tienden a ser agresivas. SERPIENTES PARECIDAS. La corredora negra, que es de color negro sólido, es la única otra serpiente que se asemeja a la Índigo del Este. La corredora negra se diferencia por una mandíbula inferior color blanca o crema y un cuerpo más delgado. Tortuga de tierra y madriguera. Foto: James Hunt HÁBITATS Y ECOLOGÍA. La culebra Índigo del Este vive en una variedad de hábitats, incluyendo tierras secas, humedales, y áreas de agricultura. Ellas buscan refugio en agujeros o huecos de tierra, en especial madrigueras de tortugas de tierra. Las hembras ponen 4 hasta 12 huevos blancos entre abril y junio, y la cría emergen entre julio y octubre. PROTECCIÓN LEGAL. La culebra Índigo del Este es clasificada como especie amenazada por el USFWS, la Comisión de Conservación de Por favor de contactar tu Pesca y Vida Silvestre de Florida y el Departamento de Recursos Oficina de Campo de Servicios Naturales de Georgia. Intento de matar, hostigar, herir, lastimar, Ecológicos más cercana si perseguir, cazar, disparar, capturar, colectar o conducta parecida encuentras una culebra hacia las culebras Índigo del Este es prohibido por la Ley Federal de Índigo del Este viva o muerta: Especies en Peligro de Extinción. Penalidades incluyen un máximo de $25,000 por violaciones civiles y $50,000 y/o encarcelamiento por Oficina de Florida: (352) 448-9151 actos criminales. Solos individuales autorizados con un permiso o Oficina de Georgia: (706) 613-9493 Determinación de toma incidental (Incidental Take Statement) asociado con una Opinión Biológico del USFWS pueden recoger una Índigo del Este. Page 151 of 1742If you see a LIVE eastern indigo snake If you see a DEAD eastern indigo snake on Description. The eastern indigo snake is one on the site: the site: of the largest non-venomous snakes in North America, reaching up to 8 ft long. • Please do NOT attempt to touch or • Stop land disturbing activities and They derive their name from the glossy, handle the snake. Stop land immediately notify the supervisor or blue-black color of their scales above and disturbing activities and allow the designated agent, and the nearest uniformly slate blue below. They often have snake time to move away from the USFWS Ecological Services Field orange to reddish colors in the throat area; site without interference. Office, with location information and some have cream colors on the throat. They condition of the snake. are not typically aggressive and will • Take photographs of the snake, if attempt to crawl away when disturbed. possible, for identification and • Take photographs of the snake, if documentation purposes. possible, for identification and Similar Species. The black racer is a solid documentation purposes. black snake resembling the eastern indigo Immediately notify supervisor or the • snake. However, black racers have a white applicant’s designated agent, and • Thoroughly soak the dead snake in or cream chin and thinner bodies. the nearest U.S. Fish and Wildlife water and then freeze the specimen. Service (USFWS) Ecological The appropriate wildlife agency will Life History. Eastern indigo snakes live in a Services Field Office, with location retrieve the dead snake. variety of terrestrial habitat types. information and condition of the Although they prefer uplands, they also use snake. wetlands and agricultural areas. They will Contact your nearest USFWS Ecological often seek shelter inside gopher tortoise Services Field Office if you encounter a • If the snake is located near land burrows, other animal burrows, stumps, disturbance or construction live or dead eastern indigo snake: roots, and debris piles. Females may lay activities that will cause harm to the from 4 to 12 white eggs as early as April snake, pause these activities until a Florida Office (352) 448-9151 through June, with young hatching in late representative of the USFWS Georgia Office (706) 613-9493 July through October. returns the call (within one day) with further guidance. Page 152 of 1742 Killing, harming, or harassing indigo snakes is strictly prohibited and punishable ATTENTION: under State and Federal Law. THREATENED EASTERN Protected Status. The eastern indigo snake INDIGO SNAKES MAY BE is classified as a Threatened species by the USFWS, Florida Fish and Wildlife PRESENT ON THIS SITE! Conservation Commission, and Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Any attempt to kill, harm, harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect, or engage eastern indigo snakes is prohibited by the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Penalties include a maximum fine of $25,000 for civil violations and up to $50,000 and/or imprisonment for criminal offenses. Only individuals authorized to handle an eastern indigo snake through Photo: Dirk Stevenson an issued Incidental Take Statement in association with a USFWS Biological Opinion, or by a Section 10 permit issued Please read the following by the USFWS, are allowed to do so. information provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on standard protection measures for the eastern indigo snake. Page 153 of 1742 Si ves una culebra Índigo del Este VIVA en Si ves una culebra Índigo del Este MUERTA Descripción. La culebra Índigo del Este es el área: en el área: una de las serpientes sin veneno más grande en Norte América, alcanzando hasta 8 pies • Por favor NO atentes tocar o • Pare excavación. Notifique de largo. Su nombre proviene del color azul- recoger la culebra. Pare supervisor/aplicante, y la Oficina negro brilloso de sus escamas, pero pueden excavación y permite el de Campo de Servicios Ecológicos tener un color anaranjado-rojizo en su movimiento de la culebra fuera del de USFWS apropiada con mandíbula inferior. No tienden a ser área sin interferir. información acerca del sitio y agresivas e intentarán esconderse al ser condición de la culebra. molestada (descubierta). Aunque es raro • Fotografié la culebra si es posible • Fotografié la culebra si es posible que muerda, NO deben ser tocadas, excepto para ayudar en la identificación y para ayudar en la identificación y por personal autorizado. documentación. documentación. • Emerge completamente la culebra Serpientes Parecidas. La corredora negra, • Notifique un supervisor/aplicante, en agua y congele la especie hasta que es de color negro sólido, es la única otra y la Oficina de Campo de Servicios que personal apropiado de la serpiente que se asemeja a la Índigo del Ecológicos del Servicio Federal de agencia de vida silvestre la recoja. Este. La corredora negra se diferencia de la Índigo del Este por una mandíbula inferior Pesca y Visa Silvestre (USFWS) color blanca, un cuerpo más delgado. apropiada con información acerca del sitio y condición de la culebra. Por favor de contactar tu USFWS Hábitats y Ecología. La culebra Índigo del Oficina de Campo de Servicios Este vive en una variedad de hábitats, • Si la culebra está cerca de un área Ecológicos más cercana si encuentras incluyendo tierras secas, humedales, y una culebra Índigo del Este viva o de construcción que le pueda áreas de agricultura. Ellas buscan refugio causar daño, las actividades deben muerta: en agujeros o huecos de tierra, en especial parar temporalmente hasta un madrigueras de tortugas de tierra. Las representante del USFWS regrese Oficina de Florida: (352) 448-9151 hembras ponen hasta 12 huevos blancos la llamada (dentro de un día) con Oficina de Georgia: (706) 613-9493 entre mayo y junio, y la cría emergen entre más orientación e instrucciones. julio y octubre. Page 154 of 1742Matar, herir o hostigar culebras Índigo del Este es estrictamente ATENCÍON: prohibido bajo la Ley Federal. Una especie amenazada, la Protección Legal. La culebra Índigo del culebra Índigo del Este puede Este es clasificada como especie ocupar este hábitat! amenazada por el Servicio Federal de Pesca y Vida Silvestre, la Comisión de Conservación de Pesca y Vida Silvestre de Florida y el Departamento de Recursos Naturales de Georgia. Intento de matar, hostigar, herir, lastimar, perseguir, cazar, disparar, capturar, colectar o conducta parecida hacia las culebras Índigo del Este es estrictamente prohibido por la Ley Federal de Especies en Peligro de Extinción. Penalidades incluyen un máximo de $25,000 por violaciones civiles y $50,000 y/o encarcelamiento por actos Foto: Dirk Stevenson criminales. Solos individuales autorizados con un permiso (i.e., 10a1A/10a1B) o una Determinación de toma incidental Por favor revise está información (Incidental Take Statement) asociado con publicada por el Servicio Federal una Opinión Biológico del Servicio de Pesca y Vida Silvestre acerca Federal pueden recoger una Índigo del de la culebra Índigo del Este Este. Page 155 of 1742 Legend Capling SR 29 Mine: 1,401.8 acres CampRD Keais Pope John Paul RanchOne RD II BLVD Frattina ST RD Line County SR 29 SR Wyatt LN Ellerston WAY Pringle LN Pringle Oil Well RD Pacific Grade RD Grade Pacific Oil Well Park RD Miles Rock Springs RD 0 0.5 1 2 ¹ PROJECT: CLIENT: EXHIBIT DESC: CAPLING SR 29 MINE CAPLING SR 29 MINE LOCATION MAP LOCATION: NOTES: EAST OF SR 29, NORTH OF OIL WELL RD SOURCES: COLLIER COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (2024) 2600 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY Date Saved: 6/25/2024 NAPLES, FL 34105 P:\Active_Projects\P-HARK-001\001-CaplingSR29Mine\Planning\GIS\2024-06-25-Location_Map.mxd Page 156 of 1742 1" = 2000' SCALE: S.R. 29 40' 40'PROJECT LIMITS30'ROAD HAUL 10'TYPE'A' 2' FLAT 4' 60' QUARRYLAKE BUFFER ASECTIONN.T.S. 10' HIGH BERM 39' QUARRY LAKE AREA = ±99.8AC 44' PROJECT LIMITS 39' LEGEND SOIL BORING LOCATIONS PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXCAVATION DEPTH (FT) (MEASURED FROM EX. GRADE) LAKE (QUARRY EXCAVATION AREA) HISTORIC SITE 8CR01649 HABITAT STEWARDSHIP AREA FLOWWAY PROJECT: TITLE: CLIENT: REVISIONS: SEC: TWP: RGE: No: Revision: Date: Designed by: JAW PENINSULA Drawn by: JAW ENGINEERING EXHIBIT "D" - Date: 09/2025 CAPLING SR-29 Drawing Scale: 1" = 2000' • CIVIL ENGINEERING • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE MAXIMUM HARKER FARMS, LLC • PLANNING AND ZONING • SURVEYING File Name: P-HARK-001-001-C00-X07.dwg • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES• LAND DEVELOPMENT MINE 2600 Golden Gate Pkwy 239.403.6700 EXCAVATION DEPTHS Project Number: P-HARK-001-001 Naples, FL 34105 Pen-Eng.com Sheet ID: Florida Engineering C.A #28275 X07 Sheet Number: of [Save Date: 10/24/2025 3:35:42 PM] [By: ASpagnola] [Plot Date: 10/27/2025 8:47:38 AM] [By: Antonette Spagnola] [Original Size: 8.5X11] [Path: P:\Active_Projects\P-HARK-001\001-CaplingSR29Mine\Drawings-Civil\C00-Exhibits\X07-Exhibit_D-Maximum_Excavation_Depths\Rev01\Sheet_Files\P-HARK-001-001-C00-X07.dwg [Plot Date: Antonette Spagnola]ASpagnola] 10/27/2025 8:47:38 AM] [By: [By: [Save Date: [Original Size: 8.5X11] [Path: 10/24/2025 3:35:42 PM] Florida Landscape C.A #LC26000632 01 01 Page 157 of 1742 Florida's Leading Engineering Source Report of Geotechnical Exploration Capling Mine – Immokalee (Part 2) East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd. (Parcel : 00231640006) Immokalee, Collier County, Florida August 7, 2025 UES Project No.: 0530.2500183.0000 Prepared For: Capling Leveling, Inc. PO Box 1997 Labelle, Florida 33975 Attention: Josh Hatcher Phone: (863) 612-1000 Prepared By: UES 201 Waldo Avenue North Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 Phone: (239) 489-2443 www.teamues.com Page 158 of 1742 August 7, 2025 Josh Hatcher Capling Leveling, Inc. PO Box 1997 Labelle, Florida 33975 Phone: (863) 612-1000 Email: jhatcher@caplinglevling.com Site: Report of Geotechnical Findings Capling Mine – Immokalee (Part 2) East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd. (Parcel: 00231640006) Immokalee, Collier County, Florida UES Project No. 0530.2500183.0000 Dear Josh Hatcher: UES has completed the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation for the above-referenced project in accordance with the geotechnical and engineering service agreement for this project. The scope of services was completed in accordance with UES's Geotechnical Engineering Proposal (0530.0525.00015) planned in conjunction with and authorized by you. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of our subsurface exploration was to classify the nature of the subsurface soils and general geomorphic conditions and evaluate their impact upon the proposed construction. This report contains the results of our subsurface exploration at the site and our engineering interpretations of these, with respect to the project characteristics described to us including providing recommendations for site preparation. UES understands that you wish to gain a better understanding of the subsurface profile of a proposed new potential mine site located East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd in Immokalee, FL. UES understands the site was utilized for farming operations previously. Document provided to UES was an aerial map of the site with desired test locations. A total of twenty-three (23) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings advanced to varying depths of approximately 70 to 100 feet below ground surface (BGS) were completed for this study. Based on the review of the boring logs, the subsurface profile across the site generally consists of surficial deposits of loose to medium dense sand (SP), often containing varying amounts of shell material and occasional silty or clayey components (SP-SM, SP-SC). These sands typically extend to depths of approximately 10 to 20 feet below ground surface (bgs). Beneath this layer, the soil transitions into silty and clayey sands (SM, SC) and low-plasticity clays (CL), exhibiting soft to stiff consistency with increasing depth. These finer-grained soils are occasionally interbedded with shelly layers and weathered limestone fragments. At depths ranging from approximately 40 to 60 feet bgs, borings encountered weathered limestone (WLS) and competent limestone (LS), with several instances of practical refusal and hard drilling conditions noted. 201 Waldo Avenue North • Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 • (239) 489-2443 • (239) 489-3438 (fax) www.teamUES.com Page 159 of 1742 Capling Mine (Part 2) – East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd Letter of Findings Immokalee, Collier County, Florida August 7, 2025 UES Project No. 0530.2500183.0000 Page 2 of 10 Groundwater was encountered in multiple borings, though specific depths varied and were not consistently recorded. The presence of high shell content and limestone at relatively shallow depths is characteristic of subsurface conditions commonly found in South Florida. Below is a description of the different strata encountered:  Sand (SP): Very loose to very dense, dark brown to light brown, dark gray to light gray, orange, and tan. Where encountered, this material is suitable for use as structural fill.  Slightly Silty Sand (SP-SM): Very loose to very dense, brown, gray to light gray, and tan. Where encountered, this material is suitable for use as structural fill so long as the overall fine content remains below 12% (further lab testing may be needed to confirm this).  Silty Sand (SM): Very loose to very dense, gray to light gray, and tan. This material is not recommended for use as structural fill. It may be possible for use as embankment fill. If the material can be mixed with clean sands to lower fine contents to below 12% fines, then this material may be used as structural fill.  Slightly Clayey Sand (SP-SC): Loose to very dense, brown and gray. Where encountered, this material is suitable for use as structural fill so long as the overall fine content remains below 12% (further lab testing may be needed to confirm this).  Clayey Sand (SC): Very loose to medium dense, brown and gray. This material is not recommended for use as structural fill. It may be possible for use as embankment fill. If the material can be mixed with clean sands to lower fine contents to below 12% fines, then this material may be used as structural fill.  Clay (CL): Very soft to very stiff, gray. Where encountered this material is not recommend for use as structural fill, it may be difficult to use this material as embankment fill as strict moisture control will be necessary in order to reach required compactions. If the material can be mixed with clean fill to lower fines contents to below 12% fines, then this material may be used as structural fill.  Weathered Limestone (WLS): Soft to hard, gray to light gray, and orange. Where encountered, this material can generally be used as structural fill material but should not be placed within the top 2 feet below finished grade. Any weathered limestone with a fines content over 12% should be mixed with clean sand to bring the fines content below 12%. This material may be able to be used as road base material if mixed properly to meet the required specifications.  Limestone (LS): Hard, gray. Where encountered, this material can generally be used as structural fill material (after crushing) but should not be placed within the top 2 feet below finished grade. This material may also be utilized as rip-rap, aggregate, or as roadway base, the amount of crushing needed will be determined by job specific specifications. Further lab testing should be completed to determine the suitability for each purpose. The soil samples recovered from the soil borings were visually classified, and their stratification is illustrated in “Appendix D - Record of Test Borings". It should be noted that soil conditions might vary between the strata interfaces shown on the logs. The soil boring data reflects information from a specific test location only. Page 160 of 1742 Capling Mine (Part 2) – East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd Letter of Findings Immokalee, Collier County, Florida August 7, 2025 UES Project No. 0530.2500183.0000 Page 3 of 10 UES appreciates the opportunity to be of service to you on this project and looks forward to a continued association. Please do not hesitate to contact UES if you have any questions or comments, or if UES may further assist you as your plans proceed. Respectfully Submitted, UES Registry Number 4930 Ashok Neela Geotechnical Staff Engineer Carlos A. Mercado, P.E. No. 71707 State of Florida Principal Engineer This document has been digitally signed and sealed by Carlos Mercado on the date adjacent to the seal. The signature must be verified on any electronic copies. Page 161 of 1742 Capling Mine (Part 2) – East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd Letter of Findings Immokalee, Collier County, Florida August 7, 2025 UES Project No. 0530.2500183.0000 Page 4 of 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Scope of Services ........................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 5 2.0 OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Site Inspection................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Field Exploration ............................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Laboratory Testing .......................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Geomorphic Conditions ................................................................................................... 6 2.5 Hydrogeological Conditions ............................................................................................. 6 2.6 Exfiltration Tests .............................................................................................................. 7 3.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................. 8 3.1 General ........................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Fill Suitability Evaluation .................................................................................................. 9 4.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS .....................................................................................................10 5.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................10 Appendix A - Vicinity Map Appendix B - Test Location Plan Appendix C - Notes Related to Borings Appendix D - Record of Test Borings Appendix E - Discussion of Soil Groups Appendix F – Exfiltration Test Results Appendix G – Laboratory Testing Results Page 162 of 1742 Capling Mine (Part 2) – East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd Letter of Findings Immokalee, Collier County, Florida August 7, 2025 UES Project No. 0530.2500183.0000 Page 5 of 10 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Scope of Services The objective of the geotechnical services was to collect subsurface data for the subject project and summarize the test results. The scope of services was limited to the following: 1. Prepare records of the soil boring logs depicting the subsurface soil conditions encountered during the field exploration. 2. Conduct a review of each soil sample obtained during the field exploration for classification and additional testing if necessary. 3. Evaluate the existing soil conditions found during the exploration with respect to the possibility for use as fill material in future projects. 4. Provide recommendations with respect to possible excavation of tested areas and preparation procedures of the excavated materials for later use as possible fill material. 1.2 Project Description UES understands that you wish to gain a better understanding of the subsurface profile of a proposed new potential mine site located East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd in Immokalee, FL. UES understands the site was utilized for farming operations previously. Document provided to UES was an aerial map of the site with desired test locations. 2.0 OBSERVATIONS 2.1 Site Inspection The recovered samples were not evaluated, either visually or analytically, for chemical composition or environmental hazards. UES would be pleased to perform these services for an additional fee, if required. 2.2 Field Exploration The field exploration was comprised of performing twenty-three (23) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings advanced to varying depths of approximately 70 to 100 feet below the existing ground surface (BGS) completed at the desired boring locations. The locations of the borings performed are illustrated in “Appendix B - Test Location Plan". The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) boring method was used as the investigative tool within the borings. SPT tests were performed in substantial accordance with ASTM Procedure D-1586, “Penetration Test and Split- Barrel Sampling of Soils”. This test procedure consists of driving a 1.4-inch I.D. split-tube sampler into the soil profile using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows per foot for the second and third 6-inch increments is an indication of soil strength. The soil samples recovered from the soil borings were visually classified and their stratification is illustrated in "Appendix D: Record of Test Borings". It should be noted that soil conditions might vary between the strata interfaces shown on the logs. Page 163 of 1742 Capling Mine (Part 2) – East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd Letter of Findings Immokalee, Collier County, Florida August 7, 2025 UES Project No. 0530.2500183.0000 Page 6 of 10 The soil boring data reflect information from a specific test location only. Site specific survey staking for the test locations was not provided for the field exploration. The indicated depth and location of each test was approximated based upon existing grade and estimated distances and relationships to obvious landmarks. The boring depths were selected based on UES's knowledge of vicinity soils and to include the zone of soil likely to be stressed by the proposed construction. 2.3 Laboratory Testing Soil samples recovered from the field exploration were returned to UES’s laboratory where they were visually classified in general accordance with ASTM D-2488. Samples were evaluated to obtain an accurate understanding of the soil properties and site geomorphic conditions. After performing a review of the recovered site soils, UES selected representative soil samples from the borings for laboratory testing to aid in classifying the soils. The results of some of these tests are shown on the boring logs in Appendix D. The detailed test results are attached in Appendix G: Laboratory Test Results. A summary of the tests performed is shown in Table 1. TABLE 1: LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES Number Test Performed Reference Performed Grain Size Analysis ASTM D 1140 “Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the 30 (#200 wash only) No. 200 (75 - µm) sieve” ASTM D 4318 “Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Atterberg Limits Determination 4 Index of Soils” 2.4 Geomorphic Conditions Boring logs derived from the field exploration are presented in "Appendix D: Record of Test Borings". The boring logs depict the observed soils in graphic detail. The Standard Penetration Test borings indicate the penetration resistance, or N-values, logged during the drilling and sampling activities. The classifications and descriptions shown on the logs are generally based upon visual characterizations of the recovered soil samples. All soil samples reviewed have been depicted and classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, modified as necessary to describe typical southwest Florida conditions. See "Appendix E: Discussion of Soil Groups", for a detailed description of various soil groups. 2.5 Hydrogeological Conditions On the dates of the field exploration, the groundwater table was encountered at ground level to depths of approximately 2 to 8 feet below the existing ground surface. The groundwater table will fluctuate seasonally depending upon local rainfall and other site specific and/or local influences such as tidal events. Brief ponding of stormwater may occur across the site after heavy rains. Horizontal and vertical survey control was not provided for the boring locations. Ground surface elevations at the boring locations would be beneficial to help UES identify any anomalies in our measured and estimated seasonal high groundwater levels, as well as improve the usefulness of the groundwater information during the civil engineering design of the site. Page 164 of 1742 Capling Mine (Part 2) – East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd Letter of Findings Immokalee, Collier County, Florida August 7, 2025 UES Project No. 0530.2500183.0000 Page 7 of 10 UES will not be responsible for the performance of any site improvements designed and constructed based on the reported soil and groundwater depths without horizontal and vertical survey control. No additional investigation was included in the scope of work in relation to the wet seasonal high groundwater table or any existing well fields in the vicinity. Well fields may influence water table levels and cause significant fluctuations. If a more comprehensive water table analysis is necessary, please contact UES for additional guidance. 2.6 Exfiltration Tests As requested, UES performed thirteen (13) constant head usual open hole tests at the desired locations. Based on the results of the SFWMD’s Usual Open Hole Test, the hydraulic conductivity rates were shown in the Table 2 below. TABLE 2: EXFILTRATION TEST RESULTS Test Location Hydraulic Conductivity (cfs/ft2-ft.head) Exfil-1 3.34 x10-4 Exfil-2 2.22 x10-4 Exfil-3 2.65 x10-4 Exfil-4 2.23 x10-4 Exfil-5 3.02 x10-4 Exfil-6 3.09 x10-4 Exfil-7 6.30 x10-5 Exfil-8 8.70 x10-5 Exfil-9 2.90 x10-5 Exfil-10 6.00 x10-5 Exfil-12 2.25 x10-4 Exfil-13 2.15 x10-4 Exfil-14 4.23 x10-4 UES was unable to perform exfiltration test at location Exfil-11 due to the refusal of hand auger equipment at shallower depth. The detailed test results are attached in “Appendix F: Exfiltration Test Results.” UES performs hydraulic conductivity tests using generally accepted practices of the local stormwater management system design. However, the user of this information is cautioned that the potential variability of results and reproducibility associated with these influencing the permeability of a soil. These factors include, but are not limited to, soil grain size, soil particle arrangement and structure, dispersion of soil fines, density, and degree of saturation, soil heterogeneity, and soil anisotropy. Also, the permeability measured by such tests may not be representative of that of the total effective aquifer thickness. Factors of safety can compensate for part of the inherent test limitations, but the designer must exercise judgment regarding final selection and applicability of provided soil design input parameters. Should the modeling analysis indicate marginally acceptable compliance with Water Management District design criteria, it may be advisable to perform more extensive and representative in-situ permeability testing by installing grouted piezometers or wells for slug testing. UES can perform these field tests if desired Page 165 of 1742 Capling Mine (Part 2) – East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd Letter of Findings Immokalee, Collier County, Florida August 7, 2025 UES Project No. 0530.2500183.0000 Page 8 of 10 3.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 General Based on the review of the boring logs, the subsurface profile across the site generally consists of surficial deposits of loose to medium dense sand (SP), often containing varying amounts of shell material and occasional silty or clayey components (SP-SM, SP-SC). These sands typically extend to depths of approximately 10 to 20 feet below ground surface (bgs). Beneath this layer, the soil transitions into silty and clayey sands (SM, SC) and low-plasticity clays (CL), exhibiting soft to stiff consistency with increasing depth. These finer-grained soils are occasionally interbedded with shelly layers and weathered limestone fragments. At depths ranging from approximately 40 to 60 feet bgs, borings encountered weathered limestone (WLS) and competent limestone (LS), with several instances of practical refusal and hard drilling conditions noted. Groundwater was encountered in multiple borings, though specific depths varied and were not consistently recorded. The presence of high shell content and limestone at relatively shallow depths is characteristic of subsurface conditions commonly found in South Florida. Below is a description of the different strata encountered:  Sand (SP): Very loose to very dense, dark brown to light brown, dark gray to light gray, orange, and tan. Where encountered, this material is suitable for use as structural fill.  Slightly Silty Sand (SP-SM): Very loose to very dense, brown, gray to light gray, and tan. Where encountered, this material is suitable for use as structural fill so long as the overall fine content remains below 12% (further lab testing may be needed to confirm this).  Silty Sand (SM): Very loose to very dense, gray to light gray, and tan. This material is not recommended for use as structural fill. It may be possible for use as embankment fill. If the material can be mixed with clean sands to lower fine contents to below 12% fines, then this material may be used as structural fill.  Slightly Clayey Sand (SP-SC): Loose to very dense, brown and gray. Where encountered, this material is suitable for use as structural fill so long as the overall fine content remains below 12% (further lab testing may be needed to confirm this).  Clayey Sand (SC): Very loose to medium dense, brown and gray. This material is not recommended for use as structural fill. It may be possible for use as embankment fill. If the material can be mixed with clean sands to lower fine contents to below 12% fines, then this material may be used as structural fill.  Clay (CL): Very soft to very stiff, gray. Where encountered this material is not recommend for use as structural fill, it may be difficult to use this material as embankment fill as strict moisture control will be necessary in order to reach required compactions. If the material can be mixed with clean fill to lower fines contents to below 12% fines, then this material may be used as structural fill.  Weathered Limestone (WLS): Soft to hard, gray to light gray, and orange. Where encountered, this material can generally be used as structural fill material but should not be placed within the top 2 feet below finished grade. Page 166 of 1742 Capling Mine (Part 2) – East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd Letter of Findings Immokalee, Collier County, Florida August 7, 2025 UES Project No. 0530.2500183.0000 Page 9 of 10 Any weathered limestone with a fines content over 12% should be mixed with clean sand to bring the fines content below 12%. This material may be able to be used as road base material if mixed properly to meet the required specifications.  Limestone (LS): Hard, gray. Where encountered, this material can generally be used as structural fill material (after crushing) but should not be placed within the top 2 feet below finished grade. This material may also be utilized as rip-rap, aggregate, or as roadway base, the amount of crushing needed will be determined by job specific specifications. Further lab testing should be completed to determine the suitability for each purpose. 3.2 Fill Suitability Evaluation Based on the visual classifications, it is UES’s opinion a majority of the soils classified as sand (SP) and slightly silty sand (SP-SM) or slightly clayey sand (SP-SC) are suitable for use as structural fill. UES typically recommends structural fill materials containing less than 12 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. If some near surface soils are found to contain more than 12 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve (SM or SC), these soils can be used by blending these soils with the clean surficial sands and using proper moisture control and compaction techniques, to obtain specified field densities with vibratory equipment. The degree of compaction will be dependent upon the utilization of the fill (roadway, structural, etc.). Large rocks may occasionally be encountered in the surficial strata and will require crushing prior to use as structural fill. The amount of rock crushing should be determined during the excavation program. If large amounts of roots are encountered in any of the near surface soils, UES recommends screening of these soils be completed to remove the roots prior to placement over the site. As evidenced in the borings, possible structural sand fill material extends generally to the boring termination depths of approximately 100 feet below the existing grade with the exception of silty sands, clayey sands and clay (where encountered). Some of the overburden soils mixed with shell or crushed rock may also be suitable for use as roadway stabilized subbase material. Additional laboratory testing would be necessary to verify the suitability of the soils for this purpose. This testing would consist of Limerock Bearing Ratio tests of bulk samples that could be obtained during excavation. The weathered and/or fractured limestone (WLS/LS), when encountered during excavation, can generally be used as structural fill material but should not be placed within the top 2 feet below finished grade. Any weathered limestone with a fines content over 12% should be mixed with clean sand to bring the fines content below 12%. Strict Moisture control may be required when silt contents are 5% or more. Depending on the silt and clay content, a sheepsfoot roller may be required to compact these soils to the required density. If it is desired to further evaluate utilizing this material as structural fill, UES should be contacted to provide recommendations for supplemental work required to use the soils in this manner. The true confining unit to the surficial aquifer in this area typically consists of a greenish-gray clayey sand or clay. UES did not encounter greenish-gray clays to boring termination depths of 100 feet BGS. UES recommends that the planned excavations be maintained at least 3 to 4 feet above these strata. Page 167 of 1742 Capling Mine (Part 2) – East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd Letter of Findings Immokalee, Collier County, Florida August 7, 2025 UES Project No. 0530.2500183.0000 Page 10 of 10 4.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS This consulting report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the current project owners and other members of the design team for the proposed Capling Mine located at East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd in Immokalee, Collier County, Florida. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted local geotechnical engineering practices; no other warranty is expressed or implied. The evaluation submitted in this report is based in part upon the data collected during a field exploration. However, the nature and extent of variations throughout the subsurface profile may not become evident until the time of excavation. If variations then appear evident, it may be necessary to reevaluate information and professional opinions as provided in this report. UES is not responsible for damage caused by excavation and/or construction activity vibrations related to this project. UES is also not responsible for damage concerning drainage or moisture related issues for the proposed or nearby structures. 5.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the data obtained from the tests performed at the locations indicated on the attached figure in Appendix B. This report does not reflect any variations, which may occur between borings. While the borings are representative of the subsurface conditions at their respective locations and for their vertical reaches, local variations characteristic of the subsurface soils of the region are anticipated and may be encountered. The delineation between soil types shown on the soil logs is approximate and the description represents UES’s interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the designated boring locations on the particular date drilled. Any third-party reliance on this geotechnical report or parts thereof is strictly prohibited without the expressed written consent of UES. The methodology (ASTM D-1586) used in performing the borings and for determining penetration resistance is specific to the sampling tools utilized and does not reflect the ease or difficulty of advancing other tools or materials. Page 168 of 1742Appendix A - Vicinity Map Page 169 of 1742 Site Location Immokalee, FL Project Site VICINITY MAP Capling Mine – Part 2 SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH PRO© East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd Immokalee, Collier County, FL Drawn By: Checked By: Date: Carson Clouse AJD 06/09/2025 Project No.: Approved By: 0530.2500183.0000 PageAdam Dornacker, 170 of P.E. 1742Appendix B - Test Location Plan Page 171 of 1742 Site Location Immokalee, FL Test locations are an approximation. Horizontal and vertical survey control was not provided for the test locations. The indicated test locations on this test location plan should be considered approximate and accurate to the degree implied by the methodologies used to locate the test locations in the field. GPS coordinates can be provided upon request. Capling Mine – Part 2 TEST LOCATION PLAN East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH PRO© Immokalee, Collier County, FL SB-# Approximate SPT test boring location Drawn By: Checked By: Date: Exfil-# Approximate Exfiltration test location Carson Clouse AJD 06/09/2025 Project No.: Approved By: 0530.2500183.0000 PageAdam Dornacker, 172 of P.E. 1742 Site Location Immokalee, FL Test locations are an approximation. Horizontal and vertical survey control was not provided for the test locations. The indicated test locations on this test location plan should be considered approximate and accurate to the degree implied by the methodologies used to locate the test locations in the field. GPS coordinates can be provided upon request. Capling Mine – Part 2 TEST LOCATION PLAN East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH PRO© Immokalee, Collier County, FL SB-# Approximate SPT test boring location Exfil-# Approximate Exfiltration test location Drawn By: Checked By: Date: Carson Clouse AJD 06/09/2025 Project No.: Approved By: 0530.2500183.0000 PageAdam Dornacker, 173 of P.E. 1742Appendix C - Notes Related to Borings Page 174 of 1742 NOTES RELATED TO RECORDS OF TEST BORING AND GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE 1. Groundwater level was encountered and recorded (if shown) following the completion of the soil test boring on the date indicated. Fluctuations in groundwater levels are common; consult report text for a discussion. 2. The boring location was identified and located in the field based on measured and estimated distances from existing site features. 3. The borehole was backfilled to site grade following boring completion, patched with asphalt cold patch mix when pavement was encountered. 4. The Record of Test Boring represents our interpretation of field conditions based on engineering examination of the soil samples. 5. The Record of Test Boring is subject to the limitations, conclusions, and recommendations presented in the report text. 6. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed in accordance ASTM Procedure D-1586. SPT testing procedure consists of driving a 1.4-inch I.D. split-tube sampler into the soil profile using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. 7. On the Record of Test Boring listed as “Blow Counts”, the N-value is the sum of the SPT hammer blows required to drive the split-tube sampler through the second and third 6-inch increment of the sampling layer, and is an indication of soil strength. 8. Shown on the Record of Test Boring an SPT N-value expressed as 50/2” is descriptive of the fact that 50 hammer blows were required to drive the split-spoon sampler a distance of approximately 2 inches. 9. The soil/rock strata interfaces shown on the Records of Test Boring are approximate and may vary from those in the field. The soil/rock conditions shown on the Records of Test Boring refer to conditions at the specific location tested; soil/rock conditions may vary between test locations. 10. Relative density and consistency for sands/gravels, silts/clays, and limestone are described as follows: Cohesionless Soils Silts and Clays Limestone Safety Auto Relative Safety Auto Consistency SPT (N-Value) Relative SPT (N-Value) SPT (N-Value) Density SPT (N-Value) SPT (N-Value) Density 0–4 0–3 Very Loose 0–2 0–1 Very Soft 0–50 Soft 5 – 10 4 – 8 Loose 3 – 5 2 – 4 Soft 51 – 50/0” Hard 11 – 30 9 – 24 Medium Dense 6 – 7 5 – 6 Firm 31 – 50 25 – 40 Dense 8 – 15 7 – 12 Stiff Over 50 Over 40 Very Dense 16 – 30 13 – 24 Very Stiff Over 30 Over 24 Hard 11. Definition of descriptive terms of modifiers for silts/clays/shells/gravels are described as follows: Percentage of Modifier Material First Qualifier Second Qualifier 0 – 5 (No mention) (No mention) 5 – 12 Slightly + Modifier + y With Trace 12 – 30 Modifier + y With Some 30 – 50 Very + Modifier + y And 12. Descriptive characteristics for organic content percentages are described as follows: Percentage of Organic Material Descriptor 0 – 2.5 (No mention) 2.5 – 5 With a Trace of Organics 5–20 Organic 20 – 75 Highly Organic 75 – 100 Peat Page 175 of 1742Appendix D - Record of Test Borings Page 176 of 1742 SOIL PROFILES SOIL PROFILE LEGEND SOIL LEGEND Light to Dark Brown, Light to Dark Gray, Green, B-X = BORING NUMBER Orange, Tan N = SPT TEST 1 SAND (SP) SOIL TYPE X Very Loose to Very Dense VALUE Brown, Light Gray to Gray, Tan B-55 B-56 B-57 GROUND WATER Slightly Silty SAND (SP-SM) 0 N-AUTO N-AUTO N-AUTO LEVEL 2 Very Loose to Very Dense 4 7 5 INDICATES PRACTICAL SOIL SYMBOL 9 11 7 REFUSAL TO BORING Light Gray to Gray,Tan EQUIPMENT Silty SAND (SM) 8 1 10 1 7 3 Very Loose to Very Dense 1 9 4 11 = INDICATES GRADUAL TRANSITION IN SOIL TYPES 8 9 13 Brown, Gray 10 Slightly Clayey SAND (SP-SC) NOTES: 4 Loose to Very Dense -200=10.1% 58 With WLS 5 2 N - STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE TEST 2 4 (SPT) VALUE. NUMBERS TO THE RIGHT OF Brown, Gray BORINGS INDICATE SPT VALUE FOR 12-INCHES Clayey SAND (SC) Very Shelly & 5 Very Loose to Medium Dense 10 12 3 OF PENETRATION (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED). 20 With Some WLS WOH - BORING INTERVAL ADVANCED UNDER Gray Very Shelly & 15 9 4 WEIGHT OF HAMMER. CLAY (CL) With Limestone Fragments 6 Very Soft to Very Stiff WOR - BORING INTERVAL ADVANCED UNDER With Some Limestone Very Shelly & WEIGHT OF ROD. 9 5 3 Light Gray to Gray, Orange Fragments With Some WLS WEATHERED LIMESTONE (WLS) 30 1 LFC - LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID CIRCULATION. 7 Soft to Hard With Limestone 10 6 Very Shelly 4 WLS - WEATHERED LIMESTONE Fragments Gray LIMESTONE (LS) HA - NO RECORDED N VALUE DUE TO HAND 8 Hard 1 Shelly & 7 13 5 Very Shelly 6 AUGERING PROCEDURE With Some WLS 40 NO RECOVERY Very Shelly & 24 5 1 9 2 With Some WLS 50 11 With Some WLS 50/2"@49' 33 8 10 50/2" 47 SOIL CLASSIFICATION CORRELATION OF N - VALUES WITH RELATIVE CORRELATION OF N - VALUES WITH DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY HARDNESS DESCRIPTION 32 14 16 60 7 COHESIONLESS SOIL SILTS AND CLAYS LIMEROCK N - VALUE N - VALUE N - VALUE N - VALUE CONSISTENCY N - VALUE RELATIVE DENSITY RELATIVE DENSITY (SAFETY) (AUTO) (SAFETY) (AUTO) 17 8 9 0 - 4 0 - 3 VERY LOOSE 0 - 2 0 - 1 VERY SOFT 0 - 50 SOFT 5 - 10 4 - 8 LOOSE 3 - 5 2 - 4 SOFT 51 - 50 FOR 0" HARD 11 - 30 9 - 24 MEDIUM DENSE 6 - 7 5 - 6 FIRM 7 25 - 40 DENSE 7 - 12 STIFF 35 8 9 31 - 50 8 - 15 1 OVER 50 OVER 40 VERY DENSE 16 - 30 13 - 24 VERY STIFF 70 OVER 30 OVER 24 HARD With Some Limestone 1 31 14 Fragments 13 APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATE FINES MODIFIERS SHELL MODIFIERS ORGANIC CONTENT MODIFIERS CONTENT CONTENT 0% TO 2.5% NO MENTION 20 -200=16.3% 10 45 Very Shelly 5% TO 12% SLIGHTLY SILTY OR SLIGHTLY CLAYEY 0% TO 5% NO MENTION 2.5% TO 5% WITH A TRACE 12% TO 25% SILTY OR CLAYEY 5% TO 12% SLIGHTLY SHELLY 5% TO 20% WITH ORGANICS 80 26% TO 49% VERY SILTY OR VERY CLAYEY 13% TO 30% SHELLY 20% TO 75% HIGHLY ORGANIC -200=18.5% 31% TO 50% VERY SHELLY 75% TO 100% PEAT 7 16 15 DEFINITION OF DESCRIPTIVE TERMS OF MODIFIERS FOR SILTS/CLAYS/SHELLS/GRAVELS ARE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 3 PERCENTAGE OF MODIFIER MATERIAL FIRST QUALIFIER SECOND QUALIFIER 3 7 55 5 5 - 12 SLIGHTLY + MODIFIER + Y WITH A LITTLE 90 4 12 - 30 MODIFIER + Y WITH SOME 30 - 50 VERY + MODIFIER + Y AND 14 29 11 1 RECORD OF TEST BORINGS DEPTHFEET IN 18 30 1 12 Client: Capling Leveling, Inc. 100 UES Date: 06/11/2025 Project No: 0530.2500183.0000 07/09/2025 06/23/2025 07/01/2025 201 Waldo Ave. N. Drilled By: CB/JC Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 Project: Rig: GP-3230 Capling Mine 239-489-2443 Drawn By: CD/ CC www.teamues.com Immokalee, Collier County, FL (East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd. Approved By: AJD Page 177 of 1742 SOIL PROFILES SOIL PROFILE LEGEND SOIL LEGEND Light to Dark Brown, Light to Dark Gray, Green, B-X = BORING NUMBER Orange, Tan N = SPT TEST 1 SAND (SP) SOIL TYPE X Very Loose to Very Dense VALUE Brown, Light Gray to Gray, Tan B-58 B-59 B-60 GROUND WATER Slightly Silty SAND (SP-SM) 0 N-AUTO N-AUTO N-AUTO LEVEL 2 Very Loose to Very Dense 5 4 3 INDICATES PRACTICAL SOIL SYMBOL 13 11 3 REFUSAL TO BORING Light Gray to Gray,Tan EQUIPMENT Silty SAND (SM) 10 7 9 3 Very Loose to Very Dense 1 16 8 1 14 = INDICATES GRADUAL TRANSITION IN SOIL TYPES 15 1 6 14 Brown, Gray 10 Slightly Clayey SAND (SP-SC) NOTES: 4 Loose to Very Dense 23 1/18" 7 With WLS N - STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE TEST 7 2 (SPT) VALUE. NUMBERS TO THE RIGHT OF Brown, Gray BORINGS INDICATE SPT VALUE FOR 12-INCHES Clayey SAND (SC) Very Shelly & 5 Very Loose to Medium Dense 5 15 11 Very Shelly OF PENETRATION (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED). 20 With WLS Driller's Note: HD: 21'-22' WOH - BORING INTERVAL ADVANCED UNDER Gray 2 Very Shelly & 7 3 12 8 Very Shelly WEIGHT OF HAMMER. CLAY (CL) With WLS 6 Very Soft to Very Stiff WOR - BORING INTERVAL ADVANCED UNDER With Limestone WEIGHT OF ROD. 8 Shelly 12 4 Very Shelly Light Gray to Gray, Orange Fragments WEATHERED LIMESTONE (WLS) 30 1 LFC - LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID CIRCULATION. 7 Soft to Hard 12 Very Shelly 10 4 Very Shelly WLS - WEATHERED LIMESTONE Gray LIMESTONE (LS) CS - CEMENTED SANDS 8 Hard 1 1 18 Very Shelly 11 5 Very Shelly 40 HA - NO RECORDED N VALUE DUE TO HAND AUGERING PROCEDURE NO RECOVERY 9 Very Shelly 11 4 Very Shelly 9 2 50 15 Very Shelly 26 14 Very Shelly 7 Very Shelly & 5 Very Shelly 13 38 SOIL CLASSIFICATION With Some WLS CORRELATION OF N - VALUES WITH RELATIVE CORRELATION OF N - VALUES WITH 7 1 Very Shelly & DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY HARDNESS DESCRIPTION 13 50/1" 21 60 8 With WLS COHESIONLESS SOIL SILTS AND CLAYS LIMEROCK N - VALUE N - VALUE N - VALUE N - VALUE CONSISTENCY N - VALUE RELATIVE DENSITY RELATIVE DENSITY (SAFETY) (AUTO) (SAFETY) (AUTO) 35 -200=22.9% 5 7 0 - 4 0 - 3 VERY LOOSE 0 - 2 0 - 1 VERY SOFT 0 - 50 SOFT 5 - 10 4 - 8 LOOSE 3 - 5 2 - 4 SOFT 51 - 50 FOR 0" HARD 11 - 30 9 - 24 MEDIUM DENSE 6 - 7 5 - 6 FIRM Very Shelly & 31 - 50 25 - 40 DENSE 7 - 12 STIFF 33 9 7 8 - 15 With WLS OVER 50 OVER 40 VERY DENSE 16 - 30 13 - 24 VERY STIFF 70 OVER 30 OVER 24 HARD Very Shelly & 3 21 5 9 With Some WLS With WLS APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATE -200=18.6% 4 FINES MODIFIERS SHELL MODIFIERS ORGANIC CONTENT MODIFIERS CONTENT CONTENT 0% TO 2.5% NO MENTION 12 16 Shelly & With WLS 14 Shelly 5% TO 12% SLIGHTLY SILTY OR SLIGHTLY CLAYEY 0% TO 5% NO MENTION 2.5% TO 5% WITH A TRACE 12% TO 25% SILTY OR CLAYEY 5% TO 12% SLIGHTLY SHELLY 5% TO 20% WITH ORGANICS 80 26% TO 49% VERY SILTY OR VERY CLAYEY 13% TO 30% SHELLY 20% TO 75% HIGHLY ORGANIC 31% TO 50% VERY SHELLY 75% TO 100% PEAT 1 32 35 43 DEFINITION OF DESCRIPTIVE TERMS OF MODIFIERS FOR SILTS/CLAYS/SHELLS/GRAVELS ARE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PERCENTAGE OF MODIFIER MATERIAL FIRST QUALIFIER SECOND QUALIFIER 21 30 1 52 5 - 12 SLIGHTLY + MODIFIER + Y WITH A LITTLE 90 12 - 30 MODIFIER + Y WITH SOME 1 30 - 50 VERY + MODIFIER + Y AND 27 Slightly Shelly 47 66 RECORD OF TEST BORINGS DEPTHFEET IN 50/2" Slightly Shelly 49 38 Client: Capling Leveling, Inc. 100 UES Date: 07/31/2025 Project No: 0530.2500183.0000 06/12/2025 07/08/2025 07/02/2025 201 Waldo Ave. N. Drilled By: CB/JC Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 Project: Rig: GP-3230 Capling Mine 239-489-2443 Drawn By: CD/ CC www.teamues.com Immokalee, Collier County, FL (East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd. Approved By: AJD Page 178 of 1742 SOIL PROFILES SOIL PROFILE LEGEND SOIL LEGEND Light to Dark Brown, Light to Dark Gray, Green, B-X = BORING NUMBER Orange, Tan N = SPT TEST 1 SAND (SP) SOIL TYPE X Very Loose to Very Dense VALUE Brown, Light Gray to Gray, Tan B-61 B-62 B-63 GROUND WATER Slightly Silty SAND (SP-SM) 0 N-AUTO N-AUTO N-AUTO LEVEL 2 Very Loose to Very Dense 8 5 4 INDICATES PRACTICAL SOIL SYMBOL 10 10 6 REFUSAL TO BORING Light Gray to Gray,Tan 1 EQUIPMENT Silty SAND (SM) 7 7 11 3 Very Loose to Very Dense 12 1 8 1 2 = INDICATES GRADUAL TRANSITION IN SOIL TYPES With WLS 18 19 16 Brown, Gray 10 2 Slightly Clayey SAND (SP-SC) 4 Loose to Dense -200=16.1% NOTES: Very 8 With WLS 50/0" 12 N - STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE TEST 8 3 (SPT) VALUE. NUMBERS TO THE RIGHT OF Brown, Gray BORINGS INDICATE SPT VALUE FOR 12-INCHES Clayey SAND (SC) 3 5 Very Loose to Medium Dense 4 3 14 OF PENETRATION (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED). 20 Driller's Note: LFC: 19'-40' WOH - BORING INTERVAL ADVANCED UNDER Gray 7 WEIGHT OF HAMMER. CLAY (CL) 10 Very Shelly 13 5 6 Very Soft to Very Stiff 7 WOR - BORING INTERVAL ADVANCED UNDER WEIGHT OF ROD. Light Gray to Gray, Orange 3 Very Shelly 7 Very Shelly 2 WEATHERED LIMESTONE (WLS) 30 LFC - LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID CIRCULATION. 7 Soft to Hard 1 6 Very Shelly 6 Very Shelly 9 WLS - WEATHERED LIMESTONE Gray 9 LIMESTONE (LS) CS - CEMENTED SANDS 8 Hard 1 6 Very Shelly 5 Very Shelly 9 40 1 HA - NO RECORDED N VALUE DUE TO HAND AUGERING PROCEDURE NO RECOVERY 9 3 Shelly 5 Very Shelly 8 3 -200=16.2% 2 WOH Very Shelly 3 50 9 3 2 22 13 7 Shelly SOIL CLASSIFICATION CORRELATION OF N - VALUES WITH RELATIVE CORRELATION OF N - VALUES WITH DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY HARDNESS DESCRIPTION 41 6 9 Shelly 60 7 COHESIONLESS SOIL SILTS AND CLAYS LIMEROCK N - VALUE N - VALUE N - VALUE N - VALUE CONSISTENCY N - VALUE RELATIVE DENSITY RELATIVE DENSITY 7 (SAFETY) (AUTO) (SAFETY) (AUTO) 16 18 24 0 - 4 0 - 3 VERY LOOSE 0 - 2 0 - 1 VERY SOFT 0 - 50 SOFT 5 - 10 4 - 8 LOOSE 3 - 5 2 - 4 SOFT 51 - 50 FOR 0" HARD 11 - 30 9 - 24 MEDIUM DENSE 6 - 7 5 - 6 FIRM 25 - 40 DENSE 7 - 12 STIFF 8 17 31 31 - 50 8 - 15 OVER 50 OVER 40 VERY DENSE 16 - 30 13 - 24 VERY STIFF 70 OVER 30 OVER 24 HARD 7 9 9 28 APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATE FINES MODIFIERS SHELL MODIFIERS ORGANIC CONTENT MODIFIERS CONTENT CONTENT 0% TO 2.5% NO MENTION 10 14 28 5% TO 12% SLIGHTLY SILTY OR SLIGHTLY CLAYEY 0% TO 5% NO MENTION 2.5% TO 5% WITH A TRACE With WLS 12% TO 25% SILTY OR CLAYEY 5% TO 12% SLIGHTLY SHELLY 5% TO 20% WITH ORGANICS 80 1 26% TO 49% VERY SILTY OR VERY CLAYEY 13% TO 30% SHELLY 20% TO 75% HIGHLY ORGANIC 31% TO 50% VERY SHELLY 75% TO 100% PEAT 9 9 14 DEFINITION OF DESCRIPTIVE TERMS OF MODIFIERS FOR SILTS/CLAYS/SHELLS/GRAVELS ARE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 1 PERCENTAGE OF MODIFIER MATERIAL FIRST QUALIFIER SECOND QUALIFIER 12 24 10 5 - 12 SLIGHTLY + MODIFIER + Y WITH A LITTLE 90 12 - 30 MODIFIER + Y WITH SOME 2 30 - 50 VERY + MODIFIER + Y AND -200=10.7% 7 9 8 4 RECORD OF TEST BORINGS DEPTHFEET IN 7 26 Slightly Shelly 18 Client: Capling Leveling, Inc. 100 UES Date: 06/11/2025 Project No: 0530.2500183.0000 06/24/2025 06/25/2025 07/14/2025 201 Waldo Ave. N. Drilled By: CB/JC Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 Project: Rig: GP-3230 Capling Mine 239-489-2443 Drawn By: CD/ CC www.teamues.com Immokalee, Collier County, FL (East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd. Approved By: AJD Page 179 of 1742 SOIL PROFILES SOIL PROFILE LEGEND SOIL LEGEND Light to Dark Brown, Light to Dark Gray, Green, B-X = BORING NUMBER Orange, Tan N = SPT TEST 1 SAND (SP) SOIL TYPE X Very Loose to Very Dense VALUE Brown, Light Gray to Gray, Tan B-64 B-65 B-66 GROUND WATER Slightly Silty SAND (SP-SM) 0 N-AUTO N-AUTO N-AUTO LEVEL 2 Very Loose to Very Dense 4 9 2 3 INDICATES PRACTICAL SOIL SYMBOL 9 6 4 REFUSAL TO BORING Light Gray to Gray,Tan EQUIPMENT Silty SAND (SM) 6 9 13 3 Very Loose to Very Dense 1 10 11 1 12 = INDICATES GRADUAL TRANSITION 1 IN SOIL TYPES 5 8 11 Brown, Gray 10 Slightly Clayey SAND (SP-SC) 4 Loose to Dense -200=15.4% NOTES: Very 11 Slightly Shelly 15 5 N - STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE TEST 2 7 3 (SPT) VALUE. NUMBERS TO THE RIGHT OF Brown, Gray BORINGS INDICATE SPT VALUE FOR 12-INCHES Clayey SAND (SC) -200=15.8% With Some WLS & 5 Very Loose to Medium Dense 10 8 9 OF PENETRATION (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED). 20 3 3 Shelly WOH - BORING INTERVAL ADVANCED UNDER Gray WEIGHT OF HAMMER. CLAY (CL) 3 With Limestone Fragments 4 Shelly 9 6 Very Soft to Very Stiff WOR - BORING INTERVAL ADVANCED UNDER WEIGHT OF ROD. Light Gray to Gray, Orange 15 With Limestone Fragments 5 Shelly 7 WEATHERED LIMESTONE (WLS) 30 1 LFC - LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID CIRCULATION. 7 Soft to Hard 17 With Limestone Fragments 16 Shelly 5 Very Shelly WLS - WEATHERED LIMESTONE Gray 1 LIMESTONE (LS) CS - CEMENTED SANDS 8 Hard 3 5 Shelly 5 Very Shelly 40 HA - NO RECORDED N VALUE DUE TO HAND AUGERING PROCEDURE NO RECOVERY 1 2 9 8 Very Shelly 5 Shelly 11 Very Shelly 50 9 Very Shelly 8 Slightly Shelly 5 Very Shelly 1 6 Very Shelly 7 Shelly 12 SOIL CLASSIFICATION CORRELATION OF N - VALUES WITH RELATIVE CORRELATION OF N - VALUES WITH DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY HARDNESS DESCRIPTION 29 Very Shelly 39 21 60 7 COHESIONLESS SOIL SILTS AND CLAYS LIMEROCK N - VALUE N - VALUE N - VALUE N - VALUE CONSISTENCY N - VALUE RELATIVE DENSITY RELATIVE DENSITY 7 (SAFETY) (AUTO) (SAFETY) (AUTO) 50/4"@64' 42 18 0 - 4 0 - 3 VERY LOOSE 0 - 2 0 - 1 VERY SOFT 0 - 50 SOFT 8 5 - 10 4 - 8 LOOSE 3 - 5 2 - 4 SOFT 51 - 50 FOR 0" HARD 11 - 30 9 - 24 MEDIUM DENSE 6 - 7 5 - 6 FIRM 25 - 40 DENSE 7 - 12 STIFF 18 8 31 - 50 8 - 15 With WLS 14 OVER 50 OVER 40 VERY DENSE 16 - 30 13 - 24 VERY STIFF 70 OVER 30 OVER 24 HARD 8 10 -200=20.6% 13 APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATE FINES MODIFIERS SHELL MODIFIERS ORGANIC CONTENT MODIFIERS CONTENT CONTENT 0% TO 2.5% NO MENTION 10 9 15 5% TO 12% SLIGHTLY SILTY OR SLIGHTLY CLAYEY 0% TO 5% NO MENTION 2.5% TO 5% WITH A TRACE 12% TO 25% SILTY OR CLAYEY 5% TO 12% SLIGHTLY SHELLY 5% TO 20% WITH ORGANICS 80 26% TO 49% VERY SILTY OR VERY CLAYEY 13% TO 30% SHELLY 20% TO 75% HIGHLY ORGANIC 2 31% TO 50% VERY SHELLY 75% TO 100% PEAT 1 21 18 3 18 DEFINITION OF DESCRIPTIVE TERMS OF MODIFIERS FOR SILTS/CLAYS/SHELLS/GRAVELS ARE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PERCENTAGE OF MODIFIER MATERIAL FIRST QUALIFIER SECOND QUALIFIER -200=24.2% 13 20 36 5 - 12 SLIGHTLY + MODIFIER + Y WITH A LITTLE 90 12 - 30 MODIFIER + Y WITH SOME 30 - 50 VERY + MODIFIER + Y AND 24 18 25 RECORD OF TEST BORINGS DEPTHFEET IN 50/3" 1 50/4" 50/2"@99' Client: Capling Leveling, Inc. 100 UES Date: 06/11/2025 Project No: 0530.2500183.0000 06/05/2025 07/15/2025 07/16/2025 201 Waldo Ave. N. Drilled By: CB/JC Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 Project: Rig: GP-3230 Capling Mine 239-489-2443 Drawn By: CD/ CC www.teamues.com Immokalee, Collier County, FL (East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd. Approved By: AJD Page 180 of 1742 SOIL PROFILES SOIL PROFILE LEGEND SOIL LEGEND Light to Dark Brown, Light to Dark Gray, Green, B-X = BORING NUMBER Orange, Tan N = SPT TEST 1 SAND (SP) SOIL TYPE X Very Loose to Very Dense VALUE Brown, Light Gray to Gray, Tan B-67 B-68 B-69 GROUND WATER Slightly Silty SAND (SP-SM) 0 N-AUTO N-AUTO N-AUTO LEVEL 2 Very Loose to Very Dense 3 6 4 INDICATES PRACTICAL SOIL SYMBOL 10 12 1 8 REFUSAL TO BORING Light Gray to Gray,Tan 1 1 EQUIPMENT Silty SAND (SM) 12 11 15 3 Very Loose to Very Dense 16 4 5 Slightly Shelly 16 = INDICATES GRADUAL TRANSITION With Some Limestone With Some Limestone Fragments IN SOIL TYPES 24 14 21 Fragments 4 Brown, Gray 10 2 Slightly Clayey SAND (SP-SC) NOTES: 4 Loose to Very Dense Shelly & 15 11 Shelly 8 Shelly With WLS 1 N - STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE TEST (SPT) VALUE. NUMBERS TO THE RIGHT OF Brown, Gray -200=19.1% BORINGS INDICATE SPT VALUE FOR 12-INCHES Clayey SAND (SC) Shelly & 5 Very Loose to Medium Dense 13 Very Shelly 51 11 Slightly Shelly OF PENETRATION (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED). 20 With Some WLS 3 WOH - BORING INTERVAL ADVANCED UNDER Gray WEIGHT OF HAMMER. CLAY (CL) 5 Very Shelly 15 Very Shelly 6 6 Very Soft to Very Stiff WOR - BORING INTERVAL ADVANCED UNDER WEIGHT OF ROD. 5 Very Shelly 17 Very Shelly 5 Light Gray to Gray, Orange 1 WEATHERED LIMESTONE (WLS) 30 7 LFC - LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID CIRCULATION. 7 Soft to Hard 10 Very Shelly 13 Very Shelly 3 WLS - WEATHERED LIMESTONE Gray 1 LIMESTONE (LS) CS - CEMENTED SANDS 8 Hard 10 Very Shelly 10 Very Shelly 12 Shelly 40 1 HA - NO RECORDED N VALUE DUE TO HAND AUGERING PROCEDURE NO RECOVERY 6 Very Shelly 7 Very Shelly 3 Very Shelly 9 2 7 10 Very Shelly 7 Very Shelly 50 3 25 Very Shelly 23 -200=27.8% 6 Very Shelly SOIL CLASSIFICATION 7 CORRELATION OF N - VALUES WITH RELATIVE CORRELATION OF N - VALUES WITH 2 DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY HARDNESS DESCRIPTION 57 Shelly 21 Shelly 2 Very Shelly 60 7 COHESIONLESS SOIL SILTS AND CLAYS LIMEROCK N - VALUE N - VALUE N - VALUE N - VALUE CONSISTENCY N - VALUE RELATIVE DENSITY RELATIVE DENSITY (SAFETY) (AUTO) (SAFETY) (AUTO) Shelly 23 Very Shelly 18 14 0 - 4 0 - 3 VERY LOOSE 0 - 2 0 - 1 VERY SOFT 0 - 50 SOFT 2 5 - 10 4 - 8 LOOSE 3 - 5 2 - 4 SOFT 51 - 50 FOR 0" HARD 11 - 30 9 - 24 MEDIUM DENSE 6 - 7 5 - 6 FIRM 25 - 40 DENSE 7 - 12 STIFF 25 31 - 50 8 - 15 14 17 OVER 50 OVER 40 VERY DENSE 16 - 30 13 - 24 VERY STIFF 70 1 OVER 30 OVER 24 HARD 13 11 21 APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATE FINES MODIFIERS SHELL MODIFIERS ORGANIC CONTENT MODIFIERS 1 CONTENT CONTENT 0% TO 2.5% NO MENTION 2 7 20 15 Slightly Shelly 26 5% TO 12% SLIGHTLY SILTY OR SLIGHTLY CLAYEY 0% TO 5% NO MENTION 2.5% TO 5% WITH A TRACE 12% TO 25% SILTY OR CLAYEY 5% TO 12% SLIGHTLY SHELLY 5% TO 20% WITH ORGANICS 80 26% TO 49% VERY SILTY OR VERY CLAYEY 13% TO 30% SHELLY 20% TO 75% HIGHLY ORGANIC -200=23.6% 31% TO 50% VERY SHELLY 75% TO 100% PEAT 10 12 Shelly 27 DEFINITION OF DESCRIPTIVE TERMS OF MODIFIERS FOR SILTS/CLAYS/SHELLS/GRAVELS ARE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 3 PERCENTAGE OF MODIFIER MATERIAL FIRST QUALIFIER SECOND QUALIFIER Shelly 18 17 25 5 - 12 SLIGHTLY + MODIFIER + Y WITH A LITTLE 90 2 12 - 30 MODIFIER + Y WITH SOME 30 - 50 VERY + MODIFIER + Y AND 28 Shelly 19 Very Shelly 34 With Some WLS 1 2 RECORD OF TEST BORINGS DEPTHFEET IN 42 16 Shelly 43 Client: Capling Leveling, Inc. 100 UES Date: 06/11/2025 Project No: 0530.2500183.0000 06/06/2025 06/10/2025 06/04/2025 201 Waldo Ave. N. Drilled By: CB/JC Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 Project: Rig: GP-3230 Capling Mine 239-489-2443 Drawn By: CD/ CC www.teamues.com Immokalee, Collier County, FL (East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd. Approved By: AJD Page 181 of 1742 SOIL PROFILES SOIL PROFILE LEGEND SOIL LEGEND Light to Dark Brown, Light to Dark Gray, Green, B-X = BORING NUMBER Orange, Tan N = SPT TEST 1 SAND (SP) SOIL TYPE X Very Loose to Very Dense VALUE Brown, Light Gray to Gray, Tan B-70 B-71 B-72 GROUND WATER Slightly Silty SAND (SP-SM) 0 N-AUTO N-AUTO N-AUTO LEVEL 2 Very Loose to Very Dense 4 3 2 INDICATES PRACTICAL SOIL SYMBOL 8 8 5 REFUSAL TO BORING Light Gray to Gray,Tan EQUIPMENT Silty SAND (SM) 11 6 10 3 Very Loose to Very Dense 13 1 9 8 = INDICATES GRADUAL TRANSITION IN SOIL TYPES 14 7 8 1 Brown, Gray 10 Slightly Clayey SAND (SP-SC) NOTES: 4 Loose to Very Dense Shelly & 6 -200=24.3% 3 11 With WLS With WLS 1 N - STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE TEST 3 (SPT) VALUE. NUMBERS TO THE RIGHT OF Brown, Gray BORINGS INDICATE SPT VALUE FOR 12-INCHES Clayey SAND (SC) 5 Very Loose to Medium Dense 7 7 6 With WLS OF PENETRATION (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED). 20 7 7 WOH - BORING INTERVAL ADVANCED UNDER Gray Shelly & Very Shelly & -200=37.1% 1 6 5 WEIGHT OF HAMMER. CLAY (CL) With WLS With Some WLS 6 Very Soft to Very Stiff WOR - BORING INTERVAL ADVANCED UNDER WEIGHT OF ROD. 3 Very Shelly Light Gray to Gray, Orange 9 7 5 WEATHERED LIMESTONE (WLS) 30 7 LFC - LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID CIRCULATION. 7 Soft to Hard 7 4 Very Shelly 5 Very Shelly WLS - WEATHERED LIMESTONE Gray 9 LIMESTONE (LS) CS - CEMENTED SANDS 8 Hard -200=22.7% 1 3 Shelly 7 Very Shelly 7 Very Shelly 40 3 HA - NO RECORDED N VALUE DUE TO HAND AUGERING PROCEDURE NO RECOVERY Very Shelly & 7 Very Shelly 9 Very Shelly 2 9 1 2 With WLS 2 Very Shelly & 7 Very Shelly 11 38 With Some WLS 50 Driller's Note: HD: 50'-60' 7 Slightly Shelly 7 Very Shelly 29 SOIL CLASSIFICATION 1 CORRELATION OF N - VALUES WITH RELATIVE CORRELATION OF N - VALUES WITH 7 DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY HARDNESS DESCRIPTION 50/2" 6 Very Shelly 20 60 COHESIONLESS SOIL SILTS AND CLAYS LIMEROCK N - VALUE N - VALUE N - VALUE N - VALUE CONSISTENCY N - VALUE RELATIVE DENSITY RELATIVE DENSITY (SAFETY) (AUTO) (SAFETY) (AUTO) 50/1" 24 Slightly Shelly 35 0 - 4 0 - 3 VERY LOOSE 0 - 2 0 - 1 VERY SOFT 0 - 50 SOFT 8 5 - 10 4 - 8 LOOSE 3 - 5 2 - 4 SOFT 51 - 50 FOR 0" HARD 11 - 30 9 - 24 MEDIUM DENSE 6 - 7 5 - 6 FIRM 25 - 40 DENSE 7 - 12 STIFF 50/2" 13 5 Slightly Shelly 31 - 50 8 - 15 OVER 50 OVER 40 VERY DENSE 16 - 30 13 - 24 VERY STIFF 70 7 OVER 30 OVER 24 HARD -200=23.6% 13 14 Slightly Shelly 20 Slightly Shelly APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATE FINES MODIFIERS SHELL MODIFIERS ORGANIC CONTENT MODIFIERS CONTENT CONTENT 0% TO 2.5% NO MENTION 17 10 Shelly 17 Slightly Shelly 5% TO 12% SLIGHTLY SILTY OR SLIGHTLY CLAYEY 0% TO 5% NO MENTION 2.5% TO 5% WITH A TRACE 12% TO 25% SILTY OR CLAYEY 5% TO 12% SLIGHTLY SHELLY 5% TO 20% WITH ORGANICS 80 1 26% TO 49% VERY SILTY OR VERY CLAYEY 13% TO 30% SHELLY 20% TO 75% HIGHLY ORGANIC 31% TO 50% VERY SHELLY 75% TO 100% PEAT 3 Shelly 27 17 25 Slightly Shelly DEFINITION OF DESCRIPTIVE TERMS OF MODIFIERS FOR SILTS/CLAYS/SHELLS/GRAVELS ARE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 1 PERCENTAGE OF MODIFIER MATERIAL FIRST QUALIFIER SECOND QUALIFIER Shelly 19 12 29 5 - 12 SLIGHTLY + MODIFIER + Y WITH A LITTLE 90 12 - 30 MODIFIER + Y WITH SOME -200=9.4% 30 - 50 VERY + MODIFIER + Y AND 61 16 Very Shelly LL=NP 13 1 PL=NP RECORD OF TEST BORINGS PI=NP 4 DEPTHIN FEET 59 22 Shelly 50/4" Client: Capling Leveling, Inc. 100 UES Date: 06/11/2025 Project No: 0530.2500183.0000 07/17/2025 06/09/2025 07/18/2025 201 Waldo Ave. N. Drilled By: CB/JC Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 Project: Rig: GP-3230 Capling Mine 239-489-2443 Drawn By: CD/ CC www.teamues.com Immokalee, Collier County, FL (East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd. Approved By: AJD Page 182 of 1742 SOIL PROFILES SOIL PROFILE LEGEND SOIL LEGEND Light to Dark Brown, Light to Dark Gray, Green, B-X = BORING NUMBER Orange, Tan N = SPT TEST 1 SAND (SP) SOIL TYPE X Very Loose to Very Dense VALUE Brown, Light Gray to Gray, Tan B-73 B-74 B-75 GROUND WATER Slightly Silty SAND (SP-SM) N-AUTO N-AUTO N-AUTO LEVEL 2 Very Loose to Very Dense 0 -200=9.3% 1 3 3 1 15 INDICATES PRACTICAL 1 SOIL SYMBOL 2 4 10 4 8 REFUSAL TO BORING Light Gray to Gray,Tan 5 5 11 22 EQUIPMENT Silty SAND (SM) 1 3 Very Loose to Very Dense 13 15 With Limestone Fragments 72 = INDICATES GRADUAL TRANSITION -200=12.6% IN SOIL TYPES 1 14 11 20 1 Slightly Shelly Very Shelly Brown, Gray 10 2 Slightly Clayey SAND (SP-SC) NOTES: 4 Loose to Very Dense 18 15 -200=55.3% 15 N - STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE TEST 6 (SPT) VALUE. NUMBERS TO THE RIGHT OF Brown, Gray 7 Very Shelly & BORINGS INDICATE SPT VALUE FOR 12-INCHES Clayey SAND (SC) 7 5 Very Loose to Medium Dense 3 6 6 With Some OF PENETRATION (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED). 20 1 Limestone Fragments -200=64.6% -200=25.1% WOH - BORING INTERVAL ADVANCED UNDER Gray WEIGHT OF HAMMER. CLAY (CL) LL=24 1/24" With Some WLS 5 With WLS 5 Very Shelly 6 Very Soft to Very Stiff 6 3 PL=15 WOR - BORING INTERVAL ADVANCED UNDER PI=9 LL=52 WEIGHT OF ROD. Slightly Shelly Light Gray to Gray, Orange 2 PL=18 6 3 Very Shelly WEATHERED LIMESTONE (WLS) 30 PI=33 6 LFC - LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID CIRCULATION. 7 Soft to Hard 2 2 4 Shelly 3 Very Shelly 4 Very Shelly WLS - WEATHERED LIMESTONE Gray LIMESTONE (LS) CS - CEMENTED SANDS 8 Hard 3 3 3 Very Shelly 42 Very Shelly 40 9 HA - NO RECORDED N VALUE DUE TO HAND AUGERING PROCEDURE NO RECOVERY 1 Slightly Shelly 5 35 Very Shelly & 9 1 With Some WLS 50/1" 20 22 Very Shelly & With Some WLS 50 1 50/1" 32 13 Very Shelly & SOIL CLASSIFICATION 8 With WLS 7 CORRELATION OF N - VALUES WITH RELATIVE CORRELATION OF N - VALUES WITH DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY HARDNESS DESCRIPTION 17 12 7 Very Shelly & 60 With Some WLS COHESIONLESS SOIL SILTS AND CLAYS LIMEROCK 50/5" @ 59.5' N - VALUE N - VALUE N - VALUE N - VALUE CONSISTENCY N - VALUE RELATIVE DENSITY RELATIVE DENSITY (SAFETY) (AUTO) (SAFETY) (AUTO) 19 15 -200=25.2% 9 0 - 4 0 - 3 VERY LOOSE 0 - 2 0 - 1 VERY SOFT 0 - 50 SOFT 5 - 10 4 - 8 LOOSE 3 - 5 2 - 4 SOFT 51 - 50 FOR 0" HARD 11 - 30 9 - 24 MEDIUM DENSE 6 - 7 5 - 6 FIRM 7 31 - 50 25 - 40 DENSE 8 - 15 7 - 12 STIFF 20 -200=20.0% 10 20 OVER 50 OVER 40 VERY DENSE 16 - 30 13 - 24 VERY STIFF 70 OVER 30 OVER 24 HARD 26 11 17 APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATE FINES MODIFIERS SHELL MODIFIERS ORGANIC CONTENT MODIFIERS CONTENT CONTENT 0% TO 2.5% NO MENTION 24 14 48 5% TO 12% SLIGHTLY SILTY OR SLIGHTLY CLAYEY 0% TO 5% NO MENTION 2.5% TO 5% WITH A TRACE 80 3 12% TO 25% SILTY OR CLAYEY 5% TO 12% SLIGHTLY SHELLY 5% TO 20% WITH ORGANICS 3 26% TO 49% VERY SILTY OR VERY CLAYEY 13% TO 30% SHELLY 20% TO 75% HIGHLY ORGANIC 31% TO 50% VERY SHELLY 75% TO 100% PEAT 16 Slightly Shelly 8 44 DEFINITION OF DESCRIPTIVE TERMS OF MODIFIERS FOR SILTS/CLAYS/SHELLS/GRAVELS ARE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 1 PERCENTAGE OF MODIFIER MATERIAL FIRST QUALIFIER SECOND QUALIFIER -200=21.9% 25 23 53 5 - 12 SLIGHTLY + MODIFIER + Y WITH A LITTLE 90 12 - 30 MODIFIER + Y WITH SOME 30 - 50 VERY + MODIFIER + Y AND 28 23 42 1 RECORD OF TEST BORINGS DEPTHFEET IN 44 41 40 Client: Capling Leveling, Inc. 100 UES Date: 07/31/2025 Project No: 0530.2500183.0000 07/23/2025 06/23/2025 06/24/2025 201 Waldo Ave. N. Drilled By: CB/JC Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 Project: Rig: GP-3230 Capling Mine 239-489-2443 Drawn By: CD/ CC www.teamues.com Immokalee, Collier County, FL (East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd. Approved By: AJD Page 183 of 1742 SOIL PROFILES SOIL PROFILE LEGEND SOIL LEGEND Light to Dark Brown, Light to Dark Gray, Green, B-X = BORING NUMBER Orange, Tan N = SPT TEST 1 SAND (SP) SOIL TYPE X Very Loose to Very Dense VALUE Brown, Light Gray to Gray, Tan B-76 B-77 GROUND WATER Slightly Silty SAND (SP-SM) 0 N-AUTO N-AUTO LEVEL 2 Very Loose to Very Dense 4 4 INDICATES PRACTICAL 1 SOIL SYMBOL 4 9 REFUSAL TO BORING Light Gray to Gray,Tan EQUIPMENT Silty SAND (SM) 10 13 3 Very Loose to Very Dense 1/18" 6 = INDICATES GRADUAL TRANSITION Slightly Shelly IN SOIL TYPES 7 28 Brown, Gray 10 4 Slightly Clayey SAND (SP-SC) Driller's Note: HD: 10' - 14' 4 Loose to Dense -200 =27.3% NOTES: Very 5 Shelly 5 With Some WLS N - STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE TEST 3 (SPT) VALUE. NUMBERS TO THE RIGHT OF Brown, Gray 1 -200=78.1% BORINGS INDICATE SPT VALUE FOR 12-INCHES Clayey SAND (SC) 5 Very Loose to Medium Dense 4 Very Shelly LL=70 4 OF PENETRATION (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED). 20 PL=21 6 PI=49 WOH - BORING INTERVAL ADVANCED UNDER Gray WEIGHT OF HAMMER. CLAY (CL) 5 Very Shelly 2 Slightly Shelly 6 Very Soft to Very Stiff WOR - BORING INTERVAL ADVANCED UNDER 1 WEIGHT OF ROD. Very Shelly Light Gray to Gray, Orange 4 2 WEATHERED LIMESTONE (WLS) 30 7 Soft to Hard Driller's Note: LFC @ 30' LFC - LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID CIRCULATION. 13 1/18" WLS - WEATHERED LIMESTONE Gray LIMESTONE (LS) CS - CEMENTED SANDS 8 Hard 42 13 40 7 HA - NO RECORDED N VALUE DUE TO HAND 7 AUGERING PROCEDURE NO RECOVERY 17 12 9 17 51 50 2 4 14 SOIL CLASSIFICATION 1 CORRELATION OF N - VALUES WITH RELATIVE CORRELATION OF N - VALUES WITH DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY HARDNESS DESCRIPTION 3 6 60 2 COHESIONLESS SOIL SILTS AND CLAYS LIMEROCK N - VALUE N - VALUE N - VALUE N - VALUE CONSISTENCY N - VALUE RELATIVE DENSITY RELATIVE DENSITY 2 (SAFETY) (AUTO) (SAFETY) (AUTO) 5 Slightly Shelly 11 0 - 4 0 - 3 VERY LOOSE 0 - 2 0 - 1 VERY SOFT 0 - 50 SOFT 5 - 10 4 - 8 LOOSE 3 - 5 2 - 4 SOFT 51 - 50 FOR 0" HARD 1 11 - 30 9 - 24 MEDIUM DENSE 6 - 7 5 - 6 FIRM 31 - 50 25 - 40 DENSE 8 - 15 7 - 12 STIFF 7 11 OVER 50 OVER 40 VERY DENSE 16 - 30 13 - 24 VERY STIFF 70 OVER 30 OVER 24 HARD 07/22/2025 29 APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATE FINES MODIFIERS SHELL MODIFIERS ORGANIC CONTENT MODIFIERS CONTENT CONTENT 1 0% TO 2.5% NO MENTION 47 5% TO 12% SLIGHTLY SILTY OR SLIGHTLY CLAYEY 0% TO 5% NO MENTION 2.5% TO 5% WITH A TRACE 12% TO 25% SILTY OR CLAYEY 5% TO 12% SLIGHTLY SHELLY 5% TO 20% WITH ORGANICS 80 26% TO 49% VERY SILTY OR VERY CLAYEY 13% TO 30% SHELLY 20% TO 75% HIGHLY ORGANIC 31% TO 50% VERY SHELLY 75% TO 100% PEAT 31 DEFINITION OF DESCRIPTIVE TERMS OF MODIFIERS FOR SILTS/CLAYS/SHELLS/GRAVELS ARE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PERCENTAGE OF MODIFIER MATERIAL FIRST QUALIFIER SECOND QUALIFIER 2 26 5 - 12 SLIGHTLY + MODIFIER + Y WITH A LITTLE 90 12 - 30 MODIFIER + Y WITH SOME 30 - 50 VERY + MODIFIER + Y AND 50/5"@94' 1 RECORD OF TEST BORINGS DEPTHFEET IN 50/4" Client: Capling Leveling, Inc. 100 UES Date: 07/31/2025 Project No: 0530.2500183.0000 07/21/2025 201 Waldo Ave. N. Drilled By: CB/JC Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 Project: Rig: GP-3230 Capling Mine 239-489-2443 Drawn By: CD/ CC www.teamues.com Immokalee, Collier County, FL (East of SR-29, North of Oil Well Rd. Approved By: AJD Page 184 of 1742Appendix E – Discussion of Soil Groups Page 185 of 1742 DISCUSSION OF SOIL GROUPS COARSE GRAINED SOILS GW and SW GROUPS. These groups comprise well-graded gravelly and sandy soils having little or no plastic fines (less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve). The presence of the fines must not noticeably change the strength characteristics of the coarse-grained fraction and must not interface with it's free-draining characteristics. GP and SP GROUPS. Poorly graded gravels and sands containing little of no plastic fines (less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) are classed in GP and SP groups. The materials may be called uniform gravels, uniform sands or non-uniform mixtures of very coarse material and very fine sands, with intermediate sizes lacking (sometimes called skip-graded, gap-graded or step-graded). This last group often results from borrow pit excavation in which gravel and sand layers are mixed. GM and SM GROUPS. In general, the GM and SM groups comprise gravels or sands with fines (more than 12 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) having low or no plasticity. The plasticity index and liquid limit of soils in the group should plot below the "A" line on the plasticity chart. The gradation of the material is not considered significant and both well and poorly graded materials are included. GC and SC GROUPS. In general, the GC and SC groups comprise gravelly or sandy soils with fines (more than 12 percent passing the No. 200 sieve), which have a fairly high plasticity. The liquid limit and plasticity index should plot above the "A” line on the plasticity chart. FINE GRAINED SOILS ML and MH GROUPS. In these groups, the symbol M has been used to designate predominantly silty material. The symbols L and H represent low and high liquid limits, respectively, and an arbitrary dividing line between the two is set at a liquid limit of 50. The soils in the ML and MH groups are sandy silts, clayey silts or inorganic silts with relatively low plasticity. Also included are loess type soils and rock flours. CL and CH GROUPS. In these groups the symbol C stands for clay, with L and H denoting low or high liquid limits, with the dividing line again set at a liquid limit of 50. The soils are primarily inorganic clays. Low plasticity clays are classified as CL and are usually lean clays, sandy clays or silty clays. The medium and high plasticity clays are classified as CH. These include the fat clays, gumbo clays and some volcanic clays. Page 186 of 1742OL and OH GROUPS. The soil in the OL and OH groups are characterized by the presence of organic odor or color, hence the symbol O. Organic silts and clays are classified in these groups. The materials have a plasticity range that corresponds with the ML and MH groups. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS The highly organic soils are usually very soft and compressible and have undesirable construction characteristics. Particles of leaves, grasses, branches, or other fibrous vegetable matter are common components of these soils. They are not subdivided and are classified into one group with the symbol PT. Peat humus and swamp soils with a highly organic texture are typical soils of the group. Page 187 of 1742Appendix F – Exfiltration Test Results Page 188 of 1742 EXFILTRATION TEST SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT USUAL OPEN HOLE TEST Project Capling Mine - Immokalee Date 7/11/2025 Open Hole No. Exfil-1 Gal 29.40 min 30.00 gal/min 9.80E-01 gal/min flow rate F 9.80E-01 cfs flow rate Q 2.18E-03 ft diam hole d 0.27 ft depth WT H2 3.00 ft Sat.dpth Ds 1.00 ft btm. Hole Elev A 4.00 Cfs/ft2-ft.hea Hyd.Cond K 3.34E-04 3.34E-04 SOIL PROFILE CALCULATIONS 0 - 1' Gray Sand Light Gray 1' - 3' Sand Dark Brown 3' - 4' Sand Boring 4' Terminated 201 Waldo Aveue North • Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 • (239) 489-2443 • Fax (239) 489-3438 www.teamues.com Page 189 of 1742 EXFILTRATION TEST SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT USUAL OPEN HOLE TEST Project Capling Mine - Immokalee Date 7/11/2025 Open Hole No. Exfil-2 Gal 20.60 min 30.00 gal/min 6.87E-01 gal/min flow rate F 6.87E-01 cfs flow rate Q 1.53E-03 ft diam hole d 0.27 ft depth WT H2 3.50 ft Sat.dpth Ds 0.50 ft btm. Hole Elev A 4.00 Cfs/ft2-ft.hea Hyd.Cond K 2.22E-04 2.22E-04 SOIL PROFILE CALCULATIONS 0 - 2.5' Gray Sand Dark Brown 2.5' - 4' Sand Boring 4' Terminated 201 Waldo Aveue North • Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 • (239) 489-2443 • Fax (239) 489-3438 www.teamues.com Page 190 of 1742 EXFILTRATION TEST SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT USUAL OPEN HOLE TEST Project Capling Mine - Immokalee Date 7/11/2025 Open Hole No. Exfil-3 Gal 24.60 min 30.00 gal/min 8.20E-01 gal/min flow rate F 8.20E-01 cfs flow rate Q 1.83E-03 ft diam hole d 0.27 ft depth WT H2 3.50 ft Sat.dpth Ds 0.50 ft btm. Hole Elev A 4.00 Cfs/ft2-ft.hea Hyd.Cond K 2.66E-04 2.65E-04 SOIL PROFILE CALCULATIONS 0 - 1' Gray Sand Brown to Dark 1' - 4' Brown Sand Boring 4' Terminated 201 Waldo Aveue North • Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 • (239) 489-2443 • Fax (239) 489-3438 www.teamues.com Page 191 of 1742 EXFILTRATION TEST SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT USUAL OPEN HOLE TEST Project Capling Mine - Immokalee Date 7/8/2025 Open Hole No. Exfil-4 Gal 20.70 min 30.00 gal/min 6.90E-01 gal/min flow rate F 6.90E-01 cfs flow rate Q 1.54E-03 ft diam hole d 0.27 ft depth WT H2 3.50 ft Sat.dpth Ds 0.50 ft btm. Hole Elev A 4.00 Cfs/ft2-ft.hea Hyd.Cond K 2.23E-04 2.23E-04 SOIL PROFILE CALCULATIONS 0 - 1' Brown Sand 1' - 2' Gray Sand Dark Brown 2' - 4' Sand Boring 4' Terminated 201 Waldo Aveue North • Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 • (239) 489-2443 • Fax (239) 489-3438 www.teamues.com Page 192 of 1742 EXFILTRATION TEST SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT USUAL OPEN HOLE TEST Project Capling Mine - Immokalee Date 7/8/2025 Open Hole No. Exfil-5 Gal 28.00 min 30.00 gal/min 9.33E-01 gal/min flow rate F 9.33E-01 cfs flow rate Q 2.08E-03 ft diam hole d 0.27 ft depth WT H2 3.50 ft Sat.dpth Ds 0.50 ft btm. Hole Elev A 4.00 Cfs/ft2-ft.hea Hyd.Cond K 3.02E-04 3.02E-04 SOIL PROFILE CALCULATIONS 0 - 0.5' Brown Sand 0.5' - 1' Orange Sand Light Gray 1' - 4' Sand Boring 4' Terminated 201 Waldo Aveue North • Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 • (239) 489-2443 • Fax (239) 489-3438 www.teamues.com Page 193 of 1742 EXFILTRATION TEST SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT USUAL OPEN HOLE TEST Project Capling Mine - Immokalee Date 7/8/2025 Open Hole No. Exfil-6 Gal 28.70 min 30.00 gal/min 9.57E-01 gal/min flow rate F 9.57E-01 cfs flow rate Q 2.13E-03 ft diam hole d 0.27 ft depth WT H2 3.50 ft Sat.dpth Ds 0.50 ft btm. Hole Elev A 4.00 Cfs/ft2-ft.hea Hyd.Cond K 3.10E-04 3.09E-04 SOIL PROFILE CALCULATIONS 0 - 1' Brown Sand 1' - 2' Orange Sand Light Gray 2' - 2.5' Sand 2.5' - 3' Orange Sand Light Gray 3' - 4' Sand Boring 4' Terminated 201 Waldo Aveue North • Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 • (239) 489-2443 • Fax (239) 489-3438 www.teamues.com Page 194 of 1742 EXFILTRATION TEST SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT USUAL OPEN HOLE TEST Project Capling Mine - Immokalee Date 7/89/2025 Open Hole No. Exfil-7 Gal 7.40 min 30.00 gal/min 2.47E-01 gal/min flow rate F 2.47E-01 cfs flow rate Q 5.50E-04 ft diam hole d 0.27 ft depth WT H2 4.00 ft Sat.dpth Ds 0.50 ft btm. Hole Elev A 4.50 Cfs/ft2-ft.hea Hyd.Cond K 6.31E-05 6.30E-05 SOIL PROFILE CALCULATIONS Dark Brown 0 - 3' Sand 3' - 3.5' Gray Sand Dark Brown 3.5' - 4' Sand Boring 4' Terminated 201 Waldo Aveue North • Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 • (239) 489-2443 • Fax (239) 489-3438 www.teamues.com Page 195 of 1742 EXFILTRATION TEST SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT USUAL OPEN HOLE TEST Project Capling Mine - Immokalee Date 7/9/2025 Open Hole No. Exfil-8 Gal 8.10 min 30.00 gal/min 2.70E-01 gal/min flow rate F 2.70E-01 cfs flow rate Q 6.02E-04 ft diam hole d 0.27 ft depth WT H2 3.50 ft Sat.dpth Ds 0.50 ft btm. Hole Elev A 4.00 Cfs/ft2-ft.hea Hyd.Cond K 8.74E-05 8.70E-05 SOIL PROFILE CALCULATIONS 0 - 3' Gray Sand Orange Sand 3' - 3.5' with Clay 3.5' - 4' Gray Sand Boring 4' Terminated 201 Waldo Aveue North • Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 • (239) 489-2443 • Fax (239) 489-3438 www.teamues.com Page 196 of 1742 EXFILTRATION TEST SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT USUAL OPEN HOLE TEST Project Capling Mine - Immokalee Date 7/9/2025 Open Hole No. Exfil-9 Gal 2.70 min 30.00 gal/min 9.00E-02 gal/min flow rate F 9.00E-02 cfs flow rate Q 2.01E-04 ft diam hole d 0.27 ft depth WT H2 3.28 ft Sat.dpth Ds 0.73 ft btm. Hole Elev A 4.00 Cfs/ft2-ft.hea Hyd.Cond K 2.97E-05 2.90E-05 SOIL PROFILE CALCULATIONS Brown to tan 0 - 2' Sand Orange Clayey 2' - 2.5' Sand Gray Sand 2.5' - 4' with Shell Fragments Boring 4' Terminated 201 Waldo Aveue North • Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 • (239) 489-2443 • Fax (239) 489-3438 www.teamues.com Page 197 of 1742 EXFILTRATION TEST SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT USUAL OPEN HOLE TEST Project Capling Mine - Immokalee Date 7/8/2025 Open Hole No. Exfil-10 Gal 5.60 min 30.00 gal/min 1.87E-01 gal/min flow rate F 1.87E-01 cfs flow rate Q 4.16E-04 ft diam hole d 0.27 ft depth WT H2 3.50 ft Sat.dpth Ds 0.50 ft btm. Hole Elev A 4.00 Cfs/ft2-ft.hea Hyd.Cond K 6.04E-05 6.00E-05 SOIL PROFILE CALCULATIONS 0 - 1' Gray Sand 1' - 2' Tan Sand Dark Brown to 2' - 4' Brown Sand Boring 4' Terminated 201 Waldo Aveue North • Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 • (239) 489-2443 • Fax (239) 489-3438 www.teamues.com Page 198 of 1742 EXFILTRATION TEST SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT USUAL OPEN HOLE TEST Project Capling Mine - Immokalee Date 7/10/2025 Open Hole No. Exfil-12 Gal 20.90 min 30.00 gal/min 6.97E-01 gal/min flow rate F 6.97E-01 cfs flow rate Q 1.55E-03 ft diam hole d 0.27 ft depth WT H2 3.50 ft Sat.dpth Ds 0.50 ft btm. Hole Elev A 4.00 Cfs/ft2-ft.hea Hyd.Cond K 2.26E-04 2.25E-04 SOIL PROFILE CALCULATIONS Dark Gray 0 - 2' Sand 2' - 2.5' Brown Sand Brown Sand 2.5' - 3' with Clay 3' - 4' Brown Sand Boring 4' Terminated 201 Waldo Aveue North • Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 • (239) 489-2443 • Fax (239) 489-3438 www.teamues.com Page 199 of 1742 EXFILTRATION TEST SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT USUAL OPEN HOLE TEST Project Capling Mine - Immokalee Date 7/10/2025 Open Hole No. Exfil-13 Gal 20.00 min 30.00 gal/min 6.67E-01 gal/min flow rate F 6.67E-01 cfs flow rate Q 1.49E-03 ft diam hole d 0.27 ft depth WT H2 3.50 ft Sat.dpth Ds 0.50 ft btm. Hole Elev A 4.00 Cfs/ft2-ft.hea Hyd.Cond K 2.16E-04 2.15E-04 SOIL PROFILE CALCULATIONS 0 - 0.5' Gray Sand Light Tan 0.5' - 1' Sand 1' - 2' Gray Sand Brown to Dark 2' - 4' Brown Sand Boring 4' Terminated 201 Waldo Aveue North • Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 • (239) 489-2443 • Fax (239) 489-3438 www.teamues.com Page 200 of 1742 EXFILTRATION TEST SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT USUAL OPEN HOLE TEST Project Capling Mine - Immokalee Date 7/10/2025 Open Hole No. Exfil-14 Gal 39.20 min 30.00 gal/min 1.31E+00 gal/min flow rate F 1.31E+00 cfs flow rate Q 2.91E-03 ft diam hole d 0.27 ft depth WT H2 3.50 ft Sat.dpth Ds 0.50 ft btm. Hole Elev A 4.00 Cfs/ft2-ft.hea Hyd.Cond K 4.23E-04 4.23E-04 SOIL PROFILE CALCULATIONS 0 - 1' Gray Sand 1' - 4' Brown Sand Boring 4' Terminated 201 Waldo Aveue North • Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 • (239) 489-2443 • Fax (239) 489-3438 www.teamues.com Page 201 of 1742Appendix G – Laboratory Testing Results Page 202 of 1742201 Waldo Avenue North • Lehigh Acres, FL 33971 (239) 489-2443 • (239) 489-3438 (Fax) Standard Test Methods for Determining the Amount of Material Finer Than No. 200 Sieve in Soils by Washing - ASTM D1140 Project: Capling Mine - Part 2 Project ID: 0530.2500183.0000 Client: Capling Leveling, Inc. Report ID: SB Client Address: P.O. Box 1997, Labelle, FL 33975 Material Location: See Below Sampled By: DB & LS Date Sampled: 7/16/2025-7/23/2025 Tested By: G.Daugherty Date Tested: 7/29/2025 Method: B A B [(A-B)/A]x100 Boring Material Material Original Sample Dry Sample Weight Number % Passing No. Classification Description Weight Dry After Wash (depth) 200 Sieve (g) (g) B-63 (13-15') SM Grey Silty Sand 462.7 388.3 16.1 B-66 (13-15') SM Tan Silty Sand 569.6 482.1 15.4 B-66 (73-75') SM Grey Silty Sand 424.4 337.0 20.6 B-66 (88-90') SM Grey Silty Sand 412.8 312.8 24.2 B-69 (18-20') SM Tan Silty Sand 119.5 96.7 19.1 B-71 (13-15') SM Tan Silty Sand 260.9 197.4 24.3 Grey Sand with B-72 (93-95') SP-SM 482.0 436.9 9.4 Silt B-73 (23-25') CL Grey Clay 421.1 149.0 64.6 Tan Silty Sand B-74 (23-25) SM 242.1 181.4 25.1 with WLS B-77 (18-20') CL Grey Clay 317.6 69.6 78.1 Tan Silty Sand B-77 (13-15') SM 379.5 275.8 27.3 with some WLS Light Grey Silty B-70 (23-25') SM Sand with a 675.2 424.6 37.1 trace of WLS Light Grey Silty Sand with some B-70 (38-40') SM 356.1 275.2 22.7 Shell Fragments B-70 (73-75') SM Grey Silty Sand 359.2 274.6 23.6 Respectfully Submitted GFA d/b/a UES REGISTRY #4930 7/31/2025 This item has been digitally signed and sealed by the Professional Engineer Adam J. Dornacker, P.E to the right, on the date adjacent to the seal. Signature must be verified on Registered Engineer # 85319 any electronic copies. State of Florida Test report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of UES Environmental ● Geotechnical ● Construction Materials Testing ● Special & Threshold Inspections ● Plan Review & Code Compliance Florida's Leading Engineering Source www.TeamUES.com Page 203 of 1742201 Waldo Avenue North • Lehigh Acres, FL 33971 (239) 489-2443 • (239) 489-3438 (Fax) Standard Test Methods for Determining the Amount of Material Finer Than No. 200 Sieve in Soils by Washing - ASTM D1140 Project: Capling Mine - Part 2 Project ID: 0530.2500183.0000 Client: Capling Leveling, Inc. Report ID: B Client Address: P.O. Box 1997, Labelle, FL 33975 Material Location: See Below Sampled By: DB Date Sampled: 7/8/2025 Tested By: K.Hazard Date Tested: 7/16/2025 Method: A A B [(A-B)/A]x100 Boring Material Material Original Sample Dry Sample Weight Number % Passing No. Classification Description Weight Dry After Wash (depth) 200 Sieve (g) (g) B-55 (83-85') SM Gray Silty Sand 462.4 377.0 18.5 B-64 (18-20') SM Gray Silty Sand 191.0 160.8 15.8 Gray B-69 (48-50') SM Silty Sand 146.5 105.7 27.8 Gray B-67 (83-85') SM 252.5 192.9 23.6 Silty Sand B-59 (63-65') SM Gray Silty Sand 360.9 278.1 22.9 B-59 (73-75') SM Gray Silty Sand 503.2 409.7 18.6 Respectfully Submitted GFA d/b/a UES REGISTRY #4930 7/25/2025 This item has been digitally signed and sealed by the Professional Engineer to Adam J. Dornacker, P.E the right, on the date adjacent to the seal. Signature must be verified on any Registered Engineer # 85319 electronic copies. State of Florida Test report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of UES Environmental ● Geotechnical ● Construction Materials Testing ● Special & Threshold Inspections ● Plan Review & Code Compliance Florida's Leading Engineering Source www.TeamUES.com Page 204 of 1742201 Waldo Avenue North • Lehigh Acres, FL 33971 (239) 489-2443 • (239) 489-3438 (Fax) Standard Test Methods for Determining the Amount of Material Finer Than No. 200 Sieve in Soils by Washing - ASTM D1140 Project: Capling Mine - Part 2 Project ID: 0530.2500183.0000 Client: Capling Leveling, Inc. Report ID: B Client Address: P.O. Box 1997, Labelle, FL 33975 Material Location: See Below Sampled By: JR & GW & CB Date Sampled: 6/23/2025-6/24/2025 Tested By: M.Nallon Date Tested: 7/1/2025 Method: A A B [(A-B)/A]x100 Boring Material Material Original Sample Dry Sample Weight Number % Passing No. Classification Description Weight Dry After Wash (depth) 200 Sieve (g) (g) Brown Clayey B-74 (4-6) SC Sand 302.5 264.4 12.6 Gray Silty B-74 (68-70') SM 334.6 267.7 20.0 Sand Brown S B-75 (2-4') SP-SC lightly 292.8 265.6 9.3 Clayey Sand Gray Silty B-75 (63-65') S 215.3 161.0 25.2 M Sand Gray Silty B-75 (88-90') SM 274.1 214.2 21.9 Sand Gray Silty B-56 (78-80') SM 594.4 497.6 16.3 Sand B-75 (13-15') CL Gray Clay 232.0 103.7 55.3 Brown Slightly B-56 (13-15') SP-SC 590.7 531.0 10.1 Clayey Sand Respectfully Submitted GFA d/b/a UES REGISTRY #4930 7/14/2025 This item has been digitally signed and sealed by the Professional Engineer to Adam J. Dornacker, P.E the right, on the date adjacent to the seal. Signature must be verified on any Registered Engineer # 85319 electronic copies. State of Florida Test report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of UES Page 205 of 1742201 Waldo Avenue North • Lehigh Acres, FL 33971 (239) 489-2443 • (239) 489-3438 (Fax) Standard Test Methods for Determining the Amount of Material Finer Than No. 200 Sieve in Soils by Washing - ASTM D1140 Project: Capling Mine - Part 2 Project ID: 0530.2500183.0000 Client: Capling Leveling, Inc. Report ID: B61-62 Client Address: P.O. Box 1997, Labelle, FL 33975 Material Location: See Below Sampled By: LSJ Date Sampled: 6/24/2025-6/25/2025 Tested By: J.Arias Date Tested: 7/3/2025 Method: A A B [(A-B)/A]x100 Boring Material Material Original Sample Dry Sample Weight Number % Passing No. Classification Description Weight Dry After Wash (depth) 200 Sieve (g) (g) Gray Slightly B61 (93-95') SP-SC 397.7 355.1 10.7 Clayey Sand B62 (48-50') SM Gray Silty Sand 420.9 352.9 16.2 Respectfully Submitted GFA d/b/a UES REGISTRY #4930 7/14/2025 This item has been digitally signed and sealed by the Professional Engineer to Adam J. Dornacker, P.E the right, on the date adjacent to the seal. Signature must be verified on any Registered Engineer # 85319 electronic copies. State of Florida Test report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of UES Environmental ● Geotechnical ● Construction Materials Testing ● Special & Threshold Inspections ● Plan Review & Code Compliance Florida's Leading Engineering Source www.TeamUES.com Page 206 of 1742201 Waldo Avenue North • Lehigh Acres, FL 33971 (239) 489-2443 • (239) 489-3438 (Fax) DETERMINING THE LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT, AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS - AASHTO T 89 AND T 90 Project: Capling Mine - Part 2 Project ID: 0530.2500183.0000 Client: Capling Leveling, Inc. Report ID: SB-72 Client Address: P.O. Box 1997, Labelle, FL 33975 Lab/MAC ID: 25-8336 Material Location: SB-72 (93-95') Sampled By: DB & LS Date Sampled: 7/16/2025-7/23/2025 Tested By: C.Wilson Date Tested: 7/302025 Material Description: Grey Sand with Clay Material Classification: SP-SC Test Method: Method A - Three Point Liquid Limit Air-dry of Sample: Before Test Results Liquid Limit = NP Plastic Limit = NP Plastic Index = NP 42 Liquid Limit Flow Curve 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 Water Content (%) Content Water 34 33 32 10 50 Number of Blows Comments: Respectfully Submitted, Legend: GFA d/b/a UES REGISTRY #4930 NP = Non-Plastic 7/31/2025 This item has been digitally signed and sealed by the Professional Engineer to the right, Adam J. Dornacker, P.E on the date adjacent to the seal. Signature must be verified on any electronic copies. Registered Engineer # 85319 State of Florida Test report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of UES Environmental ● Geotechnical ● Construction Materials Testing ● Special & Threshold Inspections ● Plan Review & Code Compliance Florida's Leading Engineering Source www.TeamUES.com Page 207 of 1742201 Waldo Avenue North • Lehigh Acres, FL 33971 (239) 489-2443 • (239) 489-3438 (Fax) STANDARD TEST METHODS FOR LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT, AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS - ASTM 4318 Project: Capling Mine - Part 2 Project ID: 0530.2500183.0000 Client: Capling Leveling, Inc. Report ID: B74 Client Address: P.O. Box 1997, Labelle, FL 33975 Lab/MAC ID: 25-8113 Material Location: B74 (28-30') Sampled By: JR & GW & CB Date Sampled: 6/23/2025-6/24/2025 Tested By: C.Wilson Date Tested: 7/11/2025 Material Description: Gray Clay Material Classification: CL Test Method: Method B - One Point Liquid Limit Air-dry of Sample: Before Test LIQUID LIMIT METHOD B (ONE-POINT METHOD) Wet Soil + Tare Weight (g): 20.11 Dry Soil + Tare Weight (g): 17.51 Tare Weight (g): 12.40 Dry Soil Weight (g): 5.11 Water Weight (g): 2.60 Correction Factor for Liquid Water Content, w (%): 50.9% Limit Based on No. of Blows: One Point Liquid Limit (%): Number of Blows, N: 28 1.014 52 PLASTIC LIMIT Water Content Wet Soil + Tare (g): Dry Soil + Tare (g): Tare Weight (g): Dry Soil (g): Water (g): (%) 29.83 28.52 21.36 7.16 1.31 18.3 Liquid Limit = 52 Plastic Limit = 18 Plasticity Index = 33 Comments: Respectfully Submitted, Legend: GFA d/b/a UES REGISTRY #4930 NP = Non-Plastic 7/14/2025 Adam J. Dornacker, P.E This item has been digitally signed and sealed by the Professional Engineer to the Registered Engineer # 85319 right, on the date adjacent to the seal. Signature must be verified on any electronic copies. State of Florida Test report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of UES Environmental ● Geotechnical ● Construction Materials Testing ● Special & Threshold Inspections ● Plan Review & Code Compliance Florida's Leading Engineering Source www.TeamUES.com Page 208 of 1742201 Waldo Avenue North • Lehigh Acres, FL 33971 (239) 489-2443 • (239) 489-3438 (Fax) STANDARD TEST METHODS FOR LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT, AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS - ASTM 4318 Project: Capling Mine - Part 2 Project ID: 0530.2500183.0000 Client: Capling Leveling, Inc. Report ID: B-73 Client Address: P.O. Box 1997, Labelle, FL 33975 Lab/MAC ID: 25-8337 Material Location: B-73 (23-25') Sampled By: DB & LS Date Sampled: 7/16/2025-7/23/2025 Tested By: C.Wilson Date Tested: 7/30/2025 Material Description: Grey Clay Material Classification: CL Test Method: Method B - One Point Liquid Limit Air-dry of Sample: Before Test LIQUID LIMIT METHOD B (ONE-POINT METHOD) Wet Soil + Tare Weight (g): 23.65 Dry Soil + Tare Weight (g): 21.72 Tare Weight (g): 13.78 Dry Soil Weight (g): 7.94 Water Weight (g): 1.93 Correction Factor for Liquid Water Content, w (%): 24.3% Limit Based on No. of Blows: One Point Liquid Limit (%): Number of Blows, N: 24 0.995 24 PLASTIC LIMIT Water Content Wet Soil + Tare (g): Dry Soil + Tare (g): Tare Weight (g): Dry Soil (g): Water (g): (%) 29.21 28.11 20.96 7.15 1.10 15.4 Liquid Limit = 24 Plastic Limit = 15 Plasticity Index = 9 Comments: Respectfully Submitted, Legend: GFA d/b/a UES REGISTRY #4930 NP = Non-Plastic 7/31/2025 Adam J. Dornacker, P.E This item has been digitally signed and sealed by the Professional Engineer to the Registered Engineer # 85319 right, on the date adjacent to the seal. Signature must be verified on any electronic copies. State of Florida Test report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of UES Environmental ● Geotechnical ● Construction Materials Testing ● Special & Threshold Inspections ● Plan Review & Code Compliance Florida's Leading Engineering Source www.TeamUES.com Page 209 of 1742201 Waldo Avenue North • Lehigh Acres, FL 33971 (239) 489-2443 • (239) 489-3438 (Fax) STANDARD TEST METHODS FOR LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT, AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS - ASTM 4318 Project: Capling Mine - Part 2 Project ID: 0530.2500183.0000 Client: Capling Leveling, Inc. Report ID: SB-77 Client Address: P.O. Box 1997, Labelle, FL 33975 Lab/MAC ID: 25-8339 Material Location: SB-77 (18-20') Sampled By: DB & LS Date Sampled: 7/16/2025-7/23/2025 Tested By: C.Wilson Date Tested: 7/30/2025 Material Description: Grey Clay Material Classification: CL Test Method: Method B - One Point Liquid Limit Air-dry of Sample: Before Test LIQUID LIMIT METHOD B (ONE-POINT METHOD) Wet Soil + Tare Weight (g): 19.89 Dry Soil + Tare Weight (g): 17.34 Tare Weight (g): 13.62 Dry Soil Weight (g): 3.72 Water Weight (g): 2.55 Correction Factor for Liquid Water Content, w (%): 68.5% Limit Based on No. of Blows: One Point Liquid Limit (%): Number of Blows, N: 28 1.014 70 PLASTIC LIMIT Water Content Wet Soil + Tare (g): Dry Soil + Tare (g): Tare Weight (g): Dry Soil (g): Water (g): (%) 28.41 27.13 21.03 6.10 1.28 21.0 Liquid Limit = 70 Plastic Limit = 21 Plasticity Index = 49 Comments: Respectfully Submitted, Legend: GFA d/b/a UES REGISTRY #4930 NP = Non-Plastic 7/31/2025 Adam J. Dornacker, P.E This item has been digitally signed and sealed by the Professional Engineer to the Registered Engineer # 85319 right, on the date adjacent to the seal. Signature must be verified on any electronic copies. State of Florida Test report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of UES Environmental ● Geotechnical ● Construction Materials Testing ● Special & Threshold Inspections ● Plan Review & Code Compliance Florida's Leading Engineering Source www.TeamUES.com Page 210 of 1742 Need Help? GMCD Public Portal Online Payment Guide E-Permitting Guides STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: Cell: Fax: E-Mail Address: Address of Subject Property (If available): City: State: ZIP: LEGAL DESCRIPTION Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: Metes & Bounds Description: TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: d. Package Treatment Plant (GPD Capacity): e. Septic System TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED a. County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System PROVIDE NAME d. Private System (Well) Total Population to be served: Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water-Peak: Average Daily: B. Sewer-Peak: Average Daily: Revised 2024 Page 5 of 12 Page 211 of 1742 Need Help? GMCD Public Portal Online Payment Guide E-Permitting Guides If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County’s utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. Revised 2024 Page 6 of 12 Page 212 of 1742CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY CAPLING SR 29 MINE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Prepared for: Peninsula Engineering 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, Florida 34105 Prepared by: Florida's First Choice in Cultural Resource Management Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 8110 Blaikie Court, Suite A Sarasota, Florida 34240 (941) 379-6206 October 2024 Page 213 of 1742CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY CAPLING SR 29 MINE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Prepared for: Peninsula Engineering 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, Florida 34105 Prepared by: Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 8110 Blaikie Court, Suite A Sarasota, Florida 34240 Maranda Kies - Project Manager Jean Louise Lammie - Project Archaeologist Katie Baar - Archaeologist Savannah Y. Finch - Project Architectural Historian Madeline Westrom-Simons -Architectural Historian October 2024 Page 214 of 1742 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) conducted a Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (CRAS) of the Capling SR 29 Mine on behalf of Peninsula Engineering. The Project Area is a total of approximately 1370 acres located on the east side of State Road (SR) 29, approximately 1.5 miles north of Oil Well Road. The planned project includes the development of a sand excavation mine in about 1108 acres of the property with the remainder staying in conservation land. This CRAS, completed in September 2024, was conducted as due diligence in anticipation of permitting requirements. The purpose of this investigation was to locate and identify any cultural resources within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). As defined in 36 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) Part§ 800.16(d), the APE is the "geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist." Based on the scale and nature of the activities, the project has a limited potential for any indirect (physical, visual, or audible) or cumulative effects outside the immediate footprint of construction. Therefore, because of the project type and location of the proposed work, the archaeological and historical APE are limited to the existing boundaries of the project. This CRAS was completed in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Prese-rvation Act of I 966, as amended, and its implementing regulations in 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties. All work was conducted in accordance with the standards contained in the Florida Division of Historical Resources' (FDHR) Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual (FDHR 2003). The resulting survey and report meet the specifications in Chapter lA-46, Florida Administrative Code, and complies with Chapters 267 and 373, Florida Statutes, as well as Florida's Coastal Management Program and local regulations. The Principal Investigators meet the Secretary ofthe Interior's Historic Prese-rvation Professional Qualification Standards (48 FR 44716) for archaeology, history, architecture, architectural history, or historic architecture. Background research and a review of the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) and the NRHP indicated that there are no previously recorded sites within the APE and only one within two miles. 8CR00086 (Mound Crossing) was recorded by John Goggin in 1951 as a pre-Contact sand mound. There has been no fieldwork conducted at Mound Crossing. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has not yet evaluated the site in terms ofNRHP listing eligibility. As the APE falls within the area covered by the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) prepared for the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) (Smith 2008), historic aerial photographs were examined for areas of potential tree islands or elevation rises, as these would be the most likely locations for pre-Contact or historic archaeological sites. Based on the background research, the APE has a variable probability for Indigenous and historical site occurrence. ACI identified 27 high probability zones/tree islands and three moderate probability zones, which are historic trails. As a result of field investigations, including a pedestrian survey and the excavation of 188 shovel tests, it was found that most of the Zones of Archaeological Potential (ZAP) were destroyed by previous agriculture. However, one new Indigenous archaeological site was discovered. 8CR01649 (Capling 1) is a high-density artifact scatter likely associated with late Archaic to early Woodlands period habitation. The density of the faunal remains suggests that 8CR01649 (Capling 1) habitation or long-term campsite. The artifacts recovered from each shovel test exhibit evidence of cooking, but not the same type of cooking activities, suggesting the possibility of discreet activity areas. Archaeologists note little to no disturbance of the tree island suggesting that the archaeological deposit may be intact. Moreover, the density of the cultural materials and the presence of pottery suggests that this site may be able to inform future research concerning late Archaic and early Woodland settlement patterns in South Florida. The site was not fully bound due to limitations from standing water and the Project Area boundary, although the preliminary evidence suggest that 8CR0 1649 may be eligible for listing in the NRHP eligible, there is insufficient information Page 215 of 1742to make a formal recommendation at this time. The most immediate danger to the site is development; however, 8CR01649 (Capling 1) is located is scheduled to be conservation land. ACI recommends that the area around 8CR01649 (Capling 1) be avoided. If avoidance is not possible or the conservation protection for this area is ever removed ACI recommends additional archaeological work to further evaluate the boundaries and eligibility of this site. Historic background research, including a review of the FMSF and NRHP databases, indicated that no historic resources were previously recorded within the APE. A review of relevant historic United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps, historic aerial photographs, and the Collier County property appraiser's website data revealed the potential for five new historic resources 50 years of age or older (constructed in 1974 or earlier) within the APE (Florida Department of Transportation [FDOT] 1973; Google 2024; Skinner 2024; United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] 1963, 1980; USGS 1958). The historic/architectural field survey resulted in the identification and evaluation of five historic resources (8CR01650, 8CR01651, 8CR01652, 8CR01653, and 8CR01654) within the APE. These include five linear resources (8CR01650, 8CR01651, 8CR01652, 8CR01653, and 8CR01654). Canals #1 through #4 (8CR01650, 8CR01651, 8CR01652, 8CR01653) were constructed circa (ca.) 1973 and Canal #5 (8CR01654) was constructed ca. 1952. All of the resources were designed to support the drainage and irrigation of the adjacent agricultural fields. Overall, the identified historic resources have been altered, lack sufficient engineering features, and are not a significant embodiment of a type, period, or method of construction. In addition, background research did not reveal any historic associations with significant persons and/or events. Thus, the resources do not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP, either individually or as a part of an historic district. Given the results of background research and field survey, including the excavation of 188 shovel tests, one new Indigenous archaeological site was discovered in the General Project Area, just east of the APE. 8CR01649 (Capling 1) is located on a tree island within a planned wetland conservation area. There is insufficient information to evaluate the site at this time, however the site is located within the conservation area which will result in avoidance as recommended. As a result of the historic/architectural field survey, five linear resources (8CR01650, 8CR01651, 8CR01652, 8CR01653, and 8CR01654) were identified and evaluated within the APE. The linear resources are common examples of drainage canals found throughout southwest Florida and have no known historic associations with significant persons and/or events. Thus, the resources do not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP, either individually or as a part of an historic district. Thus, there are no historic properties that are listed, determined eligible, or that appear potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP within the APE. Therefore, it is the professional opinion of ACI that the proposed undertaking will result in no historic properties affected, as long as 8CR01649 stays in a conservation area. 11 Page 216 of 1742 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1-1 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ......................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Project Location and Setting ..................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Physiography and Geology ....................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Soils and Vegetation .................................................................................................. 2-4 2.4 Paleoenvironmental Considerations .......................................................................... 2-6 3.0 CULTURAL CIIRONOLOGY ........................................................................................... 3-1 3 .1 Paleoindian ................................................................................................................ 3-2 3.2 Archaic ...................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.3 Glades ........................................................................................................................ 3-4 3.4 Colonialism ............................................................................................................... 3-6 3.5 Territorial and Statehood ........................................................................................... 3-7 3.6 Civil War and Aftermath ......................................................................................... 3-12 3.7 Twentieth Century ................................................................................................... 3-14 3.8 APESpecifics .......................................................................................................... 3-17 4.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS ..................................................... 4-1 4.1 Background Research and Literature Review .......................................................... .4-1 4.2 Archaeological Considerations .................................................................................. 4-1 4.3 Historical Considerations .......................................................................................... 4-5 4.4 Field Methodology .................................................................................................... 4-7 4.5 Unexpected Discoveries ............................................................................................ 4-8 4.6 Laboratory Methods and Curation ............................................................................ 4-8 5.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................... 5-1 5 .1 Archaeological .......................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Historic/Architectural Results ................................................................................... 5-8 5.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 5-13 6.0 REFERENCES CITED ....................................................................................................... 6-1 APPENDIX Appendix A Table 5.1 AppendixB FMSFForms Appendix C Survey Log 111 Page 217 of 1742 LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND PHOTOGRAPHS Figure Figure 1.1. Location of the Capling SR 29 Mine Project Area, note the APE in red and the remainder of the property will be in conservation ........................................................ 1-2 Figure 2.1. Environmental setting of the Project Area and APE .................................................... 2-2 Figure 2.2. Location of soils within the APE .................................................................................. 2-5 Figure 3.1. Florida Archaeological Regions ................................................................................... 3-1 Figure 3.2. 1839 Map ofthe Seat ofWar in Florida with the general project area shown in red ... 3-9 Figure 3.3. 1874 plat showing the Project Area and APE ............................................................ 3-10 Figure 3.4. Military map of South Florida .................................................................................... 3-11 Figure 3.5. Roy Nash map of Seminole camps in South Florida .................................................. 3-16 Figure 3.6. 1958 USGS Quadrangle map depicting the Project Area and APE (USGS 1958) ..... 3-18 Figure 3.7. 1963 aerial photograph depicting the Project Area and APE (USDA 1963) .............. 3-19 Figure 3.8. 1980 aerial photograph depicting the Project Area and APE (USDA 1980) .............. 3-20 Figure 4.1. Location of the previously recorded cultural resources proximate to the Project Area and APE ............................................................................................................... 4-2 Figure 4.2. Location of ZAPs within the Project Area and APE ................................................... .4-6 Figure 5.1. Location of the shovel tests within the Project Area and APE ..................................... 5-2 Figure 5.2. Location of the shovel tests within the Project Area and 8CR01649 ........................... 5-3 Figure 5.3. Location of the newly identified historic resources within the APE ............................ 5-9 Table 2.1. Soil characteristics ........................................................................................................ 2-4 Table 3.1. Glades Chronology (Griffin 2002; Janus Research 2008) ............................................ 3-5 Table 4.1. CRAS projects conducted proximate to the APE ........................................................ .4-1 Table 4.2. Distribution of sites by water type and distance .......................................................... .4-3 Table 4.3. Distribution of sites by drainage and soil types ........................................................... .4-3 Table 5.1. Ceramics recovered from 8CR01649 (Capling 1) ........................................................ 5-5 Table 5.2. Faunal remains recovered from 8CR01649 (Capling 1) ............................................... 5-6 Table 5.3. Artifact Table for SCRO 1649 Cap ling 1. ...................................................................... 5-7 Photo Photo 2.1. Example of plowed agricultural field, facing southeast ............................................... 2-1 Photo 2.2. Example of spray field area, facing west. ..................................................................... 2-3 Photo 2.3. Example of tree island environment in the planned conservation area ........................ 2-3 Photo 5.1. 8CR01649 (Capling 1) facing west. ............................................................................. 5-4 Photo 5.2. Wetland at the edge of SCRO 1649 (Capling 1) ............................................................ 5-4 Photo 5.3. Example of plain ceramics ........................................................................................... 5-5 Photo 5.4. Example of fiber tempered ceramic .............................................................................. 5-5 Photo 5.5. Canal #1 (8CR01650), looking east. ............................................................................ 5-8 Photo 5.6. Canal #2 (8CR01651), looking east. .......................................................................... 5-10 Photo 5.7. Canal #3 (8CR01652), looking west. ......................................................................... 5-l 1 Photo 5.8. Canal #4 (8CR01653), looking west. ......................................................................... 5-12 Photo 5.9. Canal #5 (8CR01654), looking southeast.. ................................................................. 5-13 iv Page 218 of 1742 1.0 INTRODUCTION Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) conducted a Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (CRAS) of the Capling SR 29 Mine on behalf of Peninsula Engineering. The Project Area is a total of approximately 1370 acres located on the east side of State Road (SR) 29, approximately 1.5 miles north of Oil Well Road. The planned project includes the development of a sand excavation mine in about 1108 acres of the property with the remainder staying in conservation land (Figure 1.1). This CRAS, completed in September 2024, was conducted as due diligence in anticipation of permitting requirements. The purpose of this investigation was to locate and identify any cultural resources within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). As defined in 36 Code ofFederal Regulation (CFR) Part § 800.16(d), the APE is the "geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist." Based on the scale and nature of the activities, the project has a limited potential for any indirect (physical, visual, or audible) or cumulative effects outside the immediate footprint of construction. Therefore, because of the project type and location of the proposed work, the archaeological and historical APE are limited to the existing boundaries of the project. This CRAS was completed in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations in 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties. All work was conducted in accordance with the standards contained in the Florida Division of Historical Resources' (FDHR) Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual (FDHR 2003). The resulting survey and report meet the specifications in Chapter lA-46, Florida Administrative Code, and complies with Chapters 267 and 373, Florida Statutes, as well as Florida's Coastal Management Program and local regulations. The Principal Investigators meet the Secretary ofthe Interior's Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards (48 FR 44716) for archaeology, history, architecture, architectural history, or historic architecture. Background research preceded the field investigations, which provided an informed set of expectations concerning the kinds of cultural resources that might be anticipated within the APE, as well as a basis for evaluating any newly discovered sites. ACI 1-1 October 2024 CRAS Capling P24133 Page 219 of 1742 [=:I Project Area C:) APE Big Cypress National Preserve 0 15 30 km Summer/and Swamp 29 :::, IC..- ,- :::, 29 0 ½ 1 ---=====----• Miles University of South Florida, FDEP, Esri, Tom Tom, Garmin, SafeGraph, Geo Technologies, Inc, METIINASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS, Esri, 0 Tom Tom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, EPA, University of South Florida, FDEP, Kilometers Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAQ, NOAA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USFWS, Esri, USGS. Figure 1.1. Location of the Capling SR 29 Mine Project Area, note the APE in red and the remainder of the property will be in conservation. ACI 1-2 October 2024 CRAS Capling P24133 Page 220 of 1742 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Environmental factors such as geology, topography, relative elevation, soils, vegetation, and water resources are important in determining where pre-colonial and historic period archaeological sites are likely to be located. These variables influenced what types of resources were available for utilization in each area. This, in tum, influenced decisions regarding settlement location and land-use patterns. Because of the influence of the local environmental factors upon the pre-colonial period populations, a discussion of the effective environment is included. 2.1 Proiect Location and Setting The APE is in Section 4,8, and 9 of Township 48 South, Range 30 East (United States Geological Survey [USGS] Suniland 2013) (Figure 2.1). The current environment consists of active agricultural fields and wetlands with tree islands. Some of the agriculture areas are current spray fields that were inaccessible. The tree islands are stands of hardwood and palm over limestone upcropping (Photos 2.1-2.3). Photo 2.1. Example of plowed agricultural field, facing southeast ACI 2-1 October 2024 CRAS Capling P24133 Page 221 of 1742 + 0 If 0 ¼ Copyrignl'©"20\l;.t:Jalional Geographic Sociely,,i-cubed, University of 0.5 SoutA\FJW1dl DEP, .. ESfi7'T0mTom, G1"j=min7'S afcGraph, Kilometers GeoTecttnologies-;"lnc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, US"FwS. USGS Sunniland Figure 2.1. Environmental setting of the Project Area and APE. ACI 2-2 October 2024 CRAS Capling P24133 Page 222 of 1742 Photo 2.2. Example of spray field area, facing west. Photo 2.3. Example of tree island environment in the planned conservation area. 2.2 Physiography and Geology The property is within the Southern, or Distal, geomorphic zone, which was formed of depositional and erosional processes associated with late-Pleistocene water level changes (White 1970). More specifically the APE is situated within the Immokalee Rise. The APE is underlain by Tamiami Formation, which is surficially evidenced by shelly sand and clay (Liudahl et al. 1998; Scott 1978, 2001; Scott et al. 2001). The elevation of the APE is 20-25 ft above mean sea level (amsl). ACI 2-3 October 2024 CRAS Capling P24133 Page 223 of 17422.3 Soils and Vegetation According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the APE occurs within the Immokalee-Oldsmar-Basinger soil association, which is characterized by nearly level, poorly drained, sandy soils that have a weakly to strongly developed, organically coated subsoil or that have a loamy subsoil. The natural vegetation consists mainly of saw palmetto and some scattered areas of South Florida slash pine, waxmyrtle, and gallberry (Leighty et al. 1954; Liudahl et al. 1998) The location of the specific soils within the APE are depicted on Figure 2.2 and their characteristics are described in Table 2.1. Table 2.1. Soil characteristics Name Location Drainal!e Basinger fine sand (fs)/0-2% Low flats, depressions, poorly defined drainageways Poor Low broad flats, flatwoods, low rises/knolls, Cypress Lake fs/0-2% Poor drainagewavs, depressions on marine terraces Broad low flats, poorly defined drainageways, Holopaw fs/0-2% Poor depressional areas Immokalee fs/0-2% Flatwoods, low broad flats on marine terraces Poor Malabar fs/0-2% Sloughs, shallow depressions, floodplains Poor Oldsmar fs, limestone substrate/0- Flatwoods, low broad flats, depressions on marine Poor 2% terraces Riviera fs, limestone substrate/0- Broad low flats, flatwoods, depressions in the Southern Poor 2% flatwoods Flatwoods, low broad flats, sloughs, depressions, flood Wabasso fs/0-2% Poor plains Chobee-Winder-Gator soils, freq. Flatwoods in depressions, drainageways, low broad flats, Very poor ponded/0-1 % flood plains on marine terraces Holopaw-Okeelanta freq. Nearly level low-lying flats, poorly defined Very poor ponded/0-1 % drainagewavs, depressional areas Winder-Riviera-Limestone substrate and Chobee soils freq. Broad low flats, depressional areas Very poor ponded/0-1 % Soils support different vegetative regimes that provide habitats for the local animal population. This would have affected the distribution of essential food resources and play a role in Indigenous site selection. Soils have variable suitability for openland, woodland, and wetland habitats. The habitat for openland wildlife consists of cropland, pasture, meadows, and areas that are overgrown with grasses, herbs, shrubs, and vines. These areas produce grain and seed crops, grasses, legumes, and wild herbaceous plants. The wildlife attracted to these areas include bobwhite quail, dove, meadowlark, field sparrow, cottontail, and sparrow hawk. Woodland wildlife habitat includes areas of deciduous plants or coniferous plants or both and associated grasses, legumes, and wild herbaceous plants. Wildlife attracted to these areas include turkey, thrushes, woodpeckers, squirrels, gray fox, racoon, wild hog, white-tailed deer, and owl. The habitat for wetland wildlife includes areas of open, marshy, or swampy, shallow water areas. Wildlife in these areas include ducks, egrets, herons, ibis, kingfishers, alligators, mink, and otters. Basinger and Riviera soils are rated fair for wetland habitat. Holopaw sand is rated fair for all habitat types. Wabasso sand is rated fair for woodland habitats. Malabar sand is rated fair for openland and wetland habitats. Oldsmar sand is rated fair for openland and woodland habitats. Chobee-Winder Gator, Holopaw-Okeelanta, and Winder-Riviera soils are all rated good for wetland habitats. Those soils not listed are rated poor or very poor for habitats (Liudahl et al. 1998). ACI 2-4 October 2024 CRAS Capling P24133 Page 224 of 1742 c:::J Project Area POORLY DRAINED,OLDSMAR FINE SAND, LIMESTONE CJ SUBSTRATUM, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES c=J APE POORLY DRAINED,RIVIERA FINE SAND, LIMESTONE POORLY DRAINED,BASINGER FINE SAND, 0 TO 2 1111 SUBSTRATUM, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES 1111 PERCENT SLOPES POORLY DRAINED,WABASSO FINE SAND, 0 TO 2 POORLY DRAINED,CYPRESS LAKE FINE SAND, 0 TO 2 CJ PERCENT SLOPES PERCENT SLOPES VERY POORLY DRAINED,CHOBEE, WINDER, GATOR - POORLY DRAINED,HOLOPAW FINE SAND, 0 TO 2 a'!IUI SOILS, FREQUENTLY PONDED, 0 TO 1 PERCENT CJ PERCENT SLOPES SLOPES VERY POORLY DRAINED,HOLOPAW-OKEELANTA, POORLY DRAINED,IMMOKALEE FINE SAND, 0 TO 2 r-"'"""7 CJ PERCENT SLOPES L----1 FREQUENTLY PONDED, ASSOCAITION, 0 TO 1 PERCENT SLOPES POORLY DRAINED,MALABAR FINE SAND, 0 TO 2 1111 PERCENT SLOPES VERY POORLY DRAINED,WINDER, RIVIERA, LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM, AND CHOBEE SOILS, 1111 FREQUENTLY PONDED, 0 TO 1 PERCENT SLOPES Figure 2.2. Location of soils within the APE. ACI 2-5 October 2024 CRAS Capling P24133 Page 225 of 17422.4 Paleoenvironmental Considerations The early environment of the region was different from that seen today. Sea levels were lower, the climate was arid, and fresh water was scarce. An understanding ofhuman ecology during the earliest periods of human occupation in Florida cannot be based on observations of the modem environment because of changes in water availability, botanical communities, and faunal resources. Indigenous inhabitants would have adapted in response to the environmental changes talcing place, which were reflected in settlement patterns, site types, artifact forms, and subsistence economies. Due to arid conditions between 16,500 and 12,500 years ago, the perched water aquifer and potable water supplies were absent. Palynological studies conducted in Florida and Georgia suggest that between 13,000 and 5000 years ago, this area was covered with an upland vegetation community of scrub oak and prairie (Watts 1969, 1971, 1975). However, the environment was not static. Evidence recovered from the inundated Page-Ladson Site in north Florida has clearly demonstrated that there were two periods of low water tables and dry climatic conditions and two episodes of elevated water tables and wet conditions (Dunbar 2006c ). By 5000 years ago, a climatic event marking a brief return to Pleistocene climatic conditions induced a change toward more open vegetation. Southern pine forests replaced the oak savannahs. Extensive marshes and swamps developed along the coasts and subtropical hardwood forests became established along the southern tip of Florida (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981). Northern Florida saw an increase in oak species, grasses, and sedges (Carbone 1983). At Lake Annie, in south central Florida, wax myrtle and pine dominated the pollen cores. The assemblage suggests that by this time, a forest dominated by longleafpine along with cypress swamps and bayheads were present (Watts 1971, 1975). Surface water was plentiful in karst terrains and the level of the Floridan aquifer rose to 1.5 m (5 ft) above present levels. With the establishment of warmer winters and cooler summers than in the preceding early Holocene, the fire-adapted pine communities prevailed. These depend on the high summer precipitation caused by the thunderstorms and the accompanying lightning strikes to spark the fires (Watts et al. 1996; Watts and Hansen 1994). The increased precipitation also resulted in the formation of the large swamp systems such as the Okefenokee and Everglades (Gleason and Stone 1994). After this time, modem floral, climatic, and environmental conditions began to be established. ACI 2-6 October 2024 CRAS Capling P24133 Page 226 of 1742 3.0 CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY A discussion of the regional culture history is included to provide a framework within which to examine the local archaeological and historical record. Archaeological and historic sites are not individual entities but were once part of a dynamic cultural system. As a result, individual sites cannot be adequately examined or interpreted without reference to other sites and resources in the area. The culture history of an area (i.e., the archaeological region) outlines the sequence of archaeological and historical cultures through time. These are defined largely in geographical terms, but also reflect shared environmental and cultural traits. The property is within the East and Central archaeological region Milanich (1994) (Figure 3.1). The Paleoindian, Archaic, Formative, and Mississippian stages have been defined based on material culture traits such as stone tool forms and ceramics, as well as subsistence, settlement, and burial patterns. Figure 3.1. Florida Archaeological Regions. The historical overview of Florida as compiled below is resolved into four distinct yet equally important chronological divisions. The Colonial Period (circa [ca.] 1513-1821 CE) developed during the Age of Exploration and witnessed more than three centuries of adventurism by both the Spanish and British empires. During Territory and Statehood (1822-1860 CE), a territorial government was established in Florida by the United States Congress on March 30, 1822 (Legislative Council of the Territory of Florida 1822). This period also highlights conflict with the Seminole people and the events following Florida's admission to the Union on March 3, 1845 The Civil War and Aftermath (1861- 1900 CE) period traces the actions and consequences resulting from Florida's secession from the Union on January 10, 1861, the American Civil War (1861-1865 CE), the succeeding era of Reconstruction and readmission on July 25, 1868, and the late nineteenth century when development and transportation increased and expanded throughout the state (Florida Constitutional Convention 1868; Florida Convention of the People 1861). The Twentieth Century includes subperiods defined by important ACI 3-1 October 2024 CRAS Capling P24133 Page 227 of 1742historic events such as the two World Wars, the Florida Land Boom of the 1920s, and the Great Depression. Each of these periods evidenced differential development and utilization of the land within specific regions, ultimately affecting the historic site distribution. 3.1 Paleoindian The Paleoindian period is the earliest known cultural manifestation in Florida, dating from roughly 20,000 to 8000 BCE (Bense 1994; Milanich 1994; Webb and Dunbar 2006). Archaeological evidence for Paleoindians consists primarily of scattered finds of diagnostic lanceolate-shaped and fluted projectile points. The Paleoindian stage is divided into three temporal horizons based on characteristic tool forms called the Clovis (10,500-9000 BCE), Suwanee (9000-8500 BCE), and the Late Paleoindian (8500-8000 BCE) (Austin 2001). In addition, the Pre-Clovis Horizon predates 10,500 BCE and was previously identified based on artifacts retrieved from the Page-Ladson site in the Aucilla River, however, there is less representation of this horizon further south in Florida (Dunbar and Vojnovski 2007; Halligan et al. 2016; Hemmings 1999). Other Paleoindian sites within Florida include the Wakulla Springs Lodge, Ryan Harvey, Norden, Lewis-McQuinn, Silver Springs, Warm Mineral Springs, and Harney Flats. The Florida peninsula at that time was quite different than today. In general, the climate was cooler and drier with vegetation typified by xerophytic species with scrub oak, pine, open grassy prairies, and savannas (Milanich 1994:40). When human populations were arriving in Florida, the sea levels were still as much as 40 to 60 m (130-200 ft) below present levels, and coastal regions of Florida extended miles beyond present-day shorelines (Faught 2004). Based on research along the Aucilla and Wacissa Rivers, there were major variations in the inland water tables resulting from large-scale environmental fluctuations that depended on the local environmental conditions present at the time (Dunbar 2006b, 2016). According to Oasis Theory, scarce potable water and low water tables led Paleoindians and common game animals to cluster around the few available water holes that were associated with sinkholes (Neill 1964). When dry periods passed, migrating Pleistocene animals dispersed and moved freely over a wider range for abundant water resources and Paleoindians would gather around river-crossings to ambush large animals (Waller 1970). Rivers developed from the sinkholes where populations settled during the drier periods. As a result of changing environmental conditions, many of these once-dry sites, such as Page-Ladson and Sloth Hole, have been inundated (Faught and Donoghue 1997; Florida Museum of Natural History 2021; Rick and Braje 2022). Investigations at additional sites within the north Florida rivers have provided important information on the Paleoindian period and how the Native Americans adapted to their environmental setting (Webb 2006). Some of the information about this period has also been derived from the underwater excavations at two inland spring sites in Sarasota County: Little Salt Spring and Warm Mineral Springs (Clausen et al. 1979). It has been suggested that Paleoindian settlement and movement may have been related to the scheduling of toolkit replacement, social needs, and the availability of water, among other factors, rather than to seasonal changes as postulated for the Archaic period (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987: 17 5). Archaeologists hypothesize that Paleoindians lived in migratory bands and subsisted by gathering and hunting, including the now-extinct Pleistocene megafauna (Anderson and Sassaman 2012). Studies of Pleistocene faunal remains clearly demonstrate the importance of these animals not only for food, but also as raw material for the bone tool industry (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987). In addition, they likely trapped smaller animals such as mink, muskrat, and rabbit for their fur and medium sized mammal such as deer for food and producing bone tools (Dunbar 2016; Dunbar and Vojnovski 2007). These nomadic hunters likely traveled between permanent and semi-permanent sources of water, such as artesian springs, to exploit available water and food resources. In addition to being tied to water sources, most of the Paleoindian sites are close to good quality lithic resources ACI 3-2 October 2024 CRAS Capling P24133 Page 228 of 1742(Anderson and Sassaman 2012). Paleoindian settlements consisted of established semi-permanent habitation areas and the movement of the materials from their procurement sources to the residential locale by specialized task groups (Austin 2001 :25; Rogers and Fitzhugh 2022). 3.2 Archaic The Archaic period (ca. 8000-1000 BCE) is characterized by climate change leading to marked environmental transformations and the extinction of Pleistocene megafauna (Hudson 1984; Rogers and Fitzhugh 2022). Among the landscape alterations were rises in sea and water table levels that resulted in the availability of more surface water. In addition, this period is characterized by the spread ofmesic forests and the beginnings of modem vegetation communities including pine forests and cypress swamps (Bense 1994). Humans adapted to this changing environment, and regional and local differences are reflected in the archaeological record (Russo 1994a, 1994b; Sassaman 2008). Archaeological evidence suggests a slow cultural change that led to an increasingly intensive exploitation of localized food resources, which may reflect the transition to a more seasonal, modem climate compared to the Pleistocene. Pine-dominated forests began to cover the landscape (Bense 1994). With the loss of Ice Age mammals, Archaic populations turned to the hunting of smaller game such as deer, raccoon, and opossum, and relied on wild plants and shellfish, where available (Rogers and Fitzhugh 2022). The disappearance of the mammoths and mastodons resulted in a reduction of open grazing lands, and thus, the subsequent disappearance of grazers such as horses, bison, and camels. As a result, herd animals were replaced by the more solitary, woodland browser: the white-tailed deer (Dunbar 2006a:426). The intertwined data of megafaunal extinction and cultural change suggests a rapid and significant disruption in both faunal and floral assemblages. The Bolen people represent the first culture adapted to the Holocene environment using a more specialized toolkit and the introduction of chipped-stone woodworking implements (Carter and Dunbar 2006). The Archaic period is commonly subdivided into three subperiods: Early (ca. 8000-6000 BCE), Middle (6000-4000 BCE), and Late (4000-1000 BCE) Archaic (Bense 1994). These three periods saw transitional changes in lifestyle through settlement patterns and resource procurement in response to climate changes and population growth (Anderson and Sassaman 2012). In the Early period, most sites were small, seasonal campsites that followed a diffuse, yet well-patterned schedule in areas with access to both coastal and interior resources. During the Middle Archaic, these settlements shifted to a system of base camps with smaller satellite camps to maximize forest resources during parts of the year. At this time, there is also evidence of mortuary ceremonialism with the use of marked cemeteries and internments found in bogs, springs, and wetlands (Anderson and Sassaman 2012). By the Late Archaic, populations had become more sedentary due to their growing size and the arrival of essentially modem environmental conditions (Milanich 1994). Settlements in coastal areas grew a greater reliance on marine resources, especially shellfish and fish which resulted in the accumulation of coastal and riverine shell middens due to new subsistence strategies and technology (Rick and Braje 2022). This later period also saw the advent of pottery making, using clay paste with a variety of tempers including plant fibers, quartz sand, and sponge spicules. Fiber-tempered ceramics in particular used Spanish moss or palmetto fibers that was pressed into clay and then burned out during the firing process, leaving behind charred remained within pottery (Bense 1994; Cordell 2004). Archaeological evidence indicates that South Florida was sparsely settled during this time. Tools became diverse and specialized for specific procurement tasks based on settlement type and location (Bullen 197 5). New manufacturing processes, such as thermal alteration, became prevalent in shaping chert and coral tools, including broad-bladed projectile points, microliths, burins, large chopping implements, and stemmed and comer-notched projectile points (Bense 1994; Ste. Claire ACI 3-3 October 2024 CRAS Capling P24133 Page 229 of 17421987). Other lithic tools of the Late Archaic variety include hafted scrapers and ovate and triangular- shaped knives (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). Discoveries at Little Salt Spring and the Windover site indicate that bone and wood tools were also used (Clausen et al. 1979; Doran 2002). The earliest pottery was manufactured in the Late Archaic with the introduction of fiber-tempered (Spanish moss or palmetto) ceramics, also known as the Orange or Norwood series. In the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast region, sand-tempered pottery became the dominant ceramic type (Gerrell 1997). This diversification oflithic and ceramic artifacts created several tool traditions that reflect cultural regionalism throughout the period. 3.3 Glades The project area lies near a juncture of the easternmost extent of the Caloosahatchee region and the western extent of the Okeechobee region (Milanich 1994: xix) where, as elsewhere, the end of the Late, or Ceramic, Archaic was a period of environmental change. The maturing of productive estuarine systems was accompanied by cultural changes leading to the establishment of what John Goggin originally defined as the "Glades Tradition" (Griffin 2002:124). The Glades area, which is the largest archaeological area in southern Florida, is environmentally diverse with distinct ecological regions. An important physiographic feature is the "tree island," typically a hammock that can be seen as a slight rise in elevation within the Everglades and similar environments. The islands are usually surrounded by water on all sides, and these hardwood hammocks may be surrounded by wetland species. These islands of dry ground, often quite small, provided an opportunity for settlement with an abundance of resources within the surrounding marshes (Carr 2002). The tree islands frequently contain black dirt, accretionary middens that until recently were considered temporary, seasonal campsites used by coastal dwelling populations during forays into interior wetlands (Griffin 2002; Widmer 1988). During the survey of the Big Cypress, four major types of sites were defined: primary habitation sites, secondary habitation sites, resource procurement and processing sites, and mound sites (Athens 1983). More recently, archaeologists have suggested that at least some of the sites were utilized permanently by populations who lived in the interior marshlands (Janus Research 2008:29). Unlike much of peninsular Florida, the region does not contain deposits of chert, and as such stone artifacts are rare, usually the result of trade. Instead, shell and bone were used as raw materials for tools (Milanich 1994:302). Bone artifacts were manufactured from deer, shark teeth, fish spines and vertebrae, and turtle shell, as well as marine shell such as Busycon (Janus Research 2008:28). The Glades Tradition has been divided into three periods based on changes in surface decoration seen in the ceramic assemblage through time (Table 3.1 ). There was little change in the other categories of Glades material culture, except for the apparent increase in bone ornaments during Glades III. Similarly, no significant changes occurred within the subsistence economy during the Glades period (Griffin 2002:160). Widmer believed that once the basic adaptation was fully achieved by the beginning of Glades II, the culture persisted until it was ultimately destroyed by the effects of European contact (Widmer 1988). ACI 3-4 October 2024 CRAS Capling P24133 Page 230 of 1742 Table 3.1. Glades Chronology (Griffin 2002; Janus Research 2008). Period Dates Distinguishing Characteristics 1513-ca. 1700 Glades Ilic Same as previous period with the addition of historic artifacts Current Era (CE) Glades Tooled, Glades Plain and St. Johns Check Stamped Glades Illb 1400-1513 CE are present, Surfside Incised and grooved lips are not present Plantation Pinched is no longer present; Glades Plain and Glades Illa 1200-1400 CE grooved lips persist; appearance of Surfside Incised and St. Johns Check Stamped Almost no decorated pottery; some grooved lips but no more Glades Ile 1100-1200 CE lip arcs or crimped rims; Plantation Pinched appears Glades Plain and Key Largo Incised persist; Matecumbe Incised appears; none of the earlier decorated types are Glades lib 900-1100 CE present; incised lip arcs, lip crimping, grooving appears for the first time Appearance of Key Largo Incised and Miami Incised; Glades Glades Ila 750-900 CE Plain and Opa Locka Incised persist; none of the earlier decorated types are present First appearance of decorated pottery: Fort Drum Incised, Fort Drum Punctate, Cane Patch Incised, Gordon's Pass Glades I late 500-750 CE Incised, Opa Locka Incised, Sanibel Incised; Glades Plain persists Glades I early 500 BCE-500 CE First appearance of sand tempered pottery; no decoration 3.3.1 Glades I Beginning around 500 BCE, the earlier fiber-tempered/semi-fiber-tempered pottery was replaced by sand tempered pottery (Glades Plain). The sand tempering marks the beginning of the Glades cultural tradition. For 700 years, sand tempered plain (STP) pottery dominated the assemblage. In late Glades I (ca. 200 CE to 800 CE), decorated pottery, including Fort Drum Incised, Fort Drum Punctate, Cane Patch Incised, Gordons Pass Incised, as well as Opa Locka Incised and Sanibel Incised ceramics are found in addition to Glades Plain pottery (Carr and Beriault 1984; Griffin 2002). The tremendous increase in Glades I archaeological sites within the Big Cypress indicates an increase in the use of that area, and the geographic extent of Glades I diagnostics indicates a considerable degree of interchange and interaction throughout the larger region (Griffin 2002; Widmer 1988). 3.3.2 Glades II (sub periods a, b, and c) The Glades II era (800 to 1200 CE) begins with tremendous diversity in decorated pottery types. Goggin (n.d.) described the decorations as being "neatly and cleanly cut and apparently made with swift cutting strokes while the clay is partially dry." The number of archaeological sites continues to increase, and the period would appear to be one of "relative stability in technology and subsistence" (Griffin 2002:158). The appearance of Miami Incised pottery, ca. 900 CE, marks the beginning of the Glades lib period. Without explanation, the century from ca. 1100 to 1200 CE (Glades Ile) contains a conspicuous absence of decorated pottery and the number of sites drops dramatically (Griffin 2002:158). This cultural hiatus has been correlated to the NeoAtlantic warm period and associated with high sea levels (Fairbridge 1984:431; Gleason et al. 1984:321). ACI 3-5 October 2024 CRAS Capling P24133 Page 231 of 1742 3.3.3 Glades III (sub periods a, b, and c) The Glades III era begins with the reintroduction of decorated pottery; however, the motifs and techniques are noticeably different from previous styles. There is also an accompanying increase in bone ornaments. Around 1400 CE, the use of incising as a decorative technique ceases and the appearance of Glades Tooled pottery, which has a thickened lip that has been tooled with a small round tool (Griffin 2002:77, 159). It has been hypothesized that this stylistic trend might have been associated with increasing Calusa influence in the area or contact with the central Gulf Coast (Griffin 2002; McGregor 1974). Glades Ille is the same as Glades Illb, with the addition ofEuropean artifacts obtained through trade or salvage. 3.4 Colonialism The cultural traditions of native Floridians ended with the advent of European expeditions to the Americas. The initial events, authorized by Spain in the late fifteenth century, ushered in waves of devastating European contact (Ethridge et al. 2022). The first European to have contact with the west coast of Florida was Ponce de Leon. After arriving in St. Augustine in 1513, he explored the Florida Coast through the Keys and, based on recent research, ended near Safety Harbor in 1521, attempting to settle in the Old Tampa Bay area (MacDougald 2021; Worth 2014). Next, Panfilo de Narvaez arrived in the Tampa Bay area in 1528 and explored northward from Tampa Bay and crossed the Withlacoochee River near present day Dunnellon in an attempt to reach northeastern Mexico (MacDougald 2021 ). Finally, Hernando DeSoto landed in the Tampa Bay area in 1539; he sought the allegedly rich Native American village of Cale (Lavender 1992). Spanish contact is indicated by the presence of European objects, especially beads, and cut marks on bones resulting from metal swords and knives (Allender 2018; Nilssen 2000; Soulier and Costamagno 2017; Steele 2015). The Timucuan natives are the historic counterparts of the Safety Harbor people; in the Tampa Bay area, they are referred to as the Tocobaga, with areas of occupation and influence extending approximately from Tarpon Springs southward to Sarasota (Bullen 1978). The Tocobaga consisted of many small chiefdoms, with the principal chiefdom also called Tocobaga located at the head of Old Tampa Bay at the Safety Harbor site; other major chiefdoms included the Mococ;o (at the mouth of the Alafia River) and Ucita (at the mouth of the Little Manatee River) (Deagan 2013; Hann 1992, 2003). The Spaniards briefly established a fort and garrison at Tocobaga in the 1560s. In 1568, the Tocobaga killed all of the soldiers and left when a Spanish supply ship arrived. The Spanish burned the village (Hann 2003). In northern Florida, much ofthe surviving Native American population was converted by Jesuit and Franciscan missions (McEwan 1993). However, similar efforts in peninsular Florida were unsuccessful, not for a lack of effort, but because the remaining populations were intractable (Hann 1991 ). In time, some of the missionized Native Americans fled south along the Gulf Coast (Luer 1999). Evidence of their presence has been found around Tampa Bay at locales like the Safety Harbor and Narvaez sites, and at the Fort Brooke Midden in downtown Tampa. South of Tampa Bay, historic documents mention various activities along the Gulf Coast in the 1600s and early 1700s, as refugees fleeing mission sites probably joined Indigenous Indians (Luer 1999). The geographic area that now constitutes the State of Florida was ceded per terms of the Treaty of Paris (1763) by Spain to Great Britain as a result of the British victory in the Anglo-Spanish War (1762-1763), the last-stage theater of the wider, global Seven Years' War (1756-1763) (Anderson 2000). Britain governed East and West Florida until the Treaty of Paris (1783) returned Florida to Spain; however, Spanish influence was nominal during this second period of occupation (1763-1821). ACI 3-6 October 2024 CRAS Capling P24133 Page 232 of 1742During this time, English loyalists moved into Florida during the American Revolution, which would later contribute to rising tensions over land settlement (Frank 2017). Prior to American colonial settlement, members of the Muskogean Creek, Y amassee, and Oconee tribes moved into Florida and repopulated the area once inhabited by the original Indigenous inhabitants; these migrating groups of Native Americans became known as the Seminoles (Mulroy 1993). They had an agriculturally based society, focused upon cultivation of crops and the raising of horses and cattle. Creek settlements included large villages located near rich agricultural fields and grazing lands. Seminole sites tend to be in the scattered oak-hickory uplands surrounding the Alachua savanna; south of that area, they tend to be located along the Brooksville Ridge (Weisman 1989b). They had an agriculturally based society, focused upon cultivation of crops and the raising of horses and cattle. Creek settlements included large villages located near rich agricultural fields and grazing lands (Sturtevant and Cattelino 2004). Seminole sites tend to be in the scattered oak-hickory uplands surrounding the Alachua savanna; south ofthat area, they tend to be located along the Brooksville Ridge (Weisman 1989b ). While the Seminoles did also focus on hunting, they did not heavily exploit maritime and riverine resources until later times (Weisman 1989b ). The material culture of the Seminoles remained like the Creeks, the dominant pottery type being Chattahoochee Brushed (White 2014). European trade goods, especially British, were common (Allender 2018). The colonial history of Native Floridians can be divided into two basic periods: Colonization (1716-1767) when the initial movement of Creek towns into Florida occurred, andEthnogenesis (1767- 1821) which was the long process of developing distinct Seminole cultural and social identities (Mahon and Weisman 1996; Weisman 1989a, 2007). The Seminoles formed, at various times, loose confederacies for mutual protection against the American Nation to the north and violence perpetrated by white settlers (Pinell-Hernandez 2017; Tebeau 1980:72). The Seminoles crossed back and forth into Georgia and Alabama conducting raids and incorporating maroons, enslaved individuals who escaped their enslavers and sought freedom elsewhere. This resulted in General Andrew Jackson's invasion of Florida in 1818, which became known as the First Seminole War. Though there are three recognized Seminole Wars in United States history books, the Seminole Tribe of Florida refers to them as one long war of American hostility and genocide (Bidney 2018; Ruhl 2019). Along the Gulf Coast between Charlotte Harbor and Tampa Bay, Spanish and Cuban fishermen established communities, or "ranchos," with the earliest being at Useppa Island and San Carlos Bay (Hammond 1973). There is growing archaeological evidence that the surviving Native Americans of the region were assimilated into these Creole communities (Almy 2001; Hann 1991; Neill 1968). These west coast ranchos supplied dried fish to Cuban and northern markets until the mid-1830s, when onset of the Seminole Wars and customs control closed the fisheries. 3.5 Territorial and Statehood The bloody conflict between the Americans and the Seminoles over Florida first came to a head in 1818 and as subsequently known as the First Seminole War. In 1821, Florida became a U.S. Territory due to the war and the Adams-Onis Treaty. Andrew Jackson, named provisional governor, divided the territory into St. Johns and Escambia Counties. St. Johns County included the lands lying east of the Suwannee River. In the first territorial census (1825), 5077 people were reported within St. Johns County, and by 1830, that number had risen to 8956 (Tebeau 1980:134). Even though the First Seminole War was fought in north Florida, the Treaty of Moultrie Creek in 1823, at the end of the war, was to affect the settlement ofall of Florida. The Seminoles relinquished their claim to the whole peninsula in return for an approximately four-million-acre reservation south of Ocala and north of Charlotte Harbor (Mahon 1985). The reservation was found to be nearly barren, ACI 3-7 October 2024 CRAS Capling P24133 Page 233 of 1742with poor soils, few good hammocks, and frequently covered with water during the rainy season (Knetsch 2008:8). The treaty never satisfied the Indians or the Anglo-Americans. The inadequacy of the reservation and desperate situation of the Seminoles living there, plus the mounting demand of the Anglo-Americans for their removal, soon produced another conflict. In 1823, Gadsden County was created from St. John's County, and the following year Mosquito County was created out of Gadsden. This new county included all of the Tampa Bay area and reached south to Charlotte Harbor (Historic Tampa/Hillsborough County Preservation Board [HT/HCPB] 1980:7). In 1824, Cantonment (later Fort) Brooke was established on the south side of the mouth of the Hillsborough River in what is now downtown Tampa by Colonel George Mercer Brooke. Frontier families followed the soldiers, and the settlement of the Tampa Bay area began. This caused some problems for the military as civilian settlements were not in accord with the Camp Moultrie agreement (Guthrie 197 4: 10). By 1830, the U.S. War Department found it necessary to establish a military reserve around Fort Brooke with boundaries extending 16 miles to the north, west, and east (Chamberlin 1968:43). Within the military reservation were a guardhouse, barracks, storehouse, powder magazine, and stables. Hillsborough County was established in 1834 by the Territorial Legislature of Florida; it reached north to Dade City and south to Charlotte Harbor, encompassing an area that today comprises Pasco, Polk, Manatee, Sarasota, DeSoto, Charlotte, Highlands, Hardee, Pinellas, and Hillsborough counties. Due to its isolated location, Hillsborough County was slow to develop. The Tampa Bay post office was closed at this time and reestablished as "Tampa" on September 13, 1834 (Bradbury and Hallock 1962). As settlement in the area increased, so did hostilities with Native Americans. The growing threat of Seminole invasion to the civilians near the fort propelled them to sign a petition asking for military protection. Only 25 men signed the petition showing the meager settlement in the area (Brown 1999:46). By the early 1830s, governmental policy shifted in terms of relocating the Seminoles to lands west of the Mississippi River. Outrage at this policy of forced relocation resulted in the Second Seminole War (1835-1842). The Second Seminole War was triggered by an attack on Major Francis Langhorne Dade as he led a company of soldiers from Fort Brooke to Fort King (now Ocala). As part of the effort to subdue Indian hostilities in Florida, military patrols moved into the wilderness in search of any Seminole concentrations. As the Second Seminole War escalated, attacks on isolated settlers and communities became more common. To combat this, the U.S. Army and Navy converged on southwest Florida attempting to seal off the southern portion of the Florida peninsula from the estimated 300 Seminoles remaining in the Big Cypress Swamp and Everglades (Covington 1958; Tebeau and Carson 1965). In 183 7, Fort Brooke became the headquarters for the Army of the South and the main garrison for the Seminole wars. It also served as a haven for settlers who left their farms to seek protection from the warring Seminoles (Piper et al. 1982). Several other forts, including Fort Alabama (later Fort Foster), Fort Thonotosassa, and Fort Simmons were established during the Seminole War years (Bruton and Bailey 1984). Their uses varied from military garrisons to military supply depots; others were built to protect the nearby settlers during Indian uprisings. The Second Seminole War ended in 1842 when the federal government withdrew troops from Florida. Some of the battle-weary Seminoles were persuaded to emigrate to the Oklahoma Indian Reservation where the federal government had set aside land for their occupation. However, those who wished to remain were allowed to do so but were pushed further south into the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp. This area became the last stronghold for the Seminoles (Mahon 1985). The 1839 Map of the Seat of War in Florida does depict one military road within the general project area and a ACI 3-8 October 2024 CRAS Capling P24133 Page 234 of 1742Seminole just to the southwest and Fort Keais northeast of the general project area (Mackay and Blake 1839) (Figure 3.2). :::-\ -=- .... :<:.:. : ... -•- ·-· ::c/4:1 • ·-_-: >. t;'l ·\/'·- -•-·•·· 10 i ifr_} Figure 3.2. 1839 Map ofthe Seat ofWar in Florida with the general project area shown in red. In 1840, the population of Hillsborough County was 452, with 360 of those residing at Fort Brooke (HT/HCPB 1980). Encouraged by the passage of the Armed Occupation Act in 1842, designed to promote settlement and protect the Florida frontier, settlers moved south through Florida. The Act made available 200,000 acres outside the already developed regions south of Gainesville to the Peace River, barring coastal lands and those within a two-mile radius of a fort. The Armed Occupation Act stipulated that any family or single man over 18 able to bear arms could earn title to 160 acres by erecting a habitable dwelling, cultivating at least five acres of land, and living on it for five years. During the nine-month period the law was in effect, 1184 permits were issued totaling some 189,440 acres (Covington 1961a:48). Through the Armed Occupation Act, Josiah Gates purchased a quarter section of land at a mineral spring on the south bank of the Manatee River. He built a log cabin and moved his family into it in January 1842. By 1844, extensive sugar plantations and mills had been constructed along the river. Two brothers, Hector and Dr. Joseph Braden, purchased land on the south side of the Manatee River at the confluence of the river and a large creek, which acquired the name of Braden. They grew sugar cane on their 1100 acres and constructed a residence of tabby in 1850, later known as Braden Castle. In addition to the Braden brothers, the Gamble brothers, also from Tallahassee, arrived in the area to farm the north side of the river. In 1844, Major Robert Gamble constructed a sugar plantation on the Manatee River with approximately 1500 acres under cultivation (Matthews 1983:152-155). Tampa became a center of distribution for settlements being established along the Alafia River and in South Florida. In 1843, William G. Ferris established a general merchandising business at Fort Brooke, becoming the first of several merchandising firms. The Tampa area had first been a military ACI 3-9 October 2024 CRAS Capling P24133 Page 235 of 1742center and was now developing into a commercial center for the Gulf Coast region of Florida (Robinson 1928). In 1845, the State of Florida was admitted to the Union, and Tallahassee was selected as the capital. The land surrounding Fort Brooke continued to belong to the U.S. government until 1846; therefore, there were few permanent structures beyond the immediate vicinity of the fort. After the military reservation was reduced from sixteen square miles to four square miles, John Jackson was hired to survey and plat the town in 184 7. To hasten settlement of Florida, the U.S. government commenced official surveys of public land. In 1872 W.L. Apthorp surveyed the exteriors of Township 48 South and in 1874 T.S. Steams surveyed the interiors. They described the land around the APE as third-rate timber and pine (Apthorp 1872; Steams 1874). The resulting map does not depict any historical features (Apthorp and Steams 1874) (Figure 3.3). " e_ 30E, 1874 _ l Go JGO J_ 6 o J. G o • ' 9•s.1 • -w- a. ir I , JGO ]GO r'/ :J\T8 9•- ok, <\ E=. ;t:c1.v-c:1 " EXPIRES: Print Name of Notary Public \ Capling SR29 Mine Conditional Use-PL20240001182 Page 323 of 1742 NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PETITION: CU-PL20240001182 – CAPLING SR 29 MINE A neighborhood information meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, April 3rd, 2025, beginning at 5:30 pm, to discuss the referenced zoning petition. The meeting will be held at the Ave Maria Master Association Office, 5080 Annunciation Circle, Unit #101, Ave Maria, FL 34142. The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting is to provide the public with notice of the impending zoning application and to foster communication between the applicant and the public. The expectation is that all attendees will conduct themselves in such a manner that their presence will not interfere with the orderly progress of the meeting. The Applicant, Sunniland Properties, LLC, has submitted a formal application to Collier County seeking approval of a Conditional Use (CU) in the Rural Agricultural Zoning District, Mobile Home Overlay, Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, and Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) to allow for a commercial excavation mine. The project involves 1,401.8 acres and is located in eastern Collier County within portions of Sections 4, 8, 9, 10, Township 48 South and Range 30 East, (the “property”). If you have questions or would like to register to participate in the meeting remotely, please contact the individual below. Jessica Harrelson, AICP Peninsula Engineering Phone: 239.403.6751 Email: jharrelson@pen-eng.com Please note, remote participation is provided as a courtesy. The applicant and Peninsula Engineering are not responsible for any technical issues. Project information can be found on our website: www.pen-eng.com/planning-projects or by using the QR code below: 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Page 324 of 1742 1 Notice: This data belongs to the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (CCPA). Therefore, the recipient agrees not to represent this data to anyone as other than CCPA provided data. The recipient may not transfer this data to others without consent from the CCPA. Petition: PL20240001182 | Buffer: 1000' | Date: 2/25/2025 | Site Location: 00231880002, 00232240007, 00232040401, 00232200005, 00232320008, NAME1 NAME2 NAME3 NAME4 NAME6 BLOCKER RANCH OF IMMOKALEE LLC 1303 NEW MARKET RD W IMMOKALEE, FL 34142---0 CDC INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC 999 VANDERBILT BEACH RD #507 NAPLES, FL 34108---0 CDC INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC 999 VANDERBILT BEACH RD #507 NAPLES, FL 34108---0 COLLIER GROVES LTD ATTN: RICH CHOMA CONSOLIDATED CITRUS LTD PRTNR 3602 COLONIAL CT FORT MYERS, FL 33913---6636 COLLIER GROVES LTD ATTN: RICH CHOMA CONSOLIDATED CITRUS LTD PRTNR 3602 COLONIAL CT FORT MYERS, FL 33913---6636 COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD 999 VANDERBILT BEACH RD #507 NAPLES, FL 34108---0 COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD 999 VANDERBILT BEACH RD #507 NAPLES, FL 34108---0 COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD 999 VANDERBILT BEACH RD #507 NAPLES, FL 34108---0 COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD 999 VANDERBILT BEACH RD #507 NAPLES, FL 34108---0 COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD 999 VANDERBILT BEACH RD #507 NAPLES, FL 34108---0 COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD 999 VANDERBILT BEACH RD #507 NAPLES, FL 34108---0 DIVINE TOMATOES INC PO BOX 3413 IMMOKALEE, FL 34143---0 DIVINE TOMATOES INC PO BOX 3413 IMMOKALEE, FL 34143---0 DIVINE TOMATOES INC PO BOX 3413 IMMOKALEE, FL 34143---0 EICHENBLATT, ELIYAHU BEN TZION 6062 SR 29 IMMOKALEE, FL 34142---0 GLOBAL SIGNAL ACQUISITIONS IV PMB 331 4017 WASHINGTON RD MCMURRAY, PA 15317---2520 GRAJO IMAGING CONSULTANTS LLC 718 WILLOWWOOD LN NAPLES, FL 34108---8525 OAKES FARM OP LLC 925 NEW HARVEST RD IMMOKALEE, FL 34142---0 PRINGLE LANE FARM LLC 6150 PRINGLE LANE IMMOKALEE, FL 34142---0 SUNNILAND FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 930 IMMOKALEE, FL 34143---0 SUNNILAND PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 1997 LABELLE, FL 33975---0 SUNNILAND PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 1997 LABELLE, FL 33975---0 SUNNILAND PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 1997 LABELLE, FL 33975---0 SUNNILAND PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 1997 LABELLE, FL 33975---0 SUNNILAND PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 1997 LABELLE, FL 33975---0 SUNNILAND PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 1997 LABELLE, FL 33975---0 SUNNILAND PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 1997 LABELLE, FL 33975---0 WILDFLOWERZ RANCH LLC 1564 MOCKINGBIRD DR NAPLES, FL 34120---0 REFERENCE ONLY POList_1000 Page 325 of 1742 NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PETITION: CU-PL20240001182 - CAPLING SR 29 MINE A neighborhood information meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, April 3"', 2025, beginning at 5:30 pm, to discuss the referenced zoning petition. The meeting will be held at the Ave Maria Master Association Office, 5080 Annunciation Circle, Unit #101, Ave Maria, FL 34142. The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting is to provide the public with notice of the impending zoning application and to foster communication between the applicant and the public. The expectation is that all attendees will conduct themselves in such a manner that their presence will not interfere with the orderly progress of the meeting. The Applicant, Sun nil and Properties, LLC, has submitted a formal application to Collier County seeking approval of a Conditional Use (CU) in the Rural Agricultural Zoning District, Mobile Home Overlay, Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, and Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) to allow for a commercial excavation mine. The project involves 1,401.8 acres and is located in eastern Collier County within portions of Sections 4, 8, 9, 10, Township 48 South and Range 30 East, (the "property"). If you have questions or would like to register to participate in the meeting remotely. please contact the individual below. Jessica Harrelson, AICP Peninsula Engineering Phone: 239.403.6751 Email: jharrelson@pen-eng.com Please note, remote participation is provided as a courtesy. The applicant and Peninsula Engineering are not responsible for any technical issues. Project information can be found on our website: www.pen- eng.com/planning-projects or by using the QR code below: Legend Jsueiecr PROPERlYI I LOCATION MAP NO-41403 3 Page 327 of 1742 LOCATION MAP 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, 34105 Office 239.403.6700 Fax 239.261.1797 Fla Engineer CA 28275 Fla Landscape CA LC26000632 Fla Surveyor/Mapper LB8479 Page 328 of 1742 NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PETITION: CU-PL20240001182 - CAPLING SR 29 MINE A neighborhood information meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, April 3"', 2025, beginning at 5:30 pm, to discuss the referenced zoning petition. The meeting will be held at the Ave Maria Master Association Office, 5080 Annunciation Circle, Unit #101, Ave Maria, FL 34142. The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting is to provide the public with notice of the impending zoning application and to foster communication between the applicant and the public. The expectation is that all attendees will conduct themselves in such a manner that their presence will not interfere with the orderly progress of the meeting. The Applicant, Sun nil and Properties, LLC, has submitted a formal application to Collier County seeking approval of a Conditional Use (CU) in the Rural Agricultural Zoning District, Mobile Home Overlay, Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, and Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) to allow for a commercial excavation mine. The project involves 1,401.8 acres and is located in eastern Collier County within portions of Sections 4, 8, 9, 10, Township 48 South and Range 30 East, (the "property"). If you have questions or would like to register to participate in the meeting remotely. please contact the individual below. Jessica Harrelson, AICP Peninsula Engineering Phone: 239.403.6751 Email: jharrelson@pen-eng.com Please note, remote participation is provided as a courtesy. The applicant and Peninsula Engineering are not responsible for any technical issues. Project information can be found on our website: www.pen- eng.com/planning-projects or by using the QR code below: Legend Jsueiecr PROPERlYI I LOCATION MAP NO-41403 3 Page 330 of 1742 CAPLING SR29 MINE CONDITIONAL USE- PL20240001182 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING April 3, 2025 Page 331 of 1742Project Team Applicant Consultant Team • Sunniland Properties, LLC Coleman, Yovanovich, Koester • Richard Yovanovich, Esq. Peninsula Engineering • Jessica Harrelson, AICP • Jenna Woodward, P.E., AICP Trebilcock Consulting Solutions • Norman Trebilcock, AICP, PTOE, PE Earth Tech Environmental • Jeremy Sterk Capling SR29 Mine Conditional Use- NIM - April 3, 2025 Page 332 of 1742Location Map Capling SR29 Mine Conditional Use- NIM - April 3, 2025 Page 333 of 1742Project Overview . Zoning: Agricultural Zoning District, Mobile Home Overlay, Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, and Area of Critical State Concern . Request for a conditional use to permit excavation activities on the subject property Capling SR29 Mine Conditional Use- NIM - April 3, 2025 Page 334 of 1742Conceptual Site Plan • 50’ building setback from rear and front yards • 30’ building setback from side yards • 50’ excavation setback from all property boundaries, except 100’ excavation setback from residential uses • 35’ maximum zoned building height Capling SR29 Mine Conditional Use- NIM - April 3, 2025 Page 335 of 1742Conditions of Approval o Maximum Average of Haul Trucks • 430 (one-way loads per day) o Hours of Operation for Excavation Activities o Monday-Friday: 6:30 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. on Saturdays o Staging of Haul Trucks Will Occur On-Site • Staging of Haul Trucks in Public Rights-of-Way is Prohibited o Dust Control Management Plan • Wheel Wash • Watering internal haul route o Blasting, if necessary, will follow Chapter 55 of the Collier County Code of Ordinances Capling SR29 Mine Conditional Use- NIM - April 3, 2025 Page 336 of 1742Next Steps Conditional Use Application Public Hearing Application- Deemed Sufficient Process In Review with by Staff CCPC/BCC County Staff Capling SR29 Mine Conditional Use- NIM - April 3, 2025 Page 337 of 1742 Questions / Contact Information • JESSICA HARRELSON, AICP – PENINSULA ENGINEERING Phone: 239.403.6751 Email: jharrelson@pen-eng.com • TIMOTHY FINN, AICP– COLLIER COUNTY ZONING DIVISION Phone: 239.252.4312 Email: Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov Capling SR29 Mine Conditional Use- NIM - April 3, 2025 Page 338 of 1742 SIGN POSTING INSTRUCTIONS (CHAPTER 8, COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT) A zoning sign(s) must be posted by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent on the parcel for a minimum of fifteen (15) calendar days in advance of the first public hearing and said sign(s) must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent through the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not be construed to supersede any requirement of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to the Administrative Code, Chapter 8 E. 1. The sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not more than five (5) feet from the nearest street right-of-way or easement. 2. The sign(s) must be securely affixed by nails, staples, or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post, or other structure. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage. 3. The petitioner or the petitioner's agent must maintain the sign(s) in place, and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered. If the sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petitioner or the petitioner's agent must replace the sign(s NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE ST ATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY PERSONALLY APPEARED Jessica Harrelson, AICP ' WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER PL20240001182: 2600 Golden Gate Parkway STREET OR P.O. BOX Jessica Harrelson, AICP Naples, FL 34105 NAME (TYPED OR PRINTED) CITY, STATE ZIP ti. ST ATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this 20th day of February , 20 26, by Jessica Harrelson, AICP , personally known to me or who ______________ as identification produced and who did/did not take an oath. \ r--.;, SABINA HARDY Signature of Notary Public MY COMMISSION# HH 343836 EXPIRES: January 14, 2027 My Commission Expires: (Stamp with serial number) Capling SR 29 Mine CU (PL20240001182) Rev. 3/4/2015 Page 339 of 1742Page 341 of 1742Page 342 of 1742Page 343 of 1742 3/19/2026 Item # 9.B ID# 2026-446 PL20230018359 - Jay II Rezone (RZ) - 1331 Jaybird Way - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Single Family 2 (RSF-2) zoning district for property located at 1331 Jaybird Way, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 6.86+/- acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager] ATTACHMENTS: 1. Jay II RZ-Staff Report with CAO review 2. Att A - Draft Ordinance-Jay II - 021726 3. Att B - Application Backup rfs 4. Att C - NIM Documentation 5. Sign Aff and Photo Page 344 of 1742 - STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING & ZONING DIVISION GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: MARCH 19, 2026 SUBJECT: PL20230018359; JAY II REZONE PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Owner/Applicant: Richard Breitenbeucher (Lauster) 1331 Jaybird Way Naples, FL 34105 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider changing the zoning classification from Rural Agricultural (A) to Residential Single Family 2 (RSF-2) for 6.86+/- acres of property at 1331 Jaybird Way. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The property is 6.96+/- acres identified as Parcel No. 00288160005 located at 1331 Jaybird Way on the west side of I-75 and east of Whippoorwill Lane, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the following page) Jay II Rezone, PL20230018359 Page 1 of 13 February 26, 2026 Page 345 of 1742 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject property is 6.96± acres located in the southwest quadrant of the Interstate 75 (I-75) and Pine Ridge Road interchange. The rear two-thirds of the property is occupied by a lake excavated pursuant to a Provisional Use approval for earth mining granted on April 13, 1982 (Petition #PU-82-5C). The site is developed with one single family residence, permitted in 2006. The property owner proposes rezoning from Rural Agricultural (A) to Residential Single Family 2 (RSF-2), which will allow for a lot split to create a second lot that conforms to the RSF-2 dimensional standards for the purpose of building one additional single-family residence. Jaybird Way is a short road right-of-way measuring 70 feet wide, identified as Access Road #1 per the State of Florida Department of Transportation right-of-way map for State Road No. 93 (I-75). Jaybird Way provides access to two single-family homesites totaling six acres, each zoned Rural Agricultural (A). Section 2.03.01.A. of the Land Development Code (LDC) describes the purpose and intent of the A district as providing lands for agricultural, pastoral, and rural land uses by accommodating traditional agricultural, agricultural-related activities and facilities, support facilities related to agricultural needs, and conservation uses. Minimum lot size in the A zoning district is five acres, and minimum lot width is 165 feet. The nature of the subject site and surrounding neighborhood is residential, not agricultural. The petitioner seeks to rezone to RSF-2, which is intended primarily for low-density single-family residential areas. Jay II Rezone, PL20230018359 Page 2 of 13 February 26, 2026 Page 346 of 1742 The Future Land Use Map Designation is Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed-Use District and allows a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the subject parcel, which is zoned Rural Agricultural (A) and proposed to allow two single family homes on 6.96± acres (0.3 units per acre): North: Single family residence, zoned Rural Agricultural (A), beyond which is the Gusto Bella Vita townhouse community, part of the larger Whippoorwill Lakes PUD approved by Ordinance 00-16 and built out with 518 multi-family units on 76.85 acres (6.7 units/acre) South: Stratford Place townhouse community, approved as Whippoorwill Woods PUD (Ordinance 98-64) and closed out with 462 units on 83.92 acres (5.5 units/acre) East: I-75, beyond which are single family residences zoned Estates (E) West: Mariposa at Whippoorwill multifamily development, approved as Whippoorwill Pines PUD (Ordinance 00-17) and closed out with 180 units on 29.54 acres (6 units/acre) Aerial Map (Collier County Property Appraiser) Jay II Rezone, PL20230018359 Page 3 of 13 February 26, 2026 Page 347 of 1742 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is located in the Urban Residential subdistrict of the Urban Mixed-Use District identified on the county Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The subject property is one of the last agriculturally zoned properties in the area southwest of the Pine Ridge Road/ I-75 Interchange Activity Center. Within the Urban Designated Area, a base density of four residential dwelling units per gross acre may be allowed, though not an entitlement. This base level of density may be adjusted depending on the project's location and characteristics. This rezone proposes increasing the density from 0.15 units per acre to 0.3 units per acre, which is below the GMP's allowance. Furthermore, the inclusion of another single-family home in this area is deemed comparable and compatible with adjacent single- and multifamily developments. Based on the Comprehensive Planning Staff's review of the proposed amendment and supporting materials, it is the Comprehensive Planning Staff's determination that the proposed rezone is consistent with the goals and policies of the FLUE. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff have evaluated the proposed changes. The changes present no transportation-related issues in terms of consistency. The proposed rezone represents a de minimis number of additional trips and impacts on the adjacent roadways. Therefore, Transportation Planning staff find the petition consistent with the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental staff evaluated the petition. The property is 6.96± acres; the project is consistent with the CCME's goals, objectives, and policies. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the primary document supporting land-use decisions, such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any zoning action. This petition, as conditioned, can be found consistent with the GMP. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff have completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establishes the legal bases to support a CCPC’s recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for its recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who, in turn, use them to support their action on the rezoning request. This evaluation is completed as part of the Zoning and Land Development Review provided below. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff have reviewed this petition. The property is zoned Agriculture and has been developed with a single-family home. The property has been cleared of native vegetation; therefore, no minimum preservation is required. No listed animal species were observed on the property. Environmental staff recommend approval of the rezone request. Jay II Rezone, PL20230018359 Page 4 of 13 February 26, 2026 Page 348 of 1742 Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff have reviewed the petition and recommends approval of this request. Utility Review: The project is and will remain served by private well and septic systems, as connections to the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) are not required. The project lies within the CCWSD's regional potable water service area and the north wastewater service area. Water and wastewater services are available via existing infrastructure within the adjacent right-of-way. Sufficient water and wastewater treatment capacities are available. If any improvements to the CCWSD’s water or wastewater systems are necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project, the owner/developer will be responsible for them. They will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the County at the time of utilities acceptance. Zoning Review: The land use pattern in the area is primarily multi-family residential use. The property access is via Jaybird Way, a short road right-of-way measuring 70 feet wide, identified as Access Road #1 per the State of Florida Department of Transportation right-of-way map for State Road No. 93 (I-75). Jaybird Way provides access to two single family homesites, each over six acres in size, both zoned Rural Agricultural (A). Section 2.03.01.A. of the Land Development Code describes the purpose and intent of the A zoning district as providing lands for agricultural, pastoral, and rural land uses by accommodating traditional agricultural, agricultural related activities and facilities, supporting facilities related to agricultural needs, and conservation uses. Minimum lot size in the A zoning district is five acres, and minimum lot width is 165 feet. The site is developed with one single family residence, permitted in 2006. The site is 6.86± acres with a lot width of 330 feet, which conforms to the required minimum lot size and width. With one home on 6.96± acres, the current density is 0.3 units per acre, much less than surrounding developments that average 6.0 units per acre. To accommodate one additional single-family home on the property, the petitioner seeks to split the lot into two lots. Per the petitioner’s concept plan, included as Exhibit B in the draft Ordinance (Attachment A), the petitioner proposes to create a new lot measuring 120 feet wide by roughly 900 feet deep yielding a lot area of 2.49 acres, while the remaining lot for the existing home will measure 210 feet wide by roughly 900 feet deep for a lot area of 4.37± acres. The two lots are proposed to conform to the RSF-2 dimensional standards. The proposed rezone aligns with the purpose and intent of the RSF-2 single-family district, which is intended primarily for low-density single-family residential areas. The nature of the subject site and surrounding neighborhood is residential, not agricultural. The current Rural Agriculture zoning designation is inconsistent with the residential zoning pattern in the area. The proposed RSF-2 rezoning to allow a single-family residence is consistent with the land-use pattern and the site's low-density nature along a short, narrow roadway. Below is a comparison of the dimensional standards for the current A zoning district and the proposed RSF-2 zoning district, along with a statement of staff’s findings regarding conformance with the proposed RSF-2 district standards. Jay II Rezone, PL20230018359 Page 5 of 13 February 26, 2026 Page 349 of 1742 LDC Section 4.02.01.A. - Table 1. Lot Design Requirements for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts. Zoning District Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width (square feet) (linear feet) A 217,800 165 RSF-2 20,000 120 Per the petitioner’s concept plan, included as Exhibit B in the draft Ordinance (Attachment A), the new proposed lot measures 120 feet wide by roughly 900 feet deep, yielding a lot area of 2.49 acres, while the remaining lot for the existing home will measure 210 feet wide by roughly 900 feet deep for a lot area of 4.37± acres. The two lots are proposed to conform to the RSF-2 dimensional standards. LDC Section 4.02.01.A. - Table 2. Building Dimension Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts. Zoning District Maximum Minimum Floor Area Building Height of Buildings (feet) (square feet) A 35 550 RSF-2 35 1,500 (one-story) 1,800 (two-story) The existing and proposed buildings are proposed to conform to the RSF-2 building dimension standards. LDC Section 4.02.01.A. - Table 2.1. Table of Minimum Yard Requirements (Setbacks) for Base Zoning Districts. Zoning Minimum Front Minimum Side Minimum Rear District Yard (feet) Yard (feet) Yard (feet) A 50 30 50 RSF-2 40 20 30 Per the petitioner’s concept plan, included as Exhibit B in the draft Ordinance (Attachment A), the two lots are proposed to conform to the RSF-2 setback standards. Staff reviewed the allowable uses in the A zoning district compared to uses allowed in the RSF-2 zoning district, and the rezoning to RSF-2 will result in a reduction of allowable uses that aligns with the character of the surrounding residential community. Below is a table listing the uses allowed in the A zoning district, and a  indicates the use is allowed in the RSF-2 district. Jay II Rezone, PL20230018359 Page 6 of 13 February 26, 2026 Page 350 of 1742 Allowable uses in Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district Allowable in Residential per LDC Section 2.03.01.A Single Family (RSF-2) per LDC Section 2.03.02.A. Permitted Uses. 1.Single-family dwelling.  2. Agricultural activities, including, but not limited to: Crop The following animals are raising; horticulture; fruit and nut production; forestry; groves; to be considered farm nurseries; ranching; beekeeping; poultry and egg production; animals and are not milk production; livestock raising, and aquaculture for native permitted to be kept in species subject to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation residential districts except Commission permits... as provided for in zoning district regulations: turkeys, chickens, ducks, geese, pigs, horses, cows, goats, hogs, and the like. 3.Wholesale reptile breeding and raising (non-venomous), -- subject to a minimum 20-acre parcel size 4. Wildlife management, plant and wildlife conservancies, -- wildlife refuges, and sanctuaries. 5. Conservation uses. -- 6. Oil and gas exploration is subject to state drilling permits -- and Collier County site development plan review procedures. 7. Family care facilities, subject to section 5.05.04.  8. Wireless communication facilities, subject to LDC Conditional Use section 5.05.09. 9. Essential services, as set forth in section 2.01.03. -- 10. Schools, public, including "Educational plants."  Accessory uses. 1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the  uses permitted as of right in the district. 2. Farm labor housing, subject to section 5.05.03. -- 3. Retail sale of fresh, unprocessed agricultural products, grown primarily on the property and subject to a review of traffic circulation, parking, and safety concerns pursuant to the -- submission of a site improvement plan as provided for in section 10.02.03. 4. Packinghouse or similar agricultural processing of farm -- products produced on the property subject to restrictions… 5. Excavation and related processing and production subject to -- criteria… 6. Guesthouses, subject to section 5.03.03.  7. Private boathouses and docks on lake, canal, or waterway  lots, subject to section 5.03.06. 8. Use of a mobile home as a temporary residence while a permanent single-family dwelling is being constructed, subject -- to requirements… Jay II Rezone, PL20230018359 Page 7 of 13 February 26, 2026 Page 351 of 1742 Allowable uses in Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district Allowable in Residential per LDC Section 2.03.01.A Single Family (RSF-2) per LDC Section 2.03.02.A. 9. Use of a mobile home as a residence in conjunction with -- bona fide agricultural activities subject to requirements… 10. Recreational facilities that serve as an integral part of a residential development and have been designated, reviewed, and approved on a site development plan or subdivision master  plan for that development. Recreational facilities may include, but are not limited to, golf courses, clubhouses, community center buildings, tennis facilities, parks, playgrounds, and playfields. Conditional uses. 1. Extraction or earthmining, and related processing and production, not incidental to the agricultural development of the property. NOTE: "Extraction-related processing and -- production" is not related to "Oil extraction and related processing" as defined in the Code. 2. Sawmills. -- 3. Zoo, aquarium, aviary, botanical garden, or other similar -- uses. 4. Hunting cabins. -- 5. Aquaculture for nonnative or exotic species, subject to -- Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission permits. 6. Wholesale reptile breeding or raising (venomous) subject to -- a minimum 20-acre parcel size. 7. Churches. Conditional Use 8. Private landing strips for general aviation, subject to any -- relevant state and federal regulations. 9. Cemeteries. -- 10. Schools, private. Conditional Use 11. Childcare centers and adult day care centers. Conditional Use 12. Collection and transfer sites for resource recovery. -- 13. Social and fraternal organizations. -- 14. Veterinary clinic. -- 15. Group care facilities (category I and II); care units; nursing homes; assisted living facilities pursuant to § 429.02 F.S. and 58A-5 F.A.C.; and continuing care retirement communities Conditional Use, pursuant to ch. 651 F.S. and ch. 69O-193 F.A.C., all subject to subject to criteria LDC section 5.05.04 when located within the Urban Designated Area on the Future Land Use Map to the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 16. Golf courses and/or golf driving ranges. Conditional Use 17. Oil and gas field development and production subject to -- state field development permits. 18. Sports instructional schools and camps. -- Jay II Rezone, PL20230018359 Page 8 of 13 February 26, 2026 Page 352 of 1742 Allowable uses in Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district Allowable in Residential per LDC Section 2.03.01.A Single Family (RSF-2) per LDC Section 2.03.02.A. 19. Sporting and recreational camps. -- 20. Retail plant nurseries subject to conditions… -- 21. Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants subject to -- conditions… 22. Cultural, ecological, or recreational facilities that provide opportunities for educational experience, eco-tourism, or agri- -- tourism and their related modes of transporting participants, viewers, or patrons, where applicable, subject to all applicable federal, state, and local permits. Tour operations, such as, but not limited to, airboats, swamp buggies, horses, and similar -- modes of transportation, shall be subject to criteria… 23. Agricultural activities on parcels less than 20 acres in size: animal breeding, raising, training, stabling, or kenneling; -- dairying; livestock raising; milk production; poultry and egg production; and ranching. 24. The commercial production, raising, or breeding of exotic animals, other than animals typically used for agricultural -- purposes or production, is subject to a minimum 20- acre parcel size. 25. Essential services, as set forth in subsection 2.01.03 G. -- 26. Model homes and model sales centers, subject to compliance with all other LDC requirements, to include, but Conditional Use not limited to, section 5.04.04. 27. Ancillary plants. -- Additionally, the RSF-2 zoning district allows the following uses, subject to Conditional Use approval: noncommercial boat launch and multiple dock facilities, subject to LDC Section 5.03.06; and cluster development, including one- and two-family structures, subject to LDC Section 4.02.04. Zoning staff concludes the rezoning to RSF-2 will result in a narrowed list of allowable uses, and as proposed in the Site Plan (Exhibit B of the draft Ordinance provided as Attachment A), the resulting two lots will be in compliance with applicable development standards, providing for greater compatibility between the subject site and the surrounding area. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F. states, “When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners…shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable” (Staff’s responses to these criteria are provided in non-bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Jay II Rezone, PL20230018359 Page 9 of 13 February 26, 2026 Page 353 of 1742 As described in the GMP Consistency section of this report above, this petition can be found consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. The subject property is located in an urbanized portion of the county in the southwest quadrant of the Interstate 75 (I-75) and Pine Ridge Road interchange. The land use pattern in the area is primarily multi-family residential use. The property access is via Jaybird Way, a short road right-of-way measuring 70 feet wide, providing access to two single family homesites over six acres each in size, both zoned Rural Agricultural (A). The nature of the subject site and surrounding neighborhood is residential, not agricultural. The current Rural Agriculture zoning designation is inconsistent with the residential zoning pattern in the area. The proposed RSF-2 rezoning to allow a single-family residence is consistent with the land-use pattern and the site's low-density nature along a short, narrow roadway. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The rezoning will not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; the proposed single-family residential uses relate to the adjacent and nearby residential developments, which are primarily built out with multi-family residential use. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The existing district boundary is logically drawn; the proposed rezoning will change the applicable zoning district on this property from A to RSF-2. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed rezoning from A to RSF-2 is not specifically necessary. However, future use of the site for agricultural purposes does not align with the surrounding residential community, and the rezoning is necessary to allow for a lot split and the addition of one single-family residence. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The rezoning will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. Jay II Rezone, PL20230018359 Page 10 of 13 February 26, 2026 Page 354 of 1742 Transportation Planning staff have evaluated the proposed changes. The changes present no transportation related issues with consistency. The proposed rezone represents a de minimis number of additional trips and impacts on the adjacent roadways. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. It is not anticipated that the rezoning will create any stormwater or drainage issues. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated that this rezone will reduce light or air to the adjacent areas. Any new construction will need to meet the LDC's dimensional requirements. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors, including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The rezoning to RSF-2 is not anticipated to be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. A finding that a proposed change is consistent with the GMP constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a matter of public welfare because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. There are no substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with the existing zoning. The current zoning designation permits single-family residential use, as well as numerous other uses. The petitioner seeks a rezoning that will result in a narrowed list of allowable uses, and as proposed in the Site Plan (Exhibit B of the draft Ordinance provided as Attachment A), the resulting two lots will be in compliance with applicable development standards, providing for greater compatibility between the subject site and the surrounding area. Jay II Rezone, PL20230018359 Page 11 of 13 February 26, 2026 Page 355 of 1742 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. The rezoning to RSF-2 is in scale with the needs of the neighborhood. Should the rezoning and proposed lot split be approved, one additional residence will be available within the immediate area. The surrounding area is zoned for single-family and multi-family residential uses. The proposed building height, setbacks, and lot dimensional standards will meet LDC requirements and be consistent with the area's residential uses. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Other sites in the County could accommodate single-family residential use; however, this is not the determining factor in evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. The proposed use of the property for the construction of one additional single-family home will require site alteration, which will be reviewed by County review staff to ensure that relevant federal, state, and local development regulations are addressed. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. Future construction will need to be consistent with all applicable GMP goals and objectives regarding adequate public facilities, except as may be exempt under federal regulations. The project is and will remain served by private well and septic systems, as connections to Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) services are not required. A water main is available along Night Hawk Drive, and wastewater mains are available along Whippoorwill Lane. There are adequate water and wastewater treatment capacities to serve the project. If any improvements to the CCWSD’s water or wastewater systems become necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project, the improvements will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the County at the time of utilities acceptance. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. Jay II Rezone, PL20230018359 Page 12 of 13 February 26, 2026 Page 356 of 1742 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The petitioner conducted a NIM on January 28, 2026, at Gusto Bella Vita Club House, 1266 Strada Milan Lane, Naples, FL 34105. One property owner from the Gusto Bella Vita neighborhood attended, and no attendees participated remotely. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:35 p.m. and ended at roughly 5:40 p.m. Mr. Lauster, the petitioner, described the subject property and the rezoning request. Two questions were asked. Mr. Lauster replied to the question of whether the future single-family home would be rented or sold, that he intends to sell the future homesite fee simple. The question of who maintains Jaybird Way and who can re-establish the road’s stop sign that is in disrepair is a matter now being pursued with the Florida Department of Transportation. See Attachment C for the NIM documentation. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: This project does not require an Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review because it does not fall within the EAC scope of land development project reviews identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s office reviewed this Staff Report on February 19, 2026. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PL202300018359 Jay II Rezone to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: A. Draft Ordinance B. Application/Backup Materials C. NIM Documentation Jay II Rezone, PL20230018359 Page 13 of 13 February 26, 2026 Page 357 of 1742Page 364 of 1742Page 365 of 1742Page 366 of 1742Page 367 of 1742Page 368 of 1742Page 369 of 1742Page 370 of 1742Page 371 of 1742Page 372 of 1742Page 373 of 1742Page 374 of 1742Page 375 of 1742Page 376 of 1742Page 377 of 1742Page 378 of 1742Page 379 of 1742Page 380 of 1742Page 381 of 1742Page 382 of 1742Page 383 of 1742Page 384 of 1742Page 385 of 1742Page 386 of 1742Page 387 of 1742Page 388 of 1742Page 389 of 1742Page 390 of 1742Page 391 of 1742Page 392 of 1742Rick, I appreciate you reaching out regarding your rezone. Your attached letter will address the requirements. Please make sure to include the letter when you submit the petition for review so we can recommend approval. Respectfully, Michael Sawyer Project Manager II Transportation Management Services Department Transportation Planning 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 239-252-2926 michael.sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov Michael Sawyer Project Manager II Transportation Engineering Office:239-252-2926 Michael.Sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov From: Rick Lauster Sent: Friday, January 10, 2025 12:11 PM To: Michael Sawyer Cc: LauraDeJohnVEN Subject: PL 20230018359 Rezoning and SPlit oF 1331 Jaybird Way in NaPles, 34105 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 Michael Sawyer, After the Pre-application meeting it took us a little while but now we are prepared to proceed with the rezoning. Laura DeJohn recommended to get directly in contact with you about the TIS. Below (highlighted in yellow) is your statement in the notes of the Pre-application meeting. Please Find attached the letter requesting the waiver because of the minimum transportation impacts. Is that sufficient or do we need more to meet the requirements? Coming Tuesday we will have a meeting with Laura around 11:00 am, so in case we could use that visit talking to you as well. Page 403 of 1742Thank you in advance! ThomasClarkeVEN From: Sent: To: Subiect: Michael Sawyer Wednesday, January 31, 2024 10:26 AM Eric Ortman; ThomasClarkeVEN Jay I Pre-ApP Notes Apologies, Iwill not be able to attend this Pre-app meeting this afternoon. Please provide the following to the aPPlicant and let me know of any questions. For this petition request please provide a letter of no impact TIS Waiver; (separate letter on letterhead requesting the waiver based on de minimus transPortation imPacts). The proPosed Rezone will have aless than 1% imPact on the adjacent roadway network and warrants the waiver request. ResPectFully, Michael Sawyer Project Manager I Transportation Management Services Department Transportation Planning 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 NaPles, Florida 34104 239-252-2926 michael.sawyer@colliercountyFl.gov Mit besten Grüssen Best Regards Sincères salutations Met vriendelijke Groeten Reciba un cordial saludo 祝万事如意 Rick Lauster 1331 Jaybird Way NaPles FL, 34105 Cell +1 239 227 5947 Page 404 of 1742Page 405 of 1742Page 406 of 1742Page 407 of 1742Page 408 of 1742Page 409 of 1742Page 410 of 1742Page 411 of 1742BENCHMARK LAND SERVICES, INC. 1 inch = 100' ft. GRAPHIC SCALE Page 412 of 1742BENCHMARK LAND SERVICES, INC. 1 inch = 100' ft. GRAPHIC SCALE Page 413 of 1742BENCHMARK LAND SERVICES, INC. 1 inch = 100' ft. GRAPHIC SCALE Page 414 of 1742Page 415 of 1742Page 417 of 1742Page 418 of 1742Page 419 of 1742 1 Notice: This data belongs to the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (CCPA). Therefore, the recipient agrees not to represent this data to anyone as other than CCPA provided data. The recipient may not transfer this data to others without consent from the CCPA. Petition: PL20230018359 | Buffer: 500' | Date: 12/12/2025 | Site Location: 288160005 NAME1 NAME2 NAME3 NAME4 NAME5 NAME6 FOLIO ADDRESSTYPE 1256 CARPAZI CT #502 LLC 582 WEDGEWOOD WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---0 48503000365 U 1395 MARIPOSA 102 LAND TRUST 2670 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34112---0 59690011324 U 2 JERSEY GIRLS, LLC 8678 MUSTANG DR NAPLES, FL 34113---0 59690010325 U 668 FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC 4019 WINDTREE DR TAMPA, FL 33624---1216 48503002525 U A & H CAPITAL LLC 25 LIGHTHOUSE DR SOUTH AMBOY, NJ 08879---0 48503000721 U ABDELMESSIH, SAMEH D 1006 ALBANY COURT #210 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 75020005049 U ACCARDI, ALISA M 1340 MARIPOSA CIRCLE UNIT101 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012789 U ACOSTA, OKSANA 1335 MARIPOSA CIR #4202 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010600 U ACOSTA, RAFAEL A LIZARDO DENNY PEREYRA PIMENTEL 1430 SONGBIRD DR #1103 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000063 U ADAMSKI, ROMAN & KAZIMIERA 1415 MARIPOSA CIR #12103 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011625 U AFFORDABLE LIFESTYLE HOMES LTDPO BOX 1042 WILLOUGHBY, OH 44096---0 59690010642 U AIELLO, LAURENCE N & PHYLLIS F1425 MARIPOSA CIR #103 NAPLES, FL 34105---7245 59690011780 U ALFONSO, ROLANDO S VIVO GILMA J ZEPEDA FERNANDEZ 1436 SONGBIRD DR #2101 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000267 U ALICK, YASMAIN 1410 MARIPOSA CIR #103 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690013225 U ALIQKAJ, BESNIK & XHENSILA 1454 SONGBIRD DR #5103 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000869 U ALLAN D HUNT REVOCABLE TRUST1375 MARIPOSA CIR #105 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011188 U AMAYA, NORMA ALDANA 1454 SONGBIRD DR #5104 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000885 U AMMIRATI, PATRICIA 1325 MARIPOSA CIR #3-101 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010341 U ANDERSON, AMELIA JOAN 1415 MARIPOSA CIR #203 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011706 U ANDRADE, HANDERSON L F DE KRYSTLE ANDRADE 1318 CORSO PALERMO CT #3 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503001487 U ANDRE, JACKILUS ISEMELA SANDRA JEAN JACQUES ANDRE 1430 SONGBIRD DR #1206 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000241 U ANDREOULAKIS, ANNE 1455 MARIPOSA CIR APT 101 NAPLES, FL 34105---7254 59690012226 U ANGELO, NICOLE DANNETTE LUIS FELIPE TORRES 1370 MARIPOSA CIR #106 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690013089 U ANNE M CATALANO FAMILY TRUST1481 WAMPANOAG TRL #6 RIVERSIDE, RI 02915---0 48503000527 U APPELBAUM, ROBIN ESTHER NADIA LA APPELBAUM 1435 MARIPOSA CIR #104 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011968 U ARNOLD, BARBARA 12870 CARRINGTON CIR UNIT 202 NAPLES, FL 34105---5000 59690010422 U ARRANAGA, ANN ELIZABETH 24342 LOS SERRANOS DR LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 33445---0 48503000624 U ASHENBRENER, KYLE D & MORGAN1442 M SONGBIRD DR #3204 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000607 U ATANAS CHERGOV & DANIELA KOLARSKA REV TRUST 1260 CARPAZI COURT #404 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503000323 U AURICCHIO, ERISA CHRISTOPHER JOHN AURICCHIO 19 DUGAN LANE YONKERS, NY 10710---0 75020004723 U AYALA, DIEGO F & JODI L 1340 MARIPOSA CIRCLE #103 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012828 U BALA, EGESTA 1305 MARIPOSA CIR #102 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010040 U BANASIK, ANITA EMIL KORZYSTKA 1345 MARIPOSA CIRCLE #5203 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010781 U BARBER, ERIK DAVID & ELISA ANN3672 PILOT CIR NAPLES, FL 34120---0 48503000543 U BARNUM REVOCABLE TRUST 1267 STRADA MILAN LN #2 NAPLES, FL 34105---4981 48503000828 U BARON JR, JOHN A 1083 ALBANY CT NAPLES, FL 34105---4814 75020005324 U BARRAGAN, ALVARO E ESPINOSAMARIANA E ALVIZU COLMENARES1280 VERDE DR #3901 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503003061 U BARRAGAN, LEDA KATHERINE 1448 SONGBIRD DRIVE #4-104 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000720 U BARZANA, CESAR & RITA 1405 MARIPOSA CIR # 202 NAPLES, FL 34105---7269 59690011528 U BAYER, KIERSTIN L 1430 SONGBIRD DR #1101 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000021 U BAYONET, ROSANNA 1315 MARIPOSA CIR #2104 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010244 U BEAUMONT, EMILY L 1375 MARIPOSA CIR #104 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011162 U BELL, DAVID MARY ANN GORDON 1355 MARIPOSA CIRCLE #6202 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010927 U BELTRAN, SUZEL 1430 SONGBIRD DR #1104 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000089 U BERKOVICH, MARINA ALEXANDER GOLDSTEIN 1335 MARIPOSA CIR #203 NAPLES, FL 34105---7243 59690010626 U BIBO SOUTH LLC 6101 MONMOUTH AVE UNIT 910 VENTNOR CITY, NJ 08406---0 59690011049 U BIBO SOUTH LLC 6101 MONMOUTH AVE UNIT 910 VENTNOR CITY, NJ 08406---0 59690010202 U BIBO SOUTH LLC 6101 MONMOUTH AVE UNIT 910 VENTNOR CITY, NJ 08406---0 59690012860 U BIBO SOUTH LLC 6101 MONMOUTH AVE UNIT 910 VENTNOR CITY, NJ 08406---0 59690012349 U BIBO SOUTH LLC 6101 MONMOUTH AVE UNIT 910 VENTNOR CITY, NJ 08406---0 59690011845 U BIBO SOUTH LLC 6101 MONMOUTH AVE #910 VENTNOR CITY, NJ 08406---0 48503001908 U BILIOS, EVANGELOS & ANNA C 500 BAYBERRY DR CAPE MAY CT HSE, NJ 08210---0 48503003168 U BLANCO VALLEJO, DIANA M 1436 SONGBIRD DR #2201 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000348 U BOCK, STACY 1314 CORSO PALERMO CT #4 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503001445 U BOHR, JEFFREY S & CHRISTIANNEDONALD CORDER 1370 MARIPOSA CIR #102 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690013005 U BRATU, GHEORGHE & CARMEN 1062 ALBANY CT NAPLES, FL 34105---0 75020004765 U BRITO, RAMILE DA COSTA 1454 SONGBIRD DR #5205 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 73744001020 U BROOKS, EMILY A 1445 MARIPOSA CIR # 202 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012161 U BROOKS, LUKE T 1435 MARIPOSA CIR #201 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011984 U BROWN, JENNIFER KAY 1315 CORSO PALERMO CT #3 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503002282 U BRUZZESE, SUSAN R 1430 SONGBIRD DR #1105 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000102 U BUFFA SR, FRANCESCO ANTOINETTE BUFFA 91 CROAK AVE STATEN ISLAND, NY 10314---5640 59690012242 U BUTSKAYA LIVING TRUST 1765 N JARVIS CT PALATINE, IL 60074---0 48503002127 U CABRERA, CASSANDRA MARIE CARLOS ALBERTO CABRERA 1047 ALBANY CT NAPLES, FL 34105---4814 75020005146 U CABRERA, LYNN M 1360 MARIPOSA CIR #21102 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012925 U CACACE, MEGHAN LYNN PAIGE MARY CACACE 8379 PALACIO TERRACE S NAPLES, FL 34114---0 75020004781 U CALDERON MORERA, REINALDO ARIANNE BETANZOS 1442 SONGBIRD DR #3104 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000487 U CALDERON, ELOY GONZALEZ ORALIA GARCIA OROZCO 1448 SONGBIRD DRIVE #4101 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000665 U CALIN, LAURA D 1320 MARIPOSA CIRCLE #202 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012640 U POList_500 Page 420 of 1742 2 CAMARGOS, DEBORA SAMUEL FISHER 1276 STRADA MILAN LN#2 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503003142 U CAMERON, JOSEPH DAVID JESSICA MARY CAMERON 1063 ALBANY CT NAPLES, FL 34105---0 75020005227 U CAPE ACQUISITION RENTAL HOLDINGS LLC 10951 BONITA BEACH RD SE BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135---9011 59690010668 U CARDONA, MARCELA JOSE MANUEL BOTERO 1360 MARIPOSA CIR #104 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012967 U CARLO, DEANNA ADALID RODRIGUEZ 1337 CORSO PALERMO CT #2502 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503001966 U CARROZZO, MICHAEL ANTHONY MARISA LYNN CARROZZO 1435 MARIPOSA CIRCLE #202 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012006 U CARSJO, ALMA BRITT MARIE C 1360 MARISPOSA CIR 101 NAPLES, FL 34105---7281 59690012909 U CASTRO, JOAQUIN 1018 ALBANY CT #207 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 75020004985 U CERONI, ALKET & ELIDIANA 1252 CARPAZI CT #603 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503000462 U CHEN, CUIMEI 1303 VERDE DR #4 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503001283 U CHEN, XIAO MING 1415 MARIPOSA CIR #12204 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011722 U CHERGOV, STOYAN & IRINA V 1329 CORSO PALERMO CT #4 NAPLES, FL 34105---4995 48503002088 U CHRISTOPHER & ANN SCANLAN REVOCABLE TRUST 14880 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---0 59690013306 U CINXO, REI 1259 CARPAZI CT #4 NAPLES, FL 34105---4971 48503000242 U CIOFFI, ANDREW 1295 VERDE DR #2 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503001063 U COKA, EDUART & XHULIA 1395 MARIPOSA CIR #105 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011382 U COLLINS, DEENA DICKEY 1026 ALBANY CT # 205 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 75020004943 U COLOMA, ASHLEY M 1304 VERDE DR #3 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503002606 U CON AMICI LLC 3714 SAPPHIRE COVE CIR NAPLES, FL 34114---0 48503000187 U CONNORS, ELIZABETH 23 WEST 85TH STREET NEW YORK, NY 10024---0 48503001364 U CONSIGLI-KELLETT, JANET M LAURENMARIE CORMIER 1415 MARIPOSA CIR #12104 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011641 U CONTRERAS, FRANKLI 1305 MARIPOSA CIR #104 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010082 U COOPER, GRACE KAY 1436 SONGBIRD DR #2102 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000283 U CORDOVEZ, GABRIELA 1078 ALBANY COURT #192 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 75020004684 U COSTELLO, JOHN THOMAS TRACY HANSON-COSTELLO 1455 MARIPOSA CIR #202 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012323 U COSTIN, JOSHUA 1345 MARIPOSA CIR #5202 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010765 U COZMOLICI, NICOLAE & EUGENIA 1465 MARIPOSA CIR #104 NAPLES, FL 34105---7255 59690012446 U DA SILVA, JANETE P 1442 SONGBIRD DR #3201 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000542 U DAHOOD, MICHAEL K 1395 MARIPOSA CIR #101 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011308 U DEATON, RITA 1304 VERDE DRIVE APT # 2 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503002583 U DECESARE, PASQUALE VICKIE E DECESARE 1365 MARIPOSA CIR #106 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011081 U DECOLA, SANDRA C 55 HARRISON ST FRAMINGHAM, MA 01702---2315 59690010163 U DECRESCENZO REVOCABLE TRUST1465 MARIPOSA CIRCLE UNIT 102 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012404 U DEGARCIA, MERCEDES I F 1410 MARIPOSA CIR APT 106 NAPLES, FL 34105---7271 59690013283 U DEMIR, BORA CINDY HERNANDEZ 1320 MARIPOSA CIR #201 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012624 U DEMJANCZUK, CHRISTOPHER KYLE1330 MARIPOSA CIR #101 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012705 U DETORRES, GIOVANNI 1026 POLK ST HOLLYWOOD, FL 33019---0 59690010985 U DEVER, LAURA ANNE DEVER 1305 MARIPOSA CIR APT 203 NAPLES, FL 34105---7229 59690010147 U DEVISSE, VIRGINIA A 10701 GULF SHORE DR #201 NAPLES, FL 34108---0 59690011887 U DIAZ, YEISI 1054 ALBANY COURT NAPLES, FL 34105---0 75020004804 U DILWORTH, SHANNON L FRANK W ZARDECKI II 1460 MARIPOSA CIR #103 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690013623 U DIMARTINO, ELEFTHERIA 154-78 RIVERSIDE DR BEECHURST, NY 11357---0 48503001746 U DISILVESTRO, ROGER CAROLINE HENDRICKS 1405 MARIPOSA CIR #104 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011489 U DOMINGUEZ, ISABEL 1405 MARIPOSA CIR APT 102 NAPLES, FL 34105---7269 59690011447 U DONNA E WALKER REV TRUST 1574 SERRANO CIR NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012844 U DORILUS, MARIE L 1454 SONGBIRD DR #5102 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000843 U DOUPE, MEREDITH NASSIF 1315 MARIPOSA CIR #2203 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010309 U DRYGALSKI, STEPHANIE M 1442 SONGBIRD DR #3105 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000500 U DSOUZA, DESIREE DORIAN GASHI 48 KEITH PL GLEN ROCK, NJ 07452---0 48503001348 U DSOUZA, DESIREE ANNE DORIAN GASHI 48 KEITH PL GLEN ROCK, NJ 07452---0 48503000983 U DUKAS, CASSANDRA MARIE SUSAN L HEMLER 1295 VERDE DR #3 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503001089 U DUNHAM, MARTIN & CARRIE 4141 WINDSOR RD BOARDMAN, OH 44512---0 48503000789 U EMA ARBEZ REV TRUST 1355 MARIPOSA CIR #6-102 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010846 U ENRIQUEZ, MAGALY GARCIA 1436 SONGBIRD DR #2104 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000322 U ERILIEN, EVENS MANCILE THOMAS 1430 SONGBIRD DR #1102 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000047 U ESCOBAR, JOSE BLANCA SAUCEDA 1335 MARIPOSA CIRCLE #104 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010561 U EURY, CLINTON & JENNIFER 801 SHAMROCK AVE STATE COLLEGE, PA 16801---0 48503000967 U FAULK, TIFFANY C 1442 SONGBIRD DR #3202 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000568 U FEDORCHENKO, OLGA & ALEXEY 735 BROOKVALE DR #D WHEELING, IL 60090---0 48503001704 U FEEMAN, BRENDA STHAEL 1338 CORSO PALERMO CT #4 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503001924 U FERNANDEZ, CESAR A MICHELE CANALES ROMERO 1345 MARIPOSA CIR #203 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011586 U FERRARA, JASON A 1241 CARPAZI CT #3 NAPLES, FL 34105---4965 48503000048 U FISHMAN, ILYA NADEJDA FRID 610 W KINGSBURY DR ARLINGTON HEIGHT, IL 60004---0 48503001542 U FITZGERALD, MATTHEW & ROBYN820 BEDMINISTER LANE WILMINGTON, NC 28405---0 48503002169 U FITZGERALD, MATTHEW & ROBYNJACK FITZGERALD 1280 VERDE DR #1 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503003100 U GALEV, GEORGI MIROSLAVA TRENKOVA 1410 MARIPOSA CIR #104 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690013241 U GALLAGHER, ASHLYN V 1375 MARIPOSA CIR UNIT 8102 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011120 U GALLARDO GARCIA, ANTONIO JANETH BALCAZAR VILLAGOMEZ 1442 SONGBIRD DR #3203 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000584 U GANI, BLEDAR 1247 CARPAZI CT #4 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503001128 U GANI, BLEDAR & ELMIRA 1478 SERRANO CIR NAPLES, FL 34105---4951 48503000161 U GARCIA, SEAN N LISSETTE SANTOS 1445 MARIPOSA CIRCLE #101 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012064 U GARCIA, VICENTE REINA I ROJAS 1365 MARIPOSA CIR NAPLES, FL 34105---7262 59690011023 U GARNY, MARK THADDEUS 6207 MYRTLEWOOD CIR W PALM BEACH GARDE, FL 33418---0 48503000608 U POList_500 Page 421 of 1742 3 GBV NAPLES HOLDINGS LLC 2180 IMMOKALEE ROAD STE 313 NAPLES, FL 34109---0 48503000103 U GBV NAPLES HOLDINGS LLC 2180 IMMOKALEE ROAD STE 313 NAPLES, FL 34109---0 48503001241 U GBV NAPLES HOLDINGS LLC 2180 IMMOKALEE ROAD STE 313 NAPLES, FL 34109---0 48503001267 U GBV NAPLES HOLDINGS LLC 2180 IMMOKALEE ROAD STE 313 NAPLES, FL 34109---0 48503001144 U GBV NAPLES HOLDINGS LLC 2180 IMMOKALEE ROAD STE 313 NAPLES, FL 34109---0 48503001005 U GBV NAPLES HOLDINGS LLC 2180 IMMOKALEE ROAD STE 313 NAPLES, FL 34109---0 48503001047 U GBV NAPLES HOLDINGS LLC 2180 IMMOKALEE ROAD STE 313 NAPLES, FL 34109---0 48503000446 U GBV NAPLES HOLDINGS LLC 2180 IMMOKALEE ROAD STE 313 NAPLES, FL 34109---0 48503000268 U GENSHAFT, MARINA 1314 CORSO PALERMO CT # 1802 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503001403 U GILBERT, HOWARD JOHN JILL NOEL GILBERT 1516 RHODE OSLAND AVENUE NORTH GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427---0 48503000747 U GOMEZ, KAREN A EVELYN GOMEZ 1318 CORSO PALERMO CT #1903 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503001500 U GONZALEZ, ROSANA M 1436 SONGBIRD DR #2202 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000364 U GOODMAN, KEITH A & ELIZABETH 9559D CHELFORD CT NAPLES, FL 34109---1600 48503000640 U GORDON, ROBERT E & JANET M 1435 MARIPOSA CIRCLE #101 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011900 U GREAT PANDA PROPERTY LLC % FRAN ZHANG MANAGER 958 SHORELINE RD LAKE BARRINGTON, IL 60010---0 59690010749 U GUERRA, XIOMARA WILLIAM EDUARDO P CRISTANCHO1022 ALBANY CT NAPLES, FL 34105---4814 75020004969 U GUIDICELLI, ROSA ALVARADO 1067 ALBANY COURT NAPLES, FL 34105---0 75020005243 U HAJDINAJ, BASHKIM & LINDITA 1501 FURNACE BROOK PKWY QUINCY, MA 02169---0 48503000080 U HALLEY, TAD & ERIKA 1267 STRADA MILAN LN #4 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503000886 U HAMPTON, TAMARA 1288 VERDE DR #4 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503002965 U HANAJ, ALFRED & MIRELA 1334 CORSO PALERMO CT #2303 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503001827 U HAYES, JUDY LYNN STEPHEN THOMAS KEEHAN 1259 CARPAZI CT #302 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503000200 U HO, KA HEI 86-57 91ST STREET WOODHAVEN, NY 11421---0 59690012420 U HOFMANN, MARGARET 1325 CORSO PALERMO CT UNIT 1 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503002143 U HOWELL, WILLIAM HERBERT JENNILYN HOWELL 1355 MARIPOSA CIR #6204 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010969 U HU, JIANRONG JIAO RONG XU 24608 THATCHER DRIVE NOVI, MI 48375---0 59690013144 U HUBBARD, TRACY FOWKES 1311 CORSO PALERMO CT #3004 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503002402 U HUNG, ARIEL NAYLA SANTANA ALEMAN 1430 SONGBIRD DR #1205 NAPLES, FL 34105---5111 73744000225 U JACOMINO, ALEJANDRO & JENNIFER13054 SW 106TH AVE MIAMI, FL 33176---0 48503002321 U JADE GREEN LLC 101 WATERVIEW CT LAKE BARRINGTON, IL 60010---0 59690012200 U JAMES, JANELLE & JASON 1370 MARIPOSA CIR #22104 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690013047 U JAVIDI, ARASH & DEVIN AREZO JAVIDI 1012 BUTTERS FARM LN SKANEATELES, NY 13152---0 48503002363 U JOHNSON, KENNETH C 1252 CARPAZI COURT #4 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503000488 U JONES, RICHARD GEORGE MARGARET MARY JONES 900 SUNSET HOLLOW ROAD WEST CHESTER, PA 19380---0 59690011421 U KALAMISHI, SOKOL 1318 CORSO PALERMO CT #1901 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503001461 U KAMAMI, LEJLA & ILIRJAN 1385 MARIPOSA CIR #104 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011285 U KELLY, ALLISON M 1325 MARIPOSA CIR #3102 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010367 U KEPPLER, KEITH R BOK NYEO OCK 1321 CORSO PALERMO CT #2801 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503002185 U KERRI ANN ERVIN REV TRUST 1355 MARIPOSA CIR #201 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010901 U KISLYUK, ROSTISLAV 438 GLENDALE RD GLENVIEW, IL 60025---0 48503002787 U KNOTH, SIGRID A 1307 CORSO PALERMO CT #3103 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503002460 U KOVACS, MARK & JULIE 1385 MARIPOSA CIR APT 102 NAPLES, FL 34105---7265 59690011243 U KRAVETZ, BROOKE TAHLENIA MARTINEZ 1365 MARIPOSA CIR #105 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011065 U KRUJA, ALBAN & ANJEZA 1345 MARIPOSA CIR #5103 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010707 U KRYPLA, ZDZISLAW & JADWIGA 2419 CHERRY ST PARK RIDGE, IL 60068---0 48503001649 U LABENSKYJ, I NICHOLAS MILA SKORYK 1252 CARPAZI CT # 601 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503000420 U LAURENT, CHARLENE 1365 MARIPOSA CIR #102 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011007 U LAUSTER, RICHARD 1331 JAYBIRD WAY NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503001306 U LAUSTER, RICHARD & CLAUDIA 1331 JAYBIRD WAY NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503000064 U LAUX, ROBERT E ANITA REFOLO LAUX 22 SCHUYLER ST PARSIPPANY, NJ 07054---0 48503002266 U LB COOKE TRUST 6331 LANCEWOOD WAY NAPLES, FL 34116---4874 59550000158 U LE BOULENGE, CLAIRE 1455 MARIPOSA CIRCLE 3104 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012284 U LE, QUE H 1292 VERDE DR #3601 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503002826 U LEON, JAVIER RODRIGUEZ INDIRA QUINTANA VILA 1448 SONGBIRD DR #4201 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000746 U LESTERS TR, SHIRLEY A SHIRLEY A LESTERS TRUST UTD 04/11/97 1125 KINSIE CT NAPERVILLE, IL 60540---8105 59690013526 U LIN, YONG MO XIANG MING WANG 1415 MARIPOSA CIRCLE #12-201 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011667 U LIVAICH, ROBERT G 1430 MARIPOSA CIR 26-101 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690013380 U LIVINGSTON, SIWAN LING YAN GODLEY 1321 CORSO PALERMO CT # 2804 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503002240 U LOPEZ, BELINDA 1450 MARIPOSA CIR #104 NAPLES, FL 34105---7253 59690013568 U MANGINO, PABLO BARBARA SORIANO GARCIA 1340 MARIPOSA CIRCLE #106 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012886 U MANN, IGOR 1335 MARIPOSA CIRCLE #4-101 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010503 U MANNING, JOSEPH M 1425 MARIPOSA CIR #101 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011748 U MANUEL F BUSTAMANTE & MARIAALMEYDA M REVOCABLE TRUST 1311 JAYBIRD WAY NAPLES, FL 34105---0 00286680008 U MARC L & ROSEMARIE G KUHN LIVTRUST 1271 STRADA MILAN LN #3 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503000925 U MAROON LION PROPERTIES LLC 2180 IMMOKALEE ROAD STE 313 NAPLES, FL 34109---0 48503001885 U MAROON LION PROPERTIES LLC 2180 IMMOKALEE ROAD STE 313 NAPLES, FL 34109---0 48503001584 U MAROON LION PROPERTIES LLC 2180 IMMOKALEE ROAD STE 313 NAPLES, FL 34109---0 48503001607 U MAROON LION PROPERTIES LLC 2180 IMMOKALEE ROAD STE 313 NAPLES, FL 34109---0 48503001681 U MAROON LION PROPERTIES LLC 2180 IMMOKALEE ROAD STE 313 NAPLES, FL 34109---0 48503002800 U MAROON LION PROPERTIES LLC 2180 IMMOKALEE ROAD STE 313 NAPLES, FL 34109---0 48503002347 U MARTINEZ, EDWARD LOURDES RODRIGUEZ DE MARTINEZ1430 SONGBIRD DR #1201 NAPLES, FL 34113---0 73744000144 U MATTOZZI, KAYLA MARIE MARCO GARNICA 1315 CORSO PALERMO CT #1 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503002305 U MAZREKU, ALDO & INA 1465 MARIPOSA CIR APT 203 NAPLES, FL 34105---7255 59690012501 U POList_500 Page 422 of 1742 4 MCCABE, SUSAN M 1263 STRADA MILAN LANE #3 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503000763 U MCENERY, CYANA MARIA 1448 SONGBIRD DR #4103 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000704 U MEJIAS, IDA L 1329 CORSO PALERMO CT #3 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503002046 U MEJIAS, NORBERTO & MARIBEL 39 WOODSIDE LN WHITING, NJ 08759---0 59690010406 U MELLO, CHARLENE A 1039 ALBANY COURT NAPLES, FL 34105---0 75020005104 U MENDOZA, GADIEL O 1460 MARIPOSA CIR #101 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690013584 U META, ALBAN & ANILA 1370 MARIPOSA CIR #22-103 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690013021 U METAJ, EDMOND & LEDIA 1445 MARIPOSA CIR APT 203 NAPLES, FL 34105---7251 59690012187 U METODIEVA, GABRIELA METODI METODIEV 1325 MARIPOSA CIR #204 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010480 U MEYER, THOMAS 1035 ALBANY COURT #212 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 75020005081 U MIAMI EXPANSION INC 16192 COASTAL HWY LEWES, DE 19958---3608 48503000349 U MIHAJLOVIKJ, NENAD 1355 MARIPOSA CIRCLE #6103 NAPLES, FL 34105---7258 59690010862 U MILIAN, GEORGE 12145 NW 10TH ST CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33071---0 59690011227 U MILLER JR, RICHARD A CYNTHIA LEE MILLER 1050 ALBANY CT #199 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 75020004820 U MILOR, ENIDE 1442 SONGBIRD DR #3103 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000461 U MITCHELL, KARLY JEAN JUSTIN PATRICK SCHERER 1276 STRADA MILAN LN #4004 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503003207 U MITCHELL, KATHY L 1330 CORSO PALERMO CT #3 NAPLES, FL 34105---4996 48503001720 U MONGIELLO, JOHN & MARGARET 525 SARATOGA CIR #202 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 48503001982 U MONICA, RICHARD & MARILYN 9 HILLSIDE AVE ROSELAND, NJ 07068---1315 59690012365 U MONTANO-RIMA, MICHELLE O 1454 SONGBIRD DR #5105 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000908 U MOORTHY, AROOR VISHNU AROOR INDIRA MOORTHY 1260 CARPAZI CT APT 1 NAPLES, FL 34105---4972 48503000307 U MORENO LUNA, GEMMA IVETTE 1240 CARPAZI CT #3 NAPLES, FL 34105---4964 48503000682 U MORENO, LUZ S 1430 SONGBIRD DR #1106 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000128 U MORGAN, JASMINE SHYVETTE 1442 SONGBIRD DR #3106 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000526 U MUCKA, YLBER & ORJETA 1415 MARIPOSA CIR #202 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011683 U MULDOWNEY, LOIS CHIDESTER 1240 CARPAZI COURT #1 NAPLES, FL 34108---4964 48503000705 U MURPHY, LESLIE 1280 VERDE DR # 3902 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503003087 U N A ONORATO &M T ONORATO TRUSTELENA LEFFE 3521 WILD INDIGO LANE BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 59690010545 U NAGORSKI, NICK YANA GERMAN 26362 W ROBERTS LN BARRIGTON, IL 60010---0 48503000666 U NAKOLLOFSKI, STAVRI NORILDA TOSHKA 1292 VERDE DR #3602 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503002842 U NASI, GENTA & ILIR 1251 SAINT CLAIR SHORES RD NAPLES, FL 34104---0 59690012747 U NATAL, FRANCESCA 1335 MARIPOSA CIR #4102 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010529 U NCTMM HOLDINGS LLC 1686 DOUBLE EAGLE TRAIL NAPLES, FL 34120---0 59690013209 U NCTMM HOLDINGS LLC 1686 DOUBLE EAGLE TRAIL NAPLES, FL 34120---0 59690013063 U NEHLS, CONNOR EDWARD MADISON RAE NEHLS 1320 MARIPOSA CIR #104 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012608 U NEUHART, CAROLYN D 8244 WHITTAKER ROAD YPSILANTI, MI 48197---0 59690010888 U NIKOLOVSKI, MIKI 1305 MARIPOSA CIR #1103 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 59690010066 U NIXON, MIRANDA J 1454 SONGBIRD DR #5201 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000940 U NOGUEDA, ROSA URANIA 1454 SONGBIRD DR #5203 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000982 U OHLIS, JULIE 1435 MARIPOSA CIR APT 103 NAPLES, FL 34105---7248 59690011942 U OLLOM, ANDREW 1445 MARIPOSA CIR #102 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012080 U OLSON, TIMOTHY & STEPHANIE 1329 CORSO PALERMO CT NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503002062 U O'NEIL FAMILY IRREV TRUST 250 MARTINS LANDING #213 NORTH RESDING, MA 01864---0 59690013461 U OROPESA, MADELEIDY MINGUEZ 1448 SONGBIRD DR #4203 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000788 U ORTEGA, JENNISE A DELGADO 1430 SONGBIRD DR #1204 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000209 U OZON, KRISTINA 1303 VERDE DR #2 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503001225 U PAPADORELLY LLC %PROCACCI PROPERTIES PO BOX 7066 NAPLES, FL 34101---0 59690011366 U PAPARUSI, DHIMITER & BRIKENA 1345 MARIPOSA CIR APT 204 NAPLES, FL 34105---7257 59690010804 U PAPOU, ALIAKSEI SOFYA PAPOVA 1031 ALBANY CT NAPLES, FL 34105---0 75020005065 U PARK, ANN MARIE 1320 MARIPOSA CIR #103 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012585 U PATEL, ATAL & TORAL 2836 WOODSIDE TER FREMONT, CA 94539---8024 48503000585 U PATEL, ATUL & TORAL 2836 WOODSIDE TER FREMONT, CA 94539---8024 48503000145 U PELLETIER, GEORGES ETIENNE TERRI LYNN PELLETIER 1310 CORSO PALERMO CT #1702 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503001322 U PEREZ DRAWDY, RACHEL V 1448 SONGBIRD DR #4202 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000762 U PEREZ LEON, YADIER 1436 SONGBIRD DR #2203 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000380 U PEREZ TAMAYO, LETICIA 1442 SONGBIRD DR #3101 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000429 U PESJAKA, JACK & RAYMONDA 1304 VERDE DR UNIT # 3303 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503002622 U PETER ALEXANDER STEVENS TRUST1430 MARIPOSA CIR APT 104 NAPLES, FL 34105---7247 59690013445 U PETIT HOMME, MATILIEN EDNA N SAINT LOUIS PETIT HOMME1436 SONGBIRD DR #2-204 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000403 U PETRILLO, STANLEY & MARIA 16 44TH ST LINDENHURST, NY 11757---2734 59690012022 U PFENDER, HELEN VICTORIA 1465 MARIPOSA CIRCLE #204 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012527 U PHILLIPS, CARLA 1038 ALBANY CT NAPLES, FL 34105---0 75020004888 U PHILLIPS, WEIPING YANCHI SUN 1014 ALBANY CT NAPLES, FL 34105---4814 75020005007 U PHYLLIS ANN LIUZZI REV TRUST 74 WILLOW POND DRIVE ROCKLAND, MA 02370---0 59690013267 U PIATKOWSKI, AUDRZEJ & ANNA 1405 MARIPOSA CIR #201 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011502 U PICCOLOMINI, MARIO 633 OLD RT 51 RD WALTERSBURG, PA 15488---0 59690012268 U PIERNE, DAWN ELLA 1400 MARIPOSA CIR #23-101 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690013102 U PIERRE, LINDA 1442 SONGBIRD DR #3102 NAPLES, FL 34105---5105 73744000445 U PIROZZOLI, PAUL & MARY ANN 26 RUGBY RD COLONIA, NJ 07067---0 48503001160 U PLEIMAN, JAMES G & PAULA 1633 RIDGE ROAD HIGHLAND, MI 48356---2852 59690010723 U PLEPI, ERJOLA & GENTIAN SKERDI PLEPI FLAVIA PLEPI 1315 MARIPOSA CIR #2201 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010260 U PLOCO LLC 3960 RADIO RD STE 102 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 59690010464 U PODIO, ANDREW 7618 HAYENGA LN DARIEN, IL 60561---0 75020005308 U POList_500 Page 423 of 1742 5 POLESTAN, PAULETTE 1448 SONGBIRD DR #4102 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000681 U POLITANO III, JAMES JAMES POLITANO IV 396 THOMPSON AVE MIDDLETOWN, NJ 07748---0 59690010121 U POSZ, JACOB GARRETT DAVID GARRETT POSZ 1299 VERDE DR #1503 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503001186 U PRAY, JOSHUA D 1300 VERDE DR #2 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503002664 U PRUSINOWSKI, ANDRZEJ JENNY PRUSINOWSKI 1465 MARIPOSA CIR APT 202 NAPLES, FL 34105---7255 59690012488 U QUANTUM REI CORP 7925 NW 12TH ST # 111 MIAMI, FL 33126---0 75020004901 U RADICANIN, JELICA 15051 ROYAL OAKS LN #1803 NORTH MIAMI, FL 33181---0 48503002567 U RAGNO, ANTHONY JOSPEH JENNIFER RAGNO 35 NORTH CHURCH RD SPARTA, NJ 07871---0 48503000404 U RAMEZA, PAULIUS 21 E HURON ST APT 1001 CHICAGO, IL 60611---3848 59690011829 U RAMOS-GRANDA, MARTA 1455 MARIPOSA CIR # 16201 NAPLES, FL 34105---7254 59690012307 U RE INVESTMENTS LLC % RICHARD DAVIS MGR 109 AMERICA BLVD ASHLAND, MA 01721---0 59690010189 U RECKEWEG, TAMARA 1448 SONGBIRD DR #4204 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000801 U REIDY REVOCABLE TRUST 15188 BUTLER LAKE DR #103 NAPLES, FL 34109---0 59690013542 U REQUE, ILIANA GONZALEZ 1436 SONGBIRD DR #2103 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000306 U RICHARD R RIZZO REV TRUST DONNA S RIZZO REV TRUST 16268 SANGRIA CT FISHERS, IN 46037---0 59690010024 U RITA M OBERRY TRUST 1325 CORSO PALERMO CT APT 2 NAPLES, FL 34105---4993 48503002101 U ROBINSON, CALEB & IVA 1071 ALBANY CT NAPLES, FL 34105---4814 75020005269 U ROCHA, MARILU CECILIA 1248 CARPAZI CT # 2 NAPLES, FL 34105---4968 48503000501 U RODRIGUEZ, MARIANA 1442 SONGBIRD DR #3206 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000649 U ROKOSH, TARA E 1465 MARIPOSA CIR #201 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690013186 U RONIN TRUST GRAYSON DAVIS MARRERO 13026 NEW BRITTON DR FISHERS, IN 46038---1073 48503000860 U ROSSANO, ANDREW S 49 HUSTIS RD COLD SPRING, NY 10516---4103 75020005201 U RPCR REALTY I LLC 1580 31ST ST SW NAPLES, FL 34117---0 48503000941 U RPCR REALTY I LLC 1580 31ST ST SW NAPLES, FL 34117---0 48503000381 U RPCR REALTY I LLC 1580 31ST ST SW NAPLES, FL 34117---0 48503002004 U RYAN, DEBORAH 82 ALTENTANN NASHVILLE, TN 37215---5830 48503002541 U SABAYRAC, RICHARD B DRAGANA FURNADJISKA 1263 STRADA MILAN LN#1004 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503000802 U SACCHETTA, NICHOLAS M 1465 MARIPOSA CIRCLE 201 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012462 U SAKSEN III, WILLIAM D DEBORAH A SAKSEN 231 GODFREY RD NORTHVILLE, NY 12134---0 59690010105 U SALA, ALJBAN MELINDA ABDIJI 1335 MARIPOSA CIR #4-201 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010587 U SARMIENTO, MARIA C 1415 MARIPOSA CIR #102 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011609 U SAVOIE, DONALD 1106 E SPRUCE ST SAULT ST MARIE, MI 49783---0 48503002020 U SCHMIDT JOINT REVOCABLE TRUST1435 MARIPOSA CIR NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012048 U SCHOCKMAN, LINDA LOU 1460 MARIPOSA CIR #104 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690013649 U SCHRECENGOST, JEREMY LEE AUTUMN DAWN MALONEY 2201 CAPE HEATHER CIR CAPE CORAL, FL 33991---0 59690013403 U SCHWAB, ERIC & JUDITH 1 COSTA CT LANGHORNE, PA 19047---0 75020004862 U SCHWARTZ, SUNNY 1420 MARIPOSA CIR #102 NAPLES, FL 34105---7273 59690013322 U SDW REVOCABLE TRUST 1296 VERDE DRIVE #3 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503002761 U SELFOLLARI, ADRIATIK & JONIDA 5351 NORTH NASHVILLE AVENUE CHICAGO, IL 60656---0 59690013128 U SELFOLLARI, EDMOND & SILVANA1375 MARIPOSA CIR #103 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011146 U SFR 2012-1 FLORIDA LLC 1775 HANCOCK ST #200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92110---0 48503002703 U SHAPIRO, NATALIA 1140 PFINGSTEN RD GLENVIEW, IL 60025---2521 48503002224 U SHAPPLEY, TERRI L 1300 VERDE DR #404 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503002729 U SHAQIRI, ADMIR & JOANA 76 BETHANY RD HAZLET, NJ 07730---0 48503002648 U SHEARER, COURTNEY C IAN DAVID SHEARER 1082 ALBANY CT NAPLES, FL 34105---0 75020004668 U SHEPPARD, DELLA B 1325 MARIPOSA CIRCLE #3103 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010383 U SHIRLEY A LESTERS TRUST 1125 KINSIE COURT NAPERVILLE, IL 60540---8105 59690013348 U SHUAIPI, LUMTURI 1325 MARIPOSA CIR #202 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010448 U SHURSEN, ANNA J 7201 ZION LN MCKINNEY, TX 75070---0 48503000284 U SIMS FAMILY TRUST 1340 MARIPOSA CIR #102 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012802 U SMITH, DUSTIN DANIELLE N SMITH 1288 VERDE DR # 2 NAPLES, FL 34105---4962 48503002907 U SMITH, RONALD LINDA SMITH 1370 MARIPOSA CIR APT 101 NAPLES, FL 34105---7263 59690012983 U SONGBIRD AT WHIPPOORWILL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC11145 TAMIAMI TRAIL E NAPLES, FL 34113---0 00288040002 U SOTIRAJ, STELA 1385 MARIPOSA CIR #9-103 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011269 U SPARANO, ASSUNTA & GIUSEPPE34 WAYCROSS RD MAHOPAC, NY 10541---0 59690011560 U SPOTO JR, JAMES R & LORENA 14884 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---0 48503000909 U ST CLAIR, DAVID W 1355 MARIPOSA CIR #6203 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010943 U ST CLAIR, DAVID W LINDITA SAKOLLARI 1355 MARIPOSA CIR #101 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010820 U STEELE, MARGARITA M 1330 MARIPOSA CIR #102 NAPLES, FL 34105---7241 59690012721 U STRATFORD PL MASTER ASSOC INC75 VINEYARDS BLVD 3RD FLOOR NAPLES, FL 34119---0 75020000028 U STRATFORD PL MASTER ASSOC INC75 VINEYARDS BLVD 3RD FLOOR NAPLES, FL 34119---0 75020000060 U STRATFORD PL MASTER ASSOC INC75 VINEYARDS BLVD 3RD FLOOR NAPLES, FL 34119---0 75020000086 U STRATFORD PL MASTER ASSOC INC75 VINEYARDS BLVD 3RD FLOOR NAPLES, FL 34119---0 75020000109 U STRATFORD PL MASTER ASSOC INC75 VINEYARDS BLVD 3RD FLOOR NAPLES, FL 34119---0 75020000222 U SULLIVAN, CHRISTOPHER 4912 SURF AVE BROOKLYN, NY 11224---0 48503000569 U SUN, RONG HUI 1320 MARIPOSA CIR # 18-102 NAPLES, FL 34105---7231 59690012569 U SWEET, MICHELLE L 1465 MARIPOSA CIRCLE #101 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012381 U SZCZESNIEWICZ, MARLENA 1311 CORSO PALERMO CT #1 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503002389 U SZETELA, GEORGE S 1375 MARIPOSA CIR #101 NAPLES, FL 07036---0 59690011104 U TAGANI, ARSIM & LIRIDONA 1405 MARIPOSA CIRCLE #203 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011544 U TAMAYO CHACON, ALEXIS A DAYLI MARTINEZ PEREZ 1454 SONGBIRD DR #5106 NAPLES, FL 34105---5109 73744000924 U TASE, ANESTI & ARTA 1405 MARIPOSA CIRCLE #103 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011463 U TAYLOR, ANNAKAY LAVERN 1442 SONGBIRD DR #3205 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000623 U POList_500 Page 424 of 1742 6 TAYLOR, MARCIA MOORE FABIAN DALE TAYLOR 1315 MARIPOSA CIRCLE #103 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010228 U TEJERA, MANUEL EMILIO CARPIO MARIOLY ARMADA MUNOZ 1445 MARIPOSA CIR #104 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012129 U THOMAS, LUCILLE 1445 MARIPOSA CIR #103 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012103 U THOMAS, SIDONNE S 1430 SONGBIRD DR #1202 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000160 U TIECHON, MAXIME 1450 MARIPOSA CIR #101 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690013500 U TIITF /ST OF FL % DEP DOUGLAS BLDG 3900 COMMONWEALTH BLVD TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399---3000 00288080004 U TIITF /ST OF FL % DEP DOUGLAS BLDG 3900 COMMONWEALTH BLVD TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399---3000 38330330001 U TILI, PIRO & ELZA 1454 SONGBIRD DR #5206 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744001046 U TIMAR, GABRIELLA 1334 CORSO PALERMO CT #3 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503001801 U TIPPETT, PATRICIA G 1046 ALBANY CT NAPLES, FL 34105---4814 75020004846 U TITOV, EVGENY & VOLHA 1430 MARIPOSA CIR #106 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690013487 U TORRE JR, RICHARD & KRISTI 13 COVENTRY LANE SMITHTOWN, NY 11787---0 48503001940 U TOSHKA, KELVIS & NORILDA 1430 MARIPOSA CIR #103 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690013429 U TOVAR, ALCIDES RIVERA MARIA D MEDINA DE RIVERA 1454 SONGBIRD DR #5101 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000827 U TRANCHINA, JOSEPH & ANNMARIE73 WAKEFIELD RD STATEN ISLAND, NY 10312---6412 48503001788 U TREBICKA, MIRGEN & XHOVANA 1066 ALBANY CT NAPLES, FL 34105---4814 75020004749 U TRUONG, TRINH T JOSEPH H LAM 1975 GREENTREE RD CHERRY HILL, NJ 08003---1120 75020004707 U VALENCIA, BIANCA C BELLIDO 1454 SONGBIRD DR #5204 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744001004 U VAN FLEET, NANCY 1280 VERDE DRIVE UNIT 3904 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503003126 U VAN REGEMORTER, PATRICIA T 1043 ALBANY CT NAPLES, FL 34105---4814 75020005120 U VAND TRUST 6330 LANCEWOOD WAY NAPLES, FL 34116---0 38330200005 U VEGA, LEANDRO & CORRIENE 1395 MARIPOSA CIRCLE #103 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011340 U VEIPI, JOANNA 1330 CORSO PALERMO CT #2204 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503001762 U VEIPI, XHIKE 1241 CARPAZI CT #2 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503000022 U VEITIA, OSIEL AGUILAR 1010 ALBANY COURT NAPLES, FL 34105---0 75020005023 U VENCELLER, GRACE 1051 ALBANY CT NAPLES, FL 34105---4814 75020005162 U VENKOV, PAVLIN 1334 CORSO PALERMO CT #2304 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503001843 U VERA, BLANCA N 1430 SONGBIRD DR #1203 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000186 U VILLEGAS, JORGE A & ALBA 1360 MARIPOSA CIR #103 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690012941 U WARD, DOROTHY 1315 MARIPOSA CIRCLE #2202 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690010286 U WATKINS, WILLIAM THOMAS 1454 SONGBIRD DR #202 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 73744000966 U WATSON, VASHTI 1425 MARIPOSA CIR APT 104 NAPLES, FL 34105---7245 59690011803 U WEHR, THOMAS V 1460 MARIPOSA CIR #102 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690013607 U WILLIAMS, DIANE M 1267 STRADA MILAN LN #1102 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503000844 U WILSON, WILLIAM S 1259 CARPAZI CT APT 1 NAPLES, FL 34105---4971 48503000226 U WISSMAN FAMILY TRUST 1375 MARIPOSA CIR #106 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 59690011201 U XU INVESTMENTS LP 11811 N TATUM BLVD STE P199 PHOENIX, AZ 85028---1698 75020004927 U YANKIN, DIANNE 1247 CARPAZI COURT #3 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 48503000129 U Z & Z CAPITAL LLC 10744 CORY LAKE DR TAMPA, FL 33647---0 48503002923 U ZAKROCZYMSKI, SCOTT JOSEPH ERIN ANN ZAKROCZYMSKI 1075 ALBANY CT #222 NAPLES, FL 34105---0 75020005285 U ZANFARDINO, VINCENT RALPH SIOBHAN MARIE ZANFARDINO JOSEPH C & SHARON A TRACEY 1420 MARIPOSA CIR #25-104 NAPLES, FL 34105---7273 59690013364 U ZARAVELIS, FOTIOS 1429 GILLESPIE AVE BRONX, NY 10461---6014 48503002509 U ZLOTNIKOV, ANDREY ANASTASIA MALIKOVA 15530 SW BEVERLY BCH CT BEAVERTON, OR 97007---0 48503001209 U ZLOTNIKOV, ANDREY ANASTASIA MALIKOVA 15530 SW BEVERLY BCH CT BEAVERTON, OR 97007---0 48503002444 U ANDERSON, BRIAN HARRY & ZHENG354 COTTONWOOD CRES OTTAWA K1E 2X7 CANADA 48503001568 F ARDELEAN, PAVEL & AURELIA 240 AVE AVE DE LA SEIGNEURIE LAVAL H7W 3S2 CANADA 75020005188 F AWAD LIVING TRUST PAPA LIVING TRUST 579 ROLAND DURAND BLVD ROSEMERE J7A 4K7 CANADA 48503003184 F BELININ, IEVGEN OLESYA SHCHERDAN 19 G PRIRECHNAYA #206 KIEV 01001 UKRAINE 59690011764 F BREITENBUECHER, RICHARD AM KLIFF 11 GLOWE 18551 GERMANY 00288160005 F CHEN, WENWEI & YUE 612 BROOKWOOD CIRCLE NEPEAN K2J 0N6 CANADA 59690011405 F DELUCA, GIUSEPPE & WILMA 539 BARTON ST STONEY CREEK L8E 2S7 CANADA 48503001869 F DING, GOULIN & ZHIJIAN NING ZHANG 616 BROOKWOOD CIR OTTAWA K2J 0N6 CANADA 48503001526 F DING, GOULIN & ZHIJIAN NING ZHANG 616 BROOKWOOD CIR OTTAWA K2J 0N6 CANADA 48503001102 F DING, GOULIN & ZHIJIAN NING ZHANG 616 BROOKWOOD CIR OTTAWA K2J 0N6 CANADA 48503003029 F FAN, JIN CHUNLIU LIU 250 PINEWAY BLVD NORTH YORK M2H 3G3 CANADA 48503002680 F HE, SHUHUL RONG YU 35 KENTLAND CRES TORONTO M2M 2X7 CANADA 48503002745 F JEFFREY, MIKE NATHALIE ST SAUVEUR 16 ELMA ST OTTAWA K1T3W8 CANADA 59690010684 F LAUSTER, RICHARD AM KLIFF 11 GLOWE 18551 GERMANY 48503001665 F LEWIS, ANDREW & GILLIAN LITTLE ACORNS STAR LANE CAPEL LLANILLTERN CARDIFF CFS 6JH WALES 48503001021 F LI, YUE LING YAO 1518 CRAIGLEITH ROAD OAKVILLE L6H 7W3 CANADA 48503002981 F LIN, MIN CHUN HUI XU 39 SMOKETREE CRESCENT OTTAWA K2S 2B8 CANADA 48503003045 F LU, JINGEN 146 ARNOLD AVENUE THORNHILL L4J 1B7 CANADA 48503001380 F LU, JINGEN 146 ARNOLD AVENUE THORNHILL L4J 1B7 CANADA 48503001429 F LU, PING SCOTT WENG 77 CALDERBRIDGE CRESCENT MARKHAM L3R 9M8 CANADA 48503002208 F MAKRIS, ARISTIDIS 3 TRADEWINDS DRIVE OTTAWA K2G 6Y4 CANADA 59690011861 F MAKRIS, ARISTIDIS & CATHERINE 3 TRADEWINDS DRIVE OTTAWA K2G 6Y4 CANADA 59690012145 F MENTON, ALAN JOHN 44 FINLAYSON STREET LANE COVE 2066 AUSTRALIA 48503002868 F MISKULNIG, MARIA PO BOX 71680 DUBAI UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 48503002428 F SOMESWARANANTHAN, JANAKAN18436 CENTRE ST MOUNT ALBERT L0G 1M0 CANADA 59690013160 F TITTEMORE, MICHAEL & BARBARABOX 1 LIBERTY S0G3A0 CANADA 59690012543 F WOJTACZKA, ADAM & MARIA 23132 125A AVE MAPLE RIDGE V2X 0S2 CANADA 59690011926 F XIAO, JUNFEI 370 SPRING GARDEN AVENUE TORONTO M2H 3H5 CANADA 48503002949 F XIAO, JUNFEI 370 SPRING GARDEN AVENUE TORONTO M2N 3H5 CANADA 48503003003 F POList_500 Page 425 of 1742 7 XING, CHAO HONG 11 CHARNWOOD RD NORTH YORK M3B 2P7 CANADA 48503002486 F XU, YUN JIANG LAN ZHANG 2371 LIONSTONE DRIVE OAKVILLE L6M 4S8 CANADA 48503001623 F YU, HONGBIN YING HUANG 624 BROOKWOOD CIRCLE NEPEAN K2J O6N CANADA 48503002884 F ZHU, XIAOXIONG 29 YINJU HUAYUAN XIAO LAN ZHONGSHAN GUANGDONG 528415 CHINA 59690012763 F GUSTO BELLA VITA CONDOMINIUM 00288161004 MARIPOSA AT WHIPPOORWILL CONDOMINIUM 00286120005 SONGBIRD AT WHIPPOORWILL A CONDOMINIUM 00288164001 POList_500 Page 426 of 1742Page 427 of 1742Page 428 of 1742 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: MARCH 19, 2026 SUBJECT: PL20250004748 – MOORINGS PARK AT GRANDE LAKE in GREY OAKS PUD (PUDA) Owners: Agents: LB Naples Grande, LLC Patty Kulak 2210 Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Suite 1300 RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture Naples, FL 34109 28100 Bonita Grande Drive Bonita Springs, FL 34135 The Moorings, Inc. 120 Moorings Park Dr. Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq Naples, FL 34105 Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail N., Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Applicant: LB Naples Grande, LLC 2210 Vanderbilt Beach Rd, #1300 Naples, FL 34109 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to amend Ordinance Number 07-40, as amended, the Grey Oaks Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD), by increasing the floor-to-area ratio to 0.6 for assisted living facilities on the 55.5+/- acre parcel designated as Residential (R) and Lake (L) known as Moorings Park Grande Lake, limiting the maximum cumulative building area to 1,127,590 square feet, and by providing an effective date. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site is 55.5+/- acres located one-quarter mile west of Livingston Road, south of Golden Gate Parkway, within the Grey Oaks MPUD consisting of 1,601+/- acres located at the northeast, northwest, and southeast quadrants of the intersection of Airport Road and Golden Gate Parkway in Sections 24, 25, and 26, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. See location map on the following page. PL20250004748; Moorings Park at Grande Lake (PUDA) Page 1 of 13 February 24, 2026 Page 429 of 1742 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Grey Oaks Development of Regional Impact (DRI)/Mixed Planned Development (MPUD) was first approved in 1990, and several amendments have since been approved. In 2007, the Grey Oaks MPUD was rezoned from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to MPUD pursuant to Ordinance 07-40, which repealed and replaced the Grey Oaks PUD Ordinance 00-46. The most recent amendments were DRI Development Order Number 18-03 (Resolution Number 18-230) and Ordinance 18-65, which added an access point along Livingston Road. An Insubstantial Change was approved by Hearing Examiner Decision 2021-37 (PDI-PL20210000324), allowing for a maximum building height of 103 feet (zoned) and 118 feet (actual) for two parcels within the Moorings Park Grande Lake development area. The PUD Document allows for a maximum of 1,775 dwelling units; 1,303,091 square feet of commercial office and retail uses; 72 golf course holes; with a provision in Section III “Residential Land Use” that the area designated “R” on the south side of Golden Gate Parkway may be Assisted Living Facilities at a floor-to-area ratio not to exceed 0.45. Moorings Park Grande Lake is within the Grey Oaks MPUD along the south side of Golden Gate Parkway. This community is developing as an assisted living community with independent and assisted living units and support facilities. Development standards for the “R” Residential Areas are included in Table III of the PUD Document approved by Ordinance 07-40. The maximum multifamily building heights are not to exceed 6 stories above parking, with the exception that Hearing Examiner Decision 2021-37 approved an insubstantial change to the PUD (PDI- PL20210000324), allowing for a maximum building height of 103 feet (zoned) and 118 feet (actual) for two parcels within Moorings Park Grande Lake. See Exhibit H-2 approved per Hearing Examiner Decision 2021-37 on the following page, indicating that certain tracts along PL20250004748; Moorings Park at Grande Lake (PUDA) Page 2 of 13 February 24, 2026 Page 430 of 1742 Premier Drive are allowed at the defined zoned and actual heights in lieu of a restriction of 6 floors over parking. Grey Oaks MPUD Exhibit H-2 approved per Hearing Examiner Decision 2021-37 Development of Moorings Park Grande Lake has been underway with thirteen (13) buildings of independent living units and a clubhouse constructed along Little Lane, and the tracts along Premier Drive are under construction per Site Development Plan Amendment SDPA- PL20210001739 with associated insubstantial changes that allow for clubhouse space, independent living units, and assisted living units. The petitioner’s proposed amendment to the MPUD to increase the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for assisted living facilities from 0.45 to 0.6 is consistent with the same change made to the Collier County Land Development Code by adoption of Ordinance 25-59 on November 10, 2025. Because PUDs are site-specific zoning districts approved with defined maximum densities and intensities determined to be appropriate for the site and its surroundings through the public hearing process, the increase in maximum FAR from 0.45 to 0.6 constitutes an increase in intensity that requires processing a PUD Amendment application. The remainder of this page is intentionally blank. PL20250004748; Moorings Park at Grande Lake (PUDA) Page 3 of 13 February 24, 2026 Page 431 of 1742 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the boundaries of the subject property, which is within the Grey Oaks Mixed Planned Unit Development, Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zone W-4 (ST/W-4), Airport Overlay (APO), and Golden Gate Parkway Corridor Management Overlay (CMO): North: Golden Gate Parkway, beyond which is the Grey Oaks MPUD with areas designated as Office/Commercial, Residential, Golf Course, and Park per the MPUD Master Plan; developed with multi-family and single-family residences and a golf course. South: Golf Course Tract of the Grey Oaks MPUD, beyond which is the Golden Gate Canal and Naples Production Park, developed with industrial and commercial uses zoned I, Industrial. East: Golf Course Tract of the Grey Oaks MPUD, beyond which is a Residential Tract developed with Orchid Run multifamily apartments. West: Golf Course Tract of the Grey Oaks MPUD, beyond which is Airport Road and Poinciana Professional Park, zoned Highway Commercial in the City of Naples, and Bear’s Paw golf course community, zoned Planned Development (PD) in the City of Naples. Subject Site PL20250004748; Moorings Park at Grande Lake (PUDA) Page 4 of 13 February 24, 2026 Page 432 of 1742 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed- Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Section 3.02 of Ordinance No. 07-40 currently provides that a maximum of 1,775 units may be constructed on lands designated as “R” or Residential within the Grey Oaks Mixed Planned Unit Development. The Ordinance further states that the 25± acre parcel designated “R” on the MPUD Master Plan, located on Livingston Road south of Golden Gate Parkway, may be devoted to Assisted Living Facilities at a floor area ratio (FAR) not to exceed 0.45. This proposed amendment modifies the text to read: A maximum of 1,775 dwelling units may be constructed on lands designated as “R” or Residential. The 55+/- acre parcel designated “R” on the MPUD Master Plan, generally located one-quarter mile west of Livingston Road, south of Golden Gate Parkway, may be devoted to Assisted Living Facilities at a floor-to-area ratio not to exceed 0.6, and in compliance with Exhibit H-2. The Urban Future Land Use designation allows for community facilities, including group housing uses, and does not establish a maximum FAR specific to Assisted Living Facilities (ALFs). Additionally, FLUE Policy 5.10 states that “Group Housing, which may include the following: Family Care Facility, Group Care Facility, Care Units, Assisted Living Facility, and Nursing Home, shall be allowed within the Urban designated area, and may be allowed in other future land use designations, subject to the definitions and regulations as outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004) and consistent with the locational requirements in Florida Statutes (Chapter 419.001 F.S.). Family Care Facilities, which are residential facilities occupied by not more than six (6) persons, shall be permitted in residential areas.” Grey Oaks is an approved Mixed Planned Unit Development (MPUD) that permits Assisted Living Facilities on the parcel designated “R” (Residential) pursuant to Ordinance No. 07-40. No change to the approved ALF use is proposed. The request modifies development standards but remains consistent with the Urban designation and applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed PUD Amendment may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff reviewed the application and found this project consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. The requested change is to increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for group housing units. There are no substantial changes to the commercial or residential development allowed by the PUD, and no additional transportation impact due to this change; Group Housing represents fewer traffic impacts than other residential unit types allowed in this PUD. Transportation Planning Staff recommend approval. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project consistent with the CCME. The proposed changes do not affect any of the environmental requirements of the GMP. PL20250004748; Moorings Park at Grande Lake (PUDA) Page 5 of 13 February 24, 2026 Page 433 of 1742 GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land-use decisions, such as this proposed amendment. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any amendment petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC’s recommendation. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading “Zoning Services Review.” Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff reviewed the PUD Amendment to address ecological concerns. The PUD preserve requirement is 137.99 acres (25% of the existing native vegetation, 551.94 acres). The proposed PUD changes will not affect any of the environmental requirements of the PUD document, Ordinance 07-40, as amended. The native vegetation has been placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County (Plat Book 20, Pages 30-37). Environmental Services staff recommend approval. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff find this project consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and recommend approval. Utility Review: The project lies within the City of Naples potable water service area and the south wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). Wastewater service is available via existing infrastructure within the adjacent right-of-way. Sufficient wastewater treatment capacity is available. Any improvements to the CCWSD’s wastewater system necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the County at the time of utilities acceptance. The City of Naples Utilities Department furnished a letter of water service availability on December 5, 2025. Zoning Services Review: The portion of the Grey Oaks DRI/MPUD that is the subject of this petition is the Moorings Park Grande Lake continuing care retirement community located on the south side of Golden Gate Parkway. The community occupies an area designated “R” Residential on the MPUD Master Plan. In addition to conventional single family, cluster homes, townhomes, multi-family dwellings, neighborhood recreation facilities and churches, assisted living facilities are a permitted use in the “R” Residential areas. Section 3.02 of the PUD Document approved by Ordinance 07-40 establishes maximum dwelling units, and states: The 25 +/- acre parcel designated “R” on the MPUD Master Plan located on Livingston Road, south of Golden Gate Parkway, may be devoted to Assisted Living Facilities at a floor-to-area ratio not to exceed .45. PL20250004748; Moorings Park at Grande Lake (PUDA) Page 6 of 13 February 24, 2026 Page 434 of 1742 Floor-to-area ratio (FAR) is an intensity measure that limits building floor area to a ratio of the land area on which the building is constructed, defined in LDC Section 1.08.02 as: Floor area ratio (FAR): A means of measurement of the intensity of building development on the site. A floor area ratio is the relationship between the gross floor area on a site and the gross land area. The FAR is calculated by adding together the gross floor areas of all buildings on the site and dividing that figure by the gross land area. See Figure 5. The gross floor area of a building clearly designed for a parking facility shall not be included in the floor area ratio calculation. The FAR ratio established in the MPUD yields the following maximum building area for assisted living facilities: 25 acres (1,089,000 sq. ft.) x 0.45 FAR = 490,050 sq. ft. of max. building area In the Zoning Verification Letter issued for Petition #PL20160002073 (see Attachment B), County staff opined that areas designated as Lake on the Grey Oaks MPUD Master Plan would be considered in the gross land area value for calculating FAR only if said Lake area is depicted on and as a part of the required Site Development Plan (SDP). The property has been subject to several Site Development Permitting actions, including SDPI-PL20190002559, SDPA-PL20210001739, SDPA-PL20220008664, SDPI- PL20250001767, and SDPI-PL20250003900, with the lake area included in the maximum FAR ratio calculation. Therefore, the MPUD Amendment includes a correction to the text to refer to the entire 55+ acre area, inclusive of the lake area. The resulting maximum building area for assisted living facilities is calculated as follows: 55.48 acres including Lake (2,416,866.8 square feet) x 0.45 FAR = 1,087,590.1 sq. ft. of max. building area The request to amend the MPUD to increase the maximum floor area from 0.45 to 0.6 aligns with a recent Land Development Code (LDC) Amendment; Ordinance 25-59 was adopted on November 10, 2025, changing the maximum FAR for group housing, such as assisted living facilities and continuing care retirement communities, from 0.45 to 0.6 in Section 5.05.04 of the LDC. The change for the subject site from a maximum FAR of 0.45 to 0.6 yields an increase in development potential of an additional 362,435 square feet of building area, per the following calculation: 55.48 acres including Lake (2,416,708.8 square feet) x 0.6 FAR = 1,450,025 sq. ft. of max. building area The petitioner does not intend to build an additional 362,435 square feet of building area; the PUD Amendment includes a limit of maximum cumulative building area of 1,127,590 square feet on the 55.48 acre Residential and Lake designated area, and no more than 412,000 square PL20250004748; Moorings Park at Grande Lake (PUDA) Page 7 of 13 February 24, 2026 Page 435 of 1742 feet on the 6.48-acre area fronting Premier Drive. This is a proposed net increase of 40,000 square feet of cumulative building area allowed, which correlates to roughly 12 additional independent living units that can be built as a result of the PUD Amendment. These limitations are displayed on Exhibit H-2 included with the draft Ordinance (Attachment A). PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, “In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08.” (Zoning Division staff responses are in non-bold). a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The site is in an established urbanized area of the County. Moorings Park Grande Lake is developing as a continuing care retirement community with independent and assisted living units and support facilities. The PUD Amendment, as conditioned, will allow for a net increase of 40,000 square feet of building area, which correlates to roughly 12 additional independent living units that can be built. No change to previously approved building heights is proposed. The characteristics of the land and surrounding area are able to accommodate the proposed change in FAR as conditioned. Wastewater mains are available along Golden Gate Parkway. There is adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project. Any improvements to the CCWSD’s wastewater system necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the County at the time of utilities acceptance. The City of Naples Utilities Department furnished a letter of water service availability on December 5, 2025. b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which the County Attorney’s Office reviewed, demonstrate unified control of the property. c. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report on page 5. Staff conclude the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with the GMP. d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. PL20250004748; Moorings Park at Grande Lake (PUDA) Page 8 of 13 February 24, 2026 Page 436 of 1742 The site is in an established urbanized area of the County. Moorings Park Grande Lake is developing as an assisted living community with independent and assisted living units and support facilities. The PUD Amendment, as conditioned, will allow for a net increase of 40,000 square feet of building area, which correlates to roughly 12 additional independent living units that can be built. No change to previously approved setbacks, building heights, or landscaping requirements is proposed. The proposed changes, as conditioned, will not compromise internal or external compatibility. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. No deviation from the required usable open space is being requested; the overall site provides over 60% open space, including the 25.2-acre lake. Compliance is verified at the time of SDP or PPL review. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Wastewater mains are available along Golden Gate Parkway. There is adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project. Any improvements to the CCWSD’s wastewater system necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the County at the time of utilities acceptance. The City of Naples Utilities Department furnished a letter of water service availability on December 5, 2025. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a TIS is reviewed. The proposed development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure to accommodate the increase in development proposed by this PUD Amendment as conditioned. The boundary associated with the Moorings Park Grande Lake development is not proposed to be modified, and the boundary of the PUD is not proposed to be modified. Any such modification in the future would require the processing of applications to amend the DRI and PUD approvals. h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. No changes to approved deviations are proposed, and no new deviations are requested. PL20250004748; Moorings Park at Grande Lake (PUDA) Page 9 of 13 February 24, 2026 Page 437 of 1742 Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, “When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners…shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following findings, when applicable.” (Zoning Division staff responses are in non-bold). 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the GMP. Consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map and other elements of the GMP is summarized within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report on page 5. Staff concludes the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. The site is in an established urbanized area of the County. Moorings Park Grande Lake is developing as a continuing care retirement community with independent and assisted living units and support facilities. The PUD Amendment, as conditioned, will allow for a net increase of 40,000 square feet of building area, which correlates to roughly 12 additional independent living units that can be built. No change to previously approved building heights is proposed. The characteristics of the land and surrounding area are able to accommodate the proposed change in FAR as conditioned. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The subject site is already zoned PUD and allowed to develop with assisted living facility uses; this Amendment will not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Existing district boundaries are logically drawn in relation to the existing conditions on the subject property. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary; however, it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes because the petitioner wishes to increase the allowable FAR on the property. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed PUD Amendment, as conditioned, is not anticipated to adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion PL20250004748; Moorings Park at Grande Lake (PUDA) Page 10 of 13 February 24, 2026 Page 438 of 1742 or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a TIS is reviewed. The proposed development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed PUD Amendment request is not anticipated to create adverse drainage impacts in the area, provided stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage on this project are addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). County staff will evaluate the project’s stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at the time of SDP and/or PPL. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated that this PUD Amendment, as conditioned, will seriously reduce light or air to the adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors, including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Adjacent properties are already developed; the proposed change, as conditioned, will not be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. The proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with policies of the Growth Management Plan, so the proposed amendment can be deemed to be in alignment with public welfare and not a grant of special privilege. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the proposed intensity cannot be achieved without amending the PUD. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. PL20250004748; Moorings Park at Grande Lake (PUDA) Page 11 of 13 February 24, 2026 Page 439 of 1742 The proposed change, as conditioned, limits the maximum intensity to be in keeping with the scale of the neighborhood. The proposed increase in FAR for assisted living facilities is in scale with County needs, considering the County’s adoption of Ordinance 25-59 on November 10, 2025, changing the maximum FAR for group housing, such as assisted living facilities and continuing care retirement communities, from 0.45 to 0.6 in Section 5.05.04 of the LDC. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. The site is developed in accordance with the approved PUD Ordinance. Additional development resulting from the PUD Amendment will require additional site alteration. This project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes, and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable GMP goals and objectives regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by county staff who are responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the review process, and staff have concluded that the level of development proposed in the PUD Amendment, as conditioned, will be served by adequate public facilities. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the Board during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The petitioner held two NIMs. The first was on October 13, 2025, at 5:30 PM at the El Shaddai of Grace Church located at 6750 Golden Gate Parkway. Remote meeting attendance was also available via ZOOM. One attendee joined the meeting via ZOOM, and the agent provided a summary of the proposed change; no further questions were asked. This first meeting was invalid because the newspaper advertisement did not run for at least 15 days prior to the meeting. So the petitioner held a second NIM on November 4, 2025, at 5:30 PM at the El Shaddai of Grace PL20250004748; Moorings Park at Grande Lake (PUDA) Page 12 of 13 February 24, 2026 Page 440 of 1742 Church located at 6750 Golden Gate Parkway, with an option for remote attendance via ZOOM. No attendees were present or online for this NIM, and the meeting was concluded at 5:45 PM. See Attachment D for Documentation of the duly advertised NIM held on November 4, 2025. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: This project does not require an Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review because it does not fall within the EAC scope of land development project reviews identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s Office reviewed this staff report on February 26, 2026. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PUDA-PL20250004748 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: A. Draft Ordinance B. Zoning Verification Letter C. Application/Backup Materials D. NIM Documentation PL20250004748; Moorings Park at Grande Lake (PUDA) Page 13 of 13 February 24, 2026 Page 441 of 1742 ORDINANCE NO. 2026-_____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 07-40, AS AMENDED, THE GREY OAKS MPUD, BY INCREASING THE FLOOR-TO- AREA RATIO TO 0.6 FOR ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES ON THE 55.5± ACRE PARCEL DESIGNATED AS RESIDENTIAL (R) AND LAKE (L) KNOWN AS MOORINGS PARK GRANDE LAKE LOCATED ONE- QUARTER MILE WEST OF LIVINGSTON ROAD, SOUTH OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY, LIMITING THE MAXIMUM CUMULATIVE BUILDING AREA TO 1,127,590 SQUARE FEET, AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT MPUD CONSISTING OF 1,601+/- ACRES IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST, NORTHWEST, AND SOUTHEAST QUADRANTS OF THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT ROAD (C.R. 31) AND GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY (C.R. 886), IN SECTIONS 24, 25, AND 26, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20250004748] WHEREAS, on April 24, 2007, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 07-40, which established the Grey Oaks Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD); and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance Number 18-65 which amended the MPUD; and WHEREAS, on August 24, 2021, the Collier County Hearing Examiner issued HEX Decision 2021-37 which included Exhibit H-2: SE Quadrant; and WHEREAS, Patty Kulak of RVI Planning + Architecture and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A, representing LB Naples Grande, LLC petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend Ordinance No. 07-40, the Grey Oaks MPUD; and [25-CPS-02663/2001884/1]92 Moorings Park at Grande Lake Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. PL20250004748 2/17/26 Page 1 of 4 Page 442 of 1742 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.02 OF THE MPUD DOCUMENT Section 3.02 of the MPUD document attached as Exhibit A to Ordinance 07-40 is hereby amended as follows: 3.02 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS A maximum number of 1,775 dwelling units may be constructed on lands designated as “R” or Residential. The 25 55± acre parcel designated “R” on the MPUD Master Plan generally located on one-quarter mile west of Livingston Road, south of Golden Gate Parkway, may be devoted to Assisted Living Facilities in compliance with Section 5.05.04 of the LDC at a floor- to-area ratio not to exceed .45 0.6 and in compliance with revised Exhibit H-2 attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION TWO: AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, “R” Residential Areas, TABLE III, OF SECTION 3.06 OF THE MPUD DOCUMENT Development Standards, “R” Residential Areas, Table III, of section 3.06 of the MPUD document attached as Exhibit A to Ordinance 07-40 is hereby amended as follows: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS “R” Residential Areas Table III PATIO, ZLL, OR [25-CPS-02663/2001884/1]92 Moorings Park at Grande Lake Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. PL20250004748 2/17/26 Page 2 of 4 Page 443 of 1742 SINGLE SINGLE TWO- CLUSTER VILLAS FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY MULTI- DETACHED DETACHED ATTACHED/ FAMILY OR DUPLEX TOWN HOUSE CATEGORY 1 *4 2 *4 3 *4 4 *4 5 *4 *5 MINIMUM 9000 5000 35000 1 AC 2500 SITE AREA SF/Lot SF/Lot SF/Lot SF/Lot SITE WIDTH 75’ 50’ 35’ 150’ 16’ MIN. AVG. SITE DEPTH 120’ 100’ 100’ 150’ N/A MIN. AVG. MIN. AVG. 25’ 20’ 20’*1 20’P 0’ FRONT YARD SIDE YARD 7.5’ 5’ 0 or a *6 20’P 0’ SETBACK minimum of 5’ 0’ GC REAR YARD 20’P 15’P 15’P 20’P 10’P SETBACK 10’GC 10’GC 10’GC 0’GC 0’GC PRINCIPAL REAR YARD 10’P 10’P 10’P 10’P 10’P SETBACK 0’GC 0’GC 0’GC 0’GC 0’GC ACSRY. MAX. 2 2 2 6*2*7 2 BUILDING HEIGHT STORIES ABOVE PARKING DIST. 15’ 10’ 0’ OR 5’ *6 15’*3- 1 story 7’ BETWEEN 25’*3-2-3 story PRINCIPAL 30’*3-4 stories STORIES & higher FLOOR AREA 1200 1000 900 750 900 MINIMUM (S.F.) SITE DEPTH AVERAGE: Determined by dividing the site area by the site width. SITE WIDTH: The average distance between straight lines connecting front and rear parcel lines at each side of the site, measured as straight lines between the foremost points of the side parcel lines in the front (at the point of the intersection with the front parcel line) and the rearmost point [25-CPS-02663/2001884/1]92 Moorings Park at Grande Lake Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. PL20250004748 2/17/26 Page 3 of 4 Page 444 of 1742 of the parcel lines at the rear (point of intersection with the rear parcel line). May be reduced on cul-de-sac lots. P. Perimeter of Internal Sites GC = Golf Course, or Lake Front Sites *1 - This setback may be reduced to 10' for side entry garage ******************** *7 - The following shall apply only to development located on areas identified on Exhibit H-2 Southeast Quadrant: development shall not exceed a zoned height of 103 feet or an actual height of 118 feet (in lieu of a restriction of 6 floors over parking).(HEX Decision No. 2021-27) Setbacks must comply with the required separation between utility infrastructure and buildings or structures provided in the Utility Standards and Procedures Ordinance, Chapter 134, Article III of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _______ day of _______________, 2026. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: ________________________________ By: _____________________________ Deputy Clerk Dan Kowal, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: _________________________________ Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Revised Exhibit H-2 SE Quadrant [25-CPS-02663/2001884/1]92 Moorings Park at Grande Lake Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. PL20250004748 2/17/26 Page 4 of 4 Page 445 of 1742Page 446 of 1742Revised Page 447 of 1742Page 448 of 1742Page 449 of 1742Page 450 of 1742Page 451 of 1742Page 452 of 1742 CCPC Package Moorings Park at Grande Lake PUDA PL20250004748 March 3, 2026 Page 453 of 1742 COVER LETTER/REQUEST NARRATIVE Page 454 of 1742 July 2, 2025 REVISED December 08, 2025 Ms. Laura DeJohn, AICP Collier County Growth Management Division Zoning Services 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Grey Oaks PUDA - PL20250004748 Dear Ms. DeJohn: Enclosed for your review is an application for a PUD Amendment regarding the Grey Oaks MPUD, and more specifically the “Moorings Park Grande Lake (MPGL)” (Subject Property) in the Southeast Quadrant of the MPUD, south of Golden Gate Parkway and west of Livingston Road. The Property is developed with Independent Living Units and Assisted Living Facilities (ALF) allowed per the Grey Oaks PUD Ordinance 07-40, as amended by Ordinance 18-65 and HEX No. 2021-37. Background & Existing Conditions In 2007, the Grey Oaks MPUD was rezoned from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) pursuant to Ordinance 07-40, which repealed and replaced the Grey Oaks PUD Ordinance 00-46 in its entirety. The MPUD allows for a maximum of 1,775 dwelling units; 1,303,091 square feet of commercial office and retail uses; and 72 golf course holes. In 2018, the MPUD was amended to relocate the FP&L easement access road from Airport Pulling Road to Livingston Road. In 2021, an insubstantial change to the PUD (PDI) was approved allowing for a maximum building height of 103 feet (zoned) and 118 feet (actual) for two (2) parcels known as Moorings Park Grande Lake (referred to herein as MPGL) in the Southeast Quadrant of the PUD. These two parcels are now currently known as Tracts C2, E1, E2, E3, and E4, as recorded under Replat OR BK 74, Pages 71-76. MPGL is partially developed with several Independent Living residential buildings, infrastructure, private on-site recreational amenities and uses typically ancillary to group housing and/or ALF uses. Of the 18 buildings permitted, thirteen (13) buildings (including the clubhouse w/ residential IL units) have been constructed in accordance with the PUD, Site Development Plan (SDP) permits and have obtained Certificates of Occupancy, two (2) buildings are under construction, and three (3) remain to be developed on the site. Surrounding Properties The Subject Property is an infill, partially developed site surrounded on all sides by existing development and urban levels of public infrastructure. The development pattern consists of arterial roadways, a mix of multi-family and single-family development, golf courses, and commercial uses, as further described below: RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture • 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Sutie 305 • Bonita Springs, FL 34135 • 239.405.7777 • www.rviplanning.com Page 455 of 1742 FUTURE LAND USE ZONING EXISTING LAND USE Urban Mixed Use – Single-Family Residential; Golf Course NORTH Urban Residential MPUD (Grey Oaks) Subdistrict Urban Mixed Use – SOUTH Industrial (I) Light and Heavy Industrial Industrial District Urban Mixed Use – Single-Family Residential; Golf Course EAST Urban Residential MPUD (Grey Oaks) Subdistrict Recreation; PD; Highway Office; Multi-Family Residential; WEST Commercial Highway Commercial Golf Course Amendment Request On April 22, 2025, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to prepare an LDC Amendment to increase the maximum FAR from 0.45 to 0.60 for group housing facilities, county-wide. It was noted the intent was to “formalize a common deviation requested by PUDs and to help facilitate current group housing facilities market needs”. See also PL20250005043. The Staff Report for this amendment notes: “The original provisions for Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Group Housing were introduced into the LDC pursuant to Ordinance 1997-26. The FAR standard of 0.45 for group housing was determined by staff, at that time, by reviewing all current and planned group care facilities that were both in existence and coming on board. The research found that the largest group housing facility at that time (i.e. The Carlisle) had a FAR of 0.456. Standards have remained relatively unchanged since 1997. A greater FAR was first introduced through a Growth Management Plan Amendment (Ordinance 05-25 on June 7, 2005) that approved the Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict and allowed for a maximum FAR of 0.60 and 200 units of assisted living facilities, independent living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and nursing homes. In 2015, a LDC Amendment was proposed requiring conditional use approval for Group Housing with a FAR between 0.4 and 0.60 identifying that there is no land use procedure to request or analyze FAR greater than 0.45 in relation to neighboring properties in a conventional zoning district. The LDC Amendment was unanimously recommended for approval by the CCPC on May 25, 2016, as part of the 2015 Cycle 2 LDC Amendments presented by staff.” The Applicant is proposing to increase the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for group housing from 0.45 to 0.6, consistent with PL20250005043, for the Southeast Quadrant, generally comprising 55.48 acres. Although, the County is amending the LDC, the request requires an amendment to Section III, Residential Land Use, of the adopted PUD Document, which specifically states 0.45 as the maximum FAR. The requested amendment would increase the allowable building area from approximately 372,000 square feet to 412,000 square feet, resulting in a net increase of 40,000 square feet and 12 additional units within the 6.48-acre area shown on Exhibit H-2. This would raise the total unit count from 282 to a capped maximum of 294 units. The amendment will not impact the approved density of the project, or the commercial retail and office square footages. There are no changes to the approved PUD master plan, development standards, setbacks or building height, or PUD commitments. The proposed FAR increase demonstrates consistency with the Growth Management Plan and LDC, as proposed for amendment. All impacts of the FAR increase will be addressed at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP), including setbacks, parking, traffic and utility demand, as has been the case over the build-out of the Moorings RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture | 2 of 3 \\flbon\Projects\2025\25003662 Grey Oaks FAR PUDA\05 PLANNING\02 ZONING\04 INSUFFICIENCY RESPONSE #2\Submittal 3 - Cover Letter and Project Narrative Grey Oaks PUDA.docx Page 456 of 1742Park Grande Lake (MPGL) project. Data and analysis provided at the time of SDP will also include a utility letter of availability. See also TIS Waiver provided by Transportation Planning Staff. Review Criteria Please refer to the enclosed Evaluation Criteria attachment for further details regarding the criteria in LDC section 10.02.13 B.5. Conclusion In summary, the proposed PUD amendment will allow for an increase to the Group Housing FAR from 0.45 to 0.6 to allow for the flexibility to enclose patio space on existing and planned units in this established project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (239) 405-7777 or pkulak@rviplanning.com. Sincerely, RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture Patty Kulak Senior Project Manager RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture | 3 of 3 \\flbon\Projects\2025\25003662 Grey Oaks FAR PUDA\05 PLANNING\02 ZONING\04 INSUFFICIENCY RESPONSE #2\Submittal 3 - Cover Letter and Project Narrative Grey Oaks PUDA.docx Page 457 of 1742 APPLICATION FORM Page 458 of 1742 Need Help? GMCD Public Portal Online Payment Guide E-Permitting Guides Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone, Amendment to PUD or PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) PUD Rezone (PUDZ): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F., Ch. 3 G.1 of the Administrative Code ✔ Amendment to PUD (PUDA): LDC subsections 10.02.13 E; and 10.03.06.B; and Ch. 3 G.2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F. File a separate application for an insubstantial or minor change to a PUD. APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION LB Naples Grande, LLC & The Moorings, Incorporated Name of Property Owner(s): LB Naples Grande, LLC Name of Applicant if different than owner: 2210 VANDERBILT BEACH RD #1300 34109 Address: City: Naples State: FL ZIP: 239-592-1400 Telephone: Cell: (239) 398-2441 raypiacente@londonbay.com; lisavandien@londonbay.com E-Mail Address: Name of Agent: Patty Kulak & Richard Yovanovich Firm: RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture 34135 Address: 28100 Bonita Grande Dr. City: Bonita Springs State: FL ZIP: Telephone: (239) 405-7777 Cell: E-Mail Address: pkulak@rviplanning.com & rvyovanovich@cyklawfirm.com If Property is under contract to be sold: Name of Property Buyer(s): N/A Name of Applicant if different than buyer: Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: Cell: E-Mail Address: Name of Agent: N/A Firm: Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: Cell: E-Mail Address: PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 1 of 11 Planning and Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov Page 459 of 1742 REZONE REQUEST MPUD, Corridor Management Overly & Airport Overlay This application is requesting a rezone from:_______________________________________Zoning district(s) MPUD, Corridor Management Overly & Airport Overlay to the _______________________________________________Zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property:_____________________________________________________________Continuing Care Retirement Community _____ ✔ Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: _________________________________________________Continuing Care Retirement Community Original PUD Name: ________________________________________________________________________Grey Oaks Ordinance No: _____________________________________________________________________________2007-40 & 2018-65 PROPERTY INFORMATION On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: • If the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include a separate legal description for property involved in each district; • If required to do so at the pre-application meeting, the applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six (6) months, maximum 1" to 400' scale), and • The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section/Township/Range: 25 / 49 / MOORINGS PARK GRANDE LAKE, PB 67, Pages 21-31 (original) and PB 74, Pages 71-76 (Replat) Lot: Block: Subdivision: Metes & Bounds Description: 67 & 74 21-31 & 1-76 Plat Book: Page #: Property ID Number: See attached Parcel List Size of Property: ft. x ft. = Total Sq. Ft. Acres: 55.5+/- Address/General Location of Subject Property: 7310 Premier Drive, Naples, FL 34105 PUD District (refer to LDC subsection 2.03.06 C): Commercial Residential Mixed Use Industrial Community Facilities Research and Technology Park Airport Operations Other: ________________________________ PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 2 of 11 Page 460 of 1742 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N MPUD; Corridor Management Overly & Airport Overlay Single-Family Residential; Golf Course; Public Utility S MPUD; Industrial (I); Corridor Management Overly & Airport Overlay Golf Course; Light & Heavy Industrial E MPUD; Estates (E); Corridor Management Overly & Airport Overlay Multi-Family; Single-Family Residential W MPUD; Corridor Management Overly & Airport OverlayPD; Highway Commercial (HC) (City of Naples) Multi-Family Residential; Golf Course; Office If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property on a separate sheet attached to the application. Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book: Page #: Property ID Number: Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________________ ASSOCIATIONS Complete the following for all registered Home Owner / Civic Association(s) that could be affected by this petition and located within 1,000 feet of the subject property. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Civic Associations and Communities page on the Board of County Commissioner’s website. Applicant is responsible for and shall confirm the current mailing addresses for each association as registered by the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. Name of Homeowner / Civic Association: Bear's Paw Country Club, Inc. 2500 Golden Gate Parkway Naples FL 34105 Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Grey Oaks Property Owners Association Name of Homeowner / Civic Association: Mailing Address: 2394 Grey Oaks Dr. N City: Naples State: FL ZIP: 34105 Name of Homeowner / Civic Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner / Civic Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner / Civic Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 3 of 11 Page 461 of 1742 EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 B, 10.02.08 F and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code, staff’s analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what subdistrict, policy, or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that subdistrict, policy, or other provision.) d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 4 of 11 Page 462 of 1742Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? Official✔ Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? Yes No If yes, please provide copies. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS This land use petition requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), pursuant to Chapter 8 B of the Administrative Code and LDC section 10.03.05. Following the NIM, the applicant will submit a written summary and any commitments that have been made at the meeting. Refer to Chapter 8 B of the Administrative Code for the NIM procedural requirements. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer (specify name) at their expense shall record in the Public Records of Collier County a Memorandum of Understanding of Developer Commitments or Notice of Developer Commitments that contains the legal description of the property that is the subject of the land use petition and contains each and every commitment of the owner or developer specified in the Ordinance. The Memorandum or Notice shall be in form acceptable to the County and shall comply with the recording requirements of Chapter 695, FS. A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be provided to the Collier County Planned Unit Development Monitoring staff within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice. LDC subsection 10.02.08 D This application will be considered “open” when the determination of “sufficiency” has been made and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered “closed” when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to supply necessary information to continue processing or otherwise actively pursue the rezoning, amendment, or change, for a period of six (6) months. An application deemed “closed” will not receive further processing, and an application “closed” through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed “closed” may be re-opened by submission of a new application, repayment of all application fees, and the grant of a determination of “sufficiency”. Further review of the request will be subject to the then current code. PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 5 of 11 Page 463 of 1742 Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G.1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD- Ch. 3 G.2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G.1 of the Administrative Code The following submittal requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with an up-to-date application. Please upload the submittal items with cover sheets attached to each section via the GMCD Portal. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted, or processed. View sample PUD document. NOT REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED REQUIRED Cover Letter with narrative statement including a detailed description of why amendment is necessary Completed application with required attachments (download latest version) Pre-application meeting notes Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized Property Ownership Disclosure Form Notarized and completed Covenant of Unified Control Completed Addressing Checklist (no older than 6 months) Warranty Deed(s) Signed and sealed Boundary Survey (no older than 6 months) Architectural rendering of proposed structures Current aerial photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. Statement of utility provisions Statement of compliance with Growth Management Plan Environmental data requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 Environmental Data Requirements collated into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) packet at time of public hearings. Coordinate with project planner at time of public hearings. See Chapter 7 A. of the Administrative Code Listed or protected species survey, less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys. Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Historical and Archaeological Survey or Waiver School Impact Analysis Application, if applicable with residential uses Location of existing public facilities that will serve the PUD Electronic copy of all required documents Completed Exhibits A-F (see below for additional information)+ List of requested deviations from the LDC with justification for each (this document is separate from Exhibit E) Conceptual Master Site Plan 24” x 36”and one (1) 8 ½” x 11” copy *Checklist continues on next page PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 9 of 11 Page 464 of 1742 Original PUD document/ordinance, and Master Plan 24” x 36” – Only if Amending the PUD Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru & underlined Development Commitments (infrastructure and related matters) Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification +The following exhibits are to be completed on a separate document and attached to the application packet: • Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses • Exhibit B: Development Standards Table for each type of land use • Exhibit C: Master Plan- See Chapter 3 G.1 of the Administrative Code • Exhibit D: Legal Description • Exhibit E: List of Requested LDC Deviations and justification for each • Exhibit F: List of Development Commitments If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas, pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08 A.2.a.(2)(b)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239-690-3500 for information regarding “Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan.” PLANNERS – INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart Conservancy of SWFL: Nicole Johnson Utilities Engineering: Anthony Stolts Parks and Recreation Director: Emergency Management: Dan Summers; and/or EMS: Immokalee Water/Sewer District: Artie Bay Stormwater Management: Fire: City of Naples Planning Director: Erica Martin Other: City of Naples Utilities: Other: FEE REQUIREMENTS Fire Pre-Application Meeting: $150.00 (Applied as credit towards fire review fee upon submittal of application if within 9 months of the pre-app meeting date) Pre-Application Meeting: $500.00 PUD Rezone: $10,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre PUD to PUD Rezone: $8,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre PUD Amendment: $6,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $2,250.00 Environmental Data Requirements-EIS Packet (submittal determined at pre-application meeting): $2,500.00 Listed or Protected Species Review (when an EIS is not required): $1,000.00 Transportation Review Fees: • Methodology Review: $500.00 (Methodology by Email to Staff) *Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting • Minor Study Review: $750.00 • Major Study Review $1,500.00 PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 10 of 11 Page 465 of 1742 Fire Planning Review Fee: ($300 PUDZ, PUDR) ($150 PUDA) Estimated Legal Advertising fee: • CCPC: $1,125.00 • BCC: $500.00 If applicable, an additional fee for Property Owner Notifications will be billed to the applicant after Hearing Examiner hearing date. (Variable) School Concurrency Fee, if applicable: • Mitigation Fees, if application, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County All fees are collected at the time of application. Property Notification Letters, if required by The Land Development Code, will be invoiced after the petition is heard by the Board of County Commissioners. 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. *Additional fee for the 5th and subsequent re-submittal will be accessed at 20% of the original fee. *The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Community Development Department | GMCD Public Portal: https://cvportal.colliercountyfl.gov/cityviewweb Questions? Email: GMDclientservices@colliercountyfl.gov 6/30/2025 Signature of Petitioner or Agent Date Patty Kulak Printed Named of Signing Party PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment, PUD to PUD Rezone Application (PUDZ, PUDA, PUDR) 4/22/24 Page 11 of 11 Page 466 of 1742 AFFIDAVITS OF AUTHORIZATION Page 467 of 1742Page 468 of 1742Page 469 of 1742 COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL Page 470 of 1742Page 471 of 1742Page 472 of 1742Page 473 of 1742Page 474 of 1742Page 475 of 1742Page 476 of 1742Page 477 of 1742Page 478 of 1742Page 479 of 1742Page 480 of 1742Page 481 of 1742Page 482 of 1742Page 483 of 1742Page 484 of 1742Page 485 of 1742Page 486 of 1742Page 487 of 1742Page 488 of 1742Page 489 of 1742Page 490 of 1742Page 491 of 1742Page 492 of 1742Page 493 of 1742Page 494 of 1742Page 495 of 1742Page 496 of 1742Page 497 of 1742 COMPLETED ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Page 498 of 1742 GMCD Public Portal Land Development Code Administrative Code Addressing Checklist Please complete the following and upload via the CityView Portal with your submittal. Items marked with a * are required for every application, other items are optional and may not apply to every project. Forms are valid for 6 months following their submittal; an updated form will be required for a new submittal after that timeframe and any time the properties within the project boundary are modified. Applicant Contact Information *Name of Owner/Agent: Patty Kulak Firm [if agent]: RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture *Address: 2210 VANDERBILT BEACH RD #1300 *City: Naples *State: FL *ZIP: 34109 *Telephone: 239-592-1400 Cell: (239) 398-2441 Fax: *E-Mail Address: raypiacente@londonbay.com; lisavandien@londonbay.com Location Information *Folio (Property ID) Number(s) of the subject property or properties [Attach list if necessary]: See Attached Parcel List *Legal Description of subject property or properties [Attach list if necessary]: Moorings Park Grande Lake, PB 67, Pages 21-31 (ORIGINAL) & PB 74, Pages 71-76 (REPLAT) Street Address(es) where applicable, if already assigned: 7310 Premier Drive, Naples, FL 34105 Addressing Checklist 6/14/2024 Page 1 of 2 Growth Management Community Development • Operations & Regulatory Management 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.colliercountyfl.gov/ Page 499 of 1742Collier County Project Information Acceptance of this form does not constitute project and/or street name approval and is subject to further review by the Addressing Official. Pre-approval of project name and/or street name may be requested by contacting us at GMD_Addressing@colliercountyfl.gov or 239-252-2482 prior to your submittal. Current Project Name: Moorings Park at Grande Lake (within Grey Oaks PUD) Proposed Project Name: Proposed Street Name: No Changes Latest Approved Project Number [e.g., SDP-94-##, PPL-2002-AR-####, PL2017000####] PL20250004748 Submittal Requirement Checklist Additional documents may be attached to this form and can include. Checkmark the items included with this application: Requirements for Review: Required: LOCATION MAP and/or SURVEY showing the proposed project boundary. ☒ List of additional folio numbers and associated legal descriptions. ☐ E-mail from Addressing Official for any pre-approved project and/or street names. ☐ The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Community Development Department | GMCD Portal: https://cvportal.colliercountyfl.gov/cityviewweb Questions? Email: Front.Desk@colliercountyfl.gov Addressing Checklist 6/14/2024 Page 2 of 2 Growth Management Community Development • Operations & Regulatory Management 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.colliercountyfl.gov/ Page 500 of 1742 WARRANTY DEEDS Page 501 of 1742Page 502 of 1742Page 503 of 1742Page 504 of 1742Page 505 of 1742Page 506 of 1742Page 507 of 1742Page 508 of 1742Page 509 of 1742Page 510 of 1742Page 511 of 1742Page 512 of 1742Page 513 of 1742Page 514 of 1742Page 515 of 1742Page 516 of 1742Page 517 of 1742Page 518 of 1742Page 519 of 1742Page 520 of 1742Page 521 of 1742Page 522 of 1742Page 523 of 1742Page 524 of 1742Page 525 of 1742Page 526 of 1742Page 527 of 1742Page 528 of 1742Page 529 of 1742Page 530 of 1742Page 531 of 1742Page 532 of 1742Page 533 of 1742Page 534 of 1742Page 535 of 1742Page 536 of 1742Page 537 of 1742Page 538 of 1742Page 539 of 1742Page 540 of 1742Page 541 of 1742Page 542 of 1742Page 543 of 1742Page 544 of 1742Page 545 of 1742Page 546 of 1742Page 547 of 1742Page 548 of 1742Page 549 of 1742Page 550 of 1742Page 551 of 1742Page 552 of 1742Page 553 of 1742 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS & LETTERS OF AVAILABILITY Page 554 of 1742 City of Naples PUBLIC WORKS UTILITIES TELEPHONE (239) 213-4745 ● FACSIMILE (239) 213-4799 380 RIVERSIDE CIRCLE ● NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 December 5, 2025 Patty Kulak RVi Planning+ Landscape Architecture 28100 Bonita Grande Drive Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 405-7777 Subject: Potable Water Service Availability for Grey Oaks PUDA/Moorings Park Grande Lake Site Address: 7310 Premier Drive, Naples FL 34105 (Folio: 60615002022) Collier County Planning Project Application: PL20170003639 (sent via email: PKulak@rviplanning.com) Dear Ms. Kulak: We are in receipt of your request for a Letter of Availability for potable water service (domestic, fire, and/or irrigation use) for a proposed zoning amendment to the Grey Oaks Planned Unit Development (PUD), received via email on November 25, 2025. This proposed zoning amendment involves the addition of 12 independent living units. This office has reviewed the subject site address for available potable water service. Based on the referenced information and review, this office confirms the following: 1. The subject properties are located within the City of Naples potable water service area. 2. The City of Naples has adequate treatment plant capacity for the proposed project. 3. The proposed improvements must meet current City of Naples Utilities Standards and must be submitted to the Utilities Department for review and approval. 4. Should the scope of proposed project change to impact City utility services, the project’s engineer of record shall remain responsible to contact the City for appropriate reviews and analysis. This letter does not imply or guarantee that adequate potable water distribution main facilities of sufficient size and capacity exist at the property; such utilities as may be needed for new site development shall remain the developer’s responsibility to design, permit and construct. Page 557 of 1742 February 16th, 2016 Enclosed letters identity the Dan Garner approved letters for the MPGL Stantec project , which was initially identified 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200 as the Ivy at Grey Oaks Naples, FL 34105 VIA: E-MAIL Subject: The Ivy at Grey Oaks Parcel #: 00267120600 Wastewater Availability Dear Dan Garner: Wastewater service is available for the above referenced parcel via existing, on-site privately owned 8” sanitary sewer gravity main, which drains to an on-site privately owned pump station. Water service is provided by the City of Naples. Specific connection points for the system tie-ins to wastewater lines may be made after submission and approval of the hydraulic calculations by the Planning and Project Management Division, validating that the up/downstream systems are adequate to handle the increase in flow. This letter implies no guarantee that other developments throughout the District will not have an impact on the quantity of sewage treatment and disposal capacity available to this property until the project has received a commitment for service. Should sewage treatment and disposal capacity not be available, the Developer would be required to provide an interim means to provide these services until the District’s facilities have the adequate capacity to serve the project. Should you have further questions, please feel free to contact me at (239) 252-2583. Sincerely, Nathan Beals, PMP, Project Manager Planning and Project Management Division CC: Aaron Cromer, Principal Project Manager Eric Fey, Engineering Review Page 558 of 1742 Based on the above, this office has no objections to this project subject to appropriate reviews by all utility service providers (including the City of Naples), Collier County, and the Fire District. Should you have any questions or require any additional information or action from this office, please do not hesitate to call this office at (239) 213-4745 or e-mail mbaines@naplesgov.com. Sincerely, Michelle Baines, P.E Public Works Deputy Director – Utilities Cc: Dr. George Yilmaz, Ph.D., P.E., P.H., Assistant City Manager – Critical Infrastructure & Public Works Annette Keeney, Utilities Permit Coordinator Traci Fitzgerald, Utilities Permit Coordinator Ethics above all else ... Service to others before self ... Quality in all that we do. Page 2 of 2 Page 559 of 1742 EVALUATION CRITERIA/GMP COMPLIANCE Page 560 of 1742 GREY OAKS PUD AMENDMENT PL20250004748 EVALUATION CRITERIA REVISED DECEMBER 2025 LDC section 10.02.13 B.5 requires the Planning Commission hearing and recommendation to be based on the following criteria: a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The subject property is located within the substantially built-out Grey Oaks MPUD established by Ordinance 07-40, amended by Ordinance 18-65 and HEX No. 2021-37. The Property is in an area of existing and planned urban development within the County’s Urban-designated area per the Growth Management Plan and Zoning Map. The Property is an infill site, surrounded on all sides by existing development and is partially built out with Independent Living (IL) Units, Assisted Living Facilities (ALF), clubhouse and ancillary private amenities in the community known as “Moorings Park Grande Lake (MPGL)”. To the west of the site is Airport Pulling Road, further west is the Bear’s Paw golf course community and an office park. To the north of the site is Golden Gate Parkway, further north are residential uses in the Grey Oaks MPUD. The south of Moorings Park Grande Lakes is a golf course and further south are industrial uses. To the east is an apartment complex. The subject property will be accessed by Golden Gate Parkway, a county maintained arterial roadway. The Property is located within the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s (CCWSD) service area for wastewater collection, and City of Naples Utilities service area for potable water. Water and wastewater service are readily available via existing facilities servicing the site. Stormwater infrastructure for the site has been designed and permitted in accordance with the County’s and South Florida Water Management District’s standards. Other services such as Fire and EMS are readily available to the site via the Greater Naples Fire Control & Rescue District. Based upon the nature of surrounding uses, the established development pattern along Golden Gate Parkway, and the existing levels of public infrastructure available, the Property is suitable for the amendment to allow the increase in floor area ratio for Group Housing. b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. The property that is subject to this application is owned by the Applicant, LB Naples Grande, LLC, and The Moorings, Incorporated. Covenants of Unified Control are included in the PUDA application for both ownership entities. Page 561 of 1742c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives, policies, and the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The proposed changes maintain the project’s consistency with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The proposal does not alter density of the site, native preservation requirements of the overall MPUD, or adequacy of infrastructure both on- and off-site. The modification specifically complies with the following policies. FLUE 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).” The proposed change does not alter the development’s compatibility with surrounding land uses as the only change is to increase the Floor Area Ratio associated with group housing uses. The change is intended to align the PUD with the pending LDC amendment to increase the maximum FAR for group housing from 0.45 to 0.6. The request will allow the increase of habitable space for residents, and ensure setbacks, parking, traffic and utility demand are reviewed as part of the Site Development Plan (SDP) process, as has historically occurred in the project. No changes are proposed to the Grey Oaks residential unit count/density, office, retail or commercial square footages, building height, setbacks, open space, or preserve. Moreover, Exhibit H-2 limits the impacts of the proposed FAR increase to an additional 40,000 SF/12 units for the 6.48-acre area shown on Exhibit H-2. FLUE 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.” The proposed change does not alter access to the property. The project will continue to have access to Golden Gate Parkway, an arterial roadway. FLUE 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 proposed change does not alter the internal roadway layout that has been fully permitted and constructed. FLUE 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.” The proposed change does not alter the internal roadway layout that has been fully permitted and constructed. The project will continue to interconnect with the golf course uses in the Southeast Quadrant. FLUE Policies 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 application is consistent with this policy as the only change is to modify the FAR for group housing. The proposed change does not alter the internal sidewalk layout and connection to Golden Gate Parkway that has been fully permitted and constructed. Page 2 of 3 Page 562 of 1742 Conservation Element Goal 6: “To identify, protect, conserve and appropriately use native vegetative communities and wildlife habitat.” This application is consistent with the required preserve established by the Grey Oaks MPUD. No additional preserve requirements or impacts are generated by this request. d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The Applicant is proposing to increase the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for group housing from 0.45 to 0.6. The amendment will not increase building height within the project or modify the allowable density of the overall Grey Oaks MPUD. Additional buffering is not required to support the amendment, as the built form, building footprints, setbacks, heights and uses will not be altered by the request. All required perimeter landscape buffering has been fully permitted and constructed. Exhibit H-2 restricts the impacts of the proposed FAR increase to an additional 40,000 SF/12 units for the 6.48- acre area shown on Exhibit H-2. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The PUDA does not propose any changes to the open space requirements of the MPUD. The MPUD’s substantial open space will continue to comply with this criterion. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. As outlined in the enclosed application, all required public infrastructure is available and adequate to service the proposed MPUD request. The project is nearing build-out and is currently served by urban levels of infrastructure and services. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area is well-served by public and private investments in infrastructure. The built form of the existing and planned buildings will not change in terms of height or setbacks/placement from what is currently permitted. For these reasons the amendment will not impact the surrounding area or its ability to accommodate the project. h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The proposed development is generally consistent with the PUD regulations contained in the MPUD and LDC. The proposed amendment will increase the FAR and requires one (1) additional deviation from LDC requirements governing FAR for group housing. Page 3 of 3 Page 563 of 1742 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY WAIVER Page 564 of 1742From: Michael Sawyer To: Alexis Crespo Subject: RE: TIS Waiver Inquiry for a PUD ReZone Date: Thursday, July 3, 2025 1:02:45 PM Attachments: image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png image006.png CountyLogo-FullColor_948165c4-9665-41b4-9162-fbb16abff557.png Facebook_0522f546-5e75-4698-95f9-f15590a3defe.png Instagram_a8da4774-4b5b-4ad1-8d23-20e69b3b605d.png X-Twitter_8d678efc-bd14-44ce-97cf-7fbab1003b00.png Youtube_0078f7f1-7789-4afd-a015-50689fe1f99b.png 311IconforSignature_87c558eb-83f5-449b-87c1-3cc5ac8b0859.png Alexis, I agree with the TIS Waiver request based on the background provided and my understanding of the rezone. Please include a copy of this email and let me know if you have any additional questions. Respectfully, Michael Sawyer Project Manager II Transportation Management Services Department Transportation Planning 239-252-2926 michael.sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov Michael Sawyer Project Manager II Transportation Engineering Office:239-252-2926 Michael.Sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov From: Alexis Crespo Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 12:57 PM To: Michael Sawyer Subject: FW: TIS Waiver Inquiry for a PUD ReZone 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. Alexis Crespo, AICP Vice President of Planning RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Suite 305 • Bonita Springs, FL 34135 239.850.8525 Mobile • 239.405.7777 Main www.rviplanning.com From: Kelly, Michelle (Naples) Page 565 of 1742Sent: Friday, June 20, 2025 2:48 PM To: Michael Sawyer Cc: Cecilia Varga ; Lucia Martin ; Lisa Blacklidge ; Ray Piacente ; Lisa Van Dien ; Benitez, Chris Subject: RE: TIS Waiver Inquiry for a PUD ReZone CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mike, In connection with the Moorings Park at Grande Lake (MPGL) proposed PUDA (PL20250004748) application, and on behalf of the LB Naples Grande, LLC and The Moorings, Inc, we are hereby requesting approval to waive the requirement of providing an updated Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for the PUD Amendment identified within the pre-application. The sole amendment request in this application is to increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Group Housing/Assisted Living Facility (ALF) and Independent Living (IL) units. No other changes to density or non-residential intensities allowed in the MPUD are proposed. The intent is primarily to allow the enclosure of existing and permitted lanais/patios to create additional air-conditioned/habitable living space within the ALF units. The previously approved Assisted Living (AL) and Independent Living (IL) units do not count against the maximum allowed Dwelling Units in the Grey Oaks PUD and instead are regulated only by Floor Area Ratio and other building constraints of the site (such as maximum building height) and available areas for additional parking. These regulations jointly limit the number of additional AL or IL units that could be permitted. Per our analysis of the site constraints, LDC requirements and PUD regulations, the proposed increase in the FAR will allow for the development of a maximum 12 additional IL units, above and beyond the permitted/committed units to date (282 IL units), and after the conversion of exterior patio spaces from non-air conditioned to air-conditioned spaces for the existing and planned buildings within MPGL is taken into account. Upon submittal of a subsequent Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) application, a Traffic Impact Statement for a Small-Scale Study will be provided to address the operational performance of the existing turn lanes and intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Premier Drive, which is similar to past submittals. The parameters of that Traffic Impact Statement will be coordinated during a scheduled methodology meeting with the transportation reviewer. Respectfully, we are hereby requesting a TIS waiver for the PUD Amendment filing based upon the insubstantial potential impacts to traffic. Best Regards, Michelle Kelly, PE Sr Project Manager, Civil Engineering CommDev-US South-Naples FL Direct: 239.649.7649 michelle.kelly@stantec.com From: Cecilia Varga Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 1:39 PM To: Michael Sawyer Cc: Lucia Martin ; Lisa Blacklidge ; Kelly, Michelle (Naples) Subject: RE: TIS Waiver Inquiry for a PUD ReZone Good afternoon, Mike, Please see below a general inquiry for a TIS waiver for a rezone application. I do not have details regarding which application or what is being proposed with the rezone. Hi, Kelly, Please provide additional information to Mike Sawyer who reviews rezone applications, Page 566 of 1742such that he will be able to make a determination if a TIS would be required. Cecilia Varga Site Plans Reviewer III Development Review Office:239-252-2613 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL. 34112 , Cecilia.Varga@colliercountyfl.gov From: Lisa Blacklidge Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 12:09 PM To: Kelly, Michelle (Naples) ; Cecilia Varga Cc: Lucia Martin Subject: RE: TIS Waiver Inquiry for a PUD ReZone Ceclia (cc’d) does the transportation reviews and she would be best equipped to answer your related questions. Lisa Blacklidge CFM Manager - Planning Development Review Office:239-252-2758 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Lisa.Blacklidge@colliercountyfl.gov From: Kelly, Michelle (Naples) Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 11:45 AM To: Lisa Blacklidge Cc: Lucia Martin Subject: TIS Waiver Inquiry for a PUD ReZone 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 Lisa. I see that on one of my projects you had completed the transportation planning review…I have a generic question and hope you do not mind me asking…Does the County have a TIS Waiver Form or other mechanism that I can file or formally request a waiver from providing a Traffic Impact Statement? This would be in support of a minor modification to rezone for an existing PUD. The client will have the TIS updated at the time we file for the amended SDPA. Copying Lucia as well. Thank you, ladies! Michelle Kelly, PE Sr Project Manager, Civil Engineering CommDev-US South-Naples FL Direct: 239.649.7649 michelle.kelly@stantec.com Stantec 3510 Kraft Road Suite 200 Naples FL 34105-5029 Page 567 of 1742 The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except with Stantec's written authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately. 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. Caution: This email originated from outside of Stantec. Please take extra precaution. Attention: Ce courriel provient de l'extérieur de Stantec. Veuillez prendre des précautions supplémentaires. Atención: Este correo electrónico proviene de fuera de Stantec. Por favor, tome precauciones adicionales. Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning. External Email: Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.​ Page 568 of 1742 APPROVED ORDINANCES Page 569 of 1742 be1891011l IJ: /) ~ ORDINANCE NO. 07-~ I t~- 1\\ ~ W; AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY J\.\ ~ d?- \\.\ COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE c:~ - r:L.~ NUMBER 04- 41, AS 17'Ztt AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM PUD TO MPUD FOR THE GREY OAKS MPUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST, NORTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST QUADRANTS OF THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT ROAD ( STATE ROAD 31) AND GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY COUNTY ROAD 886), IN SECTIONS 24, 25, AND 26 OJ TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 1, 601"=ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 00- 46, THE FORMER GREY OAKS PUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Bruce Tyson, AICP, RLA, of WilsonMiller, Inc., representing Naples Grande Holdings LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the real property described in the MPUD Document located in Sections, 24, 25 and 26, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is from changed Planned Unit Development ( PUD) to Mixed Use Planned Unit Development MPUD) in accordance with the MPUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit " A," which is herein and reference made hereof. incorporated by part The appropriate zoning atlas map or as described maps, in Ordinance Number 04- 41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/ are hereby amended accordingly, Oaks, PUDA- 2006- AR- IOI57 Grey Page I 0[ 2 Page 570 of 1742 SECTION TWO: Ordinance Number 00-46, known as the Grey Oaks PUD, adopted on June 27, 2000, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by supermajority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this ~ day of 1j- pr; I , 2007. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA O~~{; jt{{I iJ'/k b,..\YCI~ ByJ.NEIi te$t as\~'' cha IV'II4n , SII11l4tj.lrf";' 1,, Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: ,-.- on. fJ:u.,t:J, ht. -~( j Marjo' M. Student-Stirling Assistant County Attorney PUDA- 2006- AR- l OI57/ KD/ sp This ordinance filed with the tf1 and ~ Iedg ~ that I~~~; L/ Oaks, Grey PUDA- 2006- AR- 10157 Page 2 of2 Page 571 of 1742 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT FOR GREY OAKS PREPARED BY: WILSONMILLER, INC. 3200 BAILEY LANE, SUITE 200 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34105 DATE FILED DATE APPROVED BY BCC 4-. l4- 2007 ORDINANCE NUMBER 90-48 AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 97- 45 AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 98- 94 AMENDED BY ORDINANCE AMENDED BY ORDINANCE Exhibit A" Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 1 Page 572 of 1742 INDEX PAGE List of Maps, Exhibits, and Tables Iii Statement of Compliance and Short Title iv SECTION I Property Ownership and Legal Description 6 SECTION II Project Development 8 SECTION III Residential 18 SECTION IV Golf Course/ Recreation/ Park/ Right- of-Way 23 SECTION V Conservation/ Open Space 26 SECTION VI Commercial 28 SECTION VII General Development Commitments 33 Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 2 Page 573 of 1742 LIST OF MAPS AND TABLES MAPS H - 1 PUD Master Plan E - 1 Native Vegetation within Grey Oaks E - 2 Native Vegetation - North Area of Northeast Quadrant E - 3 Native Vegetation - Northwest Quadrant E - 4 Native Vegetation - Southeast Quadrant and Southern Area of Northeast Quadrant TABLES TABLE I Land Use Summary TABLE II Project Absorption Schedule Estimate TABLE III Development Standards Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 3 Page 574 of 1742 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE It is the intent of the Halstatt Partnership, A Florida General Partnership to create a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development ( MPUD) to be known as Grey Oaks Planned Unit Development, on 1, 601. 39 acres of land located in Section 24, and 25, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, and Section 26, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, City of Naples, Florida. The residential, recreational and commercial facilities of THE GREY OAKS DRIIPUD are consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations, and applicable comprehensive planning objectives of the City of Naples and Collier County for the following reasons: 1) The subject property is located within the City and County Urban service areas and there are adequate available community facilities and services to support the proposed residential density and commercial intensity. 2) The City of Naples made a determination that the part of Grey Oaks in the City is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations adopted by the City. 3) With regard to that part of Grey Oaks within the County: a) The project development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding land uses and future uses allowed by the Future Land Use Element. b) Improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable land development regulations as set forth in Objective 3 of the Future Land Use Element. c) The project development will result in an efficient and economical extension of community facilities and services as required by Policies 3. 1. H and 3. 1. J. of the Future Land Use Element. d) The project development is planned to incorporate natural systems for water management in accordance with their natural functions and capabilities as required by Objective 1. 5 of the Drainage Sub- Element of the Public Facilities Element. e) The projected density of less than two ( 2) dwelling units per acre is less than that allowed under the Future Land Use Element since the project includes three ( 3) quadrants of an Activity Center and a density band. This project Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 4 Page 575 of 1742 consists of 1, 601. 39 acres of land, with 1, 775 dwelling units, which equals a density of 1. 11 dwelling units per acre. f) The subject project occupies the northwest, southeast and northeast quadrants of the Activity Center located at the intersection of Airport and Golden Gate Parkway. This strategic location allows the site superior access for the placement of commercial activities. g) The project includes extensive open spaces in the form of golf courses and incorporates natural features to provide a high quality of life for its residents. SHORT TITLE This ordinance shall be known and cited as the " GREY OAKS Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Ordinance". Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 5 Page 576 of 1742 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP & LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1. 01 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The Northeast quadrant is currently owned by: a) Grey Oaks Country Club, Inc. 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL, 34105. b) LDG South LLC, 5692 Strand Court, Naples, FL, 34110. c) Individual Landowners. The Southeast quadrant is currently owned by: a) Panthers Grey Oaks, Inc., c/ o Naples Grande Golf Club, 475 Seagate Drive, Naples, FL, 34103. b) Naples Grande Holdings LLC, 404 Citation Pt., Naples, FL, 34104. c) Sea Investments LLC, 10350 Bren Road W., Minnetonka, MN, 55343. The Northwest quadrant is currently owned by: a) Halstatt Partnership, 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL, 34105. b) Estuary at Grey Oaks LTD, 4200 Gulf Shore Blvd. N., Naples, FL, 34103. c) Grey Oaks County Club, Inc., 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL, 34105. d) Individual Landowners. 1. 02 LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that part of Section 24, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, of lying easterly that 100 foot canal right- of-way as described in OR. Book 154, page 6, Public Records of Collier County, Florida; ALSO All that part of Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, lying easterly of that 100 foot canal right- of-way as described in O. R. Book 154, page 6, O. R. Book 873, page 1879 and O. R. Book 873, page 1882, all of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida; LESS Golden Gate Parkway ( C- 886) as described in O. R. Book 465, page 275, and O. R. Book 465, page 278, Public Records of Collier County, Florida; ALSO LESS those lands described in O. R. Book 194, page 603 and O. R. Book 640, page 229, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 6 Page 577 of 1742 ALSO All that part of Section 26, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, lying westerly of Airport- Pulling Road ( C- 31) and northerly of Golden Gate Parkway ( C- 886) located within the City of Naples; LESS that portion thereof as described in O. R. Book 539, page 370, Public Records of Collier County, Florida; above property subject to easements and restrictions of record; containing 1, 601. 39 net acres more or less. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 7 Page 578 of 1742 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2. 01 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to generally describe the plan of the development and delineate the general conditions that will apply to the project. 2. 02 INTRODUCTION Grey Oaks is a 1, 601. 39 acre mixed use residential development and golf course community with a " town center", and other retail and office development located in Collier County. The property is generally located in the northwest, northeast, and southeast quadrants of the intersection of Airport Road and Golden Gate Parkway. The property is bounded on the east by Livingston Road; on the south by the Golden Gate Canal; on the west by the Gordon River Watershed; and on the north by the Coach House Land Residential Properties in the west quadrant, and the World Tennis Center in the northeast quadrant. The northwest quadrant of the property is in the incorporated City of Naples and constitutes approximately 354 of the 1, 601. 39 acres. The remainder of the property is located in the unincorporated area of Collier County. The project is of a size to be a Development of Regional Impact ( DRI) and an Application for Development Approval ( ADA) has been filed pursuant to Chapter 380. 06, Florida Statutes ( 1988). Because the City and County recognize that the project has been planned and will be developed as a unified integrated community, the City and County have agreed that a single local government ( Collier County) should have the responsibility for reviewing the planned development and issuing a Development Order pursuant to Section 380. 06, Florida Statutes and for adopting the zoning ( MPUD Ordinance) for the entire project, including that portion that lies with the City of Naples. In furtherance of the goal of having one entity review the proposed project and adopt a zoning ordinance ( MPUD) and Development Order for the project, the developer and the City of Naples have entered into a DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT and the City of Naples and Collier County have entered into an " INTERLOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT" with regard to the project. The DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT sets forth the maximum intensities of land uses for the property within the City and provides that the City agrees to accept and adopt ( if appropriate) any Development Order and MPUD zoning issued by the County that does not exceed the intensities of land uses set forth in said DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT allows the County to review the proposed project as a single integrated planned community and approve a single set of development standards for the entire project by adopting a single PUD Ordinance and Development Order for the project. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 8 Page 579 of 1742 The INTERLOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT between the City of Naples and the County of Collier incorporates said DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT and further provides that the City and County agree that the County shall conduct the rezoning and DRI review for the entire 1, 601. 39 acre project, including that portion of the project within the jurisdiction of the City of Naples. A copy of the INTERLOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT and the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT are made a part of this MPUD by reference thereto. The County, City and the Developer have all agreed that the 354 acres within the jurisdiction of the City is an integral part of the overall Grey Oaks DRI Community and it is therefore, essential to the viability of the planned community that the MPUD and DRI plan approved by Collier County be in effect and remain in effect for the entirety of the project and not just the portion of the project lying within the jurisdiction of the County of Collier. 2. 03 LAND USES Table I is a schedule of the intended land uses types, with total dwelling units, acreage, and total square feet commercial indicated. The arrangement of these land use types is shown on Map H- 1, Planned Unit Development Master Plan. Changes and variations in design and acreages shall be permitted during each subdivision phase at final design to accommodate topography, vegetation, and other site conditions. The final size of the recreation and open space lands will depend on the actual requirements for conservation areas, water management, golf course layout, roadway pattern, and dwelling unit size and configuration. At the time of Subdivision review and approval for each subdivision phase, the location, size and configuration of land use tracts shall be identified, along with the assignment of permitted residential or commercial land use types. The assignment of maximum allowed residential density and/ or commercial gross leasable floor area shall also occur at the time of subdivision review and approval. If the maximum allowed residential density or commercial gross leasable area is not fully used within that subdivision phase of the project the unused remainder may be assigned to another phase( s) of the project. Final determination of the total multi- family residential or commercial use shall be determined at time of site development plan approval. For each succeeding subdivision and/ or site development plan, a table shall be included which summarizes the total dwelling units and commercial floor area that has been previously assigned and total assigned for the pending approval, in order to facilitate the County' s monitoring of the project. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 9 Page 580 of 1742 2. 04 PROJECT DENSITY The total acreage of Grey Oaks Mixed Use Planned Unit Development is approximately 1, 601. 39 acres. The maximum number of dwelling units to be built on the total acreage is 1, 775. The number of dwelling units per gross acre is approximately 1. 11. The density on individual parcels of land throughout the project will vary according to the type of housing placed on each parcel of land but shall comply with guidelines established in this document. 2. 05 PERMITTED VARIATIONS OF DWELLING UNITS All properties designated for residential uses may be developed at the maximum number of dwelling units allocated, provided that the total number of dwelling units shall not exceed 1, 775. Table I identifies the maximum units by project quadrant. 2. 06 DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE AND SCHEDULE The developer will commence the project within the northeast quadrant. Within each quadrant, the amount and location of each subsequent development area will be dictated by logical and economical development constraints and by market demand. Table II indicates, by project year, the estimated absorption of units, and commercial square footage. The absorption schedule is an estimate and not guaranteed. Actual absorption rates are governed by market demand. 2. 07 EASEMENTS FOR UTILITIES All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time of development. 2. 08 COLLIER COUNTY AND CITY OF NAPLES SUBDIVISION APPROVAL The review and approval of subdivision master plans and construction plans shall follow the design and development standards of the Collier County Ordinances regulating subdivisions in effect at the time of development; and shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the procedures set forth by Collier County for that portion of the project under County jurisdiction. The intent and effect of this Section is to have a single set of substantive standards apply to subdivision master plans to the location of the particular in but to property question, allow each local government to apply its procedural process for approval of said plans. The developer reserves the right to request exceptions and modifications to the standards set forth in applicable regulations. Where this document makes reference to a specific type of subdivision approval ( e. g. Subdivision Master Plan Approval or platting) this reference shall be construed to mean the applicable Collier County procedure or approval in effect at the time of development. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 10 Page 581 of 1742 2. 09 LAKE SITING As depicted on the MPUD Master Plan, lakes and natural retention areas have been sited adjacent to existing and planned roadways, property lines, and throughout the golf course. The goal is to achieve an overall aesthetic character for the project, to permit optimum use of the land, provide buffering to uses within and surrounding the project, protect native vegetation, and to increase the efficiency of the water management network. Accordingly, the requirements described in applicable County ordinances, may be reduced subject to the approval of the County Engineer at the time of Subdivision and/ or excavation permit approval. Fill material from lakes is planned to be utilized within the project, however excess fill material, not to exceed 10% or maximum 20, 000 cubic yards may be utilized off-site, subject to the provisions of the Collier County excavation ordinance in effect at the time of development. Removal of fill material in excess of 10% of total or 20, 000 cubic yards shall meet the requirements of a commercial excavation per applicable County ordinances. Final lake area determination shall be in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District stormwater criteria and applicable County ordinances. 2. 10 DEDICATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FACILITIES Roads and other infrastructure may be either public or private, depending on location, capacity, and design. The developer shall create appropriate homeowner and/ or condominium associations or identify other entities which will be responsible for maintaining the roads, streets, drainage, water and sewer improvements where such systems are not dedicated to the County or City. Standards for roads shall be in compliance with the applicable provisions of Collier County ordinances regulating subdivisions, unless otherwise approved as an exception during subdivision approval. 2. 11 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL The provisions of the LDC shall apply to the development of platted tracts or parcels of land as provided in the LDC prior to the issuance of a building permit or other development order. Approval of commercial tracts in the City of Naples jurisdiction shall follow the General Development and Site Plan ( GDSP) process. 2. 12 MODEL HOMES AND MODEL UNITS Model Homes and units shall be permitted within this project subject to the following provisions: a) Models may be constructed prior to approval of a plat. b) Models may be permitted as " dry models" and shall obtain a conditional certificate of occupancy for model purposes only. Models may not be permanently occupied until a permanent certificate of occupancy is issued. Revised 4/11/ 07) 11 Page 582 of 1742 c) Models may not be utilized as " sales offices" without approval by and through the site development plan process. The site development plan process shall not be required for dry models pursuant to this Section. d) Prior to recording of any plat, metes and bounds legal descriptions shall be provided to and accepted by Collier County as sufficient for building permit issuance. Said metes and bounds legal descriptions shall meet proposed plat configurations and all models constructed pursuant hereto shall conform to applicable minimum square footages, setbacks, and the like as set forth herein. e) Temporary access and utility easements may be provided in lieu of dedicated rights- of-way for temporary service to model homes or units. f) Sales, marketing, and administrative functions shall be permitted to occur in designated model homes or units within the project only as provided herein. 2. 13 CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The standards for the construction of all project infrastructure, such as, but not limited to roads, utilities, wastewater treatment, water management facilities, and other site improvements such as but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, landscaping and all similar types of site improvements, except for habitable buildings and structures, shall meet the minimum standards set forth by Collier County in the applicable ordinance or regulation in effect at time of development. City of Naples construction standards shall be used for water and sewer systems under City jurisdiction. The procedures for the review and approval of project infrastructure and site improvements shall be that process in effect at the time of review and approval in accordance with the City of Naples regulations for that part of the project within City jurisdiction, and Collier County regulations for that part of the project within County jurisdiction. The standards and development permit procedures for all habitable structures shall be in accordance with the appropriate City or County jurisdiction' s requirements in effect at the time of building permit application. 2. 14 SALES CENTERS a) " Sales Centers" may be constructed prior to recording of a plat. "Sales Centers" may be serviced by a temporary utility system ( i.e. dry well and septic tank/ drainfield) prior to availability of central utility systems at which time connection to the central system will be made. Interim fire protection facilities, in accordance with NFPA requirements or as approved by the appropriate fire district shall be required unless a permanent water system is available to serve the Center. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 12 Page 583 of 1742 b) Review and approval of " Sales Centers" shall follow the requirements of the site development plan process of the LDC or whatever approval procedure is in effect at that time. A metes and bounds legal description shall be provided as part of the application. Access to the " Sales Center" shall be provided by a paved road or temporary driveway which meets applicable County standards as determined by the County Engineer. A water management plan shall be provided which accommodates the runoff from the " Sales Center", the required parking and access road/ driveway and any other impervious surfaces. The system shall be designed to fit in with the master water management system for the entire development. c) At the time of building permit application for a " Sales Center" a temporary use permit shall be obtained. " Sales Centers" may not be occupied until a certificate of occupancy is issued. Models shall obtain a conditional certificate of occupancy for model purposes only. Models may not be occupied until a permanent certificate of occupancy is issued. 2. 15 IMPACT FEES Development within the project shall be subject to all lawfully adopted impact fees in effect at the time of development. 2. 16 DEVIATIONS. A. Deviation from LDC Section 4. 02. 24 A. 2. and 3. - Corridor Management Overlay District which requires a front yard setback of 100 feet for the first floor of residential dwelling units and a 25-foot setback for each additional floor. Deviation: Residential structures within the Grey Oaks MPUD shall comply with Section 4. 02. 24, Corridor Management Overlay District unless an enhanced Type D Buffer, 20 feet in width, containing a wall and landscaping is placed along Golden Gate Parkway between residential development and the Parkway. Residential structures shall be set back a minimum of 2 feet horizontally for every 1- foot of building height measured from the property line to any point on the building, but in no case shall any residential structure be closer than 100 feet to Golden Gate Parkway. Sections, drawn to scale, shall demonstrate that sight lines from passing passenger cars ( 4 feet in height) in the center lane of the eastbound lanes of Golden Gate Parkway will break the views to the top of residential buildings within the southeast quadrant of the Grey Oaks MPUD. These tree heights shall be shown on the perimeter buffer landscape site development plan drawings. Trees and shrubs may be planted and maintained by the developer within the Golden Gate Parkway right- of- way provided that a landscape maintenance agreement is executed between the County and developer. B. Deviation to 5. 03.02. C. 1 of the LDC, Wall Height, which states that fences or walls in residential districts shall be maximum of six ( 6) feet tall. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 13 Page 584 of 1742 Within the Grey Oaks MPUD, walls, not to exceed ten feet ( 10') in height, shall be permitted along both sides of Golden Gate Parkway and along Livingston Road in the northeast and southeast quadrants. The walls shall be located to allow a minimum of five feet ( 5') of landscaping between the property/ right- of-way line and the walls. The intent is to provide consistency within the Grey Oaks project so that existing and proposed walls are of similar height. C. Deviation from Section 6. 06. 01 J. of the LDC, Dead- end Streets, which states that dead- end streets shall be prohibited except when designed as a cul- de- sac. Culs- de- sac in excess of 1, 000 feet shall not be permitted unless topographical conditions or other natural features preclude a street layout to avoid longer culs- de- sac. Within the southeast quadrant, a deviation is requested to allow for cul- de- sac streets to be 2, 300 feet in length providing that roadway and cul- de- sac lengths do not conflict with the County Fire Protection Ordinance. D. Deviation from Section 6. 06.02 A.3 of the LDC, Sidewalks and Bike Lane Requirements, which states that sidewalks five ( 5) feet in width must be provided on both sides of local streets. In the Grey Oaks MPUD, local streets that only provide access to residential units placed on one side of a cul- de- sac street shall be required to be served by a 6- foot sidewalk on the side of the street serving the residential units. No sidewalk shall be required on the side of the street without residential units. Deviations apply to Southeast Quadrant only. 2. 17 GENERAL Development of Grey Oaks shall proceed in accordance with the contents of this Document, MPUD- Mixed Use Planned Unit Development District, applicable sections of the Growth Management Plan and the regulations in the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of issuance of any development orders to which said regulations relate governing the permitting and construction of improvements, such as but not limited to final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit and preliminary work authorization. Where these regulations fail to provide development standards then the provisions of the most similar district in the County Land Development Code shall apply. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 14 Page 585 of 1742 THE GREY OAKS PUD TABLE I LAND USE SUMMARY Northeast and Southeast Quadrants ( Collier Countv) AMOUNT ACREAGE Residential units 1, 311 D. U. 332. 06 Ac. Commercial ( Total) 1, 203, 091 S. F. 70.4 +/- Ac. Office ( gross floor area) 593,453 S. F. Retail ( gross leasable area) 609, 638 S. F. Hotel o Rooms OAc. Golf Course/ Recreation/ 54 Holes 614. 31 Ac. Park/ Riaht of Wav Lake/ 225.41 Ac. Water Manaaement Conservation 5. 32 Ac. Sub- Total 1, 247.45Ac. Note: Native Vegetation Preserve in Northeast and Southeast Quadrants totals 79. 36 acres. See attached Drawings E- 1 through E- 4 for locations). Northwest Quadrant ( City of Naoles) AMOUNT ACREAGE Residential units 464 d. u. 100. 71 +/- Ac. Commercial ( Total) 100, 000 S. F. 14.4 +/- Ac. Office ( gross floor area) 60, 000 S. F. Retail ( gross leasable area) 40, 000 S. F. Golf Course/ Recreation/ 18 Holes 107. 4 +/- Ac. Park/Rioht-of- Wav Lake/ 76. 04 +/- Ac. Water Manaoement Conservation 55. 34 +/- Ac. Sub- Total 353. 89 Ac. Note: Native Vegetation Preserve in Northwest Quadrant totals 58. 63 acres. See attached Drawings E- 1 through E-4 for locations). Note: All acreages are digitized approximate acreages and are subject to change and variation. Note: The Northeast Quadrant shall have a total commercial/ office square footage of 1, 203, 091 S. F. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 15 Page 586 of 1742 THE GREY OAKS PUD TABLE II PROJECT ABSORPTION SCHEDULE ESTIMATE PROJECT YEAR 1- 6 ( 1989- 1995) Land Use No. Hotel Square Designation Units Rooms Feet Residential 94 Commercial ( GLA) and Office ( GFA) 0 Hotel 0 Golf Course' 1 Golf Course = 18 holes with phased club facilities PROJECT YEAR 7- 13 ( 1996- 2001) CUMULATIVE Land Use No. Hotel Square Designation Units Rooms Feet Residential 963 Commercial ( GLA) and Office ( GFA) 500, 000 Golf Course' 3 Gold Course = 54 holes with phased club facilities Second golf course may be constructed prior to project year 7, and may be built in 9- hole increments, club facilities may be built in phases to coincide with the golf course construction). Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 16 Page 587 of 1742 TABLE II ( Continued) PROJECT ABSORPTION SCHEDULE ESTIMATES PROJECT YEAR 14- 20 CUMULATIVE Land Use No. Hotel Square Designation Units Rooms Feet ( GLA) Residential 1775 Commercial ( GLA) and Office ( GFA) 1, 303, 091 Golf Course" 4 Golf Course = 72 holes with full club facilities 3rd golf course may be constructed after year 14, and may be built in 9- hole increments, club facilities may be built in phases to coincide with the golf course construction). Project years shall be adjusted to correspond with the commencement of development. The above development program outlines multi- use categories which will be assigned to the various development pods shown on Map H- 1. These land use categories will allow for a true mixed use development to occur and allow the developer" to respond to an ever changing market over the next 20 years with an anticipated buildout at year 2010. The absorption schedule assumes that build- out of the residential, town center and majority of the office and commercial uses may occur in the first 12 years. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 17 Page 588 of 1742 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL LAND USE 3. 01 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the regulations for the areas designated on Map H- 1, Planned Unit Development Master Plan, as " R" or Residential. 3. 02 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS A maximum number of 1, 775 dwelling units may be constructed on lands designated as R" or Residential. The 25 +/- acre parcel designated " R" on the MPUD Master Plan located on Livingston Road, south of Golden Gate Parkway may be devoted to Assisted Living Facilities at a floor- to- area ratio not to exceed . 45. 3. 03 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as " R" or Residential on the Master Land Use Plan are designed to accommodate a full range of residential dwelling unit types. Approximate configurations of land use tracts have been indicated on the MPUD Master Plan, in order to indicate relative size and distribution of the residential uses. These acreages are based on conceptual designs and must be considered to be approximate. Actual acreages of all development tracts will be provided at the time of platting. Residential tracts are designed to accommodate internal roadways. 3. 04 PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES 1) Detached and attached single family homes, cluster homes, zero lot line homes, patio homes, townhomes, multi- family dwellings, neighborhood recreational facilities, churches and other places of worship, and assisted living facilities. 2) Water management facilities; essential services ( in accordance with the LDC). Lakes, including lakes with seawall and other types of architectural bank treatment. 3) Open space recreational activities, community parks, and similar uses, including but not limited to shuffleboard courts, tennis courts, swimming pools, boat docks and ramp, canoe launches, fishing piers, boat storage, beach gazebos, concession stands, health trails, bike paths and nature trails, observation platforms, boardwalks, playground, picnic areas and other types of facilities intended for outdoor recreation. 4) Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Community Development Director determines to be compatible in the district. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 18 Page 589 of 1742 3. 05 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES 1) Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with uses permitted in this District. 2) Essential services and facilities, as defined in the LDC. 3) Recreational facilities accessory to a residential structure. 4) Any other accessory uses or structures which are comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Community Development Director determines to be compatible in the district. 3. 06 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Table III sets forth the development standards for land uses within the " R" Residential District. Site development standards for categories 1, 2, and 3, uses apply to individual lot boundaries; standards for category 4 uses apply to platted development parcel boundaries. Front yard setbacks shall be measured as follows: 1) If the parcel is served by a City or County dedicated public right- of-way, setback is measured from the existing right- of- way line. 2) If the parcel is served by a private drive, setback is measured from back of curb or edge of pavement, whichever is closer to the structure. 3) Single family detached ( Category 1 only) front setbacks shall be measured from the public or private road right- of-way line. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs, guard houses, entrance gates and other land uses not specified herein shall be in accordance with the LDC Code regulations in effect at the time permits are requested unless otherwise specified herein. Unless otherwise indicated, setback, heights, and floor area standards apply to principal structures. Development standards for residential uses not specifically set forth in Table III shall be established during subdivision master plan or site development plan approval as set forth under Sections 2. 03 and 2. 11 of this Document. Setbacks and other buffer requirements from and along the north property line within the northwest quadrant adjacent to lots on Coach House Lane shall be as follows: a) One story single family structure: Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 19 Page 590 of 1742 Principal - 25' Accessory - 15' b) One story multi- family or two story structure: Principal - 50' Accessory - 50' c) Two story structure greater than 30' in height: Principal - 75' Accessory - 75' d) Three story structure: Principal - 175' Accessory - 175' e) Four story structure: Principal - 400' Accessory - 400' f) Vehicular use areas, including garages and carports - 50' ( measured to the structure or edge of pavement). g) A 15' wide, as measured perpendicular to said north border, and 25 foot high landscaped buffer shall be provided and maintained which is 80% opaque as measured in every and any 25 by 25 foot section. The buffer shall be installed prior to construction of homes. h) The number of dwelling units per acre shall not exceed 7 units per net acre measured within a band of land 175 feet wide parallel to said north boundary. i) Principal building structures shall not include more than 4 dwelling units within 175 feet of said north boundary. Two story setback is measured to the second story portion of the structure. One story portion is to be measured as a one story structure, if it is a single family structure. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 20 Page 591 of 1742 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS lOR" Residential Areas TABLE III PATIO, ZLL, OR SINGLE SINGLE TWO FAMILY CLUSTER FAMILY FAMILY ATTACHEDI MUL TI- FAMIL Y DETACHED DETACHED OR DUPLEX TOWN HOUSE VILLAS CATEGORY 1 * 4 2 * 4 3 * 4 4 * 4 5 * 4 * 5 MINIMUM SITE 9000 5000 35000 1 AC 2500 AREA SF/ Lot SF/ Lot SF/ Lot SF/ Lot SITE WIDTH 75' 50' 35' 150' 16' MIN. AVG. SITE DEPTH 120' 100' 100' 150' N/ A MIN. AVG. FRONT YARD 25' 20' 20'* 1 20' P 0' SETBACK SIDE YARD 7. 5' 5' o or a * 6 20' P SETBACK minimum O' GC 0' of 5' REAR YARD 20' P 15' P 15' P 20' P 10' P SETBK PRINCIPAL 10' GC 10' GC 10' GC O' GC O' GC REAR YARD 10' P 10' P 10' P 10' P 10' P SETBACK ACSRY. O' GC O' GC O' GC O' GC O' GC MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT STORIES ABOVE PARKING 2 2 2 6 * 2 2 DIST.BETWEEN PRINCIPAL STR. 15' 10' 0' or 5' * 6 15' * 3 - 1 story 7' 25' * 3- 2- 3 story 30' * 3- 4 stories & higher FLOOR AREA MINIMUM ( SF) 1200 1000 900 750 900 SITE DEPTH AVERAGE: Determined by dividing the site area by the site width. SITE WIDTH: The average distance between straight lines connecting front and rear parcel lines at each side of the site, measured as straight lines between the foremost points of the side parcel lines in the front ( at the point of the intersection with the front parcel line) and the rearmost point of the parcel lines at the rear ( point of intersection with the rear parcel line). May be reduced on cul- de- sac lots. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 21 Page 592 of 1742P. Perimeter of Internal Sites GC = Golf Course, or Lake Front Sites 1 This setback may be reduced to 10' for side entry garage 2 Three story maximum within the City of Naples for less than 8 units per acre. Four story maximum within the City of Naples for 8 units per acre or greater. 3 or Y:.the sum of the adjacent buildings, whichever is greater. The following sentence applies to the Southeast Quadrant only. Where adjacent multi- family buildings are clustered about a common access to garage parking or courtyards, and share a common architectural theme and are a minimum of 2 stories in height, the minimum distance between the buildings shall be 40% of the sum to the heights of the two multi- family buildings. 4 During the County approval process, tracts shall be designated and approved as a specific category. The approved specific category shall not be changed unless the entire tract is consistent with the new category. Any change from an approved category to another shall be accomplished per the LDC. 5 In the context here used, the term " villas" means development that occurs on a platted lot where the lots tend to form a clustered home siting scheme accessed by an irregularly shaped private roadway system. 6 For patio homes with less than a 5 foot side yard setback, the opposite side setback shall be sufficient so that the combined setbacks equal 10 feet. Once the first building, on the side of a street utilizing this product type is permitted, all subsequent buildings shall follow the pattern established by the first unit. For example, a 3 foot setback on one lot must be followed by a 7 foot setback on the next lot or vice versa. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 22 Page 593 of 1742 SECTION IV GOLF COURSE/ RECREA TION/ PARKlRIGHT- OF- W AY 4. 01 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the regulations for the areas designated on Map H- 1 Planned Unit Development Master Plan as, golf course, clubhouse, driving range, right- of-ways; dedicated easements and utility corridors. 4. 02 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures 1) GolfCourse( s) 2) Tennis Club and facilities 3) Water management facilities; essential services ( in accordance with the LDC). Lakes, including lakes with seawall and other types of architectural bank treatment. 4) Open space recreational activities, community parks, and similar uses, including but not limited to shuffleboard courts, tennis courts, swimming pools, boat docks and ramp, canoe launches, fishing piers, boat storage, beach gazebos, concession stands, health trails, bike paths and nature trails, observation platforms, boardwalks, playground, picnic areas and other types of facilities intended for outdoor recreation. 5) Community center/ c1ubhouse( s). 6) Storage, maintenance yards, and landscaping nurseries within FP& L easements, rights- of-way, and open space. Subject to approval of the persons or entities in whose favor the easement or right- of-way runs. 7) Project Information and Sales Center. 8) Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Community Development Director determines to be compatible in the district. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 23 Page 594 of 1742 B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Standards Accessory uses customarily associated with the principal uses permitted in this district including but not limited to: 1) Pro- shop, practice driving range, cart barn and other customary accessory uses of golf courses, or other recreational facilities, including maintenance area, and pump houses, golf courses rain shelters, restrooms, and snack bars. 2) Small commercial establishments, including gift shops, golf and tennis equipment sales, restaurants, cocktail lounges, and similar uses intended to serve patrons of the golf course or other permitted recreational facilities, subject to the provisions of the applicable supplementary district regulations of the Land Development Code of Collier County. 3) Vehicle wash facility. 4. 03 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1) Overall site design shall be harmonious in terms of landscaping, enclosure of structures, location of access streets and parking areas and location and treatment of buffer areas. 2) Buildings shall be set back a minimum of ten ( 10') feet from parcel boundaries, except for common boundaries between golf course, recreation and park uses, and water management facilities, in which case the setback is zero ( 0') feet. 3) Maximum height of structures: Fifty ( 50') feet, unless abutting a residentially zoned parcel, then thirty five ( 35') feet. 4) Minimum distance between principal buildings: Five ( 5') feet - 1 and 2 story buildings that are a part of an architecturally unified grouping of structures. Ten ( 10') feet - 1 story. Twenty ( 20') feet - 2 story. 5) Setback for structures from parcel boundaries abutting residential areas: Twenty ( 20') feet - principal structures. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 24 Page 595 of 1742 Ten ( 10') feet - accessory structures. 6) Parking for the community center/ clubhouse shall be one space per every two hundred ( 200) square feet of gross floor area, which shall be considered inclusive of required golf course parking. 7) Standards for parking, landscaping, signs, guard houses, entrance gates and other land uses not specified herein are to be in accordance with Collier County Land Development Code regulations in effect at the time permits are requested unless otherwise specified herein. Unless otherwise indicated, setback, heights, and floor area standards apply to principal structures. 8) A 10- foot wide combination berm, landscaping, and wall buffer shall be provided along the south side of the FPL easement paralleling Golden Gate Parkway within the northwest quadrant adjacent to golf course and residential uses. The berm shall be no higher than 2 feet and the wall no higher than 8 feet. Landscaping shall be placed in front of the wall screening a minimum of 50% of the wall. An additional 10- foot landscape buffer shall be placed along the north edge of the FPL easement where said easement abuts golf course or residential uses. Golf course is allowed within the 10- foot wide buffer. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 25 Page 596 of 1742 SECTION V CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE AREAS 5. 01 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the regulations for areas designated on Map H- 1 as conservation and open space. 5. 02A PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES - CONSERVATION AREAS No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: 1) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks, observation platforms. 2) Biking, hiking, health and nature trails, canoe launches, golf cart paths. 3) Water management facilities, roadway crossings and utility crossings. 4) Lighting and signage. 5) Any other activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Community Development Director determines to be compatible with the intent of this district. 5. 02B PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES - OPEN SPACE AREAS No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: 1) Parks, passive recreational areas, boardwalks, observation platforms. 2) Biking, hiking, health and nature trails, boat docks, fishing piers, canoe launches, boat storage, golf cart paths. 3) Equestrian paths. 4) Water management facilities and lakes, as approved by the South Florida Water Management District, roadway crossings and utility crossings. 5) Recreational shelters, active park facilities, and restrooms, off street parking, lighting and signage. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 26 Page 597 of 1742 6) Any other activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Community Development Director determines to be compatible with the intent of this district. 5. 03 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1) Overall site design shall be harmonious with the area' s natural characteristics. 2) All work proposed in wetland areas designated on the Master Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Collier County Environmental Staff and appropriate county, state or federal regulatory or jurisdictional agency prior to the commencement of any such activity. 3) The County may request copies of permits from all appropriate regulatory agencies or jurisdictional agency prior to construction plan approval. Conservation areas shall be subject to jurisdictional agencies review and listed uses do not guarantee that those uses will be approved. 4) Standards for parking, landscaping, signs, guard houses, entrance gates and other land uses not specified herein are to be in accordance with Collier County Land Development Code regulations in effect at the time permits are requested unless otherwise specified herein. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 27 Page 598 of 1742 SECTION VI COMMERCIAL 6. 01 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to set forth the regulation for the area designated on Map H- 1 MPUD Master Plan, as " C" Commercial " O/ C" Office Commercial, " 0" Office, and Town Center". These are areas located within a designated activity center, therefore permitted uses for these tracts are intended to be inclusive of all types allowed by the City of Naples and the Collier County LDC. 6. 02 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: 1) Permitted Principal Uses and Structures for C, O/ C, and Town Center Tracts: a) Antique shops; appliance stores; art studios; art supply shops; automobile parts stores; automobile service stations without repairs* 1; awning shops. b) Bakery shops including baking; bait and tackle shops*2; banks and financial institutions, including drive- in windows; barber and beauty shops; bath supply stores; bicycle sales and services; blueprint shops; bookbinder; book stores; business machine services; business offices, building maintenance services and building supplies. c) Cabinet shops, canteen services, building maintenance services, building supplies, carpet and floor covering sales - which may include storage and installation; car wash; child care centers; churches and other places of worship 1; clothing stores; cocktail lounges* 1; commercial schools; confectionery and candy stores, concessions and vendors; civic and cultural facilities colleges, universities and schools; convalescent centers and nursing homes; computer sales and services* 2. d) Delicatessens; department stores; drug stores; dry cleaning, collecting and delivery; dry goods stores; drapery shops; department stores. e) Electrical supply stores; express office; employment agencies; equipment rentals repair and sales including lawn mowers and power saws. f) Farmers market* 2, fish stores - retail only; florist shops; fraternal and social c1ubs* 1; food markets; furniture stores; furrier shops. g) Garden supply stores - outside display in side and rear yards* 2; gift shops; glass and mirror sales - including storage and installation; gourmet shops; gunsmiths. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 28 Page 599 of 1742 h) Hardware stores; health food store; homes for the aged; hospitals and hospices; hobby supply stores. i) Ice cream stores, indoor commercial recreation, interior decorating showrooms. U) Jewelry stores. k) Laundries; laboratories, film research and testing; leather goods; luggage stores; linen supply shops; lithograph; laboratories; liquor stores; locksmiths; lakes and water bodies with seawalls and architectural bank treatments, or conventional lake banks. I) Markets - food; markets - meat; medical offices and clinics; millinery shops; motion picture theaters; museums; music stores; mortgage brokers. m) New car dealerships - outside display permitted; news stores; night c1ubs* 2* 1. n) Office - general - business, and professional; office supply stores. 0) Paint and wall paper stores; post offices; pet shops; photographic equipment stores; pottery stores* 2; printing* 2; publishing and mimeograph service shops* 2; private c1ubs* 2* 1; plumbing shops and supplies. p) Radio, television and appliance sales and services; radio stations ( offices and studios), and auxiliary transmitters and receiving equipments, but not principal transmission tower; research design and development; real estate offices; rest homes; restaurants - including drive- in or fast food restaurants and full service 1; retail sales of used goods; all uses permitted in Section III and IV of this Document - subject to development standards identified in those Sections. q) Small scale retail sales other than shopping centers; shoe sales and repair; shopping centers* 1; souvenir stores; stationery stores; supermarkets; sanatoriums. r) Tailor shops; taxidermists; tile sales - ceramic tile; tobacco shops; toy shops; tropical fish stores; telephone exchange shops; transportation, communication and utility offices. s) Variety stores; vehicle rentals, veterinarian offices and clinics - no outside kennels. t) Watch and precision instrument sales and repair shops. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 29 Page 600 of 1742 u) Any other commercial use or professional service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Community Development Director determines to be compatible in the district. v) Any other commercial uses set forth in the City of Naples Development Agreement. 2) Permitted Uses and Structures for " 0" (Office) Tracts: a) Art studios b) Banks and financial institutions, including drive- in windows; book stores; business offices. c) Child care centers; churches and other places of worship; commercial schools; civic and cultural facilities; colleges, universities and schools. d) Express office; employment agencies. e) Fraternal and social clubs* 1. I) Homes for the aged; hospitals and hospices. g) Laboratories; lakes and water bodies with seawalls and architectural bank treatments, or conventional lake banks. h) Medical offices and clinics; mortgage brokers. i) Office - general - business, and professional; office supply stores. U) Private clubs* 2. k) Radio stations ( offices and studios, and auxiliary transmitters and receiving equipment, but not principal transmission tower); research design and development; real estate offices; all uses permitted in Section III and IV of this document - subject to development standards identified in those Sections. I) Transportation, communication and utility offices. m) Veterinarian offices and clinics - no outside kennels. n) Any other commercial use or professional service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Collier County Planning Services Manager or the City Community Development Director determines to be compatible in the district. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 30 Page 601 of 1742 3) Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures; Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the uses permitted in this district. a) Caretaker' s residence* 1. 6. 03 Development Standards 1) Minimum Lot Area: Ten thousand ( 10, 000) square feet. 2) Minimum Lot Width: One hundred feet ( 100') 3) Minimum Setback Requirements ( Internal): a) Front setback - Twenty feet ( 20'). b) Side setback - None, or a minimum of five feet ( 5') with unobstructed passage from front to rear yard. c) Rear setback - Fifteen feet ( 15'). d) Waterfront setback - Zero feet ( 0') to seawall, bulkhead, or rip rap, otherwise fifteen feet ( 15'). e) Parcels with two frontages may reduce one front setback by ten feet ( 10'). 4) Minimum setbacks and buffer from external rights- of-way: a) Golden Gate Parkway - Fifty foot ( 50') setback, Twenty foot ( 20') landscape buffer. b) Airport Road and Livingston Road - Twenty foot ( 20') plus two feet ( 2') for every one foot ( 1') of building height; twenty foot ( 20') landscape buffer. 5) Maximum Height: Fifty (50) feet. 6) Minimum Floor Area of Structures: One thousand ( 1, 000 square feet per building) on the ground floor. Kiosk vendors, concessions, and temporary or mobile sales structures are permitted to have a minimum structure of twenty-five ( 25) square feet, and are not bound by setback requirements. 7) Maximum Floor Area Ratios ( FAR) for Commercial Uses: Based on gross leaseable floor area ( GLFA) and acreage. Retail: 30 Project total 649, 638 GLFA Office: 35 Project total 653,453 Gross Floor Area Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 31 Page 602 of 1742 8) Distance Between Structures: Same as for side yard setback. 9) Standards for parking, landscaping, signs, guard houses, entrance gates and other land uses not specified herein are to be in accordance with Collier County Land Development Code regulations in effect at the time permits are requested unless otherwise specified herein. Unless otherwise indicated, setback, heights, and floor area standards apply to principal structures. 10) A twenty-five ( 25) foot landscape strip of land shall be provided along all arterial road commercial frontages. 11) The public internal loop road in the Northeast quadrant shall be constructed in accordance with Collier County standards. 12) An 8-foot high wall may be installed on grade, on a landscape berm, on golf course mounding, or on driving range mounding, within a residential, golf course, club, golf facility or commercial parcel to buffer the commercial uses from the residential and other uses. 1 In accordance with LDC requirements for this type of use. 2 Northeast and Southeast quadrants only. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 32 Page 603 of 1742 SECTION VII GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 7. 01 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments of the project. 7. 02 MPUD MASTER PLAN 1) The P. U. D. Master Plan - Map H- 1 is an illustrative preliminary development plan. The design criteria and layout illustrated on the Master Plan shall be understood to be flexible, so that, the final design may satisfy project criteria and comply with all applicable requirements of this Ordinance. 2) All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities. 3) Site design changes shall be permitted subject to Collier County and/ or City of Naples staff administrative approval, where such changes are consistent with the intent of this MPUD and do not cause significant impact to surrounding properties abutting the Grey Oaks MPUD. 7. 03 ENVIRONMENTAL 1) The developer shall be subject to Collier County Growth Management Plan Conservation and Coastal Management Element and applicable County ordinances. The 25% shall be monitored at each site clearing plan submittal. The developer shall receive credit from any phase where the 25% amount is exceeded to be applied to a phase where it is not. In any phase of development where credit toward the 25% is needed the developer shall delineate on the site clearing plan the percentage of viable naturally functioning native vegetation retained and/ or areas of landscaping and open space which are planted with native species. The developer shall show the calculations on each site clearing plan which totals the overall 25% for the project build- out. The entire MPUD has been evaluated for native/ viable vegetation at the time of platting or site development plan approval and such vegetated area has been determined to be 551. 94 acres. This includes 13. 31 acres of native vegetation within the Golden Gate Parkway right- of-way. The total assumes that the eastern- most parcel in the southeast quadrant contains 15. 03 acres of native vegetation. [ Preserving 25% requires 137. 99 acres while 137. 10 acres of native vegetation has been preserved.] The eastern- most parcel in the southeast quadrant shall provide . 89 acres of native vegetation preserve to satisfy the 25% preservation requirement stipulated in Paragraph 7. 03. 1 above. See Drawings Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 33 Page 604 of 1742 E- 1 through E- 4 locations of native vegetation. The required retained native vegetation shown on the preserve drawings, Exhibits E- 1 through E- 4 may be modified administratively by the Environmental Review Staff, providing that an equal area of existing native vegetation of equal or greater habitat value is provided in a preserve area that meets the requirements of the LDC in effect at the time of any such modification. To accomplish this, the property owner shall apply to the County and obtain approval for an amendment to the underlying SDP or plat and construction plans. 2) The developer shall obtain all necessary local, state and federal permits. Copies of appropriate jurisdictional delineations are required at the time of subdivision master plan per the County Engineer. 3) Protected plant species ( butterfly orchid) and those which may be observed during each construction phase shall be protected from injury or relocated on site. The existing locations as well as the transplantation locations, if warranted, shall be identified on the site clearing plan for each phase of construction. 4) The developer must receive all appropriate state approvals for storing and handling hazardous materials prior to construction of the golf maintenance facilities. All hazardous materials will be stored in a central location, removed from the Gordon River headwaters or Golden Gate Canal. There will be no storage of hazardous materials that is in excess of two ( 2) days supply, at the satellite facilities. However, petroleum storage at these facilities shall be allowed, but only in above ground storage facilities constructed and maintained in accordance with EPA and FDER standards. The developer shall submit any required contingency plans approved by appropriate state and federal agencies for clean up and mitigation of unauthorized release of hazardous materials. 5) Buffers around protected wetlands shall comply with South Florida Water Management District criteria. 6) Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resource Permit ( ERP) Rules and Regulations, as well as the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permitting program. Removal of exotic vegetation shall not be the sole means of mitigation for impacts to Collier County jurisdictional wetlands. 7) All conservation areas shall be recorded on the plat with protective covenants per or similar to Section 704. 06 of the Florida Statutes. Conservation areas shall be dedicated on the plat to the project' s homeowners' association, or like entity, for ownership and maintenance responsibilities, and to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 34 Page 605 of 1742 8) An exotic vegetation eradication, monitoring, and maintenance ( exotic free) plan for the site, with emphasis on conservation/ preservation areas, shall be submitted to the Environmental Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/ construction plan approval. 9) The developer shall coordinate protected wildlife species issues through the ERP and Corps Section 404 permit review process and comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( FWS) and Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission ( FGFWFC) made part of any ERP or Section 404 permit issuance. Where protected species occur on site, a Habitat Management Plan for those protected species shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/ construction plan approval. 7. 04 WATER MANAGEMENT 1) Detailed, paving, grading and site drainage plans shall be submitted to Engineering Review Services for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by Engineering Review Services. 2) In accordance with the Rules of the South Florida Water Management District, SFWMD) Chapters 40E- 4 and 40E- 40, this project shall be designed for a storm event of 3- day duration and 25- year return frequency. 3) An excavation permit shall be required for the proposed lake( s) in accordance with applicable County ordinances and SFWMD Rules. Several of the lakes proposed do not meet the minimum setback requirements of County ordinances. The Master Plan shall be revised to meet the minimum setback requirements or documentation shall be provided during the subdivision master plan process to allow a reduction in the setback with appropriate barriers provided. 4) The lake and swale typical cross- sections shall conform to all applicable County ordinances. 5) Detailed site drainage plans of each drainage sub- basin shall be submitted to the Environmental Advisory Board, or its successor, for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of each individual drainage sub- basin is granted by the Engineering Review Services. 6) An executed agreement between the applicant, Big Cypress Basin and the South Florida Water Management District, detailed plans and associated documentation relating to the installation of the new control structure and the relocation of the existing amil gate structure including back pump facilities shall be submitted to Engineering Review Services for review prior to construction plan approval. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 35 Page 606 of 1742 7) A copy of the South Florida Water Management District Conceptual Permit or favorable staff report shall be required prior to subdivision master plan approval. 8) A copy of South Florida Water Management District Permit or Early Work Permit is required prior to construction plan approval. 9) Documentation from Florida Power and Light allowing use of their right- of-way for the purposes of water management shall be provided prior to subdivision master plan approval. 10) This approval does not constitute agreement by the County to any control elevation or discharge rate. All agreements shall be made with South Florida Water Management DistricVBig Cypress Basin. 7. 05 TRANSPORTATION 1) The developer shall provide appropriate left and/ or right turn lanes on Airport Road, Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road at all project accesses. This provision shall be permitted and implemented along with a corresponding site development plan or plat. 2) The developer shall provide arterial level street lighting at all project accesses. This provision shall be permitted and implemented a long with a corresponding site development plan or plat. 3) The developer shall provide a fair share contribution toward the capital cost of traffic signals, including interconnection where applicable, at any project access when deemed warranted by the County. The signals will be owned, operated and maintained by Collier County. 4) Livingston Road Right of Way Dedication: a) The developer shall dedicate sufficient right of way north of Golden Gate Parkway to establish a right- of-way corridor 120 feet in width along the entire length of the developer' s property, taking into consideration the existing Livingston Road right- of-way easement. Additional right- of-way within the Florida Power and Light easement may be required subject to approval and releases by Florida Power and Light. The developer shall pay, or may utilize reduction of existing impact fee credits in the amount of $ 30, 000 in full satisfaction of the developer' s obligation to reimburse the County for the County' s costs in negotiating and obtaining any approval and releases by Florida Power and Light necessary to fulfill the 120 foot right- of-way width requirements. b) The developer shall dedicate 50' feet or road right of way south of Golden Gate Parkway along the length of the developer' s property. In addition, for a Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 36 Page 607 of 1742 distance of 200 feet south of Golden Gate Parkway, the developer shall dedicate an additional 50 feet in width immediately west of the aforementioned right- of-way. Said additional 50 feet in width may be in the form of a 25 foot wide road right- of-way dedication and 25 foot wide easement for drainage, water management, landscaping, and bikepath use. For the next 800 feet south of Golden Gate Parkway, the developer shall dedicate a strip of land tapering from 50 feet in width in the north to 0 feet in width in the south, in a diminishing line immediately west of the aforementioned right- of-way. Said additional property shall, to the extent it exceeds 25 feet, be in the form of an easement for drainage, water management, landscaping, and bikepath use. The " easements" ( as opposed to the dedications) specified herein may be used to satisfy all or part of the setback, and buffer requirements for the adjacent property. The land to be dedicated by the developer, as described above, consists of a total of 3. 891 acres, and is identical to parcels 137 and 937 which are the subject of a Stipulated Order of Taking, dated July 24, 1998, entered in Collier County Circuit Court Case No. 98- 1635 CA. The developer and County agree that the developer shall be entitled to impact fee credits for the 3. 891 acres comprising parcels 137 and 937 at the rate of $ 85, 000 per acre for a total credit of $330, 735 for this additional land dedication. c) The requirement in Grey Oaks DRI Development Order 90- 3 at paragraph S. c. ( iv) that the applicant build Livingston Road from Golden Gate Parkway south to the beginning of the northern approach to the bridge over the Golden Gate Canal ( based upon the cost of a two lane rural roadway) shall be fully satisfied by the reduction of existing or future impact fee credits, in the amount of One Hundred Eighty- Five Thousand Dollars ($ 185, 000). 5) The developer shall dedicate 40 feet of right- of-way along the north side of Golden Gate Parkway west of Airport Road along the entire length of the developer' s property, shall incorporate the Golden Gateway Parkway drainage into the water management system of the developer' s project, and shall accept all drainage from both a quality and quantity standpoint. 6) The developer shall dedicate 40 feet for right of way on each side of Golden Gate Parkway between Airport Road and Livingston Road within four ( 4) months of a written request from the County. 7) Collier County reserves the right to expand the lanes on Airport Road by adjusting the cross section of the existing canal to incorporate road run off in the lake system. 8) The developer shall dedicate sufficient right- of-way at the intersection of Airport Road and Golden Gate Parkway to allow a grade separated urban interchange with Golden Gateway Parkway being the grade separated roadway. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 37 Page 608 of 1742 9) All traffic control devices used, excluding street name signs, shall conform with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices as required by Chapter 316. 0747, Florida Statues. 10) If Collier County adopts a proportionate share or area- wide transportation assessment program, or modifies its Impact Fee Ordinance, to provide additional credit for right- of-way dedication, the developer shall be entitled to such a credit towards the 25 acres more or less of dedication. It is understood that the total amount of land involved in these dedications is equal to 25 acres more or less. 11) The number, type, and location of, and allowable changes to project access intersections with County roads shall be as set forth in Exhibit D- 1 to the Grey Oaks DRI/ Grey Oaks Development Order. 12) Impact fee payments shall be made to Collier County pursuant to the Impact Fee Ordinance in effect at the time of relevant permit application. 13) The County and the developer shall explore whether it would be in their individual best interests and mutual advantage for the developer to incorporate some of the storm water discharge from Golden Gate Parkway into the water management system for the southeastern quadrant of Grey Oaks. In the event the parties agree that it is in their respective best interest, cost sharing or impact fee credits may be used to recompense the developer for costs associated with said conveyance or storage. 7. 06 UTILITIES 1) The water distribution system and appurtenant facilities to serve the project shall be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained pursuant to the requirements of the City of Naples. 2) The sewage collection, transmission and treatment and disposal facilities to serve the portions of the project on the west side of Airport Road shall be designed, construction, conveyed, owned, and maintained pursuant to the requirements of the City of Naples. 3) Provisions for sewer service to those portions of the project lying on the east side of Airport Road shall be as follows, unless a service area modification is approved between the City of Naples and the Collier County Water- Sewer District prior to the submissions of subdivision master plan applications to Collier County for the project. a) The sewage collection and transmission and interim sewage treatment facilities to serve the portions of the project on the east side of Airport Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 38 Page 609 of 1742 Road are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with applicable county ordinances and regulations. b) All customers connecting to the sewage collection facilities to be constructed will be customers of the County and will be billed by the County in accordance with the County' s established rates. Should the County not be in a position to provide sewer service to the project, the sewer customers shall be customers of the interim utility established to serve the project until the County' s off- site water and/ or sewer facilities are available to serve the project. c) It is anticipated that the County Utilities Division will ultimately receive and treat the sewage generated by this project. Should the County system not be in a position to receive the project's wastewater, at the time development commences ( that generates wastewater), the developer, at its expense will install and operate interim on- site sewage treatment and disposal facilities adequate to meet all requirements of the appropriate regulatory agencies. An agreement shall be entered into between the County and the developer, its assigns or successors, regarding any interim treatment facilities to be utilized. The agreement must be legally sufficient to the County, prior to the approval of construction documents for the project and be in conformance with applicable County ordinances. d) The utility construction documents for the project's sewerage system shall be prepared to contain the design and construction of the on- site force main, which will ultimately connect the project to the future central sewerage facilities of the District in the Airport Road rights- of-way. The force main must be extended from the main on- site pump station site to the east right- of-way line of Airport Road and capped. It shall be interconnected to the pump station with appropriately located valves to permit for simple redirection of the project's sewage when connection to the County' s central sewer facilities becomes available. e) Prior to the approval of construction documents that provide for development that generates wastewater by the County, the developer shall present verification pursuant to Chapter 367, Florida Statutes, that the Florida Public Service Commission has granted territorial rights to the developer to provide the service through its sewer facilities. f) The project' s developer(s), their assigns or successors shall negotiate an Agreement with the Collier County Water- Sewer District for the use of treated sewage effluent within the project limits for irrigation purposes. The developer shall be responsible for providing all on- site piping and pumping facilities from the County' s point of delivery to the project and negotiate with the County to provide full or partial on- site storage facilities, Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 39 Page 610 of 1742 as required by the DEP, consistent with the volume of treated wastewater to be utilized. g) All subdivision master plans shall identify the location of interim wastewater treatment facilities required. In addition, documentation shall be provided to verify that the site is of adequate size for the facility intended. 7. 07 SIGNAGE 1) General a) All County sign regulations shall apply unless such regulations are in conflict with the conditions set forth in this section. b) For the purpose of this MPUD DocumenUOrdinance, each platted parcel shall be considered a separate parcel of land and shall be entitled to any sign as permitted herein. c) Should any of the signs be requested be placed within the public right- of- way, a right- of-way permit shall be applied for and approved. d) All signs shall be located so as not to cause sight distance problems. 2) Entrance Signs a) Two ( 2) signs with a maximum area of 60 square feet each or one ( 1) sign with a maximum area of 100 square feet shall be permitted at each entrance of the development. b) Entrance signs shall not exceed a height of fifteen ( 15) feet above the finished ground level of the sign site. c) Entrance signs may be lighted provided all lights are shielded. 3) Project Signs a) Project signs, designed to promote the project, or any major use within the project shall be permitted along the east and west sides of Airport Road, the north and south side of Golden Gate Parkway, and the west side of Livingston Road, and on all tracts within the Grey Oaks MPUD limits subject to the following conditions: Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 40 Page 611 of 1742 i. Project signs shall not exceed a height of twenty ( 20) feet above the finished ground level of the sign site nor shall the overall area of the sign face exceed one hundred ( 100) square feet. ii. A maximum of fourteen ( 14) project signs shall be permitted. Six ( 6) located along Airport Road frontage, four ( 4) each located along Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road frontage. The location of such signs shall generally be limited to a one- quarter mile spacing requirement unless existing vegetation requires a closer spacing. An additional 5 intersection signs shall be permitted at the intersections of Golden Gate Parkway with Airport Road and Livingston Road. iii. Project signs may be lighted provided all lights are shielded. 7. 08 ENGINEERING 1) Detailed paving, grading, site drainage and utility plans shall be submitted to Engineering Review Services for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by Engineering Review Services. 2) Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with the appropriate provisions of the Collier County Ordinances regulating subdivisions, unless otherwise approved as an exception to said regulations during subdivision approval. 3) Platting shall be accomplished when required by Collier County Ordinances regulating subdivisions. 4) Work within Collier County right- of-way shall meet the requirements of the applicable County ordinance. 5) Internal access into tracts as shown on the MPUD Master Plan is informational only. Exact locations shall be determined during subdivision or site development plan approval. 7. 09 EXCEPTIONS TO SUBDIVSION REGULATIONS Exceptions to subdivision regulations shall be requested at the time of application for subdivision approval in accordance with applicable subdivision regulations in effect at the time of development. 7. 10 SCHOOL DISTRICT Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 41 Page 612 of 1742 The applicant shall dedicate a fifteen ( 15) acre school site to the Collier County School District at a location ( off-site) agreed upon between the developer and the School District. 7. 11 FIRE STATION/ EMS SITE The developer has conveyed a 1. 5 acre site for use by the North Naples and the East Naples Fire Districts, together with Collier County Emergency Medical Services Department. The site was conveyed in fee simple, subject to the following conditions: 1) The site shall revert to the owner, or subsequent owner, if it is not utilized for a fire and rescue facility for at least five ( 5) years. 2) If either fire district or the Emergency Medical Services Department adopts impact fees the developer shall be entitled to impact fee credit for the dedicated site based on the fair market value on the date of dedication. 7. 12 AFFORDABLE HOUSING Naples Grande Holdings, LLC shall commit to providing $ 1, 000 per approved residential dwelling unit located within property controlled by Naples Grande Holdings, LLC. Payment shall be made to the Collier County Affordable Housing Trust Fund at the time issuance of the certificate of occupancy. This $ 1, 000 shall be credited toward any additional affordable housing linkage fees that may be in effect at the time of site development plan approval. 7. 13 DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT The developer, its successors in interest, and all future assigns or designees, shall adhere to all commitments made in the Development of Regional Impact ( DRI) Application for Development Approvals ( ADA), sufficiency responses, and attachments for this amendment and all previously adopted DRI Development Order DO) actions for this project. Revised 4/ 11/ 07) 42 Page 613 of 1742 z i z i'l S I- o. z z r A . pc q d~ 0; 2 n l t r~ t'." 3 i C" 1 ~ ~ i o. ~ It.-; i-: 1 3 to 0 tij J Cl r, 1i'-O 3 0- (',I O\~ N- N g ti~ Q ~ .. oJ J .;:::-.: c..J:8 2 Page 614 of 1742g I~ u ieDOUm~ ~ sn! II- I i . jii _" : II! I"'~ I IP III ..~ 1 I 11~~ 1 I: lillll.1ilillll;;; i u I I e! I IHI qll ! i i I I II I ' ~ I j ~. , III ~ i~ ~! I, . Ii I~. IiiI!. !! IIII! !II:II l: 1 ~ m. llilI I ~m~ hn;11 . II I I I I IIJ 1id~ 11 @& I:(f!l I PUD MASTER PlAN - MAP H- l ii~~r~~ri PlEPAIED FOB IW'LEB ClIWIlE HOl.IlNJll LLC of.;='"::"'~=? Page 615 of 1742STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E, BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of: ORDINANCE 2007- 40 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 24th day of April, 2007, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 30th day of April, 2007. DWIGHT E. BROCK i/.' l" , Clerk of Courts amj;'t;'lerk ? Ex- officio to Board Qf County Commlsslone;rs Lltw. M~()'~~f.' By: Ann Jennejohn, Deputy Clerk Page 616 of 1742 LORIDA DEPARTMENT of STAT~ CHARLIE CRIST STATE LIBRARY AND ARCHNES OF FLORIDA KURT S. BROWNING Governor Secretary of State June 15, 2007 Honorable Dwight E. Brock Clerk of the Circuit Court Collier County Post Office Box 413044 Naples, Florida 34101- 3044 Attention: Martha Vergara, Deputy Clerk Dear Mr. Brock: Pursuant to the of Section 125. 66, Florida Statutes, this will provisions acknowledge receipt of your letters dated June 13, 2007, and copies of Exhibits E- 1 through E- 4 of Collier County Ordinance No. 2007- 40 which was filed in this office on May 1, 2007 and Exhibit " A" of Collier County Ordinance No. 2007- 41, which was filed in this office on April 27, 2007. As one date requested, stamped copy of each is being returned for your records. Sincerely, Liz Cloud Program Administrator LC/ lbh Enclosure DIRECTOR' S OFFICE RA. Gmy Building. 500 South Bronough Street. Tallahassee, Florida 32399- 0250 850. 245. 6600 . FAX: 850. 245. 6735 . TDO: 850. 922.4085 . http:// dlis.dos. state. n. us COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STA IE LIBRARY OF FLORIDA STATE ARCHIVES OF FLORIDA 850. 245. 6600 . FAX: 850. 245. 6643 850. 245. 6600 . FAX: 850. 245. 6744 850. 245. 6700 . FAX: 850.488. 4894 LEGISLATIVE LIBRARY SERVICE RECORDS MANAGEMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND WEEKLY 850.488. 2812 . FAX: 850.488. 9879 850. 245. 6750 . FAX: 850. 245. 6795 850. 245. 6270 . FAX: 850245. 6282 Page 617 of 1742 t oupty of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCU1T COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE Dwight E. Brock Clerk of Courts 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST Clerk of Courts Accountant P. O. BOX 413044 . Auditor NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101- 3044 Custodian of County Funds June 13, 2007 Ms. Karlyn Solis Department of State Bureau of Administrative Code RA Gray Building Room 101 500 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399- 0250 Re: Ordinance Number: 2007- 40 Dear Ms. Solis: Transmitted herewith for the record are Exhibits E- I thru E- 4 that were inadvertently omitted from Collier County Ordinance 2007- 40. The ordinance with the enclosed exhibits, were adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on Tuesday, April 24, 2007, during Regular Session. Please place these exhibits with the Ordinance 2007- 40 that was filed with you office on May 1, 2007. Thank you. Very truly yours, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Martha Vergara, Deputy Clerk This ordinance filed with the Secretory of Stote' s Office the tt., 2/JV "1 Enclosure( S) 1Lj." doy of . Iunl!. , Qnd oc: knowledgeme'!t \\!that filing r.eceived this ~ day of.....J,!~l. 2a: n By ' N~ b o.puty CIJ1J~ Phone- ( 239) 732- 2646 Fax- ( 239) 775- 2755 Web site- www. clerk. collier. fl. us Email- collierclerk(ti:clerk. collier. fl. us Page 618 of 1742 MEMORANDUM VIA E- MAIL) DA TE: May 30, 2007 TO: Trish Morgan, Board Minutes and Records Manager FROM: Kay D~ lcm, Priucipal Planncr SUBJECT: Grey Oaks MPUD Ordinance No. 07- 40 On April 24, 2007, the Board approved Grey Oaks MPUD ( Ordinance No. 07- 40) and the ordinance was tiled with thc of on Secretary State May 1, 2007. It has comc to my attention that. Exhibits E- I E- 4, which wcre through prescntcd and approved by the Board, were inadvertently Ict! out of the package that was delivered to the Clerk' s Office for filing with the Secrctary of Statc' s Office. Therefore, I am requesting that the attached Exhibits E-! through E- 4 be filed with the of State. Should Secretary you requirc any l;..", ); \ " '. I'~~ t\~" 1 ffj 1"" . f / 1.. " 1. " .. . '" t-'.,il' -'-._',..'_ .... ri'.~{.IoJ '. ~ ~ 3 \' f. -"':1IU, ;, ,.' ~ rJ;... . -,--or ' d I i .' . .")' .;~ j ~--( 1,~\\:,,!:.. . . I 1.,. '.;r;' 1ilr L::.---- f; ',< III ill i . l:' tlr~,. I r;;:':" ( . .... t~5 i . '. I,iiI i!\~ ~ i II t .~ a~' I i...; 0''~ ' I I II' j I'" 1. 1 ~\ - ". " i FI'_ ~ t, " ,( i i(~'\ .' i: , i j: I' b. ~"l. t 1 tti:i1f!J:.: ,(: f" ~'f, f ~~ . o~,' IiI'" it p Page 620 of 1742 i 1...~ d;:~}~f<,,;~.',. I; 1 l l:1 C III I J I I I, iii Iii I II I I I I I I if i ~ Page 621 of 1742 III J I I I I, If! I' I, I I' I I Page 622 of 1742 lcl,.... ..~.. :~'.~. i; r UJ c ox iiii--.. I ~ I I ' 1 i I I I I 1 t1 I."I I I ul il~ i ~nl d~~I Page 623 of 1742 ORDINANCE NO. 18- 65 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 07- 40, THE GREY OAKS MPUD, BY RELOCATING ONE UNBUILT ACCESS LOCATION ON AIRPORT ROAD TO LIVINGSTON ROAD FOR ACCESS ONLY TO THE AREAS OF THE PUD IDENTIFIED AS FP& L EASEMENT LOCATED SOUTH OF GREY OAKS DRIVE EAST, AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT MPUD CONSISTING OF 1, 601+/- ACRES IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST, NORTHWEST, AND SOUTHEAST QUADRANTS OF THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT ROAD ( S. R. 31) AND GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY ( C. R. 886), IN SECTIONS 24, 25, AND 26, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20170001548] WHEREAS, on April 24, 2007, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 07- 40, which established the Grey Oaks Mixed Use Planned Unit Development ( MPUD); and WHEREAS, Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P. A., representing O' Donnell Landscapes, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend Ordinance No. 07- 40, the Grey Oaks MPUD; and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners conducted a public hearing and approved this ordinance amendment to relocate one unbuilt access point onto Livingston Road, as identified during the hearing, subject to 2 conditions: a. The owner of the property encumbered by the FPL easement south of the Grey Oaks Drive East entrance road, and its business, and their invitees, will not use the Grey Oaks Drive East entrance road; and b. The County has not and is not deciding the issue of permitted or conditional uses for the tract in question as part of this MPUD amendment. 17- CPS- 01724/ 1451574/ 1] 70 Grey Oaks PUDA- PL20170001548 Words struck ough are deleted; words underlined are added. 12/ 17/ 18 Page I of 2 Page 624 of 1742 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO MASTER PLAN. The Master Plan, attached as Exhibit " H- 1" to Ordinance No. 07-40, is hereby amended and replaced with the Master Plan attached hereto as Exhibit" H- 1" and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION TWO: SECTION TWO: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2. 10 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT Section 2. 10 of the PUD document attached as Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 07- 40 is hereby amended to add the following language: The owner of the property encumbered by the FPL easement south of the Grey Oaks Drive East entrance road will maintain the one new access location on Livingston Road. Said owner and its business, and their invitees, will not use the Grey Oaks Drive East entrance road. SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County tk Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 1 day of I (, y 6e/ , 2018. ATTEST: BOARD O. 0 Y CO / NERS j CRY, TAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIE' 0 ' I T , A By; A Ll° 4t a4airman Deputy Clerk ANDY SOLIS, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: This ordinance filed with the CAOL" Cl O' A- S cr ary of State': Office the Heidi Ashton- Cicko f1? s^ r$ Managing Assistant County Attorney and acknowledgement cf that tq[ Pilin received this 1dcay Attachment: Exhibit H- 1 - Master Plan of__,. _ _ dam( 6 ( AL ttcuty Clark 17- CPS- 0l724/ 1451574/ 1170 Grey Oaks PUDA- PL20170001548 Words struckgh are deleted; words underlined are added. 12/ 17/ 18 Page 2 of 2 Page 625 of 1742 i t 1 I' EJJ 1 J. 1, 6 4 It 5 Ils- 4 s, 1 s I ip 7"r.... 5:,:,,, d t.\,.. 1 s,. t, xkk. s 1 r gP 4'-‘', 4 . MI titnan:N,,ere 1,? 1411. 0 1 i 1 e,^—'.. 0•\. sN - i: 1,t.‘,. — wr,,, r. i PIO. N,\.'• . Uri 11111 a, s4).•,, 0•-....?v 1 1" i/ s N,',. p............ k0, 0., 00Ml'.. lzhkk, \ 1. A 7, k,,, N.... 4A1,•, k, \ 0. SSUglw / e,,,,•%,,,,, 1;. 47:. , 7, Illih 5% I,\t.\:\ 0. 47". Al 4-'\* Z 1 4 i prra 7,./. s •,,,, 14r. 00.• SM11. k AV' :,,,, v ,,, 10, a V % 1,,-,„-:.-, 1021 1 Li. 1.' 1j. . .... 1 g al k . Jo- r•-•.,,, , . al se„0, ,,, AcrIMM•i• 14 4§ Pt 4 g11,-',.,.‘:.',' faio*•. 110011110101 0g- 114":""' k„ l. t1". r4 1 - z1,—, 04-'iiii,‘\‘.*:•.\‘‘.'"' 44 W 2 4 „ 8§xl x2 i' to -*, et,•; p_ N.`”.'-','''„:. 74n0.10• gtg 611111477,1 AL•;: V. \ 7'''' il0/ . alp N., 4•..'.."-.,-'._. N% F__!__ 1 i I Tht. 1,,, ,, I eZs•'-,.''-,•..,...rN, c tw. s . \'' !•-. s a i s,‘ e ....„,„ b.,.. WilsOnMiller H li il o,/ I 4:'-. g• 04 4 l'-' wl`' f. : 4i4'.. 1':: ttie 4, 40;•-•- of Wr 1 } 4=, 11' J',!' 1 -. EV 1.', s iI' 11 1 1, l:' t I s. is • • r: r 1 1 O0r4, 1+ 4, 1.' 72,,,„% t -,... %.,\ -, :, \-.,-.• • A 10 1.*' 2 1 4ratt... 4,.._ 491101riksinleitall,'•:. ti. Watt i1--'...°. it '`,, ,‘,\,°.'*"•,- , . i 1%..,\,",.. 2 (. , , 141-- .•.' ....i— i. t-;- sit, i v, a LN "'4. s 1 LLC k„..ir, i 01 •• i.,,.. Pd s.. 304 %,.\\\ ' ' ' V age 111 qi S11, xs 1 VkL::.:, ' r1q•-•--- H- 4EP ntri N..: m°„-‘,-. 1 1 k w\ t,„. n.,.‘-,--,- 1‘-, i\ t wow111 4-,„ lt- pil41•: - ri J":. 7` kk, \ . 101: r4,J.,•"‘ \ MAP 1 j ir 1 - t' JJJ. HOLDINGS, al li 0.,,..V2k, .\\ OP ts\ It i' o:. 40044. r---- ,, , : i ,,,,:: t sik ,`„„ ,". 4-..)„ :„, s., 1;''\ it A. 11/-- I V, 1 40. 1444.latiSni \ e4, f‘ lff‘t' 111" s\ GRANDE br nr: ..,. - . .. .... Vrt• 1 illattt' - # 40%. M e\\ f 14* PLAN - 4toil fr'' '' 6, i," N. mpts ni: 1'4,:.\-,,,N,\:\; s ovwt' 11hr- j t.!..:•: ak\ fru... a.„.\\ ii, t'& AI) i' 1•: ....,. 1 ‘'' vs-...,:-.,, 1' t$ aliv!!!!!-.-.-- 744161111ril - ' _ .. _ .. . 6_,.... ,-ir . „._Ei- rc1"' „,,, V•\' '‘ NAPLES 1. 44,-- : .„----( L, 141111 41 lr". lst ttIty-, S‘ 0510. U.\\`‘‘‘ 6- 6\,,si- 04-‘,\\ tk. gin. l'.\ FOR 1 all 1;: if\ ' • i...1: 1kx\-,-Sa- ,*\‘-,\....\-\\;MASTER 4sVICAltrle - 5;'','. P , 1141/Nk,‘ 7,:. '.',".- r- as 1. k w.:: . ..,......... k-t.\\ k, \ . : 410•• ,... 4,,,,%.- s 4, it''t., 0. ifIft" PUD WIt1/ a:‘., \ 0, x, I 24),,,,.NA , •: .,,,\,,, \.,‘,,,, V1ik,, ''' k4‘;.‘,.\.,•4:„ i\ 1/N, 114' __, NIN‘ 2,, ..... - -•,,," ' 1. \\: PREPARED 744, NEI,: F„.74ir... umw 1 Eat vi•%:\.;LL -." k\- •\'''\''''' ' 1' 1. \.:'\'`\\\% 4. w - p'''.„ w- N.,,- 6 , ,,,:,;....*•. 4 il \ 0 0211110 II , \:,‘ "‘ i it 011111LCEMI jitrilliti " 31°:•/ 6 ,1 41titerrtr8 0 '.,,: i 3 4 01111 0, E z- itlito 1' . i AO 17, s'-‘•••‘ 4I1 i' T,.,.. 7„. 1S1at 1 ": ° Ii$ zt... 4 iigf,li „, - . • Vr-- iv iL.,... i liNti*".........: g gi dig E' osof ..--' ', V \,•.\* i 2 IV, k 44. --.... 4, ,-............— A\'',„‘ i 6 Sl'\ 1 y ... 1 tmesseu, ilk li 0- tNN,,XX: L; li i .1 \ ttims•it\1. . P ',.-. 1 E 0MillaffingilinninniSiPti E.a 1111fi A00.4411ii Page 626 of 1742 ' 7 V"-- It 1 sr 11 1 g 0 i 1 ai‘lg. ji 7 4 m4 s ?gi 11711 1 NI: 81 3 2. o ' 0 ,1-: S• I f Rg 81 1 it 1%... to ....• 0. . 3 11 P sggw 01 sz r .ii II1 It°St 0 g iA o Z °.. 41...._,,, N,,. .„ - 4„..- \\; it q1 4 1 1Q , ft NtiSN ": 111b , . i6,*%\.:\. 1/F.: r-- , it . 411: C, Ati R a . 4 ,,, 21 LI. ' 7::,,, 3R iNN. , 1 00 P zig 1100110111061$ 0, , 414 pC vii, kk • t 61. 0g4w ifk, W' / 5- 4, st?•••••' utile 5.4!.. q 10 to niliffil94 ': I 4 N, ‘.. s\ ',:,,.... 11 5 1 glicl8 el \ 10 ' s.,ontqwk\-\ IT 01iti ° J.; 3 g 1 , . ,,,,,,, n)../ P s\- 4 02 Ati r••••..• il04 kr"' ../.. 4, + 18/ N'... \ 11 ri 04 i 1NV• .;%.\\. 441. se: 1.- 0 8Sr 1‘ 1°.' 0 111 w . lifirrnintitifitql# 411 0.1- g 0, t# 1C- s,: A r 4 4.-- c,1 § 4,‘,. 00.- eari ligl gl 311 N\ ..\\, ,-\\,\.- ..,, A•••0001111:,;... 4, • t,,.,.\NIN,., k., N.. li1t,...\\N• mili,-.'''‘....."... Slitirrnit, 11 fr•"" 4'. n.„ ( 7. 0 4," 0 & i 7., ‘\ 1 ) 0 4 1 flivok_ 1 g 4 1 I,,1: 111 N, if 1 A'. N'', o 0, S. i.P• t«.'WI+ Z::§... t11: kt N 221: -.. gig .P 8 .. Gg t:!::0,14, f.„,-, Z::', INAL .,, 1, I 4 . 0 P. W0 e• 1: e. n 4,tii 46- 1 i44;,,i:::::::an, '', 1, 01. ji, c. 1. 1:- ot% b` 11 o". i4, 14- 112 1:' 1::::: 001,:. n. 111:!,,, rraci: X, nt. Z 1': 1441:;:!:!; tgir„..--- 10, tig ' ' ..•,,• •, ... 4:1;%: Mi` N, 01: ., ff. t' iiiLliiiet , g rc- 0,,,,, k, " C' n , MA 114114, mtr-,) S d if• 0... «, 4 4 ... 1 :". N ,, 8. fibt. Ft. Rt.E4 `8 '•:: 33.a -: . 3.`%,` 4 g 14^ S, <, ine,; ag ,... R 01 , 0. i 5: NIS 4**** 14- t.... sp 1 t lawatrinififilincittirptarar. a),,. : 4001, • . NIIIX. AWIN.' — " ai4.a o Z At\+\:. 41• f' NN's\ ctoatgr• Il ,,• i I+ f4; C NI if* A " 1, 46' • 4.4 P , 4or; 4 . N. it\ cl C- . Y UV' OW, ‘,•••&, ,&,,. .\., 411wo-- . 7-- gmi q ii i-. - ft• •. , U -,- , I ._ 4 4 g 81 4 \ S' t. kiii4kk tiNillikt. ' t i h v. 1) 1 i O. 1,;, 0 Vth NNIN Tv 1 kti,', qi ttli* s \-\\ **,. .< ; 0.41 I c: r kk' ii[ Iwlti'• .; riadd.; I N.' 4, 4 M: 41. 11:::::. rin''' N \ 11, 7" Z 14; 1:: e. • NW , atiol I \•. , - • Vil\••••N\,,,, 01,ah Eva --. itt, r1 ' N 1 049,* -.. dirleS atift* aumppr- t‘ c') t-. r-.tr, tri I Illilli C.,'..'.,•'•.'), C:.) '* : Ft? t i 7 . 8 r ' - 317," 0 \.\\ x e. L:_ 4 Pi f i.., 5 r,-; I-6 • el \ i 0 4 I g,I. 7 = !' 2. •! . 3;7 K R Po 0 .., • i•,-.- l•"=,7 IA ,--1 z.,..ii :,:., ..„ •,...„ :::.•::;. .. t ,: 6.,, r Z. 3 R-7 , i 4 1-= Page 627 of 1742ill , 17 7 CAO 1 41 t Olb 0 r te N'''' 40 de ' is,: . x‘ or. s N -- N' poN Mg N..\,,— Er F s .\ 7 NN,\ is raoa B s '%' t. iit,,,.\\\.\\_\%\s ... 4`.`•• isopt sk,‘,\,\\.,, 0Z, s e.,`___;.,,,.. .... ._ St""° 341 v,.. ts,,,,, SV— ' N. \\... N‘ ewslib r l .' s, 114 4N63: r") , \\*.., \\ .. vt' Inc. Krarss7fa Nk.,' s‘ datmCDnsum k\ ha+ vrli' z, .. v" toAD rxlsp masts s,,'‘..\.\\ VitlifNs‘ N•• e siv& N,kk, . x uwro. 411 4.,.. , 4440tAtt. A w perrxm+• Ak1,.. , 14r liiilsottWer, sata Ll'* N, I ibrn+ I ,....\\ f...• ..\\imams Vc"-- :., riot 4. Ai. 4 - e s,)\, Lams • d+ N\ a^"' 1 ,\,,,,,, f 474) 47' '.\\.." Er 7„,... A\,: N , N": l 0011;; ) it \ 2 . 4, Ci7.'* ".. ' p 4111044-. 1 / ti \ EE{ f k '‘ \: 140:i, ,..., 127- 4. NN I* 0 t'- VN - DW' a, ',, \ . 0Pr 1 WiIs4nMiIIer v g . xrr• tr.: sii\ 0. o / 0iiFINAL). c' AK \ \,,„,,,,,,, yreiyllr 41, . hip Xir: r' BLL rXihhiiiiii ti" Ap . 77:\\ rrY rt, riiir Xii 4iXr 1141 10 2018( N e• r441. i rttE/ ft Nt.\\,"\\ MAP 41109)„, •":„' . 1 \ ' • .\\. Nw." tom L or A A 44 '''''' ' 4 '''''' N.,\,,,,,,, k, ,. PROPOSED 1: I . \:‘,., 1- . k _ i. 1 LLC P::: Nv , 1, ,.,, ) N \‘' H-- DRAWINGS\ irfatrisr-....._ f.\\% kr. PUOA\ N 4.,"\,, .,,, ,.‘.. 1°'..*•'. OAKS 4.. - N.--- \'' a 4. 04- 111/ 4 11\ V GRE'! up, a t . \• MAP z, 1%,,,,,,, \..,..,, .„,,,... Vo'" — i- HOLDINGS, 4..,..___,•Voiditowattitrdr tito\\,,%‘‘,• GZPUSA- I ,' 11 0.: 4 , s t ` c- .. *\*\\ 0 Al . 1. 1 0,•firs‘.‘"\ . a hatikk * 1 3 ii, n PLANNING\ 4. v ci.. 7"--NA C c.)ci- ---. N,,,,... ,:.-,-%%,Attli -: 1s." leCH46 , • \ n PRO! - N GRANDE Z C iii S 6 /* PLAN - i, rci., O 1 C c' : II9i1 c.....) 5,- 274. - \\\ :\\\\., * Ig1I,I s 5' fILE01AWN;\ o_ co ii 1 7 v D I D z 0, 4AL\ g. i 3 ill i 0641. I },,,,17 .."= 5 1:'-. ( 9 • r 3g Page 628 of 1742 r, 87*( G"'0.. V yy L.: 4 4 1 041 0 1. 11 ft- 3401 44, F illi cd, , C y ti, . f 11. lial .' fir\ t t B Nk 1. a iiii '. 4Ik‘ 14 ff. ..$ Ati,. ., F. 6 D 1 vi* , a AN• \'‘ . IF' .,,, , r::. . Irt 4441" of r • Cal 0"••-•-. m 41iN a . s7t 111 ' r 11 I T{. fx, rrt.• A 11111, 7/ i. r\\; \ r if . ill N s,,.. i blit 7 \•, ,,...11r;\ . rx , ti , 101111. opc3511111h ' t.. ..:- ' Cy.;; Ei.. „,.. ,. diti kW 53 7 l' i i ,,...).„..,4110,*,„, .,,, yam„_ i 41M"'.. 1. ill rTlsTrlf/ 3 l FRt '.\\ ltl.•.}. a . 1411% t...-- c- I."'' 4 elt 0.! OO... f at til e• il... ,•+• l" 14" e. 4* i i\ ii:‘\‘' x\\.\\'• 4 < „ r a: i,`` , r ri•a. 1 1 .. cY. \\ 2 4444\ \ ii,'.• Jo NA),' e i • . 411., Mi aY. .:• r. IF' • \ 1 ''. tib `,\ t • .. 5E) l 4 „,„„„ ‘ , r 4 VII. ''',; l AA rl r N• 1..„.‹... 1 ,. i: 01„„„ N ,,,,‘,. .. l. i t t . . . a=< N. i: 0t. 4, • s `... ' ' ,, " . t•. :• 0, 16... "``••• r.. 4. W*\` , ` 1,. 1 N, iaiwtai „, ,,,,,,,,,,..*0, . 1+..... i Ytr. s • 040-- 5g\\ .\\: 3iN .* sss ,,,,•,,,,,,,,,,,.•,`,%'\,,..„, ,,,,,,,, 1 ii , a N'\,\\\ tt. cl, k,,.., ..., \„:.„\\ . \ 1' t,. ..tiitf ft• ‘ k t. t i..,./.. k k.\' ' a/./.,.., 0 t.... WG 1, 011.....,„,„,... v lv alta• l/. 1, WO N. 1114.........,.....”..,....... 4‘..t \ i ::::: :: : 0, 4 Ifitettitit7 i.\\.\\\:\ \\ stt/ 1: Is‘ NAL.. i•:, 111/ kt,,,;,\,, tars.{ . .. 40 rup! 0 ;} l. 1112tatit II , Vilimift..-°.** 411 t i' ii. s:•-, ,*;,',,,. Yfs..k Yk i. 8..;:: q i 4 . N\ ' N. k\N. . 01 Ni,'"\%\,,M ) * "'"• !` 3 YAa 1 1 C ill 0° ;: i 1 4 r. 4 S\'< i a AWIN 151 i A .' U ft I a 0.- AK ' 7 i li 3 V i,4. M • i 4fr 0 Z EZypm +'+ 2, , fl ! 1 ' NNINv :, • .'-,' t• l 1 • 3 2011.--- — Agi. . . •-••• ••"... 5 -1 NI.. ::\ • 4 rri CI c) t73 0 SI) C u iLA E' , Fe!- tv c cr' L\ lel a n if 7 Y 7 D cr) m T it z E.' 2 ".::', 3 Z. — ell .moiitiiN,IL,....\\:, Page 629 of 1742 3-) 7 4 C• • 1 rr c.- A 1,A k Ye GI C- 140 g4 s‘ 4 4s, I . M 1- Is resit,Nit mow A• A 04.• MI_ 4 • ; ki. Fk, 40. E@ C ' 4.- T la Itrikl 6*** O& C7 7%\\'z. pliL470, . .. .. lor..\\., St- 4r, 514\ 0. 4.; redAD- GRANDE 46 NT 4.;I/ " PLAN — Apra N\ .''''''' op- 4.44 Nt, 0 0; ilfr-' Tr- IR z . „\----\\* 4- 1 s,,,.._ t113 k„. At 1610011..... I • 6-‘ um- 4 '; ''• 1 V., ,,&\'''\'‘‘,,,,, 3 . tillf a. ,,,.\ . fe.*,' - CLI t; ir. . e7” A N.,. ...... NAPLES vt t'''' \\ @MEV 1,;\;\ a),,:\ . s‘,.,•: e • 41,s .\- 1‘ s; , N S . N,\\,,, ( ' FOR: tur; • v,. tr--- r. FO. s• "••„, • \ MASTER 144. Ns.\.\\.%‘' 4, 53\\ N;-\\‘'' c-)C7i ' N::\%,;• ik\ i6 41.Ns, \ , k,,,,, , ,,,,,k- k ,,,\ \ . \,- 6';;;,• n, IXIMS ' 3*..\\\ PUD 0. 1 ,„ 0‘••,\:‘ ,:,0 . N„*;;; mom-- w. \,... .... ., \ , ...„, 4, 4 N\•‘ N;.\‘.*\, 0 Ii , , 119-4,„ \ gi\\-, ttiatialk. 0" B, N.\ ‘',..„-;, N, PREPARED i- . I, t. N'''\''•:.;,, N ..\\ \ ''' \\\\ It,w • • \ .• , il f: , ‘, ,,,,, ..,,,,,,,,, „-,,,,,, , 1 \*‘\‘`‘,1111111 a 4 N 61211110111 \ I , • • 6' iN N RC? t: ao k,,,..\\: i e 11,; 41 ere, I 018( H ) ts. • e 2' 3 •\\,,, ,,,„:;.. a43‘ r.s 2. mAP 17= Ata P 0 c:, E0 2 Q, • N„, r,4 g -ITC & 73 3„,..___, 1 11111000 PROPO< r; zt 1, t. tii , i..„ 4,..., xymmv, m, I. " 1..!.. i 9 ORAWNCS, 4 2 lk: .,\.-\\ -*, - 0=' 0 : r 11Vikvamat. - PUDA\ 4it, 10.-- 1 0110CF!...... i e1 ROMMIlllffillfilatt n 41.- I OAKS 111111011111111111111111"" s.. 9 mtizai. , S 4111• M 40111111111172. 11 f RF, ea 4Ik‘ tp, 0 76111` lltil k COPUOA-(, tkuNvo..... kw rF Z ,,, P l'II li it 1 } 1 PLANNING\ i4, zo• i il X PRO. - i , rt 1 t., cs t-= o i. r. PLANOINC\ f cn ot 0 7- c LES\ e .,:- r r., 0 r,' u •- I r, 1 cg 6 cr, r- x r- 4 ' 1 m;••• 4.. ,•,,...- i=iii, i eL4AL\ f ; 1 i E--• i • N --• -,,... Page 630 of 1742 st--- -:%,, 4 4 p eilii_ 8 ., __ T Nat i- i FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OfSTATE RICK SCOTT KEN DETZNER Governor Secretary of State December 19, 2018 Ms. Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Collier County Post Office Box 413044 Naples, Florida 34101- 3044 Attention: Teresa Cannon Dear Ms. Kinzel: I Pursuant to the provisions of Section 125. 66, Florida Statutes, this will acknowledge receipt of your electronic copy of Collier County Ordinance No. 18- 65, which was filed in this office on December 19, 2018. Sincerely, Ernest L. Reddick Program Administrator ELR/ lb R. A. Gray Building • 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, Florida 32399- 0250 Telephone: ( 850) 245- 6270 www. dos. state. fl. us Page 631 of 1742 Grey Oaks PUDA Neighborhood Information Meeting Summary RVI Planning + Landscape Architecture, Inc. and the Applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting for the Grey Oaks PUD Amendment on Tuesday, November 4, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. at the El Shaddai of Grace Church at 6750 Golden Gate Pkwy, Naples, FL 34105. The meeting was also offered virtually via ZOOM. A copy of the legal notice, affidavit of publication, a copy of the letter sent to the surrounding property owners and a list of the surrounding property owners are attached as Exhibit “A”. No attendees other than the Applicant, their consultant team and County Staff attended the meeting. The meeting was concluded at 5:45 PM. RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture • 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Sutie 305 • Bonita Springs, FL 34135 • 239.405.7777 • www.rviplanning.com Page 632 of 1742 October 20, 2025 RE: Grey Oaks Planned Unit Development Amendment PL20250004748 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that LB Naples Grande, LLC has filed a Planned Unit Development Amendment Application (PL20250004748) with Collier County relating to the Grey Oaks Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD), which is generally located on the north and south sides of Golden Gate Parkway, west of Livingston Road, in Collier County, FL. This Applicant is seeking approval of a deviation to increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of Independent Living Units and Assisted Living Facilities (ALF) in the Continuing Care Retirement Community known as Moorings Park Grande Lake. The amendment is specific to the Moorings Park Grande Lake property located south of Golden Gate Parkway and west of Livingston Road, within the Grey Oaks MPUD. 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 these applications and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 4, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. at the El Shaddai Church, 6750 Golden Gate Pkwy, Naples, FL 34105. *Please note the original meeting held on October 13th was not advertised correctly requiring this second meeting to be conducted. Attending virtually is also available via Zoom. Please visit www.zoom.us, click on “Join A Meeting” in the top right corner, and enter Zoom Meeting ID: 818 2589 4848 Passcode: 765568 The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting is to provide the public with notice of an impending zoning application and to foster communication between the applicant and the public. The expectation is that all attendees will conduct themselves in such a manner that their presence will not interfere with the orderly progress of the meeting. Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact me directly at (239) 850- 8525 or acrespo@RViPlanning.com Thank you, RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture Alexis Crespo, AICP Vice President of Planning RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture • 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Sutie 305 • Bonita Springs, FL 34135 • 239.405.7777 • www.rviplanning.com Page 633 of 1742 RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture | 2 of 2 Tamiami 58-Acres PUD Rezone & Tamiami Trail Mixed Use Subdistrict GMPA PL20230007470 & PL20230007471 Page 634 of 1742 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING The public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting held by RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture, Inc. on behalf of LB Naples Grande, LLC at the following time and location: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 - 5:30 p.m. El Shaddai Church 6750 Golden Gate Pkwy, Naples, FL 34105 Attending virtually is also available via Zoom. Please visit www.zoom.us, click on “Join A Meeting” in the top right corner, and enter Zoom Meeting ID: 818 2589 4848 Passcode: 765568 Please be advised that LB Naples Grande, LLC has filed a Planned Unit Development Amendment Application (PL20250004748) with Collier County relating to the Grey Oaks Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD), which is generally located on the north and south sides of Golden Gate Parkway, west of Livingston Road, in Collier County, FL. This Applicant is seeking approval of a deviation to increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of Independent Living Units and Assisted Living Facilities (ALF) in the Continuing Care Retirement Community known as Moorings Park Grande Lake, within the Grey Oaks MPUD. The amendment is specific to the Moorings Park Grande Lake property located south of Golden Gate Parkway and west of Livingston Road. WE VALUE YOUR INPUT The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting is to provide the public with notice of an impending zoning application and to foster communication between the applicant and the public. The expectation is that all attendees will conduct themselves in such a manner that their presence will not interfere with the orderly progress of the meeting. Business and property owners and residents are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the project with the owners’ representatives. If you are unable to attend this meeting, but have questions or comments, they can be directed to: RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture, Inc. c/o Alexis Crespo 28100 Bonita Grande Dr., Suite 305, Bonita Springs, FL 34135 (239) 850-8525 OR acrespo@RViPlanning.com RVI25003662 Page 635 of 1742 •LocaliQ Florida PO Box 631244 Cincinnati, OH 45263-1244 GANNETT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Patty Kulak RV! Planning, Inc 15 14 Broadway Suite 20 I Fort Myers FL 33901-3007 STATE OF WISCONSIN, COUNTY OF BROWN Before the undersigned authority personally appeared, who on oath says that he or she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Naples Daily News, a newspaper published in Collier County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Legal Ad in the matter of, was published on the publicly accessible website of Collier and Lee Counties, Florida, or in a newspaper by print in the issues of, on: NDN Naples Daily News 10/19/2025 Affiant further says that the website or newspaper complies with all legal requirements for publication in chapter 50, Florida Statutes. Subscribed and sworn to before me, by the legal clerk, who is personally known to me, on 10/19/2025 ---..,.c::::,-·c----:::::1!1,,,- Legal Clerk Notary, State of~ Cou¥ of Brow~ My commission expires Publication Cost: $471.56 Tax Amount: $0.00 Payment Cost: $471.56 Order No: 11757962 # of Copies: Customer No: 1125689 1 PO#: THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE! Please do not use this form for payment remittance. KONGMENG YANG Notary Public State of Wisconsin Page 1 of 2 Page 636 of 1742 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING The public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting held by RVi Planning+ Landscape Architecture, Inc. on behalf of LB Naples Grande, LLC at the following time and location: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 • 5:30 p.m. El Shaddai Church 6750 Golden Gate Pkwy, Naples, FL 34105 AAttending virtually is also available via Zoom. Please visit www.zoom.us, click on "Join A Meeting" in the top right corner, and enter Zoom Meeting ID: 818 2589 4848 Passcode: 765568 Please be advised that LB Naples Grande, LLC has flied a Planned Unit Development Amendment Application (PL20250004748) with Collier County relating to the Grey Oaks Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD), which is generally located on the north and south sides of Golden Gate Parkway, west of Livingston Road, in Collier County, FL. This Applicant is seeking approval of a deviation to increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of Independent Living Units and Assisted Living Facilities (ALF) in the Continuing Care Retirement Community known as Moorings Park Grande Lake, within the Grey Oaks MPUD. The amendment is specific to the Moorings Park Grande Lake property located south of Golden Gate Parkway and west of Livingston Road. " A WE VALUE YOUR INPUT The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting is to provide the public with notice of an impending zoning application and to foster communication between the applicant and the public. The expectation is that all attendees will conduct themselves in such a manner that their presence will not interfere with the orderly progress of the meeting. Business and property owners and residents are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the project with the owners' representatives. If you are unable to attend this meeting, but have questions or comments, they can be directed to: RVi Planning+ Landscape Architecture, Inc. c/o Alexis Crespo 28100 Bonita Grande Dr., Suite 305, Bonita Springs, FL 34135 (239) 850-8525 OR acrespo@RViPlanning.com RVl25003662 N0--12775567 Page 637 of 1742Page 638 of 1742 October 20, 2025 RE: Grey Oaks Planned Unit Development Amendment PL20250004748 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that LB Naples Grande, LLC has filed a Planned Unit Development Amendment Application (PL20250004748) with Collier County relating to the Grey Oaks Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD), which is generally located on the north and south sides of Golden Gate Parkway, west of Livingston Road, in Collier County, FL. This Applicant is seeking approval of a deviation to increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of Independent Living Units and Assisted Living Facilities (ALF) in the Continuing Care Retirement Community known as Moorings Park Grande Lake. The amendment is specific to the Moorings Park Grande Lake property located south of Golden Gate Parkway and west of Livingston Road, within the Grey Oaks MPUD. 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 these applications and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 4, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. at the El Shaddai Church, 6750 Golden Gate Pkwy, Naples, FL 34105. *Please note the original meeting held on October 13th was not advertised correctly requiring this second meeting to be conducted. Attending virtually is also available via Zoom. Please visit www.zoom.us, click on “Join A Meeting” in the top right corner, and enter Zoom Meeting ID: 818 2589 4848 Passcode: 765568 The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting is to provide the public with notice of an impending zoning application and to foster communication between the applicant and the public. The expectation is that all attendees will conduct themselves in such a manner that their presence will not interfere with the orderly progress of the meeting. Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact me directly at (239) 850- 8525 or acrespo@RViPlanning.com Thank you, RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture Alexis Crespo, AICP Vice President of Planning RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture • 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Sutie 305 • Bonita Springs, FL 34135 • 239.405.7777 • www.rviplanning.com Page 639 of 1742 RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture | 2 of 2 Tamiami 58-Acres PUD Rezone & Tamiami Trail Mixed Use Subdistrict GMPA PL20230007470 & PL20230007471 Page 640 of 1742 1 OWN_NAME OWN_ADDR1 OWN_CITY OWN_STATE OWN_ZIPCD OWN_STATE_ MOORINGS INCORPORATED 120 MOORINGS PARK DR NAPLES FL 34105 FL BLOOMFIELD, ALAN F & NANCY L 1616 HARMONY HALL LN LEXINGTON KY 40502 KY PURPURA, SALVATORE A & ROBIN L 2070 TORINO WAY NAPLES FL 34105 FL RIGSBEE, NED L & PAMELA 2074 TORINO WAY NAPLES FL 34105 FL BRAY, TRAVIS & REBECCA 2078 TORINO WAY NAPLES FL 34105 FL JONATHAN TYNDALL FLOE TRUST 2092 TORINO WAY NAPLES FL 34105 FL PISCITELLI-BELL FAM RE TRUST 2097 TORINO WAY NAPLES FL 34105 FL NELSON, T LANE & CHERYL L 2101 MODENA COURT NAPLES FL 34105 FL NICHOL, MICHELLE O'BRIEN 2103 TORINO WAY NAPLES FL 34105 FL ALEXANDER I CREVI TRUST 2132 TORINO WAY NAPLES FL 34105 FL JULIE A MCLEOD TRUST 2139 TORINO WAY NAPLES FL 34105 FL CALLIGARO, W.E. & PAMELA P 2142 TORINO WAY NAPLES FL 34105 FL SANDRA M STARK TRUST 2143 TORINO WAY NAPLES FL 34105 FL UHLIG, JANET LEE 2146 TORINO WAY NAPLES FL 34105 FL LB NAPLES GRANDE LLC 2210 VANDERBILT BEACH RD #1300 NAPLES FL 34109 FL HUMMER, JAMES J & KIMBERLY K 2256 RESIDENCE CIR NAPLES FL 34105 FL PAUL R ONEIL REVOCABLE TRUST 2269 RESIDENCE CIR NAPLES FL 34105 FL PRENTICE, ROBERT A & VERNA R 2277 RESIDENCE CIRCLE NAPLES FL 34105 FL GREY OAKS COUNTRY CLUB INC 2400 GREY OAKS DR N NAPLES FL 34105 FL GREY OAKS PROP OWNERS ASSN INC 2600 GOLDEN GATE PKWY NAPLES FL 34105 FL CUBEDDU, ROBERTO J 2265 RESIDENCE CIR NAPLES FL 34105 FL HP SSP NAPLES GOLF LLC 4 RANDOR CORPORATE CENTER RADNOR PA 19087 PA GILCHRIST, JAMES ROBERT 2136 TORINO WAY NAPLES FL 34105 FL VILLAS OF TRADITIONS AT % SENTRY MGMT, INC LONGWOOD FL 32779 FL MICHETTI JR, MICHAEL L 2273 RESIDENCE CIR NAPLES FL 34105 FL ARTHUR J GOLDFARB TRUST 241A BROADVIEW ROAD WESTPORT CT 6880 CT WILLIAM S WELLS REV TRUST 2093 TORINO WAY NAPLES FL 34105 FL TORINO AT GREY OAKS % KEB MGT SERVICES NAPLES FL 34119 FL VILLAS OF TRADITIONS AT GREY 2180 WEST STATE ROAD 434 LONGWOOD FL 32779 FL GREY OAKS PROPERTY 2386 GREY OAKS DRIVE N NAPLES FL 34105 FL ROBERT C RHEIN & MARILYN S 2147 TORINO WAY NAPLES FL 34105 FL SUKEFORTH, JAMES A 2098 TORINO WAY NAPLES FL 34105 FL ULMER III, FREDRICK W 2135 TORINO WAY NAPLES FL 34105 FL RICHARD K BECKER & DOROTHEA 2086 TORINO WAY NAPLES FL 34105 FL 500ft Property Owner List for Mailer.xls Page 641 of 1742GREY OAKS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT Neighborhood Meeting November 4, 2025 Page 642 of 1742 2 PROJECT TEAM . Lisa Van Dien & Ray Piacente – London Bay . Rich Yovanovich, Esq. – CYK Law Firm . Alexis Crespo, AICP & Patty Kulak – RVi Page 643 of 1742 3 PROPERTY LOCATION Page 644 of 1742 4 LONDON BAY COMMITMENT TO QUALITY . Moorings Park Grande Lake offers luxury senior living . Situated on 55 acres north of the Naples Grande Golf Club and along Golden Gate Parkway . High-end life plan community featuring world- class amenities and personalized healthcare services . Based upon London Bay & Moorings Park’s core values of quality, integrity, and respect for surrounding communities Page 645 of 1742 5 PROJECT HISTORY . Property is within the southeast quadrant of the Grey Oaks MPUD . Overall Grey Oaks MPUD is zoned for 1,775 homes, 1.3M SF of commercial and 72 golf course holes . 55-acre subject property largely built out with Moorings Park Grande Lake life plan community . Continuing Care Retirement Community uses are limited by the current zoning approval to a “Floor Area Ratio” of 0.45 Page 646 of 1742 6 APPROVED MASTER CONCEPT PLAN Page 647 of 1742 7 REQUEST OVERVIEW • Modify the Floor Area Ratio in the Grey Oaks MPUD to 0.6 • Amendment will not modify the number of residences, square footage of commercial retail uses, or building heights in Grey Oaks • All impacts of the project are reviewed by Collier County at the time of Site Development Plan permitting • Collier County is currently amending the Land Development Code to establish a standard FAR of 0.6 for all group housing uses in the County  PUD Amendment will allow the project to align with the new LDC provisions Page 648 of 1742 8 ZONING PROCESS/NEXT STEPS  Filed PUD Amendment Application  Undergoing Staff Review  Conduct Neighborhood Information Meeting . Planning Commission Hearing . Board of County Commission Hearing Page 649 of 1742 9 STAY INVOLVED AND INFORMED Alexis Crespo acrespo@rviplanning.com Patty Kulak pkulak@rviplanning.com Page 650 of 1742PL20250004748 Page 651 of 1742Page 652 of 1742Page 653 of 1742 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT-PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: MARCH 19, 2026 SUBJECT: SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA), COMPANION ITEM TO SSA- PL202400010213, STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA (SSA) 22 _______________________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNERS/AGENTS: Applicant/ Property Owner: Alico, Inc. (f/k/a/ Alico Land Development Company) 10070 Daniels Interstate Court #200 Fort Myers, FL 33913 Agents: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, President, CEO Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire and Jeremie Chastain, Planner III Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Hole Montes, a Bowman Company 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34103 Naples, FL 34110 SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 1 of 28 Page 654 of 1742 Page 2 of 28 SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 655 of 1742 MASTER PLAN Page 3 of 28 SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 656 of 1742 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 1,446.59+/- acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area zoning overlay district as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA), which will allow development of a maximum of 4,502 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 and a maximum of 238,606 square feet of commercial development in the Village Center Context Zone; and a 100,000 square feet of indoor self storage use in the Village Center Context Zone; a minimum of 45,020 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses in the Village Center Context Zone; senior housing including assisted living facilities and continuing care retirement communities limited to 300 units in the SRA; 362 of the maximum 4,502 residential dwelling units in the Affordable Housing Context Zone; no commercial uses in the Neighborhood General Context Zone; and 8.50+/- acres of amenity area in the Neighborhood General Context Zone; all subject to a maximum pm peak hour trip cap; and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement for Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area and establishing that 11,703 stewardship credits are being utilized by the designation of the Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 1,446.59± acres, is located on the north side of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road, east and west of Corkscrew Road, in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, Township 46 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff Report.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District (RLSA) was developed 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). The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA requires 11,703.40 credits to entitle 1,382.96± acres of development. (Note: no credits are required for the 63.63± acres of public benefit use within the SRA.) The Natural Resource Index Assessment documents the existing conditions and Natural Resource Index (NRI) scores within the proposed SRA for the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. It should be noted that the NRI scores demonstrate that the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA meets the Suitability Criteria contained in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Please see the Environmental Review Section of this Staff Report for further information. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is one of ten SRAs that have either been submitted for or have received an SRA designation. The other nine SRAs are Hyde Park Village, Rivergrass Village, Bellmar Village, Brightshore Village, Collier Rod and Gun Club Village, Town of Big Cypress, Town of Ave Maria, and Horse Trails Village, which have received SRA designation. SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 4 of 28 Page 657 of 1742 The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is 1,446.59± acres and consists of three context zones that are required per the SRA Overlay regulations: 1,237.41± acre Neighborhood General, 169.55± acre mixed-use Village Center, and 39.63± acre Affordable Housing. Public benefit uses include the affordable housing site, a 24± acre public school site, and a 3.41± acre essential services site. The Village has access to Corkscrew Road and SR 82. The Village Center context zone is located at the southwest intersection of Corkscrew Road and SR 82. The Neighborhood General context zone is located to the north, east, and west of the Village Center context zone. A panther corridor contained within SSA 22 (approval pending) runs adjacent to a portion of the eastern boundary of the Village. The lake system located along a portion of the eastern boundary of the SRA serves as part of the Village stormwater system and acts as a deterrent to wildlife. This SRA application for Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will include approximately: • 4,502 residential dwelling units with a density of 3.11± dwelling units per acre; • 362 of the maximum 4,502 residential dwelling units in the Affordable Housing Context Zone; • senior housing, including assisted living facilities and continuing care retirement communities, limited to 300 units in the SRA; • 8.50+/- acres of amenity area in the Neighborhood General Context Zone; • no commercial uses in the Neighborhood General Context Zone; • a minimum and a maximum of 238,606 square feet of commercial development in the Village Center Context Zone; • a maximum of 100,000 square feet of indoor self-storage use in the Village Center Context Zone; and • a minimum of 45,020 square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses in the Village Center Context Zone. The Village will also have other uses such as an Amenity Center, Park Preserves, and Parks. The required minimum of 35% open space is 506.30± acres, and 36% open space, or 516.60± acres, has been provided. For further information, please see Attachment A-Proposed SRA Resolution. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Undeveloped land and agricultural fields with a zoning designation of Agriculture- Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO), and lake excavations (mining lands) within Hendry County. East: Undeveloped land and agricultural fields/public lands, Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW), with a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) and Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO) South: Undeveloped land and agricultural fields/public lands, Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW), with a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) and Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO) SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 5 of 28 Page 658 of 1742 West: Undeveloped land and agricultural fields with a zoning designation of Agriculture- Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO) AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed SRA petition and has found it consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Please see Attachment B-GMP Consistency Review Memorandum. Transportation Element: In evaluating the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA staff reviewed the applicant’s Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) dated December 23, 2025, for consistency using the 2024 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). The 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 SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 6 of 28 Page 659 of 1742 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 a significant impact 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: Staff evaluated the SRA Development Document and TIS Section 1 dated December 23, 2025, and found that the scenario presents an accurate trip generation calculation, reasonable trip distribution on the surrounding network, and reflects a reasonable development potential for the proposed SRA Village. The SRA document establishes a total trip cap commitment for a net external maximum of 4,065 PM, peak hour, two-way trips, according to the SRA Development Document, Section 9.3 Transportation A. Additionally, TIS Section 1-Road Segment Analysis indicates the project impacts the following County roadways: Roadway/ Link Location P.M. Peak Projected 2024 2024 AUIR DRAFT Link # Hour Peak PM Peak AUIR Remaining 2025 AUIR Direction Hr./Peak LOS Capacity Remaining Service Direction Capacity Volume/Pea Project k Direction Traffic (1) State Road CR 29A 900/South 649/South D 126 96 (2) 29/86.0 North to SR 82 State Road SR 82 to 800/South 133/South B 486 486 (2) 29/87.0 Hendry Co. Line State Road State Rd 29 to 1,800/South 1,244/South B (157) 763 (2) 82/88.0 Lee Co. Line 1. Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic isthe December 24, 2025, Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner. 2. Roadways are the Jurisdiction of FDOT. Consistent with the 5-year Capital Improvement Plan and Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element, these roadways are included in the current work programs to address increased network capacity. The Immokalee “Bypass” is also anticipated to improve the road network capacity in this area, specifically on these roadways. According to the mitigation report provided with this petition, the impact fees generated by the development will address the fair-share costs of the development's impacts on the network. Finally, the project-related operational improvements for all impacted intersections will be determined at the time of Plat and/or Site Development Plan and will be required to be constructed by the development. SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 7 of 28 Page 660 of 1742 Florida Statute 163.3180: Key points of applicability: • Must allow an applicant to enter into a binding agreement to pay or construct their proportionate fair share. Consistency and operational fair share mitigation attachments are consistent with this requirement. • Facilities determined to be deficient with existing, committed, and vested trips plus projected background traffic from any source other than the development shall be removed from the proportionate share calculation. • The improvement necessary to correct this type of deficiency is the funding responsibility of the maintaining entity. • Applicant must receive credit for the anticipated road impact fees. The consistency fair share attachment is consistent with this requirement. • The applicant calculated their proportionate share, and it does not exceed the impact fees anticipated to be collected. The consistency fair share attachment is consistent with this requirement. Based on this information, staff finds the application consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element. Policy 7.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “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: Corkscrew Groves East Village SRA is proposing access points on State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road. Staff recommends approval of the proposed access points shown on the master plan for this petition; nothing in this development order will vest the developer with anything more than a right-in/right-out at these locations. Directional and full median openings may be contemplated at the time of the Site Development Plan or Plat and Plan, or when/if future expansion of the roadways occurs, and in the case of SR-82, require permitting by FDOT. 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 (4.08.07.J.3.a.iii). The proposed Corkscrew Groves East Village SRA’s Master Plan shows an interconnection link road that will be open to the public. There are also connections provided within the development shown on the mobility plan. Staff Recommendation: The Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP and recommends approval of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) and FLUE related to Environmental Planning: Environmental Planning staff have found this project to be consistent with the CCME & FLUE. Pursuant to the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element, preservation of listed SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 8 of 28 Page 661 of 1742 species habitat and other native areas in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area is addressed by the creation of the required Stewardship Sending Areas. SSA 11 and SSA 22 have been approved for the petitioner to obtain credits for the development of the SRA. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this SRA petition and the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based. The listed criteria are noted explicitly in the LDC and require staff evaluation and comment. The criteria shall be used as the basis for a recommendation of approval or denial by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to the Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC). Notwithstanding the above, staff reviewed the determinants for adequate findings to support the proposed SRA application as follows: Environmental Review: LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.d requires that 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 boundaries of the proposed SRA that yield an NRI score above 1.2. The majority of the land within the SRA boundary was cleared of native vegetation and converted to row crops and improved pastureland. Pursuant to the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element, the preservation of listed species habitat and other native areas in the Rural Lands Stewardship Receiving Area is addressed by the creation of the required Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA). SSA 11 has been approved, and SSA 22 is proposed for the petitioner to obtain credits for the development of the SRA. SSA 11 is approximately 3,699 acres and is located east of Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest. Proposed restoration in SSA 11 will primarily enhance the Cara Cara habitat as well as improve habitats for the Florida Sandhill Crane and the Florida panther. SSA 22 is approximately 1,295.4 acres and is located along the subject properties’ east boundary. SSA 22 is a panther corridor and will be restored by improving existing citrus land with the reestablishment of native habitats. Additionally, the subject property is adjacent to Corkscrew Marsh (7,330 acres), which is located southeast of the property. Corkscrew Marsh is part of the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW), and in combination with the panther corridor proposed in SSA 22, provides a critical wildlife corridor for Florida panthers and other wildlife. Evaluation of Suitability Criteria in LDC section 4.08.07.A: • Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, transient housing, institutional, civic, and community service uses within an SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2 (LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.b). There are no portions of the subject property having an NRI value greater than 1.2; therefore, residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, transient housing, institutional, civic, and community service uses will not be restricted on lands within the SRA. • Conditional use essential services and government essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on land that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size of the land or parcel (LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.c). There are no portions of subject property having an NRI value greater than 1.2; therefore, conditional use and essential governmental services are not restricted on lands within the SRA. SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 9 of 28 Page 662 of 1742 • Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state (LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.d). There are no portions of the subject property having an NRI value greater than 1.2. • An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in LDC Section 4.08.07.J.6. An SRA may be contiguous to, or encompass, a WRA (LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.g). The project does not encroach into an FSA or HSA; it is adjacent to WRA lands (SSA #23) and provides the required buffers as indicated on the SRA Master Plan. SSA credits required for SRA Designation: Environmental Planning staff reviewed this petition in conjunction with GIS staff, who provided the following information regarding the generation of stewardship credits: The Stewardship credits for Corkscrew Grove Village SRA are generated from SSAs 11 and 22. SSA 11 is located on properties within and adjoining the Okaloacoochee Slough, a major flowway system connecting which connects to Big Cypress National Forest. SSA 22 is a property located to the east of the subject property, which is an established wildlife corridor. The credit calculation is based on the total acreage of the Corkscrew Grove East Village, which is 1,446.59 acres. Of the total acreage, 63.63 acres have been designated as a public benefit use area, which does not require the use of credits. The total acreage that requires credits is 1,382.96 acres. As SSA 11 was approved prior to the RLSAO GMP Amendments approved on July 13, 2021, SSA 11 will provide eight (8) credits per acre of land for a total of 8,504.80 Stewardship Credits. Additionally, the proposed SRA utilizes 3,198.60 Stewardship Credits from SSA 22, which are redeemed at ten (10) Stewardship Credits per acre of development. 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. Minor changes have occurred from the baseline assessment, which stem from adjustments to FLUCFCS mapping and species information and refinement of the WRA. Site Description: The subject property consists of 1,446.59 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. Wetland mitigation for impacts to this area will be addressed through the South Florida Water Management District Environmental Resource Permitting process. Listed Species: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is bordered along the east property boundary by SSA 22, which is an established panther corridor and contains HSA and FSA areas. The listed species surveys were conducted for the subject property in 2023 and 2024. 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. SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 10 of 28 Page 663 of 1742 Surveys conducted indicate the following species have been present within the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA boundary: American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus), great egret (Casmerodius albus), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), Roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja) tri-colored heron (Egretta tricolor), Snowy egret (Egretta thula) wood stork (Mycteria americana), crested caracara (Caracara cheriway), Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) and Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). see Appendix E of the Listed Species Survey). The wildlife survey revealed that a wading bird rookery was documented in a reservoir located in the western central section of the project. The rookery contained nests for cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), and great egret (Casmerodius albus). The nests will be protected during construction activities. There is one protected plant listed in the LDC as “Less Rare Plants” that was identified within the project boundary: stiff-leafed wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata). Additionally, there were also five plant species listed on the “Rare Plants” list that may be found within the project site; they include cowhorn orchid (Cyrtopodium punctatum), Curtiss’ milkweed (Asclepaias lindenii), and West Coast prickly apple (Harrisain gracilis). To deter large mammals from accessing the development areas, the proposed project has been designed to include the construction of buffer lakes and fences between the development areas and the native habitat areas (SSA 22 and Corkscrew Marsh). The location of buffer lakes and 10-foot chain-link fencing is illustrated in the Listed Species Management and Human-Wildlife Coexistence Plan (Appendix B). Additionally, two road crossings will be installed to protect wildlife. The road crossings are located within the proposed SSA 23. Environmental Review recommends approval of this petition, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. Prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, all development must be in compliance with the Human-Wildlife Coexistence Plan. Also, listed species management plans for the Florida panther and all other listed species must be provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS. 2. Stewardship Sending Area 22 must be approved prior to or concurrently with approval of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) District Review: CCPS review has been requested, staff has no comments. Stormwater Review: The existing site is served by a stormwater network of ditches and canals suited to the agricultural activities currently in operation. The proposed drainage system, or any change in land use or development, will require a modification of the existing South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Environmental Resource Permit (ERP). That process will ensure consistency with all applicable state stormwater standards. In addition, site development approval (SDP and/or Plat) will be required from Collier County to ensure that local development standards are maintained and that proposed stormwater system(s) are designed consistent with relevant LDC and County Ordinances for water quality and water quantity, during both the interim construction phase and final implementation. All associated costs with the design, permit, construction, and operation of the proposed stormwater improvements will be borne by the Owner. SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 11 of 28 Page 664 of 1742 Fire Review: Fire staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval. Affordable Housing Review: Housing Policy & Economic Development Division staff have provided the following comments: the Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) meets the requirements of Policy 4.7.5 of the GMP as follows: • At least 362 (8%) of the maximum 4,502 residential units will be affordable housing and made available for rent or for sale to households with incomes up to 100% of the area median income. • Per Policy, a minimum of 36.22 (2.5%) of the 1,446.99 acres will be set aside for the development of the affordable housing unit as shown on the master plan. • The affordable housing parcels shall be located adjacent to educational or commercial uses on land that has similar access to common open spaces, public facilities, and public transportation as market-rate parcels. • The affordable housing will be built by the developer, in whole or in part, or for acquisition, in whole or in part, by either Collier County, a Community Land Trust, a private developer, or any other affordable housing provider based upon the appraised value of $22,500/ acre, with a right of first refusal to Collier County. • All affordable units will remain affordable for a period of 30 years and are subject to compliance monitoring by the County. For reference, the 2025 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Income and Rent Limits are: The need for affordable housing units is great in Collier County, as the University of Florida Shimberg Center for Housing reports that there are currently 54,275 cost-burdened households in Collier County, with 26,756 of those spending more than 50% of their monthly income on housing expenses. Approval of this development will assist Collier County in addressing the continued need for affordable housing. 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, SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 12 of 28 Page 665 of 1742 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. DPFG conducted meetings with representatives from the various public facilities to capture information on both capital needs as well as operating impacts related to the proposed project. As part of this process, the need for new facility sites and other capital items, specifically related to the proposed project were also analyzed. An outside peer review (see Attachment E-Peer Review of Economic Assessment) was conducted by Jacobs 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 Corkscrew Grove East Village development would meet the County’s requirements for Fiscal Neutrality.” Both the DPFG and Jacobs reports rely on impact fees and other fiscal information that is adopted by Collier County as the basis for many of the underlying assumptions. The model used by DPFG was provided to Jacobs for peer review and to Collier County for 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. 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 footage, for the purpose of this analysis. The analysis concludes that adequate revenue will be generated by the proposed project, through millage, fees, and other applicable funding sources, to fund the attributable increase in operating costs, to the various facilities, generated by the development. The same approach used for the capital revenue, to note any comments or observations that may affect the anticipated revenue, is used for the information related to millage rates and other governmental revenue sources used for this analysis. Transportation – Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for transportation (road) impacts to be reasonable. See the Transportation Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment D-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: The County imposes road impact fees on new developments 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 impacts from the perspective that the owner 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, Corkscrew Grove East SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 13 of 28 Page 666 of 1742 Village SRAA will generate approximately $35.8 million in Road Impact Fee revenues to the County, based on the development parameters and the current road impact fee rate table. This exceeds the $24.9 million proportionate fair-share estimate for the project. Law Enforcement – Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of law enforcement as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. 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 $2,904,000 and other capital revenues at $520,000, which amounts to total capital revenues of $3,424,000. With the indirect capital costs of $3,424,000, the estimated revenues equal the forecasted indirect capital costs. Therefore, the impact is neutral. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) – Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of emergency medical services as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. According to EMS management, Corkscrew Grove East Village SRAA will initially be served by the EMS facility located at the Immokalee Fire Control District’s Headquarters Station 32. If the call volume necessitates it, an additional ambulance may be leased, and space rented for its operation at a proposed new fire station. DPFG projects total capital revenues of $710,000. EMS direct capital costs were estimated at $585,000, which is less than the combined projected impact fee of $693,000 and other capital revenues of $17,000, leaving about $125,000 for indirect/related capital costs. Therefore, the impact is neutral. Parks –Jacobs finds that parks are fiscally neutral. The County imposes separate impact fees for community and regional parks. The impact fee revenues of community parks were calculated to be $3,242,000 (plus other capital revenues of $52,000 for a total of $3,294,000), and regional parks were $9,246,000 (plus other capital revenues of $481,000 for a total of $9,727,000). The cost of the estimated acreage ($283,638 per acre) required to achieve the County LOS for community parks forms the basis for capital impacts, which DPFG estimated at $3,117,000, resulting in an estimated surplus of $177,000 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. The recommended LOS and cost per acre result in an estimated capital cost for regional parks of $590,288. The cost of the regional parks of $9,840,000 is more than the estimated impact fee and other capital revenues of $9,727,000 of the regional parks by $113,000. While there is a projected deficit of $113,000 for regional parks, the forecast surplus of $177,000 for community parks offsets this, resulting in a slightly positive $64,000 capital impact for regional and community parks. SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 14 of 28 Page 667 of 1742 DPFG’s assumption that regional park acreage costs will reflect average costs is conservative 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. Public Utilities (Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Water, and Solid Waste) – Fiscally Neutral. See Public Utilities Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment D-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: Potable Water and Wastewater The Corkscrew Groves East Village project is located within the Immokalee Water and Sewer District (“IWSD”) utility service area. Hence, IWSD will be responsible for the provision of water and wastewater utility services to Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. To meet potential demands arising from this project, necessary capital infrastructure improvements to the water and wastewater systems are envisaged, in line with all regulatory requirements and standards. The project developer will be required to pay the applicable connection fees to IWSD. Irrigation Water “The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA project site has a long history of permitted agricultural withdrawals from the Lower Tamiami and Sandstone Aquifers that have not resulted in adverse impacts to natural environments.” The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA project will result in converting approximately 1,447 acres of agricultural land into a residential development at build-out. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will apply to SFWMD for a water use permit to use onsite surface water and groundwater sources for irrigation. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will be responsible for all relevant costs for the permitting, construction, and maintenance of the irrigation system. Solid Waste The approved Collier County hauler contractor will be responsible for the collection of solid waste generated within Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. County-approved bear-resistant dumpsters and trash cans will be used for the project. The developer will cover the costs associated with the maintenance and operations of the dumpsters. Solid waste collected within Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will be disposed of at Okeechobee Landfill through Immokalee Transfer Station. The county maintains a disposal capacity agreement with Okeechobee Landfill with 930,000 tons of reserved capacity. 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. Stormwater Management – Fiscally Neutral. See Attachment D-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: Stormwater Management “The proposed SRA encompasses three distinct areas: the property west of Corkscrew Road, the property north of SR 82, and the property east of Corkscrew Road and south of SR 82. The existing site has historically been used for agricultural row crops, primarily oranges and tomatoes. The site is SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 15 of 28 Page 668 of 1742 composed of an intricate network of agricultural infrastructure, including dikes, impoundment areas known as WRAs, perimeter ditches, and berms. These perimeter berms effectively prevent external surface water from flowing onto the site, ensuring that no stormwater flows from surrounding properties are accepted.”1 All associated costs with the design, permit, construction, and operation of the proposed stormwater improvements will be borne by the Owner. Immokalee Fire Control District – Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of the fire control district as fiscally positive to be reasonable. See Fire Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment D- Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: The current millage rate and the projected tax base of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA result in annual ad valorem revenues of $8,017,000. The annual operating expenses to serve Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA population, based on an average of the fire district’s existing stations and population served, are $1,926,000. Thus, there is a projected operating fiscal surplus. The capital needs for the fire control district will be funded by impact fees. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will generate adequate capital revenues for the Immokalee Fire Control District, with matching levels of capital costs. In exchange for impact fee credits, and prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy, a 3.0-acre parcel shall be donated by the owner to the Immokalee Fire Control and Rescue District. The parcel shall be located within proximity to the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA development. A new station will be constructed and placed into operation if sufficient development occurs within the potential service area to ensure the funding of capital and operating costs of the new station is financially feasible. DPFG projects total capital revenues of $10,162,000 with an additional operating surplus of $2,159,000 to match the $12,321,000 capital cost for construction, vehicles, and equipment. Therefore, the impact is neutral. Collier County Public Schools – Fiscally Neutral. See Collier County Public Schools District Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment D-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: 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 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is fiscally neutral. DPFG estimates ad valorem local millage revenues at buildout of $6,987,000, with matching levels of operating expenditures. Revenues to pay for growth-related capital expenditures are derived from ad valorem taxes and impact fees on residential-only units, and a capital outlay millage of 1.1332 mills (subject to a cap of 1.50 mills). Hence, the residential development will have an impact on the determination of fiscal neutrality. In this case, the revenue from the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA development results in a net fiscal neutrality. SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 16 of 28 Page 669 of 1742 Other Facilities – Fiscally Neutral. The DPFG report also provided analysis related to Correctional Facilities. While this was not a required element 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. 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 residential units. The County’s current LOS was used to calculate the capital costs of the correctional facilities. DPFG applied the impact fee study coefficients for population and employment to calculate functional population. Combined revenues from impact fees of $1,898,000 and other capital revenues of $104,000 amount to $2,002,000, with comparable capital outlays, resulting in a finding of fiscal neutrality. As stated above, the Economic Assessment provides a fiscal snapshot projected to build out. 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 that adequate funding will be generated by the project to fund the capital and operating needs of the specified public facilities. The future use of any type of debt as a funding mechanism is evaluated on a facility-by-facility basis, including the business case for such borrowing, and will also be reviewed for the appropriateness of such costs, as applicable, for inclusion into applicable impact fee studies. Finally, the specified public facilities do not have projected deficiencies as a result of the demand created by the proposed development. Therefore, overall, the intent of the fiscal neutrality requirement has been satisfied. Zoning Services Review: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Development Document sets forth the design standards for the Village. According to LDC Section 4.08.07C.2, “Villages are communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village… Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community’s support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods…” As previously stated, the Village consists of three context zones: Neighborhood General, Affordable Housing, and Village Center. The Neighborhood General Context Zone is approximately 1,237.41± acres and allows for a maximum of 4,502 residential dwelling units. The residential dwelling units consist of single-family, multi-family residential dwelling units, and horizontal multi-family units. Horizontal multi-family units are single- SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 17 of 28 Page 670 of 1742 family units built within a single development tract. Senior/group housing, including but not limited to Adult Living Facilities (ALF), Independent Living Facilities (ILF), and Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC), not to exceed 300 units, is permissible. The Neighborhood General Context Zone also includes parks, amenity centers, and open space. The maximum zoned and actual building heights are 50 and 62 feet. The Village Center context zone, located at the northwest intersection of Corkscrew Road and SR 82, is approximately 169.55± acres and is mixed-use, allowing for a minimum of 40 multi-family dwellings, commercial, office, civic, governmental, and institutional uses. As previously stated, a minimum of 45,020 gross square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses, a minimum and a maximum of 238,606 gross square feet of neighborhood commercial and office uses, and an additional maximum of 100,000 square feet of indoor self-storage uses will be provided. The maximum zoned and actual building heights are 50 and 60 feet. The Affordable Housing Context Zone, located on the north side of SR 82, is approximately 39.63± acres and will provide for up to 362 residential dwelling units. The context zone is located across the street from the Village Center, which contains commercial uses. The maximum zoned and actual building heights are 50 and 62 feet. The Village will also have other uses such as an Amenity Center, Park Preserves, and Parks. The required minimum of 35% open space is 506.30± acres, and 36% open space, or 516.60± acres, has been provided. A panther corridor contained within SSA 22 runs adjacent to the north-eastern boundary of the Village. The lake system located along portions of the north and east boundaries of the SRA is part of the Village stormwater system and serves as a deterrent to wildlife. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is a compact, suburban-style development similar to many of the Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) located in the Urban Area of Collier County. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking 16 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 8.1. Neighborhood General Standards: Note: LDC Section 4.08.07.I.3.d.iii requires that Neighborhood General design standards in a Village be the same as those required in a Town for a Neighborhood General Context Zone. Therefore, the following deviations are requested from Section 4.08.07.I.2.d.iii. a) through i) based on how such standards apply to the Neighborhood Center in a Village. Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.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 [non-residential uses] the Amenity Center sites to be a maximum of 30,000 square feet each per location. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 18 of 28 Page 671 of 1742 Community Centers will provide multiple amenities and uses for Village residents (and guests). This effectively reduces external trips. This also requires flexibility in size to be sufficient to meet market demand. 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.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(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 §§ 163.3248, F.S.” Deviation # 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.d.iii.e)ii), which states that in the case of “Multi-Family residential,” “side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet for the primary structure…” to instead allow for a side yard setback of 0 or 5 feet and a rear yard setback of 10 feet for zero lot line and townhome development, as set forth in Table 1: Neighborhood General - Required Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height and Table 3: Affordable Housing-Required Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The RLSA encourages a diversity of housing types. Allowing for Townhome and Villa-type development in the Neighborhood General Context Zone promotes such diversity. To build such units effectively and efficiently, they must be consistent with the design used in other similar developments where the market has responded favorably. There are many approved projects 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 products, 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 and other approved RLSA Villages when requested. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(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 §§ 163.3248, F.S.” Deviation # 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.2.d.iii.e)i), which establishes multi-family residential lots to be a maximum of 4 acres, to instead allow multi-family lots to be a maximum of 25 acres. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This deviation will allow for additional flexibility in the design of the different multi-family housing options proposed within this village. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 19 of 28 Page 672 of 1742 petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(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 §§ 163.3248, F.S.” Deviation # 4 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02 C., which limits fences or walls to a maximum height of six (6) feet in residential districts, to instead allow a twelve (12) foot wall/berm combination. The maximum height of the wall will be eight (8) feet. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The deviation will allow for additional visual screening and noise attenuation from adjacent properties and roadways. Approval of the deviation will promote the public health, safety, and welfare, and enhance the visual appeal of the proposed development and community park internally and to existing external uses. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(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 §§ 163.3248, F.S.” SRA Document Section 8.2. Village Center Standards: Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.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, or when located on a lot with two or more street frontages, or when located on a lot fronting on Corkscrew Road or State Road 82. A Type ‘D’ buffer per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The Village Center fronts on Corkscrew Road and State Road 82 and is separated by a 25-foot- wide Type D Buffer. To remain viable in the marketplace, the Village Center commercial uses need to be accessible to and convenient to motorists from Corkscrew Road or State Road 82. This may warrant parking in the front yard. However, with a 25-foot-wide Type D Buffer along Corkscrew Road and State Road 82, such parking will be adequately screened from view. Without direct access and exposure to and from these roadways, the commercial enterprises will not be viable in the marketplace. The request is to eliminate the restriction on the number of parking spaces that may be located within any yard. Notes: 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.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 20 of 28 Page 673 of 1742 Section 4.08.07.I.7(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 §§ 163.3248, F.S.” Deviation # 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.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 a building 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, or when located on a lot with two or more street frontages, or when located on a lot fronting on Immokalee Road. A Type ‘D’ buffer per LDC at the time of permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This deviation is requested to allow parking in front, side, or rear yards in the Village Center to provide maximum design flexibility for a relatively small number of commercial uses providing neighborhood goods and services. Also see Justification for Village Center Standards #1, 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 necessary for the viability of the commercial elements. Design flexibility is also necessary. 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.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(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 §§ 163.3248, F.S.” Deviation # 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the amount of required parking in the Village Center “be demonstrated through a shared parking analysis submitted with an SRA designation application…” and be “determined utilizing the modal splits and parking demands for various uses recognized by ITE, ULI or other sources or studies…” to instead allow the parking demand analysis to be submitted at the time of initial Site Development Plan (SDP) or, at the discretion of the County Manager or designee, at the time of a subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment, in order to allow for a more comprehensive parking demand analysis based upon the mix of uses at the time of the initial SDP or subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: Requiring this parking demand analysis at the time of SRA application makes no sense, as the type and mix of uses in the Village Center are 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.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the tools, SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 21 of 28 Page 674 of 1742 techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3248, F.S.” Deviation # 4 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.3.d.ii.g), which establishes a maximum block perimeter of 2,500 feet in the Village Center to instead allow for the Neighborhood General block perimeter provisions per LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.c): the maximum block perimeter shall be 3,500 feet, except that a larger block perimeter shall be allowed where an alley or pathway provides through access, or the block includes water bodies or public facilities. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The road network within the Village Center has been designed to accommodate the required separation of the limited access points to Corkscrew Road and State Road 82. The Village Center development tracts will contain connecting and entry driveways, sidewalks, and lakes to effectively break up the block length and provide through access. This design effectively meets the LDC intent to have smaller blocks. It recognizes that there are limited opportunities to accomplish this through additional roadway connections to these roadways and allows for alternatives that accomplish the LDC intent. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(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 §§ 163.3248, F.S.” Deviation # 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02 H.1.b. and c., which requires non-residential development to provide a wall within the right-of-way landscape buffer when located on property opposite a residentially zoned district, but fronting on a local street or roadway, to instead not require a wall. This deviation shall not apply to the rear of shopping centers and building areas where overhead doors are located and facing toward a residential district. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The Village SRA is required to include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community’s support services and facilities. The Village Center will include the majority of the non-residential development, and requiring a wall between this area and the adjoining residential tracts will create a physical barrier where there should be seamless connectivity between the uses. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(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 §§ 163.3248, F.S.” SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 22 of 28 Page 675 of 1742 SRA Document Section 8.3. Transportation Standards: Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.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 4-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 foot of mature tree crown projection shall be provided. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This is a minimal reduction and is required to ensure the necessary (LDC required) 23 feet, measured from the back of the sidewalk to the garage, to allow room to park a vehicle on the driveway without parking over the sidewalk. Please see the Local Street Sections in the Master Concept Plan for additional details. The substantive deviations from the LDC cross-section for a local road in a village are that the planting area between the sidewalk and travel lane is 4 feet versus 6 feet. Note: This local street cross-section is unique to the RLSA - SRA Village. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(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 §§ 163.3248, F.S.” SRA Document Section 8.4. Sign Standards: Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.a, “On-premises directional signs within residential districts,” which requires on-premise directional signs to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface, or back of the curb, to instead allow a minimum setback of 5 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, limited to signs internal to the SRA only. This excludes signage along county-owned roadways. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This deviation will allow more flexibility for directional signage internal to the project. A unified design theme will be utilized for all signage throughout the community. All roads and drives will be privately owned and maintained. This deviation is typical of master-planned residential developments in Collier County. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County (per Section 5.06.00 (Signs Regulations). Note that the deviation does not apply to such signs located along County Roads. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(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 §§ 163.3248, F.S.” SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 23 of 28 Page 676 of 1742 SRA Document Section 8.5. Landscape Standards: Deviation # 1 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 out parcels located within a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a shared buffer 15 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet”, to instead allow a shared buffer 10 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 5 feet. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The combined 10-foot shared buffer will provide for sufficient separation and “breaking up” of parking areas within the Village Center. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County, and similar deviations have been granted. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(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 §§ 163.3248, F.S.” Deviation # 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 A., which requires landscape buffer strips to be shown and designated on the final plat within an easement, to instead allow the same required landscaping materials to be demonstrated on a planting plan, for staff review as part of the respective plans and plat application (PPL), with no requirement to provide a landscape buffer for any residential development adjacent to a lake regardless of location within the Village. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This deviation is intended to remove the required buffer easement for single-family residential development when adjacent to other single-family and multi-family subdivisions located within the same neighborhood context zone and when they are separated by a lake. The LDC already allows for clustering of the buffer requirements in this circumstance. In addition, sufficient transition and buffering between single-family and multi-family uses will be maintained as the multi-family residential developments will still be required to provide a 15’ Type B buffer to adjacent single- family uses. The deviation is only to eliminate the requirement to establish a buffer easement in this limited circumstance. All required planting will be provided and depicted on a planting plan for staff review as part of the subdivision plats and plans application, and again, only in the limited circumstances where single-family uses are adjacent to other single-family or multi-family residential subdivisions or developments within the Neighborhood General Context Zone and when separated by a lake. Since the landscape plan will be part of the approved PPL, it will have an enforcement mechanism. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the tools, SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 24 of 28 Page 677 of 1742 techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3248, F.S.” SRA Document Section 8.6 Other Deviations: Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G, “Parking Space Requirements,” which requires 1 parking space per 100 square feet for recreation facilities (indoor) sports, exercise, fitness, aerobics, or health clubs to instead allow for parking for the Amenity Center sites to be calculated at 1 space per 200 square feet of indoor square footage, excluding kitchen or storage space. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The project will include a complete system of interconnected sidewalks and multi-use pathways that accommodate golf carts and bicycles, allowing residents to travel to the amenity center without a car. Additionally, the Amenity Center is restricted to use by only Village residents and guests and is 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. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(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 §§ 163.3248, F.S.” Deviation # 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.10.A.2. – “Location Criteria,” which requires that “LSPA [littoral shelf planting areas] shall be concentrated in one location of the lake(s), preferably adjacent to a preserve area,” to instead allow for required littoral shelf planting areas to be aggregated in certain specific development lakes, including the development lake that runs along the western and northern perimeter of the SRA. It shall also be permitted to utilize Gator Slough and Cabbage Slough as part of all of the required LSPA. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: These areas will be designed to create, enhance, or restore wading bird/waterfowl habitats and foraging areas. They will be designed to recreate wetland function, maximize its habitat value, and minimize maintenance efforts. They will enhance the survivability of the littoral area plant species, as there is a lower survivability rate in littoral planting areas along larger lakes subject to more variable water levels and wind and wave action, which negatively affects these littoral planting areas. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Environmental staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that 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. SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 25 of 28 Page 678 of 1742 In compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(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 §§ 163.3248, F.S.” Deviation # 3 seeks relief from LDC section 5.04.04.B.5 – “Model Homes and Model Sales Centers”, which permits a maximum of five (5) model homes, or a number corresponding to ten (10) percent of the total number of platted lots, whichever is less, per platted approved development prior to final plat approval. The requested deviation is to allow for a maximum of 30 model homes at any one time within the overall Village. With each building permit for a model home, the applicant shall provide documentation as to the current number of model homes in existence. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The Village allows for a maximum of 4,502 residential dwelling units, which will take a significant amount of time to get to completion and include multiple developers. The allowance of the maximum of 30 model homes will allow for the different styles associated with different developers and current trends or architectural styles that may change throughout this build-out stage. A similar deviation was approved in the Town of Big Cypress SRA, Willow Run RPUD, and the San Marino RPUD. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(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 §§ 163.3248, F.S.” NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on September 24, 2024, at 5:30 p.m. at IFAS Extension, 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida. There were no attendees. A second NIM was held on September 24, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. at IFAS Extension, 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida. There were no attendees. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s office reviewed the staff report for Petition Number PL20240010212, Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA, on February 23, 2026. This petition requests the creation of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. A Village is described in LDC Section 4.08.07.C.2, in part as: Villages are communities with a diversity of housing types and a mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be greater than 300 acres but not more than 1,500 acres, except that if any portion is designated ASCS, the maximum size shall be no 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 SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 26 of 28 Page 679 of 1742 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.I.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 all of the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the County, 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 the creation of SRA 1. Consider: Compatibility with adjacent land uses. 2. Consider: An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development. 3. Consider: Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, 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, or Village. Gross acreage includes only that area of development within the SRA that requires the consumption of Stewardship Credits. 7. 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. However, if all or part of the WRA provides stormwater quality treatment for an SRA, the pro rata acreage of the WRA that is used to meet the water quality treatment water volume shall be required to consume SRA credits and shall be included with the SRA acreage. 8. 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. 9. Consider: Conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. 10. Consider: Suitability criteria described in Items 2 through 8 above [LDC Section 4.08.07 A.1.] and other standards of LDC Section 4.08.07. 11. 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. SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 27 of 28 Page 680 of 1742 12. Consider: Assurance that the applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement SRA uses. 13. Consider: Impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts. The CCPC, in making its recommendation, must rely upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, maps, studies, letters from interested persons, and the oral testimony presented at the CCPC hearing, as these items relate to these criteria. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend that the Collier County Planning Commission, acting as the local planning agency and the Environmental Advisory Council, forward Petition Number PL20240010212, Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following Condition of Approval: 1. Prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, all development must be in compliance with the Human-Wildlife Coexistence Plan. Also, listed species management plans for the Florida panther and all other listed species must be provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS. 2. Stewardship Sending Area 22 must be approved prior to or concurrently with approval of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. Attachments: Attachment A: Proposed SRA Resolution Attachment B: GMP Consistency Review Memorandum Attachment C: Economic Assessment Attachment D: Public Facilities Impact Assessment Attachment E: Peer Review of Economic Assessment Attachment F: Application SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 28 of 28 Page 681 of 1742 RESOLUTION NO. 2026- ______ A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DESIGNATING 1,446.59 ACRES WITHIN THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT AS A STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA, TO BE KNOWN AS THE CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA, WHICH WILL ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A MAXIMUM OF 4,502 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, OF WHICH A MINIMUM OF 10% WILL BE MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, A MINIMUM OF 10% WILL BE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, AND A MINIMUM OF 10% WILL BE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED OR VILLA; A MINIMUM AND A MAXIMUM OF 238,606 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE; A MAXIMUM OF 100,000 SQUARE FEET OF INDOOR SELF STORAGE IN THE VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE; A MINIMUM OF 45,020 SQUARE FEET OF CIVIC, GOVERNMENTAL AND INSTITUTIONAL USES IN THE VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE; SENIOR HOUSING INCLUDING ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES AND CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES LIMITED TO 300 UNITS IN THE SRA; 362 OF THE MAXIMUM 4,502 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTEXT ZONE; NO COMMERCIAL USES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE; AND 8.50 ACRES OF AMENITY AREA IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE; ALL SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM PM PEAK HOUR TRIP CAP; AND APPROVING THE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT FOR CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA AND ESTABLISHING THAT 11,703 STEWARDSHIP CREDITS ARE BEING UTILIZED BY THE DESIGNATION OF THE CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE INTERSECTION OF SR 82 AND CORKSCREW ROAD, AND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE INTERSECTION OF SR 82 AND CORKSCREW ROAD, BOTH EAST AND WEST OF CORKSCREW ROAD IN SECTIONS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 AND 10, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20240010212] [25-CPS-02617/2001922/1]79 Corkscrew Grove East Village / PL20240010212 2/23/2026 Page 1 of 3 Page 682 of 1742 WHEREAS , Alico, Inc. fka Alico Land Development Company (“Applicant”) has applied for Stewardship Receiving Area designation pursuant to Section 4.08.07 of the Collier County Land Development Code (“LDC”) for the Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area (herein referred to as “Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA”), which is one thousand four hundred forty-six and fifty-one-one hundredths (1,446.59) 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 , Alico, Inc. has demonstrated its ownership of the necessary Stewardship Sending Area (“SSA”) Stewardship Credits to be utilized by the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA by its approved SSA Credit and Easement Agreements; and WHEREAS , Applicant seeks to utilize 8,504.80 Stewardship Credits generated from the Board’s designation of SSA 11 and 3,198.6 Stewardship Credits generated from the Board’s designation of SSA 22, leaving some SSA 22 Stewardship Credits unused, to entitle designation of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. 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 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA one thousand four hundred forty-six and fifty-nine-one hundredths (1,446.59) acres described in the legal description attached as Exhibit “A”, subject to the requirements of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Development Document and the Corkscrew Grove East 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 eleven thousand seven hundred three and four-tenths (11,703.4) 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 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Development Document and depicted on the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Master Plan. [25-CPS-02617/2001922/1]79 Corkscrew Grove East Village / PL20240010212 2/23/2026 Page 2 of 3 Page 683 of 1742 THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED this _____ day of ______________, 2026, after motion, second, and favorable vote. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: , Deputy Clerk Dan Kowal, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A – Legal Description Exhibit B – Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Development/Exhibits Exhibit C – Stewardship Credit Agreement [25-CPS-02617/2001922/1]79 Corkscrew Grove East Village / PL20240010212 2/23/2026 Page 3 of 3 Page 684 of 1742Page 685 of 1742Page 686 of 1742Page 687 of 1742Page 688 of 1742Page 689 of 1742Page 690 of 1742Page 691 of 1742Page 692 of 1742Page 693 of 1742Page 694 of 1742Page 695 of 1742Page 696 of 1742Page 697 of 1742Page 698 of 1742Page 699 of 1742Page 700 of 1742Page 701 of 1742Page 702 of 1742Page 703 of 1742Page 704 of 1742Page 705 of 1742Page 706 of 1742Page 707 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT Alico Incorporated 10070 Daniels Interstate Court Suite 200 Fort Myers, FL 33913 The Corkscrew Grove East Professional Consulting Team includes: JR Evans – Engineering Coleman Yovanovich & Koester – Legal Counsel Development Planning & Financing Group (DPFG) – Fiscal Analysis Bowman Consulting – Planning and Permitting Passarella & Assoc., Inc. (PAI) – Environmental Permitting Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, Inc. – Transportation EX B to Res. Page 1 of 112 Page 708 of 1742 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. OVERVIEW/VILLAGE DESIGN 3 II. SRA STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE/SUITABLITY CRITERIA 3 III. REQUIRED PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFERS 5 IV. MINIMUM REQUIRED AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 5 DENSITY AND INTENSITY V. CONTEXT ZONES 5 5.1 Neighborhood General 5 5.2 Village Center 8 5.3 Affordable Housing 12 VI. EXCAVATIONS 14 VII. GOLF CARTS/LOW-SPEED VEHICLES 14 VIII. DEVIATIONS 14 8.1 Neighborhood General Standards 14 8.2 Village Center Standards 15 8.3 Transportation Standards 15 8.4 Signs Standards 16 8.5 Landscape Standards 16 8.6 Other Deviations 16 IX. OWNER COMMITMENTS 17 9.1 Planning 17 9.2 Environmental 18 9.3 Transportation 19 9.4 Parks and Recreation 19 9.5 Landscaping 19 9.6 Affordable Housing 19 9.7 School 20 9.8 Fire and Emergency Medical Services 21 Page 2 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 2 of 112 Page 709 of 1742 EXHIBITS Exhibit A – Sheet 1: SRA Master Plan (Color) Exhibit A – Sheet 2: SRA Master Plan (Black & White) Exhibit A – Sheet 3: SRA Master Plan Internal Mobility Plan Exhibit A – Sheet 4: SRA Master Plan with Deviations Exhibit A – Sheet 5: SRA Master Plan Deviation Descriptions Exhibit A – Sheet 6: SRA Street Cross Sections (1) Exhibit A – Sheet 7: SRA Street Cross Sections (2) Exhibit A – Sheet 8: SRA Street Cross Sections (3) Exhibit A – Sheet 9: SRA Street Cross Sections (4) Exhibit A – Sheet 10: SRA Street Cross Sections (5) Exhibit B – Sheets 1-11: Legal Description Exhibit B – Sheets 12-23: Sketch to Accompany Legal Description Exhibit C – Sheet 1 Location Map Exhibit D – Sheets 1-10 Covenant of Unified Control Exhibit E – Sheet 1-42 Natural Resource Index Assessment Page 3 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 3 of 112 Page 710 of 1742I. OVERVIEW/VILLAGE DESIGN AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT The Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA or Village) is located in northern Collier County in portions of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, Township 46 South, and Range 28 East. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA (“Village”) contains a total of 1,446.59± acres. A portion of the Village is located on the north side of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road. The remainder of the Village is located south of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road, east and west of Corkscrew Road. Lands north of the Village within Collier County are zoned A-Agricultural and within the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA). Lands to the north within Hendry County are zoned PUD (mining). Lands to the south are zoned A – Agricultural and designated Public Lands. Lands to the east are zoned A- Agricultural and within the RLSA, with a portion designated Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA). Lands to the east are also identified as a Panther Corridor. Lands to the west are within the RLSA, with a portion designated Water Retention Area (WRA). 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 4,502 dwelling units, which includes 362 affordable housing units. The Village includes 145.58± acres of a mixed-use Village Center providing for the required neighborhood-scaled retail, office, civic, and community uses. 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 1,446.59± acres. 2. The SRA does not include any lands designated Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA) or Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA) 3. There is a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) surrounded by the SRA that includes 81.56 acres of Water Retention Area (WRA). This WRA will not provide stormwater quality treatment for the SRA. 4. The SRA does not include any lands with a Natural Resource Index (NRI) greater than 1.2. 5. The SRA does not include any lands within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) Overlay. 6. The required minimum Open Space (35%) is 506.30 acres. The SRA master plan provides for 516.60± acres of Open Space (36%). 7. The SRA is designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and a multi-use pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods with connecting multi-use pathways. 8. The SRA provides a total of 63.63± acres of public benefit use in the form of a dedicated affordable housing site, a public-school site, and a fire station site. 9. The SRA contains three Context Zones: Neighborhood General, Affordable Housing, and Village Center. 10. Within the Village Center Context Zone, the SRA shall provide the following: a minimum and maximum of 238,606 gross square feet of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, a maximum of 100,000 gross square feet of indoor self-storage, and a minimum of 45,020 gross square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses, all subject to a trip cap. The required neighborhood goods and services, civic, governmental, and institutional square footage is based on all units including the affordable units. Page 4 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 4 of 112 Page 711 of 174211. The SRA allows for up to 4,502 dwelling units (3.11 dwelling units per acre), which include 362 affordable housing units. 12. In compliance with the requirement to provide a diversity of housing types within a Village, a minimum of 10% of units shall be multi-family, based upon the Land Development Code (LDC) definition of Multifamily Dwelling (a group of 3 or more dwelling units within a single building) or Horizontal Multifamily as hereinafter defined, a minimum of 10% of the units shall be single family detached, and a minimum of 10% of the units shall be single family attached or villas. 13. The SRA provides approximately 24.33± acres of parks, park preserves, wetland park preserves, and a Neighborhood General Amenity Center. This exceeds the SRA requirement of providing 1% of the SRA gross acreage (14.47 acres) for recreation and parks for neighborhoods. 14. The SRA has direct access to Corkscrew Road, which is classified as major collector road and State Road 82 which is classified as a principal arterial road. 15. The SRA is consistent with the standards set forth in the GMP RLSA Overlay Attachment C, applicable to Villages. 16. The Village will be served by the Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District created by Chapter 2025- 237, Laws of Florida. 17. The total acreage requiring stewardship credits is 1,382.96 acres (total SRA acreage excluding 63.63 acres of public benefit use). This is calculated as follows: Total SRA Acreage 1,446.59 Acres Public Benefit Use Acreage1 - 63.63 Acres Total 1,382.96 Acres 1Public benefit uses include 36.22 acres for affordable housing, 24 acres for a public-school site, and 3.41 acres for a fire station site (essential services tract as depicted on the SRA Master Plan). 18. Eight (8) Credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created from an SSA submitted for review or approved prior to July 13, 2021. The SRA utilizes 8,504.80 Stewardship Credits from SSA 11 created prior to July 13, 2021, which entitles 1,063.10 acres of the SRA. 19. Ten (10) Credits per acre shall be required for each acre of land included in an SRA, where such Credits were created from an SSA submitted for review or approved after July 13, 2021. The SRA utilizes 3,198.60 Stewardship Credits from SSA 22 created after July 13, 2021, which entitles 319.86 acres of the SRA. 20. 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: An average of 250 units per year commencing after receipt of federal, state, and local permits. c. Anticipated timeframe for commencement of minimum required neighborhood retail and office uses: 10 years from date of approval of this SRA. d. Anticipated project completion date: fourteen (14) years from date of approval of this SRA or upon approval of any required jurisdictional permits, whichever occurs last. Page 5 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 5 of 112 Page 712 of 1742III. REQUIRED PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFERS Table 1: Village Perimeter Landscape Buffer Requirements Adjacent to Corkscrew Road Minimum 25’ wide Type “D” Buffer per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4.1 and State Road 82 All other Perimeter Landscape Buffers No Buffer Required (except as required by the South Florida Water Management Adjacent to Preserve or SSA2 District) Adjacent to A – Agriculture Minimum 10’ wide Type “A” buffer per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.1. 1 The required 25’ wide Type D perimeter buffer along Corkscrew Road and State Road 82 may include a 10’ wide underground utility easement adjacent to the respective roadway. The 10’ wide underground utility easement shall be sodded, and all required buffer plantings shall then be located outside of the underground utility easement within remaining 15’ of the 25’ wide perimeter buffer. 2 Minimum 300-foot Open Space buffer is required between the SRA and any adjoining HSA or FSA IV. MINIMUM REQUIRED AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND INTENSITY The maximum total number of dwelling units in the Village shall not exceed 4,502 dwelling units. The minimum and maximum allowed amount of neighborhood goods and services to be developed within the Village is 238,606 gross square feet. A minimum of 45,020 gross square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses are required. The required neighborhood goods and services, civic, governmental, and institutional square footage is based on all units including the affordable units. A maximum of 100,000 gross square feet of indoor self-storage is also permitted and shall not count towards the required minimum of 238,606 gross square feet of neighborhood goods and services. The overall intensity and density for the Village is limited by a Trip Cap maximum of 4,092 two-way, adjusted (net external), 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. V. CONTEXT ZONES The Village contains three distinct Context Zones: Neighborhood General, Village Center, and Affordable Housing. 5.1 Neighborhood General Context Zone The Neighborhood General Context Zone includes approximately 1,237.41± acres of land. The Neighborhood General zone is predominately residential with a mix of single and multi-family housing. The Neighborhood General Context Zone also includes parks, amenity centers and open space. The interconnected street pattern is maintained throughout the Neighborhood General designation to facilitate traffic movement. Sidewalks, a multi-use pathway, and a walkable streetscape support the pedestrian- oriented environment. Page 6 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 6 of 112 Page 713 of 1742 5.1.1 Allowable Uses and Structures 5.1.1. A. Permitted Uses and Structures: I. Single-Family dwelling units. II. Multi-family dwelling units. Multi-family dwelling units shall include 3 or more dwelling units within a single building as well as Horizontal Multifamily. Horizontal Multifamily is defined as single-family housing units built within a single development tract. Similar to typical multifamily, a Horizontal Multifamily project includes common infrastructure, parking, amenities, stormwater management system, and open space. Unlike traditional multifamily buildings, the units are standalone buildings, without other units above or below. Horizontal multifamily projects may include attached villas (two units with a common wall). Horizontal multifamily developments are not required to be platted and shall be reviewed through the Site Development Process (LDC Section 10.02.03). As is the case with typical multifamily, setbacks are applied from the development tract boundaries. III. Senior/Group Housing, including but not limited to Assisted Living Facilities (ALF), Independent Living Facilities (ILF), and Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC), not to exceed 300 units in this SRA, subject to Florida statutes and the applicable provisions of LDC Section 5.05.04 - Group Housing, located within ½ mile of the Village Center, as depicted on the SRA Master Plan. IV. Neighborhood General- Amenity center, as identified on the SRA Master Plan, 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. IV. Utility facilities for water/wastewater, subject to the applicable standards set forth in Section 5.05.12 of the LDC. V. Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses permissible within the Rural Agricultural District (A) subject to the applicable development standards established in LDC Section 4.02.00 for the Rural Agricultural District (A) until such time as an SDP or Subdivision Plat is approved for a particular parcel. 5.1.1. B. Accessory Uses and Structures: I. 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, docks and similar uses and structures, and appurtenances required by Collier County, which may include structures, to serve the development, excluding water and wastewater treatment plants. II. Model homes, sales centers and other temporary uses are permitted throughout Neighborhood General as provided for in LDC Section 5.04.00, and in this SRA Document. Page 7 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 7 of 112 Page 714 of 1742 III. Neighborhood recreation areas may include clubhouses, swimming pools, tennis courts, pickle ball courts, and similar neighborhood recreation facilities. IV. Passive parks, limited to landscaped or natural areas and may include hardscape pathways or seating areas, benches, fire pits, shade structures such as gazebos or pavilions, docks, or piers. Page 8 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 8 of 112 Page 715 of 1742 5.1.2. Neighborhood General Development and Design Standards 5.1.2.A. Required Minimum Yards & Maximum Building Heights1, 10: SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY CLUBHOUSES/REC- REATION AND FITNESS FACILTIES DEVELOPMENT SINGLE ZERO LOT ALF, ILF, CCRC PER 5.1.1. A. (IV); HORIZONTAL STANDARDS SINGLE FAMILY LINE & & OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD FAMILY ATTACHED MULTI- TOWNHOME5 MULTI- RECREATION DETACHED & TWO- FAMILY8 FAMILY6 AREAS PER FAMILY 5.1.1.B.(III) and (IV) PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES 4,600 S.F. / 2,800 S.F. / 10,000 S.F. / 2,500 MIN. LOT AREA 20,000 S.F./LOT N/A UNIT UNIT LOT S.F./UNIT MIN. LOT 37.5’ 30’ 100’ 20’/UNIT 100’ N/A WIDTH MIN. FLOOR 1,200 S.F./ 1,200 1,200 SF 700 S.F./ UNIT 7 N/A AREA UNIT S.F./UNIT 550 S.F./UNIT 0.45 (only applies FLOOR AREA N/A N/A N/A N/A to ALF, ILF, N/A RATIO CCRC) MIN. FRONT 15’ 20’ 20’9 20’ 20’ 20’ YARD2 MIN. SIDE 5’ 0 OR 5’ 5’ 0 or 5’ 10’ 10’ YARD3 MIN. REAR 10’ 10’ 9 10’ 20’ 10’ YARD 20’ MIN. LAKE 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ SETBACK4 MIN. DISTANCE 15’ OR ½ SUM of BETWEEN 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’ BH for Structures 10’ STRUCTURES Exceeding 35’ BH MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - 35’ 35’ 35’ 35’ 3.5 Stories NTE 50’ 3.5 Stories NTE 50’ ZONED MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - 42’ 42’ 42’ 42’ 62’ 62’ ACTUAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MIN. FRONT SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS YARD MIN. SIDE YARD SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS 10’ MIN. REAR 5’ 5’ 5’9 5’ 5’ 5’ YARD MIN. LAKE 10’ 10’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ SETBACK4 MAX. HEIGHT ZONED & SPS SPS 42’ SPS 42’ SPS ACTUAL Table 1: Neighborhood General - Required Minimum Yards Maximum Building Height S.P.S. = same as for principal structure; NTE = not to exceed; S.F. = square feet; BH = building height; N/A = not applicable Footnotes: 1. Setbacks from preserves, as shown on master plan, shall be as set forth in LDC Section 3.05.07.H.3. 2. Front yards shall be measured as follows: − If the parcel has frontage on two streets (corner lot), the frontage providing vehicular access to the unit shall be considered the front yard. The setback along the other frontage shall be a minimum of 10’. − In no case shall the setback be less than 23 feet from the edge of an adjacent sidewalk, except in the case of side-loaded garages where the garage is designed in such a way that a vehicle can be parked in the driveway without conflicting with, or encroaching upon, the adjacent sidewalk. 3. 5’ minimum side setbacks for single-family attached, two-family, must be accompanied by another 5’ minimum side setback on adjoining lot to achieve minimum 10’ separation. 4. Lake setback is measured from lake maintenance easement. The required 20’ lake maintenance easement shall be provided in a separate platted tract for single-family, two-family and townhome developments submitted as a PPL. Properties that abut a lake maintenance easement or open space tract may reduce the setback for accessory structures to 0’. 5. Zero Lot Line and Townhome Development means 3 or more attached units, typically one or 2 stories in height. Page 9 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 9 of 112 Page 716 of 17426. Other Multi-family means 2 or more units in one building other than Zero Lot Line or Townhome Development, typically more than 2 stories in height. 7. Minimum floor area is not applicable to ALF, ILF, or CCRC units. 8. Horizontal Multifamily is defined as single-family housing units built within a single development tract. Similar to typical multifamily, a Horizontal Multifamily project includes common infrastructure, parking, amenities, stormwater management system, and open space. Unlike traditional multifamily buildings, the units are standalone buildings, without other units above or below. Horizontal multifamily projects may include attached villas (two units with a common wall). Horizontal multifamily developments are not required to be platted and shall be reviewed through the Site Development Process (LDC Section 10.02.03). As is the case with typical multifamily, setbacks are applied from the development tract boundaries. 9. Measured from the development tract boundary. 10. Standards included within this Table do not constitute an approved deviation if in conflict with required utility separations. 5.2 Village Center Context Zone The Village Center Context Zone includes 169.55± acres of land. The Village Center shall be the focal point for the community’s support services and facilities. The Village Center is mixed use in nature, requiring a minimum of 40 multi-family dwelling units, a minimum and maximum of 238,606 gross square feet of neighborhood goods and services, and a minimum of 45,020 gross square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses. An additional maximum of 100,000 gross square feet of indoor self-storage is also permitted within the Village Center and shall not count towards the required minimum of 238,606 gross square feet of neighborhood goods and services. 5.2.1. Allowable Uses and Structures 5.2.1.A. Permitted Uses I. Multi-Family Dwelling Units. Multi-family dwelling units shall include 3 or more dwelling units within a single building as well as Horizontal Multifamily communities. II. Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses permissible within the Rural Agricultural District (A) subject to the applicable development standards established in LDC Section 4.02.00 for the Rural Agricultural District (A) until such time as an SDP or Subdivision Plat is approved for development within that area of the SRA. III. The following neighborhood-scale goods and service 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 indoor only). 3) Apparel and accessory stores (5611 – 5699). 4) Auto and home supply stores (5531). 5) Banks, credit unions and trusts (6011 – 6091). 6) Barber shops (7241, except for barber schools). 7) Beauty shops (7231, except for beauty schools). 8) Carwashes (7542) provided that carwashes abutting residential zoning districts shall be subject to LDC section 5.05.11. 9) Child day care services (8351). 10) Churches. 11) Civic, social and fraternal associations (8641). 12) Commercial art and graphic design (7336). Page 10 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 10 of 112 Page 717 of 1742 13) Commercial photography (7335). 14) Computer and computer software stores (5734). 15) Dry cleaning plants (7216, nonindustrial dry cleaning only). 16) Drug stores (5912). 17) Eating places (5812 only). All establishments engaged in the retail sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption are subject to locational requirements of LDC section 5.05.01. 18) Engineering, Architectural and Surveying Services (8711-8713) 19) Essential services, subject to LDC Section 2.01.03. 20) Federal and federally sponsored credit agencies (6111). 21) Food stores (groups 5411 – 5461, and 5499, except egg dealers and poultry dealers). 22) Garment pressing, and agents for laundries and drycleaners (7212). 23) Gasoline service stations (5541, subject to LDC Section 5.05.05). 24) General merchandise stores (5331 – 5399, except catalog showrooms). 25) Group care facilities (category I and II, except for homeless shelters); care units, except for homeless shelters; nursing homes; assisted living facilities pursuant to applicable Florida Statutes; and continuing care retirement communities pursuant to applicable Florida Statutes; all subject to Section 5.05.04 of the LDC. 26) Hardware stores (5251). 27) Health services, offices and clinics (8011 - 8049). 28) Home furniture and furnishings stores (5712-5719). 29) Home health care and services (8082). 30) Household appliance stores (5722). 31) Insurance carriers, agents and brokers (6311 - 6399, 6411). 32) Landscape architects, consulting and planning (0781). 33) Laundries and drycleaning, coin operated – self service (7215) 34) Legal services (8111). 35) Libraries (8231). 36) Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents (6162). 37) Museums and art galleries (8412). 38) Musical instrument stores (5736). 39) Paint stores (5231). 40) Passenger Car Rental (7514) 41) Personal services, miscellaneous (7299 - babysitting bureaus, clothing rental, costume rental, dating service, debt counseling, depilatory salons, diet workshops, dress suit rental, electrolysis (hair removal), and genealogical investigation service only). 42) Photographic studios, portrait (7221). 43) Physical fitness facilities (7991; 7911, except discotheques). 44) Public administration (groups 9111-9199, 9229, 9311, 9411-9451, 9511-9532, 9611-9661). 45) 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, ). 46) Real Estate (6531 - 6552). 47) Repair services - miscellaneous (7629—7631, 7699 - bicycle repair, binocular repair, camera repair, key duplicating, lawnmower repair, leather goods repair, locksmith shop, picture framing, and pocketbook repair only). 48) Retail Nurseries, Lawn and Garden Supply Stores (5261). 49) Retail services - miscellaneous (5921 - 5963 except pawnshops and building materials, 5992- 5995, and 5999 – architectural supplies, art dealers, artificial flowers, artists’ supply and Page 11 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 11 of 112 Page 718 of 1742 material stores, cosmetic stores, gem stones, hearing aids, pet food stores, pet shops, ready- made picture frames, religious goods stores (other than books), and trophy shops only). 50) Elementary and Secondary Schools, Colleges, Universities, Professional Schools and Technical Institutes, public or private (8211, 8221-8222) 51) Security/commodity brokers (6211 and 6282). 52) Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors (7251). 53) Tax return preparation services (7291). 54) Travel agencies (4724, no other transportation services). 55) United State Postal Service (4311, except major distribution center). 56) Warehousing (4225, air conditioned and mini- and self-storage warehousing only). 57) Veterinary services (0742, excluding outdoor kenneling). 58) 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 Hearing Examiner or BZA, pursuant to the applicable procedures set forth in LDC Section 10.02.06 K. 5.2.1.B. Accessory Uses I. 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, docks and similar uses and structures, and appurtenances required by Collier County, which may include structures, to serve the development, excluding water and wastewater treatment plants.. II. Neighborhood recreation areas for residential or mixed-use development may include clubhouses, swimming pools, tennis courts, pickle ball courts, and similar neighborhood recreation facilities. III. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the permitted neighborhood-scale commercial and office uses, and civic, governmental, and institutional uses above. IV. Parking structures detached or attached, not to exceed 35 feet in Actual height. V. Passive parks, limited to landscaped or natural areas and may include hardscape pathways or seating areas, benches, fire pits, shade structures such as gazebos or pavilions, docks, or piers. Page 12 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 12 of 112 Page 719 of 17425.2.2. Village Center Development and Design Standards 5.2.2.A. Required Minimum Yards (Setbacks) and Maximum Building Heights8: ALF, ILF, CCRC & NON- SINGLE HORIZONTAL DEVELOPMENT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FAMILY MULTI- STANDARDS ONLY AND MIXED-USE DETACHED FAMILY9 BUILDINGS BUILDINGS1 PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES 4,600 10,000 S.F. / UNIT MIN. LOT AREA 20,000 S.F. 10,000 S.F. S.F./UNIT MIN. LOT WIDTH 37.5’ 100’ 100’ 100’ 1,200 S.F. 700 S.F. / UNIT 800 S.F. for Commercial Units MIN. FLOOR AREA 550 S.F. Per Unit5 550 S.F. for Residential Units MIN. SETBACK FROM 20’ 20’ CORKSCREW ROAD, STATE 20’ 20’ ROAD 29, AND ENTRANCE ROADS2 FRONT YARDS3,6, 15’10 0’ or 20’ 0’ or 20’ 0’ or 20’ MINIMUM SETBACK FROM A 0’ 0’ 0’7 20’ RESIDENTIAL ONLY TRACT MINIMUM SETBACK FROM A 15’ 15’ 15’ 5’ NONRESIDENTIAL TRACT MIN. LAKE SETBACK4 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ MIN. PRESERVE SETBACK 25’ 25’ 25’ 25’ 10’ 10’ 15 Feet or ½ Sum of 15 Feet or ½ Sum of MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN BH, whichever is BH, whichever is STRUCTURES greater greater MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - 35’ 35’ 4 Stories NTE 50’ 4 Stories NTE 50’ ZONED MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - 42’ 42’ 60’ 60’ ACTUAL N/A N/A 0.45 (only applies to MAX FAR See footnote 1. ALF, ILF, and CCRC) ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MIN. FRONT YARD (ALL) SPS SPS SPS SPS MIN. SETBACK FROM A SPS SPS SPS SPS RESIDENTIAL TRACT MIN. SETBACK FROM A NON- 5’ SPS SPS SPS RESIDENTIAL TRACT MIN. LAKE SETBACK4 10’ 20’ 20’ 20’ MIN. PRESERVE SETBACK 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’ MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN SPS 10’ 10’ 10’ STRUCTURES MAX. HEIGHT – ZONED & SPS SPS 35’ 35’ ACTUAL Table 2: Village Center - Required Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height S.P.S. = same as for principal structure; NTE = not to exceed; S.F. = square feet; BH = building height; N/A = not applicable; ALF = assisted living facility; ILF = independent living facility; CCRC = continuing care retirement community Footnotes: 1. Retail and office uses are subject to a maximum FAR of 0.5. Civic, governmental and institutional uses are subject to a maximum FAR of 0.6. 2. Tracts abutting the minimum required 25’wide landscape buffer (located in a separate platted tract adjacent to Corkscrew Road and State Road 82) shall provide a front yard setback, measured from the abutting landscape buffer tract. Tracts abutting the project entrance road shall provide a front yard setback measured from the 10-foot landscape buffer tract adjacent to the entry road. 3. Except as described in footnote 2 above, front yards for parcels abutting a street or internal driveway shall be measured from the right-of-way line. Page 13 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 13 of 112 Page 720 of 17424. The required 20’ lake maintenance easement shall be provided in a separate platted tract. Properties that abut a lake maintenance easement or open space tract may reduce the setback for accessory structures to 0’. 5. The minimum floor area is not applicable to ALF, ILF, or CCRC units. 6. Canopies or awnings may encroach into the adjacent non-county owned ROW as necessary to cover pathways, sidewalks, and outdoor dining areas. 7. A minimum 15 foot setback is required for ALF, ILF, and CCRC uses. 8. Standards included within this Table do not constitute an approved deviation if in conflict with required utility separations. 9. Horizontal Multifamily is defined as single-family housing units built within a single development tract. Similar to typical multifamily, a Horizontal Multifamily project includes common infrastructure, parking, amenities, stormwater management system, and open space. Unlike traditional multifamily buildings, the units are standalone buildings, without other units above or below. Horizontal multifamily projects may include attached villas (two units with a common wall). Horizontal multifamily developments are not required to be platted and shall be reviewed through the Site Development Process (LDC Section 10.02.03). As is the case with typical multifamily, setbacks are applied from the development tract boundaries. 10. For single-family detached, front yards shall be measured as follows: − If the parcel has frontage on two streets (corner lot), the frontage providing vehicular access to the unit shall be considered the front yard. The setback along the other frontage shall be a minimum of 10’. − In no case shall the setback be less than 23 feet from the edge of an adjacent sidewalk, except in the case of side-loaded garages where the garage is designed in such a way that a vehicle can be parked in the driveway without conflicting with, or encroaching upon, the adjacent sidewalk. S.P.S. = same as for principal structure; NTE = not to exceed; S.F. = square feet; BH = building height; N/A = not applicable Page 14 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 14 of 112 Page 721 of 17425.3 Affordable Housing Context Zone The Affordable Housing Context Zone includes 39.63± acres of land as identified on the SRA Master Plan and consists of a 36.22± acre affordable housing tract and a 3.41± acre essential services tract. The Affordable Housing context zone shall be located adjacent to educational or commercial uses on land that has similar access to common open spaces, public facilities and public transportation, as well as market rate parcels. The Affordable Housing context zone shall provide the SRA with up to 362 residential dwelling units subject to the restrictions in section 9.6. 5.3.1. Affordable Housing Context Zone Uses and Structures 5.3.1.A. Permitted Uses I. Multi-Family Dwelling Units. Multi-family dwelling units shall include 3 or more dwelling units within a single building as well as horizontal multifamily communities. II. Single-Family Dwelling Units. III. Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses permissible within the Rural Agricultural District (A) subject to the applicable development standards established in LDC Section 4.02.00 for the Rural Agricultural District (A) until such time as an SDP or Subdivision Plat is approved for a particular parcel. 5.3.1.B. Accessory Uses I. Typical accessory uses and structures incidental to single-family or multi-family residential development including, walls, fences, gazebos, swimming pools, screen enclosures, chickee huts, air conditioning units, satellite antennas, similar uses and structures, and appurtenances required by Collier County, which may include structures, to serve the development, excluding water and wastewater treatment plants. II. Neighborhood recreation areas for residential development may include clubhouses, swimming pools, tennis courts, pickle ball courts, and similar neighborhood recreation facilities. III. Passive parks, limited to landscaped or natural areas and may include hardscape pathways or seating areas, benches, fire pits, shade structures such as gazebos or pavilions, docks, or piers. IV. Parking structures detached or attached, not to exceed 35 feet in Actual height. Page 15 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 15 of 112 Page 722 of 1742 5.3.2. Affordable Housing Development and Design Standards 5.3.2.A. Required Minimum Yards (Setbacks) and Maximum Building Heights1,10: SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD RECREATION DEVELOPMENT SINGLE ZERO LOT AREAS PER HORIZONTAL ALF, ILF, CCRC STANDARDS SINGLE FAMILY LINE & 5.3.1.B.(II) and (III) & MULTI- & OTHER FAMILY ATTACHED 5 ESSENTIAL 8 TOWNHOME 6 DETACHED & TWO- FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY SERVICES FAMILY PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES 4,600 S.F. / 2,800 S.F. / 10,000 S.F. / 2,500 MIN. LOT AREA 20,000 S.F./LOT N/A UNIT UNIT UNIT S.F./UNIT MIN. LOT 40’ 30’ 100’ 20’/UNIT 100’ N/A WIDTH MIN. FLOOR 750 750 S.F. 700 S.F./ UNIT 850 S.F./ UNIT 7 N/A AREA S.F./UNIT 550 S.F./UNIT 0.45 (only applies FLOOR AREA N/A N/A N/A N/A to ALF, ILF, N/A RATIO CCRC) MIN. FRONT 15’ 20’ 20’9 20’ 20’ 20’ YARD2 MIN. SIDE 5’ 0 OR 5’ 5’ 0 or 5’ 10’ 10’ YARD3 MIN. REAR 10’ 10’ 9 10’ 20’ 10’ YARD 20’ MIN. LAKE 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ SETBACK4 MIN. DISTANCE 15’ OR ½ SUM of BETWEEN 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’ BH for Structures 10’ STRUCTURES Exceeding 35’ BH MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - 35’ 35’ 35’ 35’ 3.5 Stories NTE 50’ 3.5 Stories NTE 50’11 ZONED MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - 42’ 42’ 42’ 42’ 62’ 62’11 ACTUAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MIN. FRONT SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS YARD MIN. SIDE YARD SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS 10’ MIN. REAR 5’ 5’ 5’9 5’ 5’ 5’ YARD MIN. LAKE 10’ 10’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ SETBACK4 MAX. HEIGHT ZONED & SPS SPS 42’ SPS 42’ SPS ACTUAL Table 3: Affordable Housing - Required Minimum Yards Maximum Building Height S.P.S. = same as for principal structure; NTE = not to exceed; S.F. = square feet; BH = building height; N/A = not applicable Footnotes: 1. Setbacks from preserves, as shown on master plan, shall be as set forth in LDC Section 3.05.07.H.3. 2. Front yards shall be measured as follows: − If the parcel has frontage on two streets (corner lot), the frontage providing vehicular access to the unit shall be considered the front yard. The setback along the other frontage shall be a minimum of 10’. − In no case shall the setback be less than 23 feet from the edge of an adjacent sidewalk, except in the case of side-loaded garages where the garage is designed in such a way that a vehicle can be parked in the driveway without conflicting with, or encroaching upon, the adjacent sidewalk. 3. 5’ minimum side setbacks for single-family attached, two-family, must be accompanied by another 5’ minimum side setback on adjoining lot to achieve minimum 10’ separation. 4. Lake setback is measured from lake maintenance easement. The required 20’ lake maintenance easement shall be provided in a separate platted tract for single-family, two-family and townhome developments submitted as a PPL. Properties that abut a lake maintenance easement or open space tract may reduce the setback for accessory structures to 0’. Page 16 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 16 of 112 Page 723 of 17425. Zero Lot Line and Townhome Development means 3 or more attached units, typically one or 2 stories in height. 6. Other Multi-family means 2 or more units in one building other than Zero Lot Line or Townhome Development, typically more than 2 stories in height. 7. Minimum floor area is not applicable to ALF, ILF, or CCRC units. 8. Horizontal Multifamily is defined as single-family housing units built within a single development tract. Similar to typical multifamily, a Horizontal Multifamily project includes common infrastructure, parking, amenities, stormwater management system, and open space. Unlike traditional multifamily buildings, the units are standalone buildings, without other units above or below. Horizontal multifamily projects may include attached villas (two units with a common wall). Horizontal multifamily developments are not required to be platted and shall be reviewed through the Site Development Process (LDC Section 10.02.03). As is the case with typical multifamily, setbacks are applied from the development tract boundaries. 9. Measured from the development tract boundary. 10. Standards included within this Table do not constitute an approved deviation if in conflict with required utility separations. 11. The maximum height for essential services uses shall be 35’ zoned, 42’ actual. VI. DEVLOPMENT STANDARDS FOR STRUCTURES WHEN LOCATED WITHIN OPEN SPACE, DRAINAGE CANALS, BUFFER LAKES, AND UTILITY EASEMENTS Appurtenances required by Collier County which may include structures to serve the development, such as utility pump stations, lift stations, and similar structures, are permitted in these areas. Additionally, educational and informational signage, kiosks, and shade structures such as chickee huts, are permitted within open space area and drainage canals, and along buffer lake areas, which are located within the SRA. All such structures shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from any Tract or SRA boundary and a minimum of 15 feet from any residential lot and shall not exceed 12 feet in height. VI. EXCAVATIONS All excavations within the Corkscrew Grove East Village shall be permitted as development excavations. Within the boundary of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA and related SSAs, fill material may be hauled from one construction site to another. Fill may be placed up to the edge of, but not within, all conservation easements, preserves, and Water Retention Areas (WRAs). VII. GOLF CARTS/LOW-SPEED VEHICLES Subject to Section 316.212, FS., the use of golf carts/low-speed vehicles shall be permitted within the SRA. Up to thirty percent (30%) of required off-street parking for amenity centers and for parking provided for access to trails may be comprised of golf cart/low-speed vehicle parking spaces. The Owner may submit an alternative to the design requirements for off-street parking spaces set forth in LDC Section 4.05.00, for golf cart/low-speed vehicle parking subject to review and approval of County staff. VIII. DEVIATIONS 8.1 Neighborhood General Standards (which apply per LDC Section 4.08.07.I.3.d.iii) 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.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 [non-residential uses] the Amenity Center sites to be a maximum of 30,000 square feet per location. 2) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.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 10 feet for zero lot line and Page 17 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 17 of 112 Page 724 of 1742 townhome development, as set forth in Table 1: Neighborhood General - Required Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height and Table 3: Affordable Housing - Required Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height 3) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.2.d.iii.e)i), which establishes multi-family residential lots to be a maximum of 4 acres, to instead allow multi-family lots to be a maximum of 25-acres. 4) A deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02 C., which limits fences or walls to a maximum height of six (6) feet in residential districts to instead allow a twelve (12) foot wall/berm combination. The maximum height of the wall will be eight (8) feet. 8.2 Village Center Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.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, or when located on a lot with two or more street frontages, or when located on a lot fronting on Corkscrew Road or State Road 82. 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.I.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 building 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, or when located on a lot with two or more street frontages, or when located on a lot fronting on Corkscrew Road or State Road 82. A Type ‘D’ buffer per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road. 3) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.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. 4) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.3.d.ii.g), which establishes a maximum block perimeter of 2,500 feet in the Village Center to instead allow for the Neighborhood General block perimeter provisions per LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.c): the maximum block perimeter shall be 3,500 feet, except that a larger block perimeter shall be allowed where an alley or pathway provides through access, or the block includes water bodies or public facilities. 5) A deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02 H.1.b. and c., which requires non-residential development to provide a wall within the right-of-way landscape buffer when located Page 18 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 18 of 112 Page 725 of 1742 on property opposite a residentially zoned district but fronting on a local street or roadway to instead not require a wall. This deviation shall not apply to the rear of shopping centers and building areas where overhead doors are located and facing towards a residential district. 8.3 Transportation Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.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 4-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 cubic feet of structural soil per square feet of mature tree crown projection shall be provided. 8.4 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. 8.5 Landscape Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C., Buffer Requirements, “Types of buffers,” Table 2.4 , 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. 2) A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02 A., which requires landscape buffer strips to be shown and designated on the final plat within an easement, to instead allow the same required landscaping materials to be demonstrated on a planting plan, for staff review as part of the respective plans and plat application (PPL), with no requirement to provide a landscape buffer for any residential development adjacent to a lake regardless of location within the Village. 8.6 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 Page 19 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 19 of 112 Page 726 of 1742 areas to be aggregated in certain specific development lakes, including the development lake that runs along the eastern perimeter of the SRA. It shall also be permitted to utilize Gator Slough and Cabbage Slough as part of all the required LSPA. 3) A deviation from LDC section 5.04.04.B.5. – “Model Homes and Model Sales Centers”, which permits a maximum of five (5) model homes, or a number corresponding to ten (10) percent of the total number of platted lots, whichever is less, per platted approved development prior to final plat approval. The requested deviation is to allow for a maximum of 30 model homes at any one time within the overall Village irrespective to the number of platted lots. With each building permit for a model home, the applicant shall provide documentation as to the current number of model homes in existence. IX. OWNER COMMITMENTS 9.1 Planning A. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for monitoring of the SRA, as may be required by Collier County, and until no longer required by Collier County. The monitoring and report shall follow the same procedures and requirements set forth in LDC Section 10.02.02.F, PUD Monitoring Report requirements. This entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all commitments set forth in the SRA Document and in a separate Owner Agreement. At the time of this SRA approval, the Managing Entity is Alico Incorporated. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document, to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As the Owner sells off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to the 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 Owner Commitments contained herein have been satisfied. Page 20 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 20 of 112 Page 727 of 1742 E. The Owner of any group housing, including a retirement community, its successors or assigns, shall provide the following services and be subject to the following operational standards for the units in the group housing, including, but not limited to, independent living units, assisted living units, or skilled nursing units: Operational Characteristics for Senior Housing: Senior housing may be composed of one or more types of care/housing facilities. These care/housing types are limited to independent living, assisted living, and skilled nursing units, each of which can have varying operational characteristics. The following characteristics of senior housing care units distinguish them from residential land uses, and all of the characteristics must be provided for and maintained to be considered a senior housing care unit: 1.) The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older; 2.) There shall be on-site dining facilities to the residents, with food service being on- site, or catered; 3.) Group transportation services shall be provided for the residents for the purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services shall be coordinated for the residents’ needs, including but not limited to medical office visits; 4.) There shall be an onsite manager/activities coordinator to assist residents who shall be responsible for planning and coordinating stimulating activities for the residents; 5.) An on-site wellness facility shall provide exercise and general fitness opportunities for the residents; 6.) Each unit shall be equipped with devices provided to notify emergency service providers in the event of a medical or other emergency; 7.) Independent living units shall be designed so that a resident is able to age in place. For example, kitchens may be easily retrofitted by lowering the sink to accommodate a wheelchair bound resident or bathrooms may be retrofitted by adding grab bars. 8.) Group housing for seniors shall be constructed to have a core area to shelter residents and staff on site in the event of a hurricane. The core area will be constructed to meet the Public Shelter Design Criteria that are required for new public schools and public community colleges and universities (“State Requirements for Educational Facilities, 2014”) and shall be capable of ventilation or air conditioning provided by back-up generator for a period of no less than 96 hours. 9.2 Environmental A. The Owner 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 County- approved bear-proof dumpsters/trash cans for all residential and non-residential uses, with Page 21 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 21 of 112 Page 728 of 1742 the ocations to be determined at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP) approval. All costs, including maintenance, of bear-proof containers will be borne by the Owner. B. Prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, a listed species management plan must be provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS, as applicable, for management of the Florida Panther (Puma concolor coryi) and other listed species. C. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA shall utilize County-approved bearproof trash cans for both residential and commercial (including non-residential) development. All costs, including maintenance, of bear-proof containers will be borne by the Owner. D. Light fixtures shall be dark sky compliant (flat panel, full cut-off fixtures-backlight, up light and glare (BUG) rating where U=o). E. All residents will be provided and required to acknowledge by signature a notice of prescriptive burns that will occur within the adjacent Stewardship Sending Area(s) or any public or private conservation lands. The Owner/Developer is responsible for compliance for the initial sale of residential properties. 9.3 Transportation A. Intensity of uses under any development scenario for the SRA is limited to a maximum of 4,092 two-way, adjusted (net external), 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. The limitation does not apply to the 362 affordable housing units or to the neighborhood goods and services, civic, governmental, or institutional square footage required to serve the affordable housing units. B. No more than 2,500 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. C. The Owner shall convey the additional right-of-way labeled “50’Corkscrew Rd ROW Reservation” along Corkscrew Road on Exhibit A, Master Plan. The conveyance will be to Collier County in fee simple, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, by warranty deed within sixty (60) days of the County’s written request. At the time of conveyance, the Owner shall receive Road Impact Fee Credits or cash equal to the market value of the land as determined on the day before approval of this SRA. The market value shall be determined by a mutually agreed upon accredited appraiser or, failing such an agreement, shall be the average of two appraisals prepared by mutually agreed upon accredited appraisers. Appraisal costs shall be shared equally by the Owner and the County. Should the development be designed to accommodate the stormwater from the future Corkscrew Road widening within the SRA lake system, the owner will convey the SRA lake system to Collier County by a Drainage Easement with no responsibility for maintenance. In exchange, Owner shall receive Road Impact Fee Credits or cash equal to the market value of the easement area necessary to accommodate such improvements as determined the day before approval of this SRA as determined the day before approval of this SRA. The market value shall be determined by a mutually agreed upon accredited appraiser or, failing such Page 22 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 22 of 112 Page 729 of 1742 an agreement, shall be the average of two appraisals prepared by mutually agreed upon accredited appraisers. Appraisal costs shall be shared equally by the Owner and the County. 9.4 Parks and Recreation A. The Owner shall provide and maintain one (1) children’s playground, for use of residents only, 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. 9.5 Landscaping 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 sixty feet (60’) 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 twenty feet (20’), street trees shall be spaced a distance equal to twice the average mature spread. Along residential local streets, the required street trees may be located within platted lots. 9.6 Affordable Housing A. The Owner has agreed to provide the following which satisfies the affordable housing requirements for the Corkscrew Grove East Village: 1.) Two adjacent affordable housing parcels totaling a minimum of 36.22 acres and entitling a minimum of 362 dwelling units will be set aside for development by the Owner, in the Affordable Housing Context Zone of the SRA, or for acquisition, in whole or in part, by either Collier County, a Community Land Trust, a private developer or any other affordable housing provider based upon the appraised value of $22,500/ acre, with a right of first refusal to Collier County. The Affordable Housing parcels will be considered as a Public Benefit Use and do not require Stewardship Credits but shall be included in the calculation of total SRA acreage. The Affordable Housing units shall be excluded from the trip cap for the SRA in which they are located. The affordable housing sites will be offered for sale to Collier County in writing before they are offered to other entities. 2.) If developed by the Owner or an entity other than Collier County acquires an affordable housing site, the entity is subject to the following: a) Rental units. All units will be rented to households whose incomes are up to and including 100% of the AMI for Collier County and the corresponding rent limits. These units will be committed for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first unit. Income and rent limits may be adjusted annually based on combined income and rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. Page 23 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 23 of 112 Page 730 of 1742 b) For sale units. All units will be sold to households whose initial certified incomes are up to and including 100% of the AMI for Collier County. These units will be committed for a period of 30 years from the date of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy and sold to households that qualify for the designated income thresholds. Households shall occupy the property as their primary residence as evidenced by maintenance of homestead exemption. Prior to sale of any of the units, the Owner or an entity other than Collier County will record a restrictive covenant in the public records of Collier County identifying the affordable units and the income threshold pertaining to each unit. The covenant will state that each unit will be initially sold and subsequently sold to qualifying households for a period of 30 years of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for each unit. It will also state that at least 30 days prior to the sale of any unit, the County's Community and Human Services Division will be notified in writing and provided documents for income verification and certification on forms acceptable to Collier County. The closing on the sale may occur after the County confirms that the household qualifies for the designated income thresholds. c) The Owner or an entity other than Collier County will provide an annual monitoring report to County which includes, the progress and monitoring of occupancy of the income restricted units, including rent data for rented units, and homestead data for owner-occupied units, in a format approved by Collier County Community and Human Services Division. Owner agrees to annual on-site monitoring by the County. 9.7 School A. The Owner shall reserve a school site, shown on the SRA Master Plan, for the District School Board of Collier County, Florida (District). Upon Approval of the SRA, and all required permits from the South Florida Water Management District or any federal or state regulatory authorities, and the expiration of appeal periods, the Owner will provide written notice to the District and the District shall have up to two years to provide written Notice of its intent to purchase the parcel. After providing Notice, the District shall close on the parcel or parcels within 6 months of providing Notice to the Owner. In accordance with Florida Statutes Section 1013.14(1)(b), the District will obtain two (2) appraisals for the school site from independent state certified appraisers, to establish the value of the school site. The appraisal date shall be the day prior to the Approval of the SRA. The average appraised value of the two appraisals, not to exceed $22,500/acre, shall constitute the amount of credit available to the Owner as a prepayment of Educational Impact Fees upon conveyance of the school site to the District. With respect to the conveyance of real property, by the Owner to the District, the conveyance of the school site to the District fully mitigates for the development’s impact to the elementary, middle and high schools needed to serve the Corkscrew Grove East SRA. Corkscrew Grove East’s surface water management system will be designed and permitted to treat the stormwater generated by the school site. ERP permits for Corkscrew Grove East Village from the South Florida Water Management District and the Army Corp of Page 24 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 24 of 112 Page 731 of 1742 Engineers will include the school site using an assumed impervious coverage of 70%. If SFWMD or other agency requires pretreatment for any parking lot area, the pretreatment will be included in the school’s design and shall not be a reimbursable cost from the Owner. If the Owner is successful in including the school site within its permits for Corkscrew Grove East Village, the District shall reimburse the Owner for any wetlands or Panther (or other species) mitigation required by such permits, upon actual payment and completion of the mitigation and Owner’s written request to District, which reimbursement shall be calculated by Owner on a proportionate share basis of the acreage of school site to the total acreage of the Corkscrew Grove East Village project. The water management reimbursement shall be calculated on a prorated basis using the following formula: Total Water Management Area x (School Site Area / Total Development Area). 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 Owner. The school site 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. The District shall be responsible for the construction of all access improvements into the school site. The school site will connect to two access points on Corkscrew Road. 9.8 Fire and Emergency Medical Services A. The Owner shall convey to the Fire District real property in the Affordable Housing Context Zone for a 3.41-acre site for a fire station in exchange for fire impact fee credits and/or cash. With respect to the conveyance of real property, by the Owner to the Fire District, the conveyance of the Fire Site to the Fire District fully mitigates for the development’s impact to the fire facilities needed to serve Corkscrew Grove East SRA. B. Corkscrew Grove East’s surface water management system will be designed and permitted to treat the stormwater generated by the fire station site. ERP permits for Corkscrew Grove East Village from the South Florida Water Management District and the Army Corp of Engineers will include the fire station site using an assumed impervious coverage of 70%. If SFWMD or other agency requires pretreatment for any parking lot area, the pretreatment will be included in the site’s design and shall not be a reimbursable cost to the Owner. If the Owner is successful in including the fire station site within its permits for Corkscrew Grove East Village, the Fire District shall reimburse the Owner for any Panther (or other species) mitigation required by such permits, upon actual payment and completion of the mitigation and Owners’ written request to Fire District, which reimbursement shall be calculated by Owners’ on a proportionate share basis of the acreage of fire station site to the total acreage of the Corkscrew Grove East Village project, using the formula Total Water Management Area X (Fire District Site/Total Development Area). The reimbursement amount shall be added to the value of the real property conveyed to the Fire District and shall become part of the Fire Impact Fee credit issued to the Owner. C. The fire station site shall be used only for a fire station/EMS station and not for any other purpose, which restrictions shall be deed restrictions attached to and incorporated in the conveyance deed. The fire station site shall have direct and permanent access (in accordance Page 25 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 25 of 112 Page 732 of 1742 with County Standards) to State Road 82. The Fire District shall be responsible for the construction of all access improvements into the fire station site. 9.9 Utilities A. The developer can use well and septic for the installation of site related work. All development requiring a certificate of occupancy must be connected to central water and sewer facilities to be provided by Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) or the developer, if IWSD is unable to provide service. Page 26 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b1e7- d12e1afd71f0/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 26 of 112 Page 733 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE - SRA LAND USE SUMMARY % OPEN OPEN SYMBOL DESCRIPTION ACRES SPACE SPACE (AC) NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE N NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL 998.99 30% 299.70 AMENITY 8.50 40% 3.40 20' TYPE "D" ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 65.40 15% 9.81 FDOT WATER HENDRY COUNTY R.O.W RESERVATION (CORKSCREW RD) 17.65 15% 2.65 MANAGEMENT AREA BUFFER BUFFER LAKES 53.20 100% 53.20 AG S.R.A. BOUNDARY (ZONING: 25' TYPE "D" DRAINAGE CANALS 32.13 100% 32.13 0 600' 1200' NO BUFFER REQUIRED A-MHO-RLSAO) BUFFER SSA #22 OPEN SPACE 15.83 100% 15.83 22 x 34 SCALE: 1" = 600' (PANTHER CORRIDOR) ADJACENT TO SSA #22 11 x 17 SCALE: 1" = 1200' 1/2 ESSENTIAL EX. UTILITY EASEMENT (WITHIN SRA) 45.72 90% 41.15 STATE ROAD 82 (200' R.O.W.) N.G. N.G. SERVICES 1,237.41 FUTURE UTILITY SITE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL (NOT WITHIN THE S.R.A.) AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTEXT ZONE CHURCH ROAD CARSON GULLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING 36.22 20% 7.24 CANAL FDOT WATER * ESSENTIAL SERVICES 3.41 20% 0.68 BUFFER MANAGEMENT AREA 25' TYPE "D" FDOT WATER AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL 39.63 A.H. A.H. MANAGEMENT 10' TYPE "D" * 5/6 20' TYPE "D" AREA VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE BUFFER VILLAGE CENTER 145.55 30% 43.66 AG BUFFER FUTURE (ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO) 7 50' CORKSCREW RD AG UTILITY SITE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (PUBLIC) 24.00 30% 7.20 ROW RESERVATION POTENTIAL GUARDHOUSE / 5/6 (ZONING: (NOT WITHIN V.C. 2/19/2026 11:27 AM 2/19/2026 VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL 169.55 THE S.R.A.) ENTRY FEATURE A-MHO-RLSAO) SRA BOUNDARY TOTAL 1,446.59 36% 516.65 25' TYPE "D" BUFFER V.C. 25' TYPE "D" 25' TYPE "D" STATE ROAD 82 (200' R.O.W.) SSA 22 (CORRIDOR) 1,295.41 100% 1,295.41 BUFFER SSA 23 (WRA) BUFFER 388.87 100% 388.87 1/2 1/2 3/4 5/6 FDOT WATER SSA BOUNDARY TOTAL 1,684.28 100% 1,684.28 MANAGEMENT AREA 20' TYPE "D" 7 5/6 50' CORKSCREW RD OPEN SPACE TABLE 7 V.C. BUFFER SSA #23 ROW RESERVATION AREA (AC) BUFFER % RELOCATED CABBAGE ELEMENTARY 25' TYPE "D" N.G. REQUIRED 506.3 35% FUTURE SLOUGH CANAL SCHOOL CARSON GULLY CONNECTION N.G. CANAL PROVIDED 516.6 36% ROAD CROSSING EX BLDGS TO BE 1/2 3/4 7 7 UTILIZED AS INTERIM POTENTIAL GUARDHOUSE / FIRE STATION LEGEND NO BUFFER REQUIRED ENTRY FEATURE CROSSING FPL EASEMENT N.G. N.G. POTENTIAL 1/2 GUARDHOUSE / ENTRY FEATURE INTERNAL CONNECTION POTENTIAL FUTURE 1/2 LOCATION CONNECTION 7 N.G. 8 EXTERNAL CONNECTION 1/2 LOCATION AMENITY (N.G.) 1/2 SSA #22 1/2 (PANTHER AMENITY (N.G.) N.G. CORRIDOR) OPTIONAL CONNECTION N.G. 20' TYPE "D" SSA #23 7 1/2 LOCATION BUFFER NO BUFFER PROJECT ACCESS POINTS AG REQUIRED (ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO) * ALONG SR 82 ALIGN WITH S.R.A. ADJACENT TO N.G. SSA #22 PROPOSED MEDIAN BREAKS BOUNDARY IN FDOT IMPROVEMENT POTENTIAL GUARDHOUSE / HSA PLANS S.R.A. ENTRY FEATURE 300' BUFFER BOUNDARY NO BUFFER TO HSA OR FSA N.G. POTENTIAL REGIONAL TREATMENT MARSH REQUIRED ADJACENT # S.R.A. CROSS SECTION LOCATIONS (OUTSIDE MASTER SWMS) FSA LOCATION IDENTIFIER CORKSCREW(100' R.O.W.) ROAD TO SSA #22 CONCEPTUAL NATURE GENERAL NOTES: 50' CORKSCREW RD TRAILHEADS, BOARDWALKS, ROW RESERVATION 25' TYPE "D" 1. MASTER PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL. INTERNAL ROAD ALIGNMENTS, LAKE SITING AND CONFIGURATION OF Page 27 of112 OR OBSERVATION PIERS BUFFER DEVELOPMENT AREAS ARE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION WITHIN THE RLSA GUIDELINES AT TIME OF EX Bto Res. C.R.E.W. LOCATIONS SDP AND/OR PPL PERMITTING. (ZONING: A-MHO) NO BUFFER REQUIRED 2. SEE MOBILITY PLAN FOR PATHWAYS. ADJACENT TO SSA #22 3. WRA LAND USE IS WITHIN SSA #23 AND IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SRA BOUNDARY AREA. THE WRA AREA IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS. # DATE REVISIONS J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA DESIGNED BY: JRE PROJECT #: 01093 1 6-23-25 REVISED PER COUNTY & OWNER COMMENTS 9961 INTERSTATE COMMERCE DR, STE. 230 JR EVANS FT MYERS, FLORIDA 33913 DRAWN BY: EKA FILE DATE: Jun-25 PHONE: (239) 405-9148 EXHIBIT (A) 2 9-01-25 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS ENGINEERING FAX: (239) 288-2537 WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM SRA MASTER PLAN COLOR SCALE: 1" = 1200' SHEET : 1 of 10 C:\USERS\EADAMS\DC\ACCDOCS\JRE\01093 - CORKSCREW GROVES\PROJECT FILES\00-ACAD\EXHIBITS\0109300E07 - MCP EAST VILLAGE\CURRENT\01093 - EAST VILLAGE MCP.DWG - EAST VILLAGE VILLAGE\CURRENT\01093 - MCP EAST FILES\00-ACAD\EXHIBITS\0109300E07 GROVES\PROJECT CORKSCREW - C:\USERS\EADAMS\DC\ACCDOCS\JRE\01093 Page 734 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE - SRA LAND USE SUMMARY % OPEN OPEN SYMBOL DESCRIPTION ACRES SPACE SPACE (AC) NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE N NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL 998.99 30% 299.70 AMENITY 8.50 40% 3.40 20' TYPE "D" ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 65.40 15% 9.81 FDOT WATER HENDRY COUNTY R.O.W RESERVATION (CORKSCREW RD) 17.65 15% 2.65 MANAGEMENT AREA BUFFER BUFFER LAKES 53.20 100% 53.20 AG S.R.A. BOUNDARY (ZONING: 25' TYPE "D" DRAINAGE CANALS 32.13 100% 32.13 0 600' 1200' NO BUFFER REQUIRED A-MHO-RLSAO) BUFFER SSA #22 OPEN SPACE 15.83 100% 15.83 22 x 34 SCALE: 1" = 600' (PANTHER CORRIDOR) ADJACENT TO SSA #22 11 x 17 SCALE: 1" = 1200' 1/2 ESSENTIAL EX. UTILITY EASEMENT (WITHIN SRA) 45.72 90% 41.15 STATE ROAD 82 (200' R.O.W.) N.G. N.G. SERVICES 1,237.41 FUTURE UTILITY SITE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL (NOT WITHIN THE S.R.A.) AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTEXT ZONE CHURCH ROAD CARSON GULLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING 36.22 20% 7.24 CANAL FDOT WATER * ESSENTIAL SERVICES 3.41 20% 0.68 BUFFER MANAGEMENT AREA 25' TYPE "D" FDOT WATER AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL 39.63 A.H. A.H. MANAGEMENT 10' TYPE "D" * 5/6 20' TYPE "D" AREA VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE BUFFER VILLAGE CENTER 145.55 30% 43.66 AG BUFFER FUTURE (ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO) 7 50' CORKSCREW RD AG UTILITY SITE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (PUBLIC) 24.00 30% 7.20 ROW RESERVATION POTENTIAL GUARDHOUSE / 5/6 (ZONING: (NOT WITHIN V.C. 2/19/2026 11:27 AM 2/19/2026 VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL 169.55 THE S.R.A.) ENTRY FEATURE A-MHO-RLSAO) 1,446.59 SRA BOUNDARY TOTAL 36% 516.65 1/2 3/4 25' TYPE "D" BUFFER V.C. 25' TYPE "D" 25' TYPE "D" STATE ROAD 82 (200' R.O.W.) SSA 22 (CORRIDOR) 1,295.41 100% 1,295.41 BUFFER SSA 23 (WRA) BUFFER 388.87 100% 388.87 1/2 5/6 FDOT WATER SSA BOUNDARY TOTAL 1,684.28 100% 1,684.28 MANAGEMENT AREA 20' TYPE "D" 7 5/6 50' CORKSCREW RD OPEN SPACE TABLE 7 V.C. BUFFER SSA #23 ROW RESERVATION AREA (AC) BUFFER % RELOCATED CABBAGE ELEMENTARY 25' TYPE "D" N.G. REQUIRED 506.3 35% FUTURE SLOUGH CANAL SCHOOL CARSON GULLY CONNECTION N.G. CANAL PROVIDED 516.6 36% ROAD CROSSING EX BLDGS TO BE 1/2 3/4 7 UTILIZED AS INTERIM 7 POTENTIAL GUARDHOUSE / FIRE STATION LEGEND NO BUFFER REQUIRED ENTRY FEATURE CROSSING FPL EASEMENT N.G. N.G. POTENTIAL 1/2 GUARDHOUSE / ENTRY FEATURE INTERNAL CONNECTION POTENTIAL FUTURE 1/2 LOCATION CONNECTION 7 N.G. 8 EXTERNAL CONNECTION 1/2 LOCATION AMENITY (N.G.) 1/2 SSA #22 1/2 (PANTHER OPTIONAL CONNECTION AMENITY (N.G.) N.G. CORRIDOR) N.G. 1/2 20' TYPE "D" SSA #23 7 LOCATION BUFFER NO BUFFER PROJECT ACCESS POINTS AG REQUIRED (ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO) * ALONG SR 82 ALIGN WITH S.R.A. ADJACENT TO N.G. SSA #22 PROPOSED MEDIAN BREAKS BOUNDARY IN FDOT IMPROVEMENT POTENTIAL GUARDHOUSE / HSA PLANS S.R.A. ENTRY FEATURE 300' BUFFER BOUNDARY NO BUFFER TO HSA OR FSA N.G. POTENTIAL REGIONAL TREATMENT MARSH REQUIRED ADJACENT # S.R.A. CROSS SECTION LOCATIONS (OUTSIDE MASTER SWMS) FSA LOCATION IDENTIFIER CORKSCREW(100' R.O.W.) ROAD TO SSA #22 CONCEPTUAL NATURE GENERAL NOTES: 50' CORKSCREW RD TRAILHEADS, BOARDWALKS, ROW RESERVATION 25' TYPE "D" 1. MASTER PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL. INTERNAL ROAD ALIGNMENTS, LAKE SITING AND CONFIGURATION OF Page 28 of112 OR OBSERVATION PIERS BUFFER DEVELOPMENT AREAS ARE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION WITHIN THE RLSA GUIDELINES AT TIME OF EX Bto Res. C.R.E.W. LOCATIONS SDP AND/OR PPL PERMITTING. (ZONING: A-MHO) NO BUFFER REQUIRED 2. SEE MOBILITY PLAN FOR PATHWAYS. ADJACENT TO SSA #22 3. WRA LAND USE IS WITHIN SSA #23 AND IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SRA BOUNDARY AREA. THE WRA AREA IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS. # DATE REVISIONS J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA DESIGNED BY: JRE PROJECT #: 01093 1 6-23-25 REVISED PER COUNTY & OWNER COMMENTS 9961 INTERSTATE COMMERCE DR, STE. 230 JR EVANS FT MYERS, FLORIDA 33913 DRAWN BY: EKA FILE DATE: Jun-25 PHONE: (239) 405-9148 EXHIBIT (A) 2 9-01-25 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS ENGINEERING FAX: (239) 288-2537 WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM SRA MASTER PLAN BLACK & WHITE SCALE: 1" = 1200' SHEET : 2 of 10 C:\USERS\EADAMS\DC\ACCDOCS\JRE\01093 - CORKSCREW GROVES\PROJECT FILES\00-ACAD\EXHIBITS\0109300E07 - MCP EAST VILLAGE\CURRENT\01093 - EAST VILLAGE MCP.DWG - EAST VILLAGE VILLAGE\CURRENT\01093 - MCP EAST FILES\00-ACAD\EXHIBITS\0109300E07 GROVES\PROJECT CORKSCREW - C:\USERS\EADAMS\DC\ACCDOCS\JRE\01093 Page 735 of 1742 INTERNAL MOBILITY PLAN NOTES THE SRA SHALL ADHERE TO THE INTERNAL MASTER MOBILITY PLAN AND SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: 1. A 5-FOOT SIDEWALK ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROADWAY. WHERE THE LDC REQUIRES BIKE LANES, AT THE DEVELOPER'S DISCRETION, A MINIMUM 10 FOOT PATHWAY MAY BE PROVIDED ON ONE SIDE, IN LIEU OF BIKE LANES. FDOT WATER HENDRY COUNTY 2. LOCAL STREETS (LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL AREAS) WILL INCLUDE A MINIMUM 5 FOOT SIDEWALK MANAGEMENT AREA ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROADWAY EXCEPT FOR CUL-DE-SACS AND SINGLE-LOADED RESIDENTIAL STREETS. 3. AT TIME OF SDP, OR PPL (AS APPLICABLE), CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE VARIOUS MODES OF TRANSPORTATION WILL AG BE IDENTIFIED TO ENSURE INTERCONNECTIVITY WITH THE SRA AND TO EXTERNAL TRANSPORTATION LINKS. (ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO) S.R.A. BOUNDARY 4. GOLF CARTS WILL BE ALLOWED ON 10 FOOT MULTI-USE PATHS AND INTERNAL RESIDENTIAL/LOCAL STREETS. SSA #22 5. ALL ROADS, INCLUDING STEWARDSHIP DISTRICT PUBLIC ROADS, ARE TO BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED. ESSENTIAL (PANTHER CORRIDOR) STATE ROAD 82 (200' R.O.W.) N.G. 6. THE FACT THAT FUTURE EXPANSION / IMPROVEMENTS TO CORKSCREW ROAD WILL INCLUDE SIDEWALKS WITHIN THE SERVICES RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THAT ROAD IMPACT FEES COLLECTED FOR THIS PROJECT CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS, PAYMENT IN LIEU SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT'S FRONTAGE ALONG CORKSCREW ROAD. CHURCH ROAD ROW RESERVATIONS FOR FUTURE CORKSCREW ROAD EXPANSION / IMPROVEMENTS ARE BEING PROVIDED WITHIN THE N.G. SRA AS PART OF THIS PROJECT. FDOT WATER MANAGEMENT AREA TRANSFER STATION / PARK & RIDE NOTES A.H. A.H. 1. A TRANSFER STATION OR PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITY SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE AG TO COMPLY WITH RLSAO POLICY 4.7.2. THE SPECIFIC LOCATION OF THIS FACILITY WILL BE DETERMINED AND SHOWN AG (ZONING: PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE FIRST NON-RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP) WITHIN ANY OF THE VILLAGE (ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO) A-MHO-RLSAO) CENTER PODS. V.C. V.C. 2/19/2026 11:27 AM 2/19/2026 S.R.A. BOUNDARY STATE ROAD 82 (200' R.O.W.) FDOT WATER MANAGEMENT AREA V.C. SSA #23 ELEMENTARY N.G. SCHOOL GATOR SLOUGH RELOCATED CABBAGE (N.G. SLOUGH CANAL CANAL N.G. (N.G. POTENTIAL PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER CABBAGE SSA #22 SLOUGH CANAL (PANTHER CORRIDOR) N.G. (N.G. AMENITY (N.G.) (N.G. SSA #23 AG (ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO) AMENITY (N.G.) (N.G. HSA S.R.A. BOUNDARY LEGEND N.G. SRA BOUNDARY FSA 5' SIDEWALK CORKSCREW(100' R.O.W.) ROAD N C.R.E.W. 6' SIDEWALK (ZONING: A-MHO) 10' MULTI-USE PATHWAY 5' SIDEWALK * 10' MULTI-USE PATHWAY * CONCEPTUAL NATURE TRAILHEADS, Page 29 of112 BOARDWALKS, OR OBSERVATION EX Bto Res. 0 600' 1200' PIERS LOCATIONS 22 x 34 SCALE: 1" = 600' 11 x 17 SCALE: 1" = 1200' *SIDEWALK AND MULTI-USE PATHS TO BE INSTALLED AS PART OF FDOT'S STATE ROAD 82 EXPANSION IMPROVEMENTS. # DATE REVISIONS J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA DESIGNED BY: JRE PROJECT #: 01093 1 6-23-25 REVISED PER COUNTY & OWNER COMMENTS 9961 INTERSTATE COMMERCE DR, STE. 230 JR EVANS FT MYERS, FLORIDA 33913 DRAWN BY: EKA FILE DATE: Jun-25 PHONE: (239) 405-9148 EXHIBIT (A) 2 9-01-25 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS ENGINEERING FAX: (239) 288-2537 WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM SRA MOBILITY PLAN SCALE: 1" = 1200' SHEET : 3 of 10 C:\USERS\EADAMS\DC\ACCDOCS\JRE\01093 - CORKSCREW GROVES\PROJECT FILES\00-ACAD\EXHIBITS\0109300E07 - MCP EAST VILLAGE\CURRENT\01093 - EAST VILLAGE MCP.DWG - EAST VILLAGE VILLAGE\CURRENT\01093 - MCP EAST FILES\00-ACAD\EXHIBITS\0109300E07 GROVES\PROJECT CORKSCREW - C:\USERS\EADAMS\DC\ACCDOCS\JRE\01093 Page 736 of 1742 AG (ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO) 8.1.1 8.5.2 8.1.4 8.6.1 N.G. N.G. 8.4.1 8.6.2 ESSENTIAL 8.4.2 8.6.3 8.1.1 8.4.3 SERVICES 8.4.3 8.1.2 8.5.2 CHURCH ROAD 8.1.3 8.6.1 SSA #22 8.1.4 8.6.2 8.4.1 8.6.3 8.4.2 8.4.1 8.5.2 A.H. 8.4.2 8.6.1 A.H. 8.6.2 8.4.1 N 8.4.2 8.5.2 AG 8.6.1 AG 8.6.2 (ZONING: (ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO) V.C. A-MHO-RLSAO) 8.2.1 8.5.1 STATE ROAD 82 (200' R.O.W.) 8.2.2 8.5.2 8.2.1 V.C. 8.5.1 8.2.3 8.6.1 8.2.2 8.5.2 0 8.2.4 8.6.2 2/19/2026 11:27 AM 2/19/2026 600' 1200' 8.2.3 8.6.1 8.2.5 8.6.4 22 x 34 SCALE: 1" = 600' 8.2.4 8.6.2 11 x 17 SCALE: 1" = 1200' 8.2.5 8.6.4 8.2.1 8.5.1 V.C. 8.2.2 8.5.2 8.2.3 8.6.1 SSA #23 8.2.4 8.6.2 8.2.5 8.6.4 ELEMENTARY LEGEND 8.1.1 8.5.2 8.1.1 8.5.2 SCHOOL (N.G. 8.1.4 8.6.1 N.G. 8.1.4 8.6.1 A.H. - AFFORDABLE HOUSING 8.4.1 8.6.2 8.4.1 8.6.2 8.4.2 8.6.3 N.G. - NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL 8.4.2 8.6.3 8.4.3 8.4.3 V.C. - VILLAGE CENTER 8.1.1 8.5.2 N.G. DENOTES DEVIATION 8.1.4 8.6.1 #.#.# N.G. LOCATION 8.4.1 8.6.2 8.1.1 8.5.2 8.1.4 8.6.1 8.1.1 8.5.2 8.4.2 8.6.3 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 8.4.1 8.6.2 8.1.4 8.6.1 8.4.3 8.4.2 8.6.3 8.4.1 8.6.2 8.4.3 SSA #22 BUFFER LAKES 8.4.2 8.6.3 N.G. 8.4.3 DRAINAGE CANALS 8.1.1 8.5.2 8.1.1 8.5.2 N.G. 8.1.4 8.6.1 ESSENTIAL SERVICES N.G. 8.1.4 8.6.1 8.4.1 8.6.2 NEIGHBORHOOD SSA #23 8.4.1 8.6.2 8.4.2 8.6.3 GENERAL (AMENITY) 8.4.2 8.6.3 8.4.3 8.4.3 NEIGHBORHOOD AG GENERAL (ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO) 8.1.1 8.5.2 8.1.4 8.6.1 N.G. HSA OPEN SPACE 8.4.1 8.6.2 8.4.2 8.6.3 N.G. 8.4.3 ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY (100' R.O.W.) 8.1.1 8.5.2 SCHOOL SITE 8.1.4 8.6.1 8.4.1 8.6.2 EX. UTILITY EASEMENT 8.4.2 8.6.3 CORKSCREW ROAD FSA (ELECTRIC) 8.4.3 C.R.E.W. VILLAGE CENTER (ZONING: A-MHO) SSA 22 (PANTHER CORRIDOR) SSA 23 (WRA) Page 30 of112 EX Bto Res. SRA BOUNDARY # DATE REVISIONS J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA DESIGNED BY: JRE PROJECT #: 01093 1 6-23-25 REVISED PER COUNTY & OWNER COMMENTS 9961 INTERSTATE COMMERCE DR, STE. 230 JR EVANS FT MYERS, FLORIDA 33913 DRAWN BY: EKA FILE DATE: Jun-25 PHONE: (239) 405-9148 EXHIBIT (A) ENGINEERING FAX: (239) 288-2537 WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM SRA MASTER PLAN WITH DEVIATIONS SCALE: 1" = 1200' SHEET : 4 of 10 C:\USERS\EADAMS\DC\ACCDOCS\JRE\01093 - CORKSCREW GROVES\PROJECT FILES\00-ACAD\EXHIBITS\0109300E07 - MCP EAST VILLAGE\CURRENT\01093 - EAST VILLAGE MCP.DWG - EAST VILLAGE VILLAGE\CURRENT\01093 - MCP EAST FILES\00-ACAD\EXHIBITS\0109300E07 GROVES\PROJECT CORKSCREW - C:\USERS\EADAMS\DC\ACCDOCS\JRE\01093 Page 737 of 1742 DEVIATIONS: 8.1 NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL STANDARDS 8.5 LANDSCAPE STANDARDS 1. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 4.08.07.I.2.d.iii.f)iv), “NON-RESIDENTIAL USES,” WHICH STATES “THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE PER 1. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02.C., BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, “TYPES OF BUFFERS,” TABLE 2.4 INFORMATION, FOOTNOTE (3) [NON-RESIDENTIAL] USE SHALL BE 3,000 SQUARE FEET AND PER LOCATION SHALL BE 15,000 SQUARE FEET,” TO INSTEAD ALLOW WHICH REQUIRES “BUFFER AREAS BETWEEN COMMERCIAL OUTPARCELS LOCATED WITHIN A SHOPPING CENTER, BUSINESS PARK, OR [NON-RESIDENTIAL USES] THE AMENITY CENTER SITES TO BE A MAXIMUM OF 30,000 SQUARE FEET PER LOCATION. 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. 2. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 44.08.07.I.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 2. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02 A., WHICH REQUIRES LANDSCAPE BUFFER STRIPS TO BE SHOWN AND DESIGNATED ON THE STRUCTURE…” TO INSTEAD ALLOW FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 0 OR 5 FEET AND A REAR YARD SETBACK OF 10 FEET FOR ZERO FINAL PLAT WITHIN AN EASEMENT, TO INSTEAD ALLOW THE SAME REQUIRED LANDSCAPING MATERIALS TO BE DEMONSTRATED ON A LOT LINE AND TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT, AS SET FORTH IN TABLE 1: NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL - REQUIRED MINIMUM YARDS AND PLANTING PLAN, FOR STAFF REVIEW AS PART OF THE RESPECTIVE PLANS AND PLAT APPLICATION (PPL), WITH NO REQUIREMENT TO MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT AND TABLE 3: AFFORDABLE HOUSING - REQUIRED MINIMUM YARDS AND MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT PROVIDE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER FOR ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO A LAKE REGARDLESS OF LOCATION WITHIN THE VILLAGE. 3. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 4.08.07.I.2.d.iii.e)i), WHICH ESTABLISHES MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS TO BE A MAXIMUM OF 4 ACRES, TO INSTEAD ALLOW MULTI-FAMILY LOTS TO BE A MAXIMUM OF 25-ACRES. 8.6 OTHER DEVIATIONS 4. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 5.03.02 C., WHICH LIMITS FENCES OR WALLS TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF SIX (6) FEET IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO INSTEAD ALLOW A TWELVE (12) FOOT WALL/BERM COMBINATION. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE WALL WILL BE EIGHT (8) 1. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 4.05.04.G, “PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS,” WHICH REQUIRES 1 PARKING SPACE PER 100 SQUARE FEET. 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. 8.2 VILLAGE CENTER STANDARDS 1. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 4.08.07.I.3.d.ii.p)ii) “GENERAL PARKING CRITERIA,” WHICH STATES “THE MAJORITY OF PARKING SPACES 2. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 3.05.10.A.2. - “LOCATION CRITERIA,” WHICH REQUIRES THAT “LSPA [LITTORAL SHELF PLANTING SHALL BE PROVIDED OFF-STREET IN THE REAR OF BUILDINGS OR ALONG THE SIDE SECONDARY STREETS. PARKING IS PROHIBITED IN AREAS] SHALL BE CONCENTRATED IN ONE LOCATION OF THE LAKE(S), PREFERABLY ADJACENT TO A PRESERVE AREA,” TO INSTEAD FRONT OF BUILDINGS…” TO INSTEAD ALLOW PARKING IN FRONT OF BUILDINGS IN THE VILLAGE CENTER, WHEN SUCH PARKING IS IN ALLOW FOR REQUIRED LITTORAL SHELF PLANTING AREAS TO BE AGGREGATED IN CERTAIN SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT LAKES, 2/19/2026 11:27 AM 2/19/2026 SUPPORT OF A SHOPPING CENTER, OR WHEN LOCATED ON A LOT WITH TWO OR MORE STREET FRONTAGES, OR WHEN LOCATED ON A INCLUDING THE DEVELOPMENT LAKE THAT RUNS ALONG THE EASTERN PERIMETER OF THE SRA. IT SHALL ALSO BE PERMITTED TO LOT FRONTING ON CORKSCREW ROAD OR STATE ROAD 82. A TYPE 'D' BUFFER PER LDC AT TIME OF PERMITTING WILL BE REQUIRED UTILIZE GATOR SLOUGH AND CABBAGE SLOUGH AS PART OF ALL THE REQUIRED LSPA. WHEN PARKING IS ADJACENT TO OR ABUTTING A ROAD. 2. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 4.08.07.I.3.d.ii.q), WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE MAJORITY OF PARKING BE LOCATED IN THE REAR OF 3. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 5.04.04.B.5. - “MODEL HOMES AND MODEL SALES CENTERS”, WHICH PERMITS A MAXIMUM OF FIVE (5) BUILDINGS AND PROHIBITS PARKING IN THE FRONT OF BUILDING EXCEPT ON-STREET PARKING WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO INSTEAD MODEL HOMES, OR A NUMBER CORRESPONDING TO TEN (10) PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PLATTED LOTS, WHICHEVER IS ALLOW PARKING IN THE FRONT, SIDE, AND REAR YARDS, WHEN SUCH PARKING IS IN SUPPORT OF A SHOPPING CENTER, OR WHEN LESS, PER PLATTED APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. THE REQUESTED DEVIATION IS TO ALLOW FOR A LOCATED ON A LOT WITH TWO OR MORE STREET FRONTAGES, OR WHEN LOCATED ON A LOT FRONTING ON CORKSCREW ROAD OR MAXIMUM OF 30 MODEL HOMES AT ANY ONE TIME WITHIN THE OVERALL VILLAGE IRRESPECTIVE TO THE NUMBER OF PLATTED LOTS. STATE ROAD 82. A TYPE 'D' BUFFER PER LDC AT TIME OF PERMITTING WILL BE REQUIRED WHEN PARKING IS ADJACENT TO OR WITH EACH BUILDING PERMIT FOR A MODEL HOME, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION AS TO THE CURRENT NUMBER ABUTTING A ROAD. OF MODEL HOMES IN EXISTENCE. 3. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 4.08.07.I.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. 4. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 4.08.07.I.3.d.ii.g), WHICH ESTABLISHES A MAXIMUM BLOCK PERIMETER OF 2,500 FEET IN THE VILLAGE CENTER TO INSTEAD ALLOW FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL BLOCK PERIMETER PROVISIONS PER LDC SECTION 4.08.07.J.2.D.III.C): THE MAXIMUM BLOCK PERIMETER SHALL BE 3,500 FEET, EXCEPT THAT A LARGER BLOCK PERIMETER SHALL BE ALLOWED WHERE AN ALLEY OR PATHWAY PROVIDES THROUGH ACCESS, OR THE BLOCK INCLUDES WATER BODIES OR PUBLIC FACILITIES. 5. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 5.03.02 H.1.b AND c., WHICH REQUIRES NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE A WALL WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDSCAPE BUFFER WHEN LOCATED ON PROPERTY OPPOSITE A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED DISTRICT BUT FRONTING ON A LOCAL STREET OR ROADWAY TO INSTEAD NOT REQUIRE A WALL. THIS DEVIATION SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE REAR OF SHOPPING CENTERS AND BUILDING AREAS WHERE OVERHEAD DOORS ARE LOCATED AND FACING TOWARDS A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. 8.3 TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS 1. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 4.08.07.I.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 4-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 CUBIC FEET OF STRUCTURAL SOIL PER SQUARE FEET OF MATURE TREE CROWN PROJECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED. 8.4 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 Page 31 of112 BACK OF THE CURB, TO INSTEAD ALLOW A MINIMUM SETBACK OF 5 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROADWAY, PAVED SURFACE OR EX Bto Res. BACK OF THE CURB, LIMITED TO SIGNS INTERNAL TO THE SRA ONLY. THIS EXCLUDES SIGNAGE ALONG COUNTY OWNED ROADWAYS. # DATE REVISIONS J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA DESIGNED BY: JRE PROJECT #: 01093 1 6-23-25 REVISED PER COUNTY & OWNER COMMENTS 9961 INTERSTATE COMMERCE DR, STE. 230 JR EVANS FT MYERS, FLORIDA 33913 DRAWN BY: EKA FILE DATE: Jun-25 PHONE: (239) 405-9148 EXHIBIT (A) ENGINEERING FAX: (239) 288-2537 WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM SRA MASTER PLAN DEVIATION DESCRIPTIONS SCALE: N.A. SHEET : 5 of 10 C:\USERS\EADAMS\DC\ACCDOCS\JRE\01093 - CORKSCREW GROVES\PROJECT FILES\00-ACAD\EXHIBITS\0109300E07 - MCP EAST VILLAGE\CURRENT\01093 - EAST VILLAGE MCP.DWG - EAST VILLAGE VILLAGE\CURRENT\01093 - MCP EAST FILES\00-ACAD\EXHIBITS\0109300E07 GROVES\PROJECT CORKSCREW - C:\USERS\EADAMS\DC\ACCDOCS\JRE\01093 Page 738 of 1742 12' 50' R.O.W. (MIN) 12' P.U.E. P.U.E. 13' 2' 10' 10' 2' 13' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE 5'* 4' 2' 4' 5'* S/W MIN MIN MIN S/W 2% (MAX) 2% 2% 2% (MAX) POTABLE WATER OR POTABLE WATER OR IRRIGATION MAIN IRRIGATION MAIN 5' 5' 5' MIN 5' 5' MIN MIN GRAVITY MIN MIN SEWER FORCE MAIN CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) 2/19/2026 11:27 AM 2/19/2026 50' LOCAL STREET SECTION 1A NTS 12' 50' R.O.W. (MIN) 12' P.U.E. P.U.E. 13' 2' 10' 10' 2' 13' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE CROSS SECTION NOTES 5'* 4' 2' 4' 5'* MIN S/W MIN MIN S/W * A 5-FOOT SIDEWALK IS REQUIRED ON ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE STREET FOR 2% (MAX) 2% (MAX) 2% 2% CUL-DE-SACS OR SINGLE-LOADED ROADWAYS. ** PROVIDES SPACE FOR 12' LEFT TURN POTABLE WATER OR POTABLE WATER OR LANE AND 4' TRAFFIC SEPARATOR IRRIGATION MAIN IRRIGATION MAIN *** THESE DIMENSIONS MAY VARY TO 3' 5' 5' MIN 5' 3' ENABLE MEANDERING OF PATHS & MIN MIN MIN MIN WALKWAYS AND/OR INCREASE / DECREASE MEDIAN WIDTH FORCE MAIN GRAVITY CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) SEWER (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) **** MAY SUBSTITUTE (2)-11' TRAVEL LANES TO CREATE 4 LANE DIVIDED SECTION. 50' LOCAL STREET SECTION 1B NTS UTILITY NOTE UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY. EXACT LOCATIONS TO BE Page 32 of112 DETERMINED BY IMMOKALEE WATER & EX Bto Res. SEWER DISTRICT (IWSD) AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PPL PERMITTING. # DATE REVISIONS J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA DESIGNED BY: JRE PROJECT #: 01093 1 6-23-25 REVISED PER COUNTY & OWNER COMMENTS 9961 INTERSTATE COMMERCE DR, STE. 230 JR EVANS FT MYERS, FLORIDA 33913 DRAWN BY: EKA FILE DATE: Jun-25 PHONE: (239) 405-9148 EXHIBIT (A) ENGINEERING FAX: (239) 288-2537 WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM SRA STREET CROSS SECTIONS (1) SCALE: NTS SHEET : 6 of 10 C:\USERS\EADAMS\DC\ACCDOCS\JRE\01093 - CORKSCREW GROVES\PROJECT FILES\00-ACAD\EXHIBITS\0109300E07 - MCP EAST VILLAGE\CURRENT\01093 - EAST VILLAGE MCP.DWG - EAST VILLAGE VILLAGE\CURRENT\01093 - MCP EAST FILES\00-ACAD\EXHIBITS\0109300E07 GROVES\PROJECT CORKSCREW - C:\USERS\EADAMS\DC\ACCDOCS\JRE\01093 Page 739 of 1742 12' 58' R.O.W. (MIN) 12' P.U.E. P.U.E. 17' 2' 10' 10' 2' 17' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE 5'* 4' 4' 5'* S/W MIN MIN S/W 2% (MAX) 2% 2% 2% (MAX) FORCE MAIN POTABLE WATER IRRIGATION MAIN 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' GRAVITY MIN MIN MIN SEWER MIN MIN CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) 2/19/2026 11:27 AM 2/19/2026 58' LOCAL STREET SECTION 2A NTS 12' 58' R.O.W. (MIN) 12' P.U.E. P.U.E. 17' 2' 10' 10' 2' 17' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE CROSS SECTION NOTES 5'* 4' 4' 5'* S/W MIN MIN S/W * A 5-FOOT SIDEWALK IS REQUIRED ON ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE STREET FOR 2% (MAX) 2% 2% 2% (MAX) CUL-DE-SACS OR SINGLE-LOADED ROADWAYS. FORCE MAIN POTABLE WATER ** PROVIDES SPACE FOR 12' LEFT TURN LANE AND 4' TRAFFIC SEPARATOR IRRIGATION MAIN *** THESE DIMENSIONS MAY VARY TO ENABLE MEANDERING OF PATHS & 3' 5' 5' 5' 5' GRAVITY WALKWAYS AND/OR INCREASE / MIN MIN MIN SEWER MIN MIN DECREASE MEDIAN WIDTH CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) **** MAY SUBSTITUTE (2)-11' TRAVEL LANES TO CREATE 4 LANE DIVIDED SECTION. 58' LOCAL STREET SECTION 2B NTS UTILITY NOTE UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY. EXACT LOCATIONS TO BE Page 33 of112 DETERMINED BY IMMOKALEE WATER & EX Bto Res. SEWER DISTRICT (IWSD) AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PPL PERMITTING. # DATE REVISIONS J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA DESIGNED BY: JRE PROJECT #: 01093 1 6-23-25 REVISED PER COUNTY & OWNER COMMENTS 9961 INTERSTATE COMMERCE DR, STE. 230 JR EVANS FT MYERS, FLORIDA 33913 DRAWN BY: EKA FILE DATE: Jun-25 PHONE: (239) 405-9148 EXHIBIT (A) ENGINEERING FAX: (239) 288-2537 WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM SRA STREET CROSS SECTIONS (2) SCALE: NTS SHEET : 7 of 10 C:\USERS\EADAMS\DC\ACCDOCS\JRE\01093 - CORKSCREW GROVES\PROJECT FILES\00-ACAD\EXHIBITS\0109300E07 - MCP EAST VILLAGE\CURRENT\01093 - EAST VILLAGE MCP.DWG - EAST VILLAGE VILLAGE\CURRENT\01093 - MCP EAST FILES\00-ACAD\EXHIBITS\0109300E07 GROVES\PROJECT CORKSCREW - C:\USERS\EADAMS\DC\ACCDOCS\JRE\01093 Page 740 of 1742 12' 60' (MIN.) R.O.W. 12' P.U.E. P.U.E. CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) 5'* 4' 9' 3' 10' 10' 2' 4' 5'* S/W MIN PARALLEL TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE MIN S/W PARKING 2% (MAX) 2% (MAX) POTABLE WATER OR 3' VALLEY GUTTER IRRIGATION MAIN POTABLE WATER OR FORCE MAIN GRAVITY 5' IRRIGATION MAIN 5' 10' SEWER MIN MIN MIN CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) 2/19/2026 11:27 AM 2/19/2026 (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) 60' LOCAL STREET SECTION (VILLAGE CENTER) 3 NTS 12' 24' (MIN.) R.O.W. 12' P.U.E. P.U.E. CROSS SECTION NOTES 12' (MIN) - 14' (MAX) TRAVEL LANE * A 5-FOOT SIDEWALK IS REQUIRED ON ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE STREET FOR CUL-DE-SACS OR SINGLE-LOADED ROADWAYS. ** PROVIDES SPACE FOR 12' LEFT TURN 17' 3' 3' 5' LANE AND 4' TRAFFIC SEPARATOR MIN MIN MIN MIN *** THESE DIMENSIONS MAY VARY TO ENABLE MEANDERING OF PATHS & POTABLE WATER OR POTABLE WATER OR WALKWAYS AND/OR INCREASE / IRRIGATION MAIN IRRIGATION MAIN DECREASE MEDIAN WIDTH STORM DRAINAGE **** MAY SUBSTITUTE (2)-11' TRAVEL LANES 24' ALLEY SECTION (VILLAGE CENTER) TO CREATE 4 LANE DIVIDED SECTION. 4 NTS UTILITY NOTE UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY. EXACT LOCATIONS TO BE Page 34 of112 DETERMINED BY IMMOKALEE WATER & EX Bto Res. SEWER DISTRICT (IWSD) AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PPL PERMITTING. # DATE REVISIONS J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA DESIGNED BY: JRE PROJECT #: 01093 1 6-23-25 REVISED PER COUNTY & OWNER COMMENTS 9961 INTERSTATE COMMERCE DR, STE. 230 JR EVANS FT MYERS, FLORIDA 33913 DRAWN BY: EKA FILE DATE: Jun-25 PHONE: (239) 405-9148 EXHIBIT (A) ENGINEERING FAX: (239) 288-2537 WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM SRA STREET CROSS SECTIONS (3) SCALE: NTS SHEET : 8 of 10 C:\USERS\EADAMS\DC\ACCDOCS\JRE\01093 - CORKSCREW GROVES\PROJECT FILES\00-ACAD\EXHIBITS\0109300E07 - MCP EAST VILLAGE\CURRENT\01093 - EAST VILLAGE MCP.DWG - EAST VILLAGE VILLAGE\CURRENT\01093 - MCP EAST FILES\00-ACAD\EXHIBITS\0109300E07 GROVES\PROJECT CORKSCREW - C:\USERS\EADAMS\DC\ACCDOCS\JRE\01093 Page 741 of 1742 12' 70' (MIN.) R.O.W. 12' P.U.E. P.U.E. 2' 10' 5' 2' 5' 11' 11' 5' 2' 5' 6' 6' MULTI-USE PATH TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE S/W 2% (MAX) 2% 2% 2% (MAX) POTABLE WATER OR FORCE MAIN IRRIGATION MAIN POTABLE WATER OR 5' 5' 5' IRRIGATION MAIN 5' MIN MIN MIN OPTIONAL GRAVITY TYPE "F" CURB (TYP.) MIN SEWER LOCATION (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) 2/19/2026 11:27 AM 2/19/2026 70' COLLECTOR ROAD SECTION 5 N.T.S. 12' 80' (MIN.) R.O.W. 12' P.U.E. P.U.E. 16' *** 10' 6' 2' 4' 11' 2' 6' 6' 2' 11' 4' 2' 6' 5' MULTI-USE PATH MIN. TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE MIN. S/W CROSS SECTION NOTES * A 5-FOOT SIDEWALK IS REQUIRED ON ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE STREET FOR CUL-DE-SACS OR SINGLE-LOADED 2% (MAX) 2% (MAX) ROADWAYS. 2% 2% ** PROVIDES SPACE FOR 12' LEFT TURN LANE AND 4' TRAFFIC SEPARATOR *** THESE DIMENSIONS MAY VARY TO ENABLE MEANDERING OF PATHS & FORCE MAIN IRRIGATION MAIN OPTIONAL GRAVITY OPTIONAL GRAVITY WATER MAIN WALKWAYS AND/OR INCREASE / SEWER LOCATION SEWER LOCATION DECREASE MEDIAN WIDTH 3' 3' OPTIONAL IRRIGATION TYPE "F" CURB (TYP.) 5' 5' MIN MAIN LOCATION (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) MIN **** MAY SUBSTITUTE (2)-11' TRAVEL LANES TO CREATE 4 LANE DIVIDED SECTION. 6 80' COLLECTOR ROAD SECTION UTILITY NOTE N.T.S. UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY. EXACT LOCATIONS TO BE Page 35 of112 DETERMINED BY IMMOKALEE WATER & EX Bto Res. SEWER DISTRICT (IWSD) AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PPL PERMITTING. # DATE REVISIONS J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA DESIGNED BY: JRE PROJECT #: 01093 1 6-23-25 REVISED PER COUNTY & OWNER COMMENTS 9961 INTERSTATE COMMERCE DR, STE. 230 JR EVANS FT MYERS, FLORIDA 33913 DRAWN BY: EKA FILE DATE: Jun-25 PHONE: (239) 405-9148 EXHIBIT (A) ENGINEERING FAX: (239) 288-2537 WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM SRA STREET CROSS SECTIONS (4) SCALE: NTS SHEET : 9 of 10 C:\USERS\EADAMS\DC\ACCDOCS\JRE\01093 - CORKSCREW GROVES\PROJECT FILES\00-ACAD\EXHIBITS\0109300E07 - MCP EAST VILLAGE\CURRENT\01093 - EAST VILLAGE MCP.DWG - EAST VILLAGE VILLAGE\CURRENT\01093 - MCP EAST FILES\00-ACAD\EXHIBITS\0109300E07 GROVES\PROJECT CORKSCREW - C:\USERS\EADAMS\DC\ACCDOCS\JRE\01093 Page 742 of 1742 12' 125' 12' P.U.E. R.O.W. P.U.E. 2' 2' 2' 11.5'* 10' 12' *** 5' 11' 18'**** 11' 5' 2' 14.5'*** 6' 13' (1' MIN.) MULTI-USE (6' MIN.) (MIN.) (6' MIN.) S/W (1' MIN.) PATH 9' 9' 2% (MAX) (MIN.) (MIN.) 2% (MAX) 2% 2% CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) FORCE MAIN OPTIONAL GRAVITY WATER MAIN IRRIGATION MAIN 5' OPTIONAL GRAVITY SEWER LOCATION SEWER LOCATION 3' 3' CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) MIN (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) OPTIONAL IRRIGATION MAIN LOCATION 2/19/2026 11:27 AM 2/19/2026 125' BOULEVARD SECTION 7 N.T.S. 12' 125' 12' P.U.E. R.O.W. P.U.E. 2' 2' 2' 11.5'* 10' 12' *** 5' 11' 18'**** 11' 5' 2' 14.5'*** 6' 13' (1' MIN.) MULTI-USE (6' MIN.) (MIN.) (6' MIN.) S/W (1' MIN.) PATH DROP DROP DROP DROP CURB 9' 9' CURB CURB CURB (MIN.) (MIN.) 2% (MAX) 2% (MAX) 2% 2% NO LANDSCAPING MATERIAL AT FPL STABILIZED ACCESS (TYP) CROSSINGS. ONLY STABILIZED ACCESS (TYP) (6" LIMEROCK BASE OR STABILIZED ACCESS (TYP) GROUNDCOVER AND (6" LIMEROCK BASE OR APPROVED EQUAL) (6" LIMEROCK BASE OR SMALL SHRUBS (TYP) NO LANDSCAPING MATERIAL APPROVED EQUAL) APPROVED EQUAL) AT FPL CROSSINGS. ONLY NO LANDSCAPING MATERIAL AT FPL GROUNDCOVER AND SMALL CROSSINGS. ONLY GROUNDCOVER SHRUBS (TYP) AND SMALL SHRUBS (TYP) CROSS SECTION NOTES * A 5-FOOT SIDEWALK IS REQUIRED ON ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE STREET FOR TYPICAL FPL EASEMENT CROSSING SECTION CUL-DE-SACS OR SINGLE-LOADED 8 ROADWAYS. N.T.S. ** PROVIDES SPACE FOR 12' LEFT TURN UTILITY NOTE LANE AND 4' TRAFFIC SEPARATOR *** THESE DIMENSIONS MAY VARY TO UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE LOCATIONS ENABLE MEANDERING OF PATHS & SHOWN ARE FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES WALKWAYS AND/OR INCREASE / ONLY. EXACT LOCATIONS TO BE DECREASE MEDIAN WIDTH Page 36 of112 DETERMINED BY IMMOKALEE WATER & EX Bto Res. SEWER DISTRICT (IWSD) AT THE TIME OF **** MAY SUBSTITUTE (2)-11' TRAVEL LANES SDP OR PPL PERMITTING. TO CREATE 4 LANE DIVIDED SECTION. # DATE REVISIONS J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA DESIGNED BY: JRE PROJECT #: 01093 1 6-23-25 REVISED PER COUNTY & OWNER COMMENTS 9961 INTERSTATE COMMERCE DR, STE. 230 JR EVANS FT MYERS, FLORIDA 33913 DRAWN BY: EKA FILE DATE: Jun-25 PHONE: (239) 405-9148 EXHIBIT (A) ENGINEERING FAX: (239) 288-2537 WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM SRA STREET CROSS SECTIONS (5) SCALE: NTS SHEET : 10 of 10 C:\USERS\EADAMS\DC\ACCDOCS\JRE\01093 - CORKSCREW GROVES\PROJECT FILES\00-ACAD\EXHIBITS\0109300E07 - MCP EAST VILLAGE\CURRENT\01093 - EAST VILLAGE MCP.DWG - EAST VILLAGE VILLAGE\CURRENT\01093 - MCP EAST FILES\00-ACAD\EXHIBITS\0109300E07 GROVES\PROJECT CORKSCREW - C:\USERS\EADAMS\DC\ACCDOCS\JRE\01093 Page 743 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 37 of 112 Page 744 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 38 of 112 Page 745 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 39 of 112 Page 746 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 40 of 112 Page 747 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 41 of 112 Page 748 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 42 of 112 Page 749 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 43 of 112 Page 750 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 44 of 112 Page 751 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 45 of 112 Page 752 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 46 of 112 Page 753 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 47 of 112 Page 754 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 48 of 112 Page 755 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 49 of 112 Page 756 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 50 of 112 Page 757 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 51 of 112 Page 758 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 52 of 112 Page 759 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 53 of 112 Page 760 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 54 of 112 Page 761 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 55 of 112 Page 762 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 56 of 112 Page 763 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 57 of 112 Page 764 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 58 of 112 Page 765 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 59 of 112 Page 766 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 60 of 112 Page 767 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 61 of 112 Page 768 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 62 of 112 Page 769 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 63 of 112 Page 770 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 64 of 112 Page 771 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 65 of 112 Page 772 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 66 of 112 Page 773 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 67 of 112 Page 774 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 68 of 112 Page 775 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 69 of 112 Page 776 of 1742 EX B to Res. Page 70 of 112 Page 777 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX ASSESSMENT Revised June 2025 Prepared For: Alico Land Development Company 10070 Daniel Interstate Court, No. 200 Fort Myers, Florida 33913 (239) 226-2000 Prepared By: Passarella & Associates, Inc. 13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 (239) 274-0067 Project No. 23AII4051 EX B to Res. Page 71 of 112 Page 778 of 1742 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................1 2.0 NRI Assessment Methodology and Datasets .....................................................................1 2.1 Stewardship Overlay Designation..........................................................................3 2.2 Proximity................................................................................................................3 2.3 Listed Species Habitat............................................................................................3 2.4 Soils/Surface Water ...............................................................................................3 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................................................................................................................4 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 ........................................................................................5 4.0 NRI Results Summary .......................................................................................................6 i EX B to Res. Page 72 of 112 Page 779 of 1742 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Spatial Datasets Used in the Corkscrew Grove East Village NRI Assessment Model .........................................................................................2 ii EX B to Res. Page 73 of 112 Page 780 of 1742 LIST OF EXHIBITS Page Exhibit 1. Project Location Map ......................................................................................... E1-1 Exhibit 2. Aerial with Boundary ......................................................................................... E2-1 Exhibit 3. Aerial with Stewardship Overlay ....................................................................... E3-1 Exhibit 4. Aerial with FLUCFCS Map ............................................................................... E4-1 Exhibit 5. Aerial with Listed Species Locations ................................................................ E5-1 Exhibit 6. Soils Map ........................................................................................................... E6-1 Exhibit 7. Stewardship Overlay Designation...................................................................... E7-1 Exhibit 8. 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 ............................................................................ E11-1 Exhibit 12. Final NRI Assessment...................................................................................... E12-1 Exhibit 13. Natural Resource Index Values ....................................................................... E13-1 iii EX B to Res. Page 74 of 112 Page 781 of 17421.0 INTRODUCTION This Natural Resource Index (NRI) Assessment documents the environmental conditions and NRI scores within Corkscrew Grove East Village (Project) Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) and demonstrates that the Project 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 SRA Designation Application on behalf of Alico Land Development Company. 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 agricultural and non-agricultural lands, by type, included within the SRA; • A summary of the refined and updated data incorporated into the Project 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 Project NRI scores compare to those in the original Baseline model; and • A demonstration of compliance with the Suitability Criteria contained in Section 4.08.07.A.1. This SRA Designation Application involves the designation of 1,446.6± acres as the Project SRA, located in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10; Township 46 South; Range 28 East; Collier County (Exhibit 1). The location and extent of the Project is indicated in Exhibit 2. The Project 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), or Water Retention Area (WRA) lands, as illustrated in Exhibit 3. The Project is not within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). The Project property is currently dedicated to citrus grove operations and includes scattered natural areas composed of forested uplands, forested wetlands, and herbaceous wetlands, all of which exhibit a high degree of disturbance and contain various levels of exotic vegetation infestation (e.g., Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia)). The agricultural and non- agricultural 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 AND 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- 1 EX B to Res. Page 75 of 112 Page 782 of 1742 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 NRI Factor and indicates where data have been updated from the Baseline model. Table 1. Spatial Datasets Used in the Corkscrew Grove East Village NRI Assessment Model Natural Resource Model Input GIS Dataset Source Date1 Index Factors Stewardship Collier County Collier County Overlay Collier County2 2024 Stewardship Areas Stewardship Areas Designation Collier County Collier County Collier County2 2024 Stewardship Areas Stewardship Areas Proximity Conservation Collier Collier County 2019 Preserve Land Florida Managed Areas FNAI 2019 Florida Panther FWCC 2022 Telemetry Documented Wading Bird Rookeries FWCC 1999 Listed Species Listed Species Listed Species and Habitat Species-Specific Survey PAI 2024 Results Habitat Type FLUCFCS PAI 2025 Soils/Surface Soils for Lee, Collier, Soils USDA-NRCS 1990 Water and Hendry Counties Restoration -- -- -- -- Potential Land Use/Land Land Cover FLUCFCS PAI 2025 Cover FLUCFCS – Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System FNAI – Florida Natural Areas Inventory FWCC – Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service PAI – Passarella & Associates, Inc. USDA – United States Department of Agriculture 1Years in bold indicate updated dataset. 2WRA boundaries around the perimeter of the Project were revised per permitted wetland boundaries and agricultural reservoirs (see Section 2.1). 2 EX B to Res. Page 76 of 112 Page 783 of 1742 2.1 Stewardship Overlay Designation As part of establishing the RLSA, the Stewardship Overlay was established to designate land within the RLSA as FSA, HSA, WRA, or Open. To refine this layer, WRA boundaries taken from the Collier County Stewardship Overlay Map were updated through a detailed analysis of these areas on the ground, using actual surveyed wetland and South Florida Water Management District permit boundaries. Using this actual groundtruthed data, the Stewardship Overlay WRA boundaries were refined. The Project 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 lands. 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 revealed some positional and classification errors that are rectified in this application. The updated Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) mapping for the Project SRA is presented in Exhibit 4. The Documented Listed Species datasets were updated to include the results of listed species and species-specific surveys conducted by PAI in 2023 and 2024. In addition, updated listed species occurrence data and Florida panther telemetry was obtained from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC). Pursuant to communication with the FWCC in August 2023, the FWCC no longer releases panther telemetry data to the public per Florida Statute 379.1026. Panther telemetry data was last obtained from the FWCC by PAI in September 2022 and is current through May 2022. 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 Service soils map for the Project is provided in Exhibit 6. This dataset has not changed since the Baseline model. 3 EX B to Res. Page 77 of 112 Page 784 of 1742 2.5 Restoration Potential Restoration Potential is one of the six NRI Factors in an NRI Assessment. However, this 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 are for an SRA, this NRI Factor was not incorporated into the Project 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 Project NRI Assessment. 3.0 NRI ASSESSMENT The following section summarizes the results of the Project NRI Assessment and analyzes how the results of this Assessment compare to the Baseline Assessment results from the Collier County RLSA Assessment Study. Most of the variation in the NRI Factor results between the Project and the Baseline are due to updated datasets. However, it is worth noting that while the Project 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 the alignment of the model’s one-acre grid cells. 3.1 Stewardship Overlay Designation In the Assessment for the Project, there are no lands designated as FSA, HSA, WRA, or ACSC. Therefore, the majority of the SRA boundary received a score of 0 for this NRI Factor (Exhibit 7A). The cells that received a score of 0.6 are on the perimeter of the SRA, with the centerpoint outside of the SRA boundary where WRAs are located. The Assessment scoring matches the majority of the scoring for this area in the Baseline Assessment (Exhibit 7B). Variations between the two Assessments are attributed to the refinement of the WRA boundaries and the nature of the raster model and the scope of the Baseline Assessment, resulting in minor differences in the alignments of the model’s one-acre grid cells. 3.2 Proximity For the Proximity Index, the Project SRA boundary is within 300 feet of an HSA along a small portion of the southeastern 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). Variations between the two Assessments are attributed to the nature of the raster model and the scope of the Baseline Assessment, resulting in minor differences in the alignments of the model’s one- acre grid cells. 4 EX B to Res. Page 78 of 112 Page 785 of 1742 3.3 Listed Species Habitat The Listed Species Habitat Index for the Project received scores ranging from 0 to 0.4 (Exhibit 9A). The areas that scored 0.4 had observations of listed species within habitats that are considered preferred or tolerated for that species. Areas receiving a score of 0 did not have a listed species observation within a preferred or tolerated habitat. In the Baseline Assessment (Exhibit 9B), all areas received a score of 0. Variations between the Baseline and Project Assessments are attributed to the use of updated and groundtruthed FLUCFCS mapping and species datasets. 3.4 Soils/Surface Water For the Soils/Surface Water Index Factor, the Project Assessment received scores ranging from 0 for non-hydric soils to 0.3 for sand depression soils (Exhibit 10A). The majority of the Baseline Assessment (Exhibit 10B) matches the Assessment for the Project. Variations between the two Assessments are attributed to the nature of the raster model and the scope of the Baseline Assessment, resulting in minor differences in the alignments of the model’s one-acre grid cells. 3.5 Restoration Potential This 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 are for an SRA, this NRI Factor was not incorporated into the Project NRI Assessment. 3.6 Land Use/Land Cover In the Land Use/Land Cover Index Factor, the Project Assessment received scores of 0 to 0.4, as it contains FLUCFCS Code Groups 4 through 1 (Exhibit 11A). The majority of the Baseline Assessment matches the Assessment for the Project (Exhibit 11B). Differences between the two Assessments are due to the use of updated and groundtruthed FLUCFCS mapping conducted by PAI. 3.7 Final Assessment Results The final model result is calculated by summing the raster cells for each NRI Factor. The Project Assessment demonstrates that none of the land within the SRA boundary carries an NRI value greater than 1.2, with scores ranging from 0 to 1.0 (Exhibit 12A). The majority of the Baseline model cells are in agreement with the Project Assessment (Exhibit 12B). Areas where scoring in the Project Assessment diverge from the Baseline Assessment are primarily due to the refinement of the model to include updated FLUCFCS mapping and species information and the refinement of WRAs to permitted and groundtruthed boundaries. The Project NRI Assessment scores are presented graphically in Exhibit 12A and in table format in Exhibit 13. 5 EX B to Res. Page 79 of 112 Page 786 of 17424.0 NRI RESULTS SUMMARY The NRI Assessment for the proposed Project SRA has been prepared with updated and refined datasets to reflect current site conditions. This NRI Assessment for the Project SRA indicates there are no habitats within the boundary that score above a 1.2. Comparisons between the updated Assessment for the Project and the Baseline Assessment indicate that the incorporation of updated and refined datasets has not had a significant change to the overall Assessment scoring. Many of the index factors are still in agreement with the Baseline condition. Differences between the Baseline and Project Assessments are due to the refinement of the model to include updated FLUCFCS mapping and species information and the refinement of WRAs to permitted and groundtruthed boundaries. 6 EX B to Res. Page 80 of 112 Page 787 of 1742 EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP EX B to Res. Page 81 of 112 Page 788 of 1742 À¿82 KERI RD À¿835 ^ ^ ALICO RD PENSACOLA TALLAH ASSEE ^ ^ JACKSONVILLE À¿833 PANAMA CITY ^ LEELEE GAINESVILLE ^ DAYTON A BEACH D HENDRY R OIL WELL RD ¿858 S N À N A O À¿846 ^ T K ORLANDO S E G ¿29 À R N I D V ^ I TAMPA L 75 ^ §¨¦ VERO BEACH ^ ^ SARASOTA LAKE PLACID À¿951 EVERGLADES BLVD COLLIER ^ FORT MYERS À¿837 ^ ^ À¿839 NAPLES FORT LAUDERDALE À¿892 ^ MIAMI Gulf /(41 of À¿94 Mexico MONROE ¶ ^ KEY WEST HENDRY À¿830 À¿830A À¿82 LEE PROJECT LOCATION À¿850 SEC 3-10, TWP 46 S, RNG 28 E À¿29 890 À¿ À¿29A COLLIER À¿846 DRAWN BY DATE W.C. 12/5/24 EXHIBIT 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP REVIEWED BY DATE H.S. 12/5/24 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE REVISED DATE EX B to Res.  Page 82 of 112 Page 789 of 1742 EXHIBIT 2 AERIAL WITH BOUNDARY EX B to Res. Page 83 of 112 Page 790 of 1742 CHURCH RD CHURCH CHURCH RD CHURCH PROJECT LOCATION H E N D R Y C O L L I E R SRSR 8282 CORKSCREW RD   LEGEND     ¶¶   0 1,000 2,000 Feet DRAWN BY DATE W.C. 12/5/24 EXHIBIT 2. AERIAL WITH BOUNDARY REVIEWED BY DATE H.S. 12/5/24 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE REVISED DATE EX B to Res.  Page 84 of 112 Page 791 of 1742 EXHIBIT 3 AERIAL WITH STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY EX B to Res. Page 85 of 112 Page 792 of 1742 ¶ NAPLES AVE S AVE NAPLES NAPLES AVE S AVE NAPLES 0 1,450 2,900 Feet CHURCH RD CHURCH CHURCH RD CHURCH PROJECT LOCATION SRSR 8282 CORKSCREW RD Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed LOSTLOST LNLN WHIDDEN LOOP RD LOOP WHIDDEN WHIDDEN LOOP RD LOOP WHIDDEN LEGEND       Pepper Ranch  Preserve DRAWN BY DATE W.C. 12/5/24 EXHIBIT 3. AERIAL WITH STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY REVIEWED BY DATE H.S. 12/5/24 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE REVISED DATE EX B to Res.  Page 86 of 112 Page 793 of 1742 EXHIBIT 4 AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS MAP EX B to Res. Page 87 of 112 Page 794 of 1742 PROJECT LOCATION CHURCH RD CHURCH HH E E N N D D R R Y Y RD CHURCH 814 6319E4 CC O O L L L L I I E E R R 814 740 514 514 514 514 514 514 747 514 7401 514 221 4349E4 514 514 6319E4 514 514 514 514 514 7401 514 514 SR 82 514 514 514 514 514 422 4159E3 4221 514 514 221 514 6259E3 832 514 422 221 514 6319E2 514 514 740 514 4299E4 514 514 514 514 514 422 514 6189E3 514 514 747 514 6419E4 6319E4 514 514 514 740 747 6189E4 514 530 747 514 514 514 6189E4 514 514 514 514 422 514 747 514 514 514 6189E4 514 514 514 4221 514 514 4221 514 6189E3 6189E3 6189E4 747 514 6319E2 6189E4 3209E2 4221 530 514 514 3209E4 221 514 514 514 514 530 6249E4 221 514 6249E4 262 4119E4 6319E3 422 514 514 514 514 514 514 7401 514 514H 514 514 514 7401 514H 6319E4 422 530 7401 514 530 514 6189E3 422 221 514 514 6259E4 514 6319E4 514 514 7401 7401 740 514 4289E2 514 514 514 514 8321 832 6309E3 6189E3 514 514 514 514 832 514 4221 514 514 514 514 530 514 6319E3 514 6319E2 4221 514 514 514 514 7401 514 221 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 221 7401 747 514 FLUCFCS 514 514 747 CODE DESCRIPTION 514 514 110 RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 514 221 CITRUS GROVE 514 514 262 LOW PASTURE 3209E2 SHRUB AND BRUSHLAND, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS) 514 3209E4 SHRUB AND BRUSHLAND, DISTURBED (76-100% EXOTICS) 4119E1 PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS) 514 4119E4 PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (76-100% EXOTICS) 514 514 4159E2 PINE, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS) 4159E3 PINE, DISTURBED (50-75% EXOTICS) 422 BRAZILIAN PEPPER 4221 BRAZILIAN PEPPER, HYDRIC 4289E2 CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS) 4289E4 CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (76-100% EXOTICS) 4299E4 WAX MYRTLE, DISTURBED (76-100% EXOTICS) 4349E1 HARDWOOD/CONIFER MIXED, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS) CORKSCREW RD 4349E2 HARDWOOD/CONIFER MIXED, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS) 4349E4 HARDWOOD/CONIFER MIXED, DISTURBED (76-100% EXOTICS) 514 DITCH 514H DITCH, HYDRIC 530 RESERVOIR 6189E1 WILLOW, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS) 6189E3 WILLOW, DISTURBED (50-75% EXOTICS) 6189E4 WILLOW, DISTURBED (76-100% EXOTICS) 6249E4 CYPRESS/PINE/CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (76-100% EXOTICS) 6259E2 HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS) 6259E3 HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED (50-75% EXOTICS) 6259E4 HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED (76-100% EXOTICS) 6309E3 WETLAND FORESTED MIXED, DISTURBED (50-75% EXOTICS) 6319E2 WETLAND SHURB, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS) 6319E3 WETLAND SHURB, DISTURBED (50-75% EXOTICS) 6319E4 WETLAND SHURB, DISTURBED (76-100% EXOTICS) 6419E1 FRESHWATER MARSH, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS) 6419E2 FRESHWATER MARSH, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS) 6419E4 FRESHWATER MARSH, DISTURBED (76-100% EXOTICS) 740 DISTURBED LAND 7401 DISTURBED LAND, HYDRIC 742 BORROW AREA 743 SPOIL AREA 747 BERM 814 ROAD 832 ELECTRICAL POWER TRANSMISSION LINES 8321 ELECTRICAL POWER TRANSMISSION LINES, HYDRIC   LEGEND     ¶¶   0 1,000 2,000 Feet DRAWN BY DATE W.C. 12/5/24 EXHIBIT 4. AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS MAP REVIEWED BY DATE H.S. 12/5/24 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE REVISED DATE EX B to Res.  W.C. 5/29/25 Page 88 of 112 Page 795 of 1742 EXHIBIT 5 AERIAL WITH LISTED SPECIES LOCATIONS EX B to Res. Page 89 of 112 Page 796 of 1742 PROJECT LOCATION CHURCH RD CHURCH CHURCH RD CHURCH H E N D R Y C O L L I E R SRSR 8282 *# *# *# *# *# *# CORKSCREW RD LEGEND   *#             ¶¶        0 1,000 2,000 Feet   DRAWN BY DATE W.C. 12/5/24 EXHIBIT 5. AERIAL WITH LISTED SPECIES LOCATIONS REVIEWED BY DATE H.S. 12/5/24 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE REVISED DATE EX B to Res.  Page 90 of 112 Page 797 of 1742 EXHIBIT 6 SOILS MAP EX B to Res. Page 91 of 112 Page 798 of 1742 PROJECT LOCATION CHURCH RD CHURCH CHURCH RD CHURCH H E N D R Y C O L L I E R 2222 2121 16 2929 16 2929 33 37 2222 1616 37 2222 2727 2121 3737 43 3737 SRSR 8282 2222 2929 43 2222 2222 2222 2929 2222 29 22 29 22 2222 2222 22 2222 22 2222 1616 2222 2222 3737 2222 2222 3737 2222 2222 2222 2222 2929 2727 2222 2222 2222 2222 2727 2727 22 22 1818 2222 2222 2222 1616 2222 1616 2727 CORKSCREW RD Soil Unit Description NSLP Classification 3 MALABAR FINE SAND FLATS (TRANSITIONAL) SOILS 16 OLDSMAR FINE SAND FLATWOOD SOILS 18 RIVIERA FINE SAND, LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM FLATS (TRANSITIONAL) SOILS 21 BOCA FINE SAND FLATWOOD SOILS 22 CHOBEE, WINDER AND GATOR SOILS, DEPRESSIONAL SAND DEPRESSION 27 HOLOPAW FINE SAND FLATS (TRANSITIONAL) SOILS 29 WABASSO FINE SAND FLATWOOD SOILS 37 TUSCAWILLA FINE SAND FLATWOOD SOILS 43 WINDER, RIVIERA, LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM, AND CHOBEE SOILS DEPRESSIONAL SAND DEPRESSION   LEGEND     ¶   0 1,000 2,000 Feet DRAWN BY DATE W.C. 12/5/24 EXHIBIT 6. SOILS MAP REVIEWED BY DATE H.S. 12/5/24 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE REVISED DATE EX B to Res.  Page 92 of 112 Page 799 of 1742 EXHIBIT 7 STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY DESIGNATION EX B to Res. Page 93 of 112 Page 800 of 1742 CHURCH RD CHURCH CHURCH RD CHURCH PROJECT LOCATION H E N D R Y C O L L I E R SRSR 8282 CORKSCREW RD  LEGEND        ¶   0 1,000 2,000 Feet DRAWN BY DATE EXHIBIT 7A. STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY W.C. 12/5/24 REVIEWED BY DATE DESIGNATION H.S. 12/5/24 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE REVISED DATE EX B to Res.  Page 94 of 112 Page 801 of 1742 CHURCH RD CHURCH CHURCH RD CHURCH PROJECT LOCATION H E N D R Y C O L L I E R SRSR 8282 CORKSCREW RD  LEGEND        ¶   0 1,000 2,000 Feet DRAWN BY DATE EXHIBIT 7B. BASELINE - STEWARDSHIP W.C. 12/5/24 REVIEWED BY DATE OVERLAY DESIGNATION H.S. 12/5/24 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE REVISED DATE EX B to Res.  Page 95 of 112 Page 802 of 1742 EXHIBIT 8 PROXIMITY INDEX EX B to Res. Page 96 of 112 Page 803 of 1742 CHURCH RD CHURCH PROJECT LOCATION CHURCH RD CHURCH H E N D R Y C O L L I E R SRSR 8282 CORKSCREW RD  LEGEND        ¶   0 1,000 2,000 Feet DRAWN BY DATE W.C. 12/5/24 EXHIBIT 8A. PROXIMITY INDEX REVIEWED BY DATE H.S. 12/5/24 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE REVISED DATE EX B to Res.  Page 97 of 112 Page 804 of 1742 CHURCH RD CHURCH PROJECT LOCATION CHURCH RD CHURCH H E N D R Y C O L L I E R SRSR 8282 CORKSCREW RD  LEGEND        ¶   0 1,000 2,000 Feet DRAWN BY DATE W.C. 12/5/24 EXHIBIT 8B. BASELINE - PROXIMITY INDEX REVIEWED BY DATE H.S. 12/5/24 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE REVISED DATE EX B to Res.  Page 98 of 112 Page 805 of 1742 EXHIBIT 9 LISTED SPECIES HABITAT INDEX EX B to Res. Page 99 of 112 Page 806 of 1742 CHURCH RD CHURCH CHURCH RD CHURCH PROJECT LOCATION HH E E N N D D R R Y Y CC O O L L L L I I E E R R SR 82 CORKSCREW RD LEGEND         ¶   0 1,000 2,000 Feet DRAWN BY DATE W.C. 12/5/24 EXHIBIT 9A. LISTED SPECIES HABITAT INDEX REVIEWED BY DATE H.S. 12/5/24 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE REVISED DATE EX B to Res.  W.C. 5/29/25 Page 100 of 112 Page 807 of 1742 CHURCH RD CHURCH CHURCH RD CHURCH PROJECT LOCATION H E N D R Y C O L L I E R SRSR 8282 CORKSCREW RD  LEGEND       ¶   0 1,000 2,000 Feet DRAWN BY DATE EXHIBIT 9B. BASELINE - LISTED SPECIES W.C. 12/5/24 REVIEWED BY DATE HABITAT INDEX H.S. 12/5/24 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE REVISED DATE EX B to Res.  Page 101 of 112 Page 808 of 1742 EXHIBIT 10 SOILS/SURFACE WATER INDEX EX B to Res. Page 102 of 112 Page 809 of 1742 CHURCH RD CHURCH CHURCH RD CHURCH PROJECT LOCATION H E N D R Y C O L L I E R SRSR 8282 CORKSCREW RD LEGEND           ¶  0 1,000 2,000 Feet DRAWN BY DATE W.C. 12/5/24 EXHIBIT 10A. SOILS/SURFACE WATER INDEX REVIEWED BY DATE H.S. 12/5/24 EAST VILLAGE SRA REVISED DATE EX B to Res.  Page 103 of 112 Page 810 of 1742 CHURCH RD CHURCH CHURCH RD CHURCH PROJECT LOCATION H E N D R Y C O L L I E R SRSR 8282 CORKSCREW RD LEGEND           ¶  0 1,000 2,000 Feet DRAWN BY DATE W.C. 12/5/24 EXHIBIT 10B. BASELINE - SOILS/SURFACE REVIEWED BY DATE WATER INDEX H.S. 12/5/24 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE REVISED DATE EX B to Res.  Page 104 of 112 Page 811 of 1742 EXHIBIT 11 LAND USE/LAND COVER INDEX EX B to Res. Page 105 of 112 Page 812 of 1742 CHURCH RD CHURCH CHURCH RD CHURCH PROJECT LOCATION HH E E N N D D R R Y Y CC O O L L L L I I E E R R SR 82 CORKSCREW RD LEGEND          ¶    0 1,000 2,000 Feet DRAWN BY DATE W.C. 12/5/24 EXHIBIT 11A. LAND USE/LAND COVER INDEX REVIEWED BY DATE H.S. 12/5/24 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE REVISED DATE EX B to Res.  W.C. 5/29/25 Page 106 of 112 Page 813 of 1742 CHURCH RD CHURCH CHURCH RD CHURCH PROJECT LOCATION H E N D R Y C O L L I E R SRSR 8282 CORKSCREW RD LEGEND          ¶    0 1,000 2,000 Feet DRAWN BY DATE EXHIBIT 11B. BASELINE - LAND USE/ W.C. 12/5/24 REVIEWED BY DATE LAND COVER INDEX H.S. 12/5/24 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE REVISED DATE EX B to Res.  Page 107 of 112 Page 814 of 1742 EXHIBIT 12 FINAL NRI ASSESMENT EX B to Res. Page 108 of 112 Page 815 of 1742 CHURCH RD CHURCH CHURCH RD CHURCH PROJECT LOCATION HH E E N N D D R R Y Y CC O O L L L L I I E E R R SR 82 CORKSCREW RD LEGEND              ¶    0 1,000 2,000 Feet DRAWN BY DATE W.C. 12/5/24 EXHIBIT 12A. FINAL NRI ASSESSMENT REVIEWED BY DATE H.S. 12/5/24 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE REVISED DATE EX B to Res.  W.C. 5/29/25 Page 109 of 112 Page 816 of 1742 CHURCH RD CHURCH CHURCH RD CHURCH PROJECT LOCATION H E N D R Y C O L L I E R SRSR 8282 CORKSCREW RD LEGEND              ¶     0 1,000 2,000  Feet DRAWN BY DATE W.C. 12/5/24 EXHIBIT 12B. BASELINE - FINAL NRI ASSESSMENT REVIEWED BY DATE H.S. 12/5/24 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE REVISED DATE EX B to Res.  Page 110 of 112 Page 817 of 1742 EXHIBIT 13 NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX VALUES EX B to Res. Page 111 of 112 Page 818 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX VALUES Revised June 2025 Percent of Total Open Total Total SRA Acres NRI Value SRA Acreage (±) Acres (±) (±) 0.0 9.6 138.9 138.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 71.1 1,028.0 1,028.0 0.3 3.4 49.9 49.9 0.4 4.3 61.9 61.9 0.5 10.0 144.9 144.9 0.6 0.6 9.0 9.0 0.7 0.3 4.0 4.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 10.0 10.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Totals 100.0 1,446.6 1,446.6 NRI ˃1.2 Totals 0.0 0.0 0.0 NRI – Natural Resource Index SRA – Stewardship Receiving Area E13-1 EX B to Res. Page 112 of 112 Page 819 of 1742 STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA THIS STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ day of ___________, 2026, by and between COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as “County” whose mailing address is the Harmon Turner Building, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112, and Alico, Inc. hereinafter referred to as “Owner” whose mailing address is 10070 Daniels Interstate Ct. #200, Fort Myers, FL 33913, for the purpose of designating the number of “Stewardship Sending Area” (SSA) Credits consumed in the designation of Corkscrew Grove East Village as a Stewardship Receiving Area and the source of those SSA credits pursuant to Section 4.08.07.C.11 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). RECITALS 1. Owner has applied for SRA designation for Corkscrew Grove East Village and said SRA is approximately 1,446.59 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 Corkscrew Grove East Village is appropriate. 3. The County and Owner have reached agreement on the number of Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Credits required to be utilized for such designation. 4. The County 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. 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: Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 1 of 15 Page 820 of 17421. Owner is hereby utilizing and transferring 11,703.4 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 1,446.59 acres proposed in the Corkscrew Grove East Village Development Document and summarized hereinafter. 2. Exhibit “A” is the legal description of the 1,446.59 acres that constitute the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. 3. Attached hereto is Exhibit “B” the Corkscrew Grove East Village Master Plan which depicts the land uses within the SRA. Also attached as Exhibit “C” is the Corkscrew Grove East 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 Corkscrew Grove East Village Master Plan. 4. Pursuant to the Future Land Use Element – Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay of the Growth Management Plan, the designation of a SRA requires eight (8) Stewardship Credits where such Credits were created from an SSA submitted for review or approved prior to July 13, 2021 and ten (10) Stewardship Credits for each acre of land included in an SRA, where such Credits were created from an SSA submitted for review or approved after July 13, 2021 to be transferred to an SRA in exchange for the development of one acre of land within Corkscrew Grove East Village. Owner is transferring enough credits to allow development on 1,382.96 acres, since 63.63 acres of public benefit use area does not consume Credits. Once credits are transferred, they may not be recaptured by Owner. 5. Owner will be utilizing credits generated from Stewardship Sending Area 11 in the amount of 8,504.80 Credits. 6. Owner will be utilizing credits generated from Stewardship Sending Area 22 in the amount of 3,198.60 Credits. 7. Pursuant to Resolution No._______, the County has approved Corkscrew Grove East Village as an SRA consisting of 1,446.59 acres and has approved the Corkscrew Grove East Village Master Plan and Development Document. 8. Applicant and Owner acknowledge that development of SRA land may not commence until an SRA Credit Agreement Memorandum is recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 2 of 15 Page 821 of 17429. This Agreement may only be amended by written agreement of all the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers or representatives and their official seals hereto affixed the day and year first written above. Attest: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: ________________ , Deputy Clerk Dan Kowal, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: By: Assistant County Attorney WITNESS: ALICO, INC. (Signature) ________________________________ By:_______________________________ (Print full name) Printed Name:________________________ Title: _____________________________ (Signature) (Print full name) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement was executed before me this ____day of ___________, 2026, by means of _____ physical presence or _____ online notarization, by _______________, as _____________ of Alico, Inc., who is personally known to me ________ or who has produced _________ as identification. ___________________________________ Notary Public Print Name__________________________ (SEAL) Certificate No._______________________ My Commissioner Expires__________ Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 3 of 15 Page 822 of 1742 SRA CREDIT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA BBLS SURVEYORS, INC. 9001 HIGHLAND WOOD BLVD., SUITE. 6, BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA, 34135 TELEPHONE: (239) 597-1315 LEGAL DESCRIPTION CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09 AND 10, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: AREA 1 COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 04; THENCE RUN S.88°49'18"W., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,508.39 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HERIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN S.01°10'09"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 560.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.70°39'05"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 408.22 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 69°12'45", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 56.79 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.36°02'42"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.40 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.01°26'19"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 188.82 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 70.71 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.43°33'41"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 78.54 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.88°33'41"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,025.38 FEET; THENCE RUN S.50°56'03"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 169.38 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37°37'38", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 32.25 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.69°44'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 32.84 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.88°33'41"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 703.74 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74°33'23", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 60.57 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.54°09'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.06 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.16°52'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 136.11 FEET; TO THE BEGINNING Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 4 of 15 Page 823 of 1742OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74°33'23", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 60.57 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.54°09'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.06 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.88°33'41"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 138.80 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10°54'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,723.47 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 82 (A 200 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY); THENCE RUN N.73°57'58"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 3,951.29 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT “A” THENCE CONTINUE N.73°57'58"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,511.79 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 04, THE SAME BEING A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT “B”; THENCE RUN N.01°10'09"W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,123.48 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE RUN S.89°34'35"E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,601.08 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 04; THENCE RUN N.88°49'18"E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,195.39 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS OR 192.492 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. LESS AND EXCEPT COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT “A”, THENCE RUN N.16°02'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE N.16°02'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.91 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°02'21"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 132.64 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88°57'41"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 234.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°02'17"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 268.38 FEET; THENCE RUN N.73°57'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 264.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 1.264 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. AND AREA 2 COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT “B”, THENCE RUN S.18°37'53"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 82 (A 200 FOOT WIIDE RIGHT OF WAY, THE SAME BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 818.89 FEET; THENCE RUN S.36°17'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.80 FEET; THENCE RUN N.73°57'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 327.44 FEET; THENCE RUN N.78°05'08"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 96.93 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°02'23"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 322.02 FEET; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 218.62 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 5 of 15 Page 824 of 1742FEET; THENCE RUN S.36°17'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 265.76 FEET; THENCE RUN S.53°42'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.36°17'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 711.07 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 3,151.52 FEET; THENCE RUN S.16°02'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 464.76 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CORKSCREW ROAD (A 100 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY), THE SAME BEING A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT “C”; THENCE RUN S.20°51'56"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,727.40 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,859.86 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37°08'16", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 1,184.52 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.39°26'04"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,205.52 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.58°00'12"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 6,667.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,914.79 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10°45'18", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 546.33 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.52°37'33"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 547.14 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.47°14'54"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 592.73 FEET; THENCE RUN N.42°45'06"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 182.77 FEET; THENCE RUN N.08°34'04"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 29.19 FEET; THENCE RUN N.07°19'41"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.16 FEET; THENCE RUN N.04°55'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.31 FEET; THENCE RUN N.05°01'49"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.88 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°02'16"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 44.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°10'03"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.95 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°29'48"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 47.71 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°18'30"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 59.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°01'00"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.59 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°26'27"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.34 FEET; THENCE RUN N.26°36'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 21.65 FEET; THENCE RUN N.71°11'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 62.41 FEET; THENCE RUN N.78°16'23"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 59.85 FEET; THENCE RUN N.44°56'42"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 61.76 FEET; THENCE RUN N.07°58'50"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.06°48'04"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 79.45 FEET; THENCE RUN N.06°20'44"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 62.71 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°58'06"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 61.35 FEET; THENCE RUN N.10°07'23"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.54 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°52'44"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 256.40 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°54'16"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.49 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°25'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.25 FEET; THENCE RUN N.30°11'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 54.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.86°55'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 54.72 FEET; THENCE RUN S.85°44'03"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 23.63 FEET; THENCE RUN N.62°37'24"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 48.08 FEET; THENCE RUN N.29°11'17"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 23.53 FEET; THENCE RUN N.34°43'38"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 36.62 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°00'28"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.59 FEET; THENCE RUN N.04°15'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.83 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 6 of 15 Page 825 of 1742FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°00'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 64.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.03°51'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 47.63 FEET; THENCE RUN N.05°47'57"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 48.46 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°30'23"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 80.45 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°08'26"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 95.81 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°39'33"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.77 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°35'28"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.39 FEET; THENCE RUN N.03°07'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 46.18 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°03'06"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.03°24'00"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.90 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°04'14"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,048.74 FEET; THENCE RUN N.57°16'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 39.27 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°51'17"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 944.04 FEET; THENCE RUN S.43°19'43"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.74 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°10'26"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 620.35 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°37'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 59.32 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°07'47"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 176.53 FEET; THENCE RUN S.42°53'32"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.07 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89°03'28"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 191.01 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°36'21"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.23 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89°19'21"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 133.04 FEET; THENCE RUN N.85°50'05"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 99.43 FEET; THENCE RUN S.79°25'26"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.39 FEET; THENCE RUN S.56°44'28"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.38 FEET; THENCE RUN S.31°01'07"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 37.43 FEET; THENCE RUN S.03°43'08"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 96.90 FEET; THENCE RUN S.06°32'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 68.49 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°36'31"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.05 FEET; THENCE RUN S.04°23'21"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 79.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°11'30"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.74 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°48'10"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 118.12 FEET; THENCE RUN S.03°03'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 102.35 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°30'01"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 119.09 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°20'04"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 75.13 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°29'22"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 94.37 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°42'05"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 92.14 FEET; THENCE RUN S.03°36'37"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 117.42 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°50'03"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 106.32 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°40'00"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 97.31 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°35'17"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 110.31 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°16'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 140.41 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°41'19"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 150.96 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°04'59"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.24 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°22'19"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.05 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°21'33"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 123.18 FEET; THENCE RUN S.08°21'19"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 67.75 FEET; THENCE RUN S.45°16'07"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 68.75 FEET; THENCE RUN S.84°15'47"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.96 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89°57'40"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.30 FEET; THENCE RUN S.86°42'24"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 89.38 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89°43'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 83.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88°47'49"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 103.44 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89°04'18"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 103.63 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89°39'41"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.75 FEET; THENCE RUN S.86°02'46"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 64.96 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89°35'11"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 68.29 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°55'43"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88°23'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.30 FEET; THENCE RUN S.87°27'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 66.12 FEET; THENCE RUN N.74°04'04"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 74.55 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°09'55"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 119.52 FEET TO THE Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 7 of 15 Page 826 of 1742BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 78°43'31", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 31.71 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39°11'51"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 34.35 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 235.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 78°09'08", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 296.27 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39°29'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 320.54 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.00°24'28"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,096.45 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,700.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 22°50'27", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 673.22 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.11°00'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 677.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23°34'42", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 122.59 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.10°38'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 123.46 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.01°08'43"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 224.54 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33°55'13", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 408.39 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.15°48'54"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 414.42 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.32°46'30"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 181.86 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°56'43", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 157.82 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39°14'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 158.16 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 382.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°56'43", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 86.13 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39°14'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 86.31 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.32°46'30"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 53.08 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34°32'04", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 237.46 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.50°02'33"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 241.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 62°04'46", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 25.78 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.36°16'12"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 27.09 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.05°13'48"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 426.62 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 8 of 15 Page 827 of 1742THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27°32'42", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 9.52 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.19°00'09"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 9.62 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.32°46'30"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 444.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.37°41'31"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 223.51 FEET; THENCE RUN S.51°54'14"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 40.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 225.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39°39'16", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 152.97 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.71°43'53"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 156.07 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.88°26'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 358.52 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 925.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23°31'36", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 377.36 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.76°40'41"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 380.03 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.64°54'54"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,604.44 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT “D”, THE SAME BEING THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,074.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24°30'39", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 456.17 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.77°10'13"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 459.67 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.89°25'33"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,254.90 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 874.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25°35'52", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 387.46 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.77°46'31"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 390.70 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND A POINT OF CURVE OF A NON-TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 137.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19°26'36", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 46.27 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.71°32'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 46.49 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND A POINT OF CURVE OF A NON-TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 675.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20°37'20", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 241.82 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.09°08'24"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 243.13 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.01°10'16"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 214.59 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 574.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30°33'45", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 302.83 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.14°06'37"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 306.45 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 425.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56°52'12", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 405.21 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.00°57'24"E., FOR A Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 9 of 15 Page 828 of 1742DISTANCE OF 422.34 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 574.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43°30'44", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 425.89 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.05°43'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 436.29 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.16°02'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.84 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 944.869 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. LESS AND EXCEPT COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT “D”, THENCE RUN S.27°26'01"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 402.44 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN N.67°11'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.46 FEET; THENCE RUN N.85°21'28"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.15 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89°02'13"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.07 FEET; THENCE RUN S.56°15'41"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.07°36'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 52.92 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°07'50"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°41'56"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.36 FEET; THENCE RUN S.12°47'36"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 42.53 FEET; THENCE RUN S.63°14'17"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 36.54 FEET; THENCE RUN S.65°58'21"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 78.96 FEET; THENCE RUN S.22°40'47"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 41.36 FEET; THENCE RUN S.04°33'09"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°42'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.11 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°43'11"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 51.59 FEET; THENCE RUN S.07°40'03"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 31.35 FEET; THENCE RUN S.46°59'16"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 27.98 FEET; THENCE RUN S.75°58'12"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.61 FEET; THENCE RUN N.90°00'00"E , FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.56 FEET; THENCE RUN N.54°40'20"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.65 FEET; THENCE RUN N.40°57'26"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 29.09 FEET; THENCE RUN N.08°36'07"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.19 FEET; THENCE RUN N.07°43'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 46.16 FEET; THENCE RUN N.16°05'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.36 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°50'11"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.96 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89°04'13"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.32 FEET; THENCE RUN N.86°53'19"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 90.52 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88°42'22"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.98 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°44'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.21 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88°59'24"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 87.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.78°53'49"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.14°20'06"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 66.40 FEET; THENCE RUN S.09°01'51"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 88.55 FEET; THENCE RUN S.09°13'56"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 87.61 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10°53'56"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.09°47'32"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.54 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10°54'31"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.26 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10°45'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 97.85 FEET; THENCE RUN S.08°50'14"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.26 FEET; THENCE RUN S.08°24'23"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.35 FEET; THENCE RUN S.07°28'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 94.54 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10°11'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.35°09'18"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 54.16 FEET; THENCE RUN S.49°38'14"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 76.97 FEET; THENCE RUN S.51°40'50"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.73 FEET; THENCE RUN N.87°43'38"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 43.73 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 10 of 15 Page 829 of 1742FEET; THENCE RUN S.71°31'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 51.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.74°48'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.47°44'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 27.22 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°44'13"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 458.91 FEET; THENCE RUN N.50°03'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.18 FEET; THENCE RUN N.52°35'34"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 42.36 FEET; THENCE RUN N.52°39'27"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 44.34 FEET; THENCE RUN N.66°17'41"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 33.93 FEET; THENCE RUN N.58°16'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 44.24 FEET; THENCE RUN N.53°46'50"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 103.66 FEET; THENCE RUN N.50°19'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.52 FEET; THENCE RUN N.59°46'44"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 108.92 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°21'52"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 31.84 FEET; THENCE RUN S.27°44'21"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 40.05 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°57'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 386.62 FEET; THENCE RUN S.04°58'47"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 38.88 FEET; THENCE RUN S.05°56'08"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 31.43 FEET; THENCE RUN S.03°27'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 74.52 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°15'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.04 FEET; THENCE RUN S.06°11'40"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 36.66 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°43'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 350.98 FEET; THENCE RUN S.04°21'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 39.53 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°17'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 39.85 FEET; THENCE CONTINUE S.02°17'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 28.25 FEET; THENCE RUN S.37°27'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 43.13 FEET; THENCE RUN S.46°11'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 38.49 FEET; THENCE RUN S.52°30'51"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 41.39 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89°50'21"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 37.75 FEET; THENCE RUN N.69°29'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 144.19 FEET; THENCE RUN N.73°51'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.95 FEET; THENCE RUN N.17°36'03"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 19.58 FEET; THENCE RUN N.15°55'16"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 469.33 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°54'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 638.37 FEET; THENCE RUN N.10°40'40"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 25.37 FEET; THENCE RUN N.65°16'14"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 51.24 FEET; THENCE RUN N.80°53'11"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 377.64 FEET; THENCE RUN N.41°38'01"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 16.60 FEET; THENCE RUN N.13°21'12"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 35.89 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°16'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 80.83 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°57'36"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.74 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°54'14"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.42 FEET; THENCE RUN N.04°25'23"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°13'35"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.99 FEET; THENCE RUN N.14°04'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.90 FEET; THENCE RUN N.80°17'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.79°24'32"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.53 FEET; THENCE RUN N.33°59'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.02 FEET; THENCE RUN N.46°53'13"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.26 FEET; TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 22.115 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. AND AREA 3 COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT “C”, THENCE RUN S.87°40'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 105.48 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD (A 200 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY) AND THE Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 11 of 15 Page 830 of 1742SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CORKSCREW ROAD (A 100 FOOT WIDE WIGHT OF WAY), THE SAME BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID STATE ROAD 82, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,786.39 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°35'44"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 364.23 FEET; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 134.39 FEET; THENCE RUN N.31°00'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 52.82 FEET; THENCE RUN S.58°59'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.31°00'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.58°59'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.31°00'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 278.43 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 106.67 FEET; THENCE RUN S.16°02'01"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 10.84 FEET; THENCE RUN S.31°00'01"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 361.08 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 497.96 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02°24'27", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 20.92 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.29°47'47"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 20.92 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN, S.73°57'58"E., A DISTANCE OF 1,267.66 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°00'47"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,149.10 FEET; THENCE RUN S.18°00'34"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 269.47 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,725.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 57°00'46", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 1,646.54 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.46°30'57"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,716.48 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.75°01'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 885.99 FEET; THENCE RUN S.06°02'21"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 300.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.14°52'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.55 FEET; THENCE RUN N.75°07'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 3,889.60 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID CORKSCREW ROAD; THENCE RUN N.58°00'12"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,619.31 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,959.86 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37°08'16", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 1,248.21 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39°26'04"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,270.34 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.20°51'56"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,760.94 FEET; TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PAREL CONTAINS 332.608 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 12 of 15 Page 831 of 1742 THE TOTAL AREA OF PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN IS 1,446.590 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 03, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING A BEARING OF S.89°29'58"E. 89° 23' 32 THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 13 of 15 Page 832 of 1742 SRA CREDIT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT “B” CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE MASTER PLAN Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 14 of 15 Page 833 of 1742 SRA CREDIT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT “C” Land Use Summary Use Density or Intensity Residential Up to 4,502 Dwelling Units Commercial Min. and Max. of 238,606 gross square feet of retail and office uses, a max. of 100,000 gross square feet of indoor self-storage Civic, Governmental, Institutional Min. 42,020 square feet • Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA contains 1,446.59± acres. • Corkscrew Grove East Village contains approximately 24.33± acres of parks, park preserves, wetland park preserves, and a Neighborhood General Amenity Center. This exceeds the SRA requirement of providing 1% of the SRA gross acreage (14.47 acres) for recreation and parks for neighborhoods. • Corkscrew Grove East Village provides 516.60± acres of (36± percent) of Open Space. • Total acreage requiring stewardship credits is 1,382.96 acres (total Village acreage excluding public use acreage). • Eight (8) credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created from an SSA submitted for review or approved prior to July 13, 2021. The SRA utilizes 8,504.80 Stewardship Credits from SSA 11 created prior to July 13, 2021, which entitles 968.81 acres of the SRA. • Ten (10) credits per acre shall be required for each acre of land included in an SRA, where such Credits were created from a SSA 22 submitted for review or approved after July 13, 2021. The SRA utilizes 3,198.60 Stewardship Credits from SSA(s) created after July 13, 2021, which entitles 319.86 acres of the SRA. • Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA does not include lands within ACSC Overlay. • Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA does not include land designated Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA)or Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA). • There is a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) surrounded by the SRA that includes 81.56 acres of Water Retention Area (WRA). This WRA will not provide stormwater quality treatment for the SRA. • The SRA does not include any lands with a Natural Resource Index (NRI) greater than 1.2. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 15 of 15 Page 834 of 1742 CONSISTENCY MEMORANDUM TO: Nancy Gundlach, Planner III, Zoning Services FROM: Jessica Constantinescu, Planner II, Comprehensive Planning Growth Management Community Development Department DATE: January 8, 2026 SUBJECT: Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) (PL20240010212) _________________________________________________________________________________ PETITION NUMBER: SRA PL20240010212 PETITION NAME: Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA REQUEST: This petition seeks to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) in the form of a Village on an approximately 1,446.59-acre site in accordance with the provisions of Florida Statutes and the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) of Collier County, as contained in the Collier County Growth Management Plan’s Future Land Use Element and the Collier County Land Development Code. Development of the Village consists of a residential community (with a maximum of 4,502 dwelling units and 362 affordable housing units) and a mixed-use Village Center containing retail, office, civic, and community uses to support the residential development. LOCATION: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is located on the north and south sides of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road, within Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, Township 46 South, Range 28 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay provisions of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP), in conjunction with the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay District of the County’s Land Development Code (LDC), are used to determine the consistency of this SRA request. The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural (Agricultural/Rural Mixed-Use District) as identified in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the GMP. This future land use designation limits development to such uses as agriculture and related uses, essential services, residential (maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres), parks and open space, earth mining, etc. The site is within the Mobile Home Overlay, which allows mobile homes in the Rural Agricultural zoning district, and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO). The RLSAO provides for the designation of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) using Stewardship Credits generated by designation of Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs). SRAs may vary in size and must contain a mixture of uses, as provided for in the RLSAO policies contained in the FLUE. Relevant to this Overlay, the 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. Specifically, the Overlay allows development in the form of towns, villages, and compact rural developments (CRD), subject to certain criteria and development parameters, as an SRA and allows “public benefit uses” such as public schools and public or private pos t- Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ Page 835 of 1742 secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the minimum acreages required, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities. This application proposes the new Village SRA using the Rural Land Stewardship Credit System, as provided for under Policy 1.4 of the RLSAO. 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 Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA). The SRA procedures and standards are outlined in Section 4.08.07 of the LDC. Specifically, the SSA to be used to enable the Village to proceed as an SRA is SSA numbers 11 and 22. SSA 11 was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on June 10th, 2008. The petition for SSA 22 is proposed and is in the staff review phase. This SRA application states that a total of 11,703.40 Stewardship Credits will be used to entitle the Village at 1,382.96 acres. Public Benefit Uses including affordable housing, a public school site, and a fire station comprise 63.63 acres of the Village, amounting to a total SRA acreage of 1,446.59 acres. The Village must meet the RLSA Overlay Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics as identified 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 italics]. Underlined uses are not required uses. After the table, the relevant RLSA Overlay Policies (Group 4 Policies) are listed, followed by staff comments/analysis [in italics]. Size (Gross Acres) 300 – 1,500 acres The SRA is ±1,446.59 acres. Residential Units (DUs) per gross acre 1 ‒ 4 DUs per gross acre base density Proposed density = 4,502 DU/±1,446.59 gross acres = 3.11 DU/A. Residential Housing Styles Diversity of single family and multi-family housing types, styles, and lot sizes A maximum of 4,502 dwelling units comprised of both single family detached, single family attached/villas, and multi-family housing are proposed. Maximum Floor Area Ratio or Retail and Office ‒ 0.5; Neighborhood goods and services are Intensity provided at a minimum of 238,606 sq. ft.; the uses and FARs are provided for in the Village Center. Civic/Governmental/Institution ‒ 0.6; Civic, governmental, and institutional uses are provided at a minimum of 45,020 sq. ft. Group Housing ‒ 0.45; not required – not proposed. Transient Lodging ‒ 26 units/ac. net; not required – not proposed. Goods and Services Convenience Goods and Services; Minimum 53 sq. ft. gross building area per DU; The minimum 238,606 sq. ft. of neighborhood goods and services is provided in the Village Center Context Zone. Water and Wastewater Centralized or decentralized community treatment system; The SRA is within the Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) Service Area. Service is intended to be provided by IWSD. Interim Well and Septic; This information is not proposed within the SRA document and is not a required use. Recreation and Open Spaces Parks & Public Green Spaces within Neighborhoods (minimum 1% of gross acres); Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ Page 836 of 1742 14.47 acres are required (±1,446.59 ac. x 1%) and ±24.33 acres are provided. Active Recreation/Golf Course; not required – not proposed Lakes; 53.20 acres of lake areas are proposed Open Space Minimum 35% of SRA; Open space areas comprise 516.60 acres of the Village SRA, totaling 36% Civic, Governmental and Moderate Range of Services – Minimum 10 SF/DU; 4,502 Institutional Services dwelling units x 10 sf = 45,020 sq. ft. minimum, 45,020 sq. ft. of civic, government, and institutional uses are proposed Full Range of Schools; Included in Village Center Context Zone as allowed use under 5.2.1.A.III.50) Elementary and Secondary Schools, Colleges, Universities, Professional Schools and Technical Institutes, public or private (SIC 8211, 8221-8222). Transportation Auto-interconnected system of collector and local roads; The SRA connects directly to State Road 82 (SR 82), a principal arterial road, and Corkscrew RD (CR 850), a major collector road as classified in the Transportation Element (TR-3.3), and will be interconnected to the property to the south, which provides access to State Road 29 and Oil Well Road. Pedestrian pathways; Interconnected sidewalks and 10-foot multi-use pathways are provided within the SRA as depicted on the SRA Mobility Plan in Exhibit A. Equestrian Trails; not required – not proposed. County Transit Access; At the time of development order, connections between modes of transportation will be identified to ensure interconnectivity between the SRA and external transportation links. RLSA Overlay Group 4 Policies ‒ 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 an SRA and must comply with the RLSA Overlay in the LDC.] Policy 4.2: All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for designation as a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as a Stewardship Sending Area. The exception, consistent with Policy 3.13, is when a WRA provides stormwater quality treatment for an SRA, then the acreage of the WRA used for stormwater quality treatment for the SRA shall be included in the Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ Page 837 of 1742 SRA. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria and other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay, and in accordance with the guidelines established in Section 163.3248, 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 72,000 acres outside of the ACSC and approximately 15,000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA designation shall be a maximum of 45,000 acres. 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 an SRA follows the procedures set forth herein and the adopted RLSA Zoning Overlay District. [Land proposed for the SRA designation meets suitability criteria and certain other standards described in RLSA Overlay Group 4 Policies. The subject site is designated on the RLSA Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation.] 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. [The property owner has submitted the required SRA application along with an SRA Master Plan and has demonstrated acquisition of the required number of Stewardship Credits in the amount of 11,703.40 generated from both SSA Numbers 11 and 22 to entitle development of 1,382.96 acres in the SRA (plus 63.63 acres of uses providing a public benefit). 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” (RLSA zoning overlay) is addressed later herein.] 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 by amendment periodically initiated by the County, or sooner at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. [This Policy 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 SRA Master Plan shall comply with the County’s then-adopted MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), and Access Management procedures. Each SRA master plan shall include a Management Plan with provisions for minimizing human and wildlife interactions. Low intensity land uses (e.g. passive recreation areas, golf courses) and vegetation preservation requirements, including agriculture, shall be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ Page 838 of 1742 dominated by human activities. Consideration shall be given to the most current Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission guidelines and regulations on techniques to reduce human wildlife conflict. The management plans shall also require the dissemination of information to local residents, businesses and governmental services about the presence of wildlife and practices that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife, while minimizing opportunities for negative interaction, such as appropriate waste disposal practices. [The applicant’s submittal appears to demonstrate compliance with all applicable policies of the RLSA Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District (RLSA zoning overlay), based upon staff discipline reviews. Note: the analysis of some policies has been deferred to other County staff. The SRA is designed with a 300’ buffer from HSA lands to ensure that potential incompatible land uses are directed away from HSA designated land. In addition, a management plan with provisions for minimizing human and wildlife interactions is also included with the petition.] Policy 4.6: SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in Section 163.3248, Florida Statutes. These planning strategies and techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed-use development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. The SRA shall also include a mobility plan that includes vehicular, bicycle/pedestrian, public transit, internal circulators, and other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and areas of outside development and land uses. The mobility plan shall provide mobility strategies such as bus subsidies, route sponsorship or other incentives which encourage the use of mass transit services. The development of SRAs shall also consider the needs identified in the MPO Long Range Transportation Needs Plan, and plan land uses to accommodate services that would increase internal capture and reduce trip length and long- distance travel. Such development strategies are recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl, encouraging alternative modes of transportation, increasing internal capture and reducing vehicle miles traveled. [The applicant’s SRA document and master plan appear to demonstrate compliance with this Policy, based upon staff discipline reviews. Additionally, the Mobility Plan depicts a connected trailway and pathway system to encourage pedestrian circulation throughout the SRA.] Policy 4.7: There are three specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, and Compact Rural Development (CRD). The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, and CRD are set forth in Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3. 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 163.3248, Florida Statutes. The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards set forth on Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in Attachment C may only be exceeded through the density blending process as set forth in density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable housing density bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. The base residential density is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not restrict net residential density of parcels within a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process. [The SRA size and density are consistent with requirements in FLUE Attachment C. The SRA location is designated on the RLSA Overlay Map as eligible for an SRA designation.] Policy 4.7.1: [This Policy regarding Towns is not applicable to this application.] Policy 4.7.2: Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ Page 839 of 1742 Villages are 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 300 acres and up to 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical State Concern and up to 1,500 acres outside the Area of Critical State Concern. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community’s support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Appropriately scaled uses described in Policy 4.7.3 shall also be permitted in Villages. Villages are an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria for Villages are included in the LDC Stewardship District. Villages greater than 500 acres shall include an internal mobility plan which shall include a transfer station or park and ride area that is appropriately located within the village to serve the connection point for internal and external public transportation. [The proposed Village encompasses approximately 1,446.59 acres and is organized around a centrally located Village Center. The Village Center includes retail and office uses at a scale appropriate to support the surrounding residential development. The Village incorporates an interconnected network of multi-use pathways, pedestrian sidewalks, and nature observation points, as illustrated on the Mobility Plan. While the education site does not directly abut public green space, it is located in close proximity and connected through the integrated pathway system, providing accessible routes from the school to adjacent park areas. A park-and-ride facility is proposed, with its final location to be determined prior to approval of the Site Development Plan.] Policy 4.7.3: [This Policy regarding CRDs is not applicable to this application.] Policy 4.7.4: Existing urban areas, Towns and Villages shall be the preferred location for business and industry within the RLSA, to further promote economic sustainability and development, diversification and job creation. The business and industry use allowed includes, but is not limited to, those as defined as Florida Qualified Target Industries. The appropriate scale and compatibility of these uses within a Town or Village will be addressed during SRA application process. [The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA complies with this policy by concentrating business and industry uses within a designated mixed-use Village Center. The Village Center permits a broad range of appropriately scaled commercial and employment-generating uses, including those consistent with Florida Qualified Target Industries, thereby supporting economic sustainability and job creation.] Policy 4.7.5: To address the accommodation of Affordable Housing in a Town or Village, the SRA applicant shall utilize one of the following options: 1) Affordable Housing Land Reservation: a) Reservation of one or more site(s) within the SRA or within a proximal SRA in the RLSAO with densities and development standards that accommodate Affordable Housing residential uses at a minimum density of 10 units per acre, for acquisition by either Collier County, a Community Land Trust, a private developer or any other affordable housing provider. b) The aggregate acreage of such site(s) shall be equal to or greater than 2.5% of the gross area of the SRA. c) The acreage of land reserved for Affordable Housing will be considered as a Public Benefit Use and not require the consumption of Stewardship Credits but shall be included in the calculation of total SRA acreage. d) The County shall verify the site(s) is/are appropriate and approve the site(s) at time of SRA approval, subject to standards to be established in the LDC. Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ Page 840 of 1742 e) Affordable Housing units shall be excluded from the Traffic Impact Statement or trip cap for the SRA in which they are located. 2) Alternatives proposed by the SRA Applicant: a) While compliance with the Land Reservation described above shall be deemed to satisfy affordable housing requirements, other options may be proposed by the SRA applicant and approved by the Board of County Commissioners to address housing affordability issues in the subject SRA. 3) The process and procedures to implement this policy, including a definition to be used to determine “proximal SRA” and specific guidelines and standards in those instances in which alternative options may be proposed, shall be set forth in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Zoning District. Affordable housing opportunities are provided within the Affordable Housing Context Zone of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. The Affordable Housing Context Zone is comprised of ±36.22 acres, entitling a minimum of 362 dwelling units set aside for affordable housing development at a minimum density of 10 dwelling units per acre. and is adjacent to a commercial tract. This satisfies the first option of Policy 4.7.5. 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 in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13. [The SRA is contiguous to lands designated HSA but does not encroach into these areas; and, the proposed SRA development is buffered from those HSA areas, as required in Policy 4.13.] Policy 4.9: A SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development away from wetlands and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs unless the WRA is being used to provide water quality treatment volume as referenced in Policy 3.13, in which case the WRA shall retain its WRA Overlay classification and be included in the SRA acreage total. To further direct development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential; commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. In addition, conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. Infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses may be exempt from this restriction, provided that designs seek to minimize the extent of impacts to any such areas. The Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as measured pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater than 1.2. [The Environmental Planning Section evaluated all land within the proposed SRA to determine the Natural Resource Index values. This SRA is adjacent to an HSA but does not encroach into these areas.] Policy 4.10: Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and management areas and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore, open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. To ensure that SRA residents have such areas proximate to their homes, open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, or Village. Lands within an SRA greater than one acre with Index values of greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space except for the allowance of uses described in Policy 4.9. [The proposed open space meets the minimum of thirty-five percent of the Village’s gross acreage: 1,446.59 gross acres x 35% = 506.3 acres; 36% or 516.6 acres are provided. The Environmental Planning Section evaluated lands for the NRI value and identified any such lands greater than one acre for retention as open space.] Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ Page 841 of 1742 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. [A 300’ buffer, consisting of open spaces and lakes will be provided adjacent to HSA designated lands, located directly east and south of the SRA. Along the remaining SRA perimeters, landscape buffers and adequate setbacks will be provided, and existing native vegetation will be retained to the extent possible to provide sufficient screening/buffering from neighboring properties. A transition from landscaping buffers, open space and retained native vegetation to residential development is planned from the SRA edges.] 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. [As depicted on the Stewardship Areas Exhibit, SSA 22 borders the east boundary of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. HSA and FSA areas exist within the boundaries of SSA 22. WRA areas of SSA 23 are within portions of the Village. Environmental Review staff and Stormwater staff have reviewed the SRA for compliance with this Policy.] Policy 4.13: Open space within or contiguous to a SRA shall be used to provide a buffer between the SRA and any adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map. Open space contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of a FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses provided no fairways or other turf areas are allowed within the first 200 feet, passive recreational areas and parks, required yard and set-back areas, and other natural or man-made open space. Along the west boundary of the FSAs and HSAs that comprise Camp Keais Strand, i.e., the area south of Immokalee Road, this open space buffer shall be 500 feet wide and shall preclude golf course fairways and other turf areas within the first 300 feet. [Open space (open space, lakes and buffer) located within the SRA is used to provide the required buffer between the SRA and the adjoining HSA (refer to the Master Plan).] Policy 4.14: The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. At the time of SRA approval, an SRA proposed to adjoin land designated as an SRA or lands designated as Open Lands shall provide for the opportunity to provide direct vehicular and pedestrian connections from said areas to the County’s arterial/collector roadway network as shown on the MPO’s LRTP Needs Plan so as to reduce travel time and travel expenses, improve interconnectivity, increase internal capture, and keep the use of county arterial roads to a minimum when traveling between developments in the RLSA. Public and private roads within an SRA shall be maintained by the SRA it serves. Signalized intersections within or adjacent to an SRA that serves the SRA shall be maintained by the SRA it serves. No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the LDC, or its successor regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data and analysis. To the extent Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ Page 842 of 1742 required to mitigate an SRA’s traffic impacts, actions may be taken to include, but shall not be limited to, provisions for the construction and/or permitting of wildlife crossings, environmental mitigation credits, right of way dedication(s), water management and/or fill material which may be needed to expand the existing or proposed roadway network. Any such actions to offset traffic impacts shall be memorialized in a developer contribution agreement. These actions shall be considered within the area of significant influence of the project traffic on existing or proposed roadways. [The SRA proposes ingress/egress points to State Road 82 (SR 82) and Corkscrew Road (CR 850). Concurrency is determined at the time of subsequent development orders. Transportation Planning staff reviewed this project for its transportation impact, and Comprehensive Planning staff defers comments relative to these aspects of the review to the Transportation Planning Section.] Policy 4.15.1: SRAs are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by the Urban Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3, and Attachment C. An appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic, governmental, and institutional uses will be available to serve the daily needs and community wide needs of residents of the RLSA. Depending on the size, scale, and character of a SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific SRA, within other SRAs in the RLSA or within the Immokalee Urban Area provided the capacity of those adjoining area’s facilities as described in Attachment C to be utilized by the newly created SRA can demonstrate sufficient capacity exists for their desired uses per the standards of Attachment C. By example, each Village or Town shall provide for neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as appropriate civic and institutional uses, however, the combined population of several Villages 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. [The Village provides a mix of neighborhood-scaled retail, office, civic, and institutional uses to meet the minimum requirements for non-residential uses in each category identified in Attachment C.] Policy 4.15.2: The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an SRA development, require that suitable areas for parks, schools, and other public facilities be set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use. When the BCC requires such a set aside for one or more public facilities, the set aside shall be subject to the same provisions of the LDC as are applicable to public facility dedications required as a condition for PUD rezoning. [Policy provided for informational purposes.] 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. [A School Impact Analysis is included as part of the application.] Policy 4.16: Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ Page 843 of 1742 A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will depend on the form of SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements. The capacity of essential services and infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build-out must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes but not limited to, transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste. Transportation infrastructure is discussed in Policy 4.14. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities are required in Towns and Villages, and may be required in CRDs depending upon the permitted uses approved within the CRD. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities shall be constructed, owned, operated and maintained by a private utility service, the developer, a Community Development District, the Immokalee Water Sewer Service District, Collier County, or other governmental entity. Innovative alternative water and wastewater treatment systems such as decentralized community treatment systems shall not be prohibited by this Policy provided that they meet all applicable regulatory criteria. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems, limited to a maximum of 100 acres of any Town, Village or CRD of 100 acres are permitted on an interim basis until services from a centralized/decentralized community system are available. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems may be permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less in size. [Infrastructure must be available to serve the proposed Village ‒ or provided concurrently with the demand. The infrastructure analysis for the development has been provided in the Public Facilities Impact Analysis, Traffic Impact Statement, and Letter of Willingness to Serve provided by IWSD within the SRA application submittal documents. It is anticipated that any developer commitments related to utilities, transportation, or other public facilities, once finalized, will be specifically detailed in a Developer’s Contribution Agreement. Review staff has determined that adequate public facilities will be available to serve the SRA, consistent with this Policy.] Policy 4.17: The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provisions of Policy 1.2 of the Capital Improvement Element of the GMP and public facilities pursuant to Policy 1.1 of the Capital Improvement Element in addition to the following: jails, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire service, government buildings and libraries. 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 final local development order approval. [The project does not create a significant impact on countywide population as defined by Policy 1.2 of the CIE. Public facilities impacts will be evaluated at the time of final local development order approval, consistent with the GMP and LDC.] Policy 4.18: The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the SRA horizon year based on a public facilities impact assessment, as identified in LDC 4.08.07.K. The BCC may grant exceptions to this Policy to accommodate affordable housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the assessment shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards. In the event that an SRA development, generates surplus revenues to Collier County, Collier County may choose to allocate a portion of such surplus revenues to ensure that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier County to respond expeditiously to economic opportunities and to compete effectively for high-value research, development and commercialization, innovation, and alternative and renewable energy business projects. [The Economic Assessment Report has been deemed fiscally neutral and/or positive to Collier County, Collier County Schools, and Immokalee Fire Control District.] Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ Page 844 of 1742 Policy 4.19: Eight (8) credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created from a Stewardship Sending Area submitted for review or approved prior to July 13, 2021. Ten Credits per acre shall be required for each acre of land included in an SRA, where such Credits were created from any other Stewardship Sending Area. Land that is designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4.20 do not require the use of Credits. In order to promote compact, mixed use development and provide the necessary support facilities and services to residents of rural areas, the SRA designation entitles a full range of uses, accessory uses and associated uses that provide a mix of services to and are supportive to the residential population of a SRA, as provided for in Policies 4.7, 4.15.1 and Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan. [Both a 1:8 and a 1:10 ratio is proposed by the applicant to entitle the requested residential density and mix of uses to support the residents of the SRA. The applicant will use Credits generated from SSA Numbers 11 and 22, as demonstrated in the SRA Master Plan.] Policy 4.20: The acreage of a public benefit use shall count toward the maximum acreage limits of an SRA, unless such public benefit uses were approved as part of an SRA approved prior to July 13, 2021, in which case such public benefit uses shall continue to be excluded from the maximum acreage limitation pursuant to the policy in effect at the time of approval. Public benefit uses shall not count toward the consumption of Stewardship Credits. For the purpose of this Policy, public benefit uses include: affordable housing as defined in the LDC, public schools (Pre- K-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 as defined in the LDC. The location of public schools shall be coordinated with the Collier County School Board, based on the interlocal agreement, Section 163.3248 F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.193 F.S. Schools and related ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to Towns and Villages subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements. [Public benefit use acreage does not require the consumption of Stewardship Credits but is included in the overall SRA acreage calculation.] 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 CRDs of 100 acres or less and the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC west of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be CRDs and Villages of not more than 300 acres. Provided, not more than 1,000 aces of SRA development in the form of Villages or CRDs , exclusive of any lakes created prior to June 30, 2002 as a result of mining operations, shall be allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, 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. [This Policy does not apply, as this site is not within the ACSC.] Policy 4.22: When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA through the SRA designation process, the applicant in conjunction with the Florida Division of Historic Resources will assess the historic or cultural significance and explore the educational and public awareness opportunities regarding significant resources. [Historic and/or cultural resources have not been identified within the SRA.] Policy 4.23: Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ Page 845 of 1742 Any development on lands participating in the RLS Program shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Within one year of the effective date of this Policy LDC regulations shall be implemented for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security. [The SRA document includes a regulation requiring outdoor lighting to be consistent with this policy.] CONSISTENCY REVIEW FINDINGS: Based upon the above analysis, staff finds: 1) The requisite credits are approved and will be sufficient in number to enable development of the Village; and, 2) The proposed Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) for the Village may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element, Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ Page 846 of 1742 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment Collier County Collier County Schools Immokalee Fire Control District Initial Submission: March 6, 2025 Revised: June 20, 2025 Solid Waste and Roads Revised: July 29, 2025 Solid Waste Revised: August 29, 2025 Roads Prepared By: Page 847 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 5 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 7 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 7 MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................................. 9 Development Assumptions ....................................................................................................... 9 Revenue Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 10 Sales, Just, and Taxable Values .............................................................................................. 10 Property Taxes ....................................................................................................................... 11 Expenditure Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 11 COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL IMPACTS .............................................................................................. 12 Collier County Operating Impacts ............................................................................................ 12 Collier County Operating Revenue Projections ........................................................................ 12 Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections .................................................................. 13 Collier County Capital Impacts ................................................................................................. 15 Collier County Capital Impacts by Department ..................................................................... 15 COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT ................................................................................ 27 Collier County Schools Capital Impacts .................................................................................... 27 Collier County Schools Operating Impacts ............................................................................... 31 Immokalee Fire Control District .................................................................................................. 33 Immokalee Fire Control District Capital Impact .................................................................... 33 Immokalee Fire Control District Annual Operating Impacts ................................................. 34 APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................... 36 GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 54 2 Page 848 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 1: Corkscrew Grove East Village Development Program .................................................... 9 Table 2: Corkscrew Grove East Village Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values.................... 10 Table 3: Corkscrew Grove East Village Nonresidential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values .............. 10 Table 4: Corkscrew Grove East Village County Tax Base at Buildout .......................................... 11 Table 5: Collier County Millage Rates ......................................................................................... 11 Table 6: Corkscrew Grove East Village Operating Annual Net Impact at Buildout ..................... 12 Table 7: Corkscrew Grove East Village Annual Operating Revenue Projections ......................... 13 Table 8: Corkscrew Grove East Village Annual Operating Expenditure Projections ................... 14 Table 9: Corkscrew Grove East Village Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County ......................... 16 Table 10: Corkscrew Grove East Village Regional Parks Capital Impacts .................................... 18 Table 11: Corkscrew Grove East Village Regional Parks Level of Service .................................... 19 Table 12: Corkscrew Grove East Village Indexed Capital Cost per Acre ...................................... 19 Table 13: Corkscrew Grove East Village Community Parks Capital Impacts ............................... 19 Table 14: Corkscrew Grove East Village Community Parks Level of Service ............................... 20 Table 15: Corkscrew Grove East Village Community Parks Level of Service ............................... 20 Table 16: Corkscrew Grove East Village Law Enforcement Capital Impacts ............................... 21 Table 17: Corkscrew Grove East Village Correctional Facilities .................................................. 21 Table 18: Corkscrew Grove East Village Correctional Facilities Capital Cost............................... 22 Table 19: Corkscrew Grove East Village Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost per Resident ........ 22 Table 20: Corkscrew Grove East Village EMS Capital Cost .......................................................... 23 Table 21: Corkscrew Grove East Village EMS Capital Impact ...................................................... 23 Table 22: CCPC Historical Enrollment and Capital Revenues ....................................................... 28 Table 23: Collier County Charter School Student Stations........................................................... 29 Table 24: Corkscrew Grove East Village Projected Public School Enrollment ............................. 29 Table 25: Corkscrew Grove East Village Projected Enrollment by School Type .......................... 30 Table 26: Corkscrew Grove East Village School Impact Fee Revenue ......................................... 30 Table 27: Corkscrew Grove East Village School Net Capital Impacts – Total Cash Flow Approach .................................................................................................................................................... 31 Table 28: Corkscrew Grove East Village Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout 32 Table 29: Corkscrew Grove East Village Immokalee Fire Control District Capital Impact ........... 33 Table 30: Corkscrew Grove East Village Immokalee Fire Control Impact Fee Revenues ............ 34 Table 31: Corkscrew Grove East Village Square Footage ............................................................ 34 Table 32: Corkscrew Grove East Village Immokalee Fire Control District Annual Operating Impacts at Buildout .................................................................................................................................. 35 Appendix Table 1: Collier County Base Assumptions ................................................................. 36 Appendix Table 2: Corkscrew Grove East Village Resident Population and Seasonal Population Coefficients ................................................................................................................................. 37 Appendix Table 3: Corkscrew Grove East Village Population and Employment Estimates ......... 37 Appendix Table 4: Corkscrew Grove East Village Population and Employment Summary ......... 37 Appendix Table 5: Corkscrew Grove East Village Public School Enrollment ............................... 38 Appendix Table 6: Corkscrew Grove East Village County Tax Base ............................................ 38 3 Page 849 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 7: Corkscrew Grove East Village School District Tax Base ................................. 39 Appendix Table 8: FY 2025 Collier County General Funds and MSTU Revenue Budget Summaries .................................................................................................................................................... 40 Appendix Table 9: FY 2025 Collier County General Funds Revenue Demand Units .................... 41 Appendix Table 10: FY 2025 Collier County MSTU Revenue Demand Units ............................... 41 Appendix Table 11: Corkscrew Grove East Village General Funds Revenue at Buildout ............. 42 Appendix Table 12: Corkscrew Grove East Village MSTU Revenue at Buildout ........................... 42 Appendix Table 13: FY 2025 Collier County General Funds and MSTU Expenditure Budget Summaries .................................................................................................................................. 43 Appendix Table 14: FY 2025 Collier County Expenditure Budget Summaries ............................. 44 Appendix Table 15: FY 2025 Collier County Appropriations by Program Budget Summaries ..... 45 Appendix Table 16: FY 2025 Collier County General Funds Expenditure Demand Units ............ 46 Appendix Table 17: EMS Adjusted Operating Expenditures for New Ambulance ...................... 47 Appendix Table 18: FY 2025 Collier County MSTU Expenditure Demand Units ......................... 48 Appendix Table 19: Corkscrew Grove East Village General Funds Expenditures at Buildout ..... 49 Appendix Table 20: Corkscrew Grove East Village MSTU Expenditures at Buildout ................... 50 Appendix Table 21: Collier County Impact Fee Schedule for Applicable Services....................... 51 Appendix Table 22: Corkscrew Grove East Village Impact Fee Revenues for Applicable Services .................................................................................................................................................... 52 Appendix Table 23: Collier County School District Base Assumptions ........................................ 53 4 Page 850 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Alico, Inc. is proposing the establishment of the Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area (“SRA”) on 1,446.59± acres in Collier County with a portion located on the north side of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road and the remainder located south of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road, east and west of Corkscrew Road. In accordance with the definition of a Village in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (“RLSA”) Overlay, Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA (“Corkscrew Grove East Village” or “Village”) is primarily a residential community with a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 4,502 dwelling units. The Village includes 149.07± acres of a mixed-use Village Center providing the required neighborhood-scale retail, office, civic, and community uses. The concept plan also includes 283,500 square feet of retail space and 70,000 square feet of civic/institutional space. As shown in the table below, the Corkscrew Grove East Village will generate substantial tax and impact fee revenues for Collier County, the Immokalee Fire Control District, and Collier County Public Schools. The results are presented at the Project’s buildout (horizon year), as required. Summary Table 1: Corkscrew Grove East Village Fiscal Highlights Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Fiscal Highlights At Buildout At Buildout Collier County: Countywide MSTU Ad Valorem Tax Base $ 2,137,928,000 $ 2,137,928,000 Net Annual Fiscal Benefit Countywide MSTU Annual Operating Revenues$ 8,880,000 $ 1,590,000 Annual Operating Expenditures 5,877,000 683,000 Total Annual Net Operating Surplus$ 3,003,000 $ 907,000 Collier County Schools: School District Ad Valorem Tax Base $ 2,197,080,000 Net Fiscal Benefit: Annual Operating* Total Capital Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Revenues$ 6,987,000 $ 67,335,000 Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Expenditures 6,987,000 67,335,000 Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Surplus $ - $ - Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues: At Buildout Collier County $ 6,437,000 Collier County MSTU 1,463,000 Conservation Collier 448,000 Water Pollution Control 53,000 Immokalee Fire Control District 8,017,000 Collier County Schools - Ad Valorem Operating 6,987,000 Collier County Schools - Capital Improvement 2,490,000 Total Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues$ 25,895,000 5 Page 851 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Impact Fees Impact Fee Revenue Adopted Rates Required Facility Analysis: Roads - Impact Fees$ 35,834,000 Regional Parks$ 9,246,000 Community Parks$ 3,242,000 Law Enforcement $ 2,258,000 Jail$ 1,898,000 EMS$ 543,000 Schools$ 28,671,000 Water N/A Wastewater N/A Immokalee Fire Control District $ 9,146,000 * The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formulas. Source: DPFG, 2025 Developer Contribution Agreements (“DCAs”) will be negotiated with the County prior to approval of the Corkscrew Grove East Village. As demonstrated in this report, DPFG concludes that the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is fiscally neutral, as defined, for the following facilities as required by the Collier County Land Development Code (“LDC”) Section 4.08.07 L. Summary Table 2: Corkscrew Grove East Village Net Fiscal Impact Conclusions per Taxing Authority Net Fiscal Net Fiscal Required Facility Analysis Impact Required Facility Analysis Impact Collier County Collier County Schools Annual Operations: Annual Operations* Neutral General Funds Positive Capital Neutral MSTU Positive Capital: Collier County Roads Neutral Annual Operations and Capital: Regional and Community Parks Positive Water N/A Law Enforcement Neutral Wastewater N/A Jail Neutral Irrigation Water Neutral EMS Neutral Solid Waste Neutral Stormwater Neutral Immokalee Fire Control District Positive * The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formul * The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formulas. Source: DPFG, 2025 6 Page 852 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST 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. Development Planning & Financing Group, Inc. (“DPFG”) was retained to prepare an Economic Assessment for the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. This report provides complete and transparent support for the methodology, assumptions, and calculations applied to demonstrate fiscal neutrality, as required, for the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA for Collier County (“County”), the Immokalee Fire Control District, and the Collier County Public Schools 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 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 1 Michael J. Mucha, “An Introduction to Fiscal Impact Analysis for Development Projects,” (white paper, Government Finance Officers Association, 2007), www.gfoa.org 7 Page 853 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 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 the Corkscrew Grove East 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, Peak Seasonal and Tourist Population and Employment. Persons per residential product type and employees per nonresidential land uses were obtained from the County’s 2016 Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Update, which County staff has deemed the most appropriate source of County-adopted residential and nonresidential demographic metrics for purposes of this analysis (see Appendix). Based on discussions with County staff, these demographic metrics are conservative when compared to similar metrics compiled for the impact fee updates which are in process. The Economic Assessment model and future reports will be revised and reissued if the Board of County Commissioners adopts the impact fee updates and establishes new rates prior to hearing.2 The analysis includes the following general funds:3 (0001) General Fund, (0002) Affordable Housing Impact Fee Deferral Program, (0003) Emergency Relief Fund, (0004) Economic Development, (0011) Clerk of Circuit Court, (0040) Sheriff, (0060) Property Appraiser, (0070) Tax Collector, and (0080) Supervisor of Elections. A reconciliation of these funds to the County’s budget documents is provided in the Appendix. The analysis also includes (1011) Unincorporated Area General Fund MSTU, the Immokalee Fire Control & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District. The FY 2025 budget of the County and the FY 2025 budgets of the Immokalee Fire Control 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 Roads, Parks, EMS, Law Enforcement, Correctional Facilities, and Schools are currently underway. 3 Collier County considers this listing of general funds as the “General Fund Grouping.” 8 Page 854 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST 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 as applied in previous SRA Economic Assessments. 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 Corkscrew Grove East 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 2025 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 Corkscrew Grove East Village development program proposed by the Applicant. The program was the basis for determining the operating and capital impacts of the Project. Table 1: Corkscrew Grove East Village Development Program Residential Units Multi-Family (Low-Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 Single-Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 Total Market Rate Residential 4,127 Affordable Housing Units 362 Tota Housing Units 4,489 Non-Residential Sq Ft Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft 283,500 Total Non-Residential 283,500 Civic/Institutional 70,000 Grand Total Non-Residential (sf) 353,500 Source: Alico, Inc., DPFG, 2025 9 Page 855 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST 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’s market consultant, Mr. Michael Timmerman, CRE. The eligible homestead percentage per residential product type used in computing the taxable value per unit was based on unincorporated County averages published by the Shimberg Center for Housing Studies at the University of Florida. Table 2: Corkscrew Grove East Village Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values Average Average Just Average Residential Units Sales Value Value per Taxable Multi-Family (Low-Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 $ 418,990 $ 393,850 $ 376,269 Single-Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 $ 601,204 $ 565,132 $ 552,035 Total Market Rate Residential 4,127 $ 544,734 $ 512,050 $ 497,563 Source: Mr. Michael Timmerman, CRE, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2025 Table 3 reflects the estimates of sales, just4, and taxable values for the nonresidential land uses. Sales values were based on data provided by the Applicant’s market consultant, Mr. Michael Timmerman, CRE. Estimates used to arrive at just values also considered construction cost per square foot estimates from the Cumming Group for reasonableness. Table 3: Corkscrew Grove East Village Nonresidential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values Taxable Sales Value Just Value Value per Non-Residential Sq Ft per Sq Ft per Sq Ft Sq Ft Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft 283,500 $ 350 $ 298 $ 298 Total Non-Residential 283,500 Civic/Institutional 70,000 Grand Total Non-Residential (sf) 353,500 Source: Mr. Michael Timmerman, CRE Cumming Group, DPFG, 2025 At buildout, the real property tax base of the Corkscrew Grove East Village is estimated to be $2.1 billion as reflected in Table 4. 4 In determining just value, reasonable fees and costs of purchase (for example, commissions) are excluded. 10 Page 856 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 4: Corkscrew Grove East Village County Tax Base at Buildout Units or Taxable Value Land Use Sq Ft per Unit/SF Buildout Multi-Family Type 1 784 $ 416,699 $ 326,692,000 Type 2 210 $ 271,939 57,107,000 Type 3 157 $ 320,819 50,369,000 Type 4 128 $ 367,819 47,081,000 Multi-Family (Low-Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 $ 481,249,000 Single-Family Detached Type 1 1,073 $ 483,357 $ 518,642,000 Type 2 908 $ 567,957 515,705,000 Type 3 784 $ 614,957 482,126,000 Type 4 83 $ 671,357 55,723,000 Single-Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 $ 1,572,196,000 Total Market Rate Residential 4,127 $ 2,053,445,000 Non-Residential Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft 283,500 $ 298 $ 84,483,000 Total Non-Residential 283,500 $ 84,483,000 Total Tax Base $ 2,137,928,000 Source: Mr. Mike Timmerman, CRE, DPFG, 2025 Property Taxes Table 5 reflects the millage rate assumptions (FY 2025) for Collier County used in the analysis. Table 5: Collier County Millage Rates 3.0107 County General Fund 0.0246 Water Pollution Control 0.2096 Conservation Collier Program 3.2449 County Wide Millage Source: Collier County, 2025 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. 11 Page 857 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL IMPACTS Collier County Operating Impacts Table 6 presents the annual net operating fiscal impact of the Corkscrew Grove East Village at buildout. Table 6: Corkscrew Grove East Village Operating Annual Net Impact at Buildout At Buildout Net Operating Impact Countywide MSTU Total Annual Operating Revenues$ 8,880,000 $ 1,590,000 Total Annual Operating Expenditures 5,877,000 683,000 Total Annual Operating Surplus$ 3,003,000 $ 907,000 Source: DPFG, 2025 Collier County Operating Revenue Projections Projected County annual operating revenues at buildout are summarized in Table 7. Corkscrew Grove East Village is projected to generate annual operating revenues of $8.9 million for the County’s General Funds and $1.6 million for the MSTU General Fund. 12 Page 858 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 7: Corkscrew Grove East Village Annual Operating Revenue Projections GENERAL FUND GROUPING REVENUES At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes$ 6,437,000 Licenses & Permits 3,000 Inter-Governmental Revenues 6,000 State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion 283,000 State Sales Tax 1,160,000 Charges for Services 712,000 Fines & Forfeitures 10,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 4,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous 34,000 Indirect Service Charge 113,000 Transfers from Constitutional Officers 99,000 Reimburse from Other Departments 19,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues$ 8,880,000 MSTU GENERAL FUND REVENUES At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes$ 1,463,000 Licenses & Permits 6,000 Charges for Services 42,000 Fines & Forfeitures 3,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 4,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous 6,000 Communication Services Tax 55,000 Reimburse from Other Departments 11,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Revenues$ 1,590,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections Projected County annual operating expenditures at buildout are presented in Table 8. Corkscrew Grove East Village is expected to generate annual General Funds service demand of $5.9 million and $683,000 of MSTU General Fund service demand. The Appendix contains a detailed breakdown of operating costs by line-item category. 13 Page 859 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 8: Corkscrew Grove East Village Annual Operating Expenditure Projections GENERAL FUND GROUPING EXPENDITURES At Buildout County Attorney$ 23,000 Other General Administration 67,000 Property Appraiser 79,000 Supervisor of Elections 51,000 Clerk of Courts 121,000 Sheriff Law Enforcement 2,523,000 Law Enforcement Paid by BCC 69,000 Detention & Corrections 126,000 Bailiffs 4,000 Tax Collector 154,000 Human Resources 37,000 Procurement Services 20,000 Emergency Management Division 65,000 Growth Mgt - Planning 20,000 Growth Mgt - Regulation 27,000 Circuit & County Court Judges 1,000 Public Defender 11,000 State Attorney 13,000 County Manager Operations 15,000 Office of Management & Budget 18,000 Facilities Management Division 147,000 Public Services Administration 4,000 Domestic Animal Services 85,000 Community and Human Services 84,000 Library 165,000 Parks & Recreation 329,000 Public Health 5,000 Transportation Mgt - Public Transit & NE 11,000 Transfer to 1001 Road & Bridge 362,000 Transfer to 1051 Court Administration 45,000 Transfer to 1060 MHz Radio System 9,000 Transfer to 3081 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap 126,000 Transfer to 4030 CATT Transit Enhance 51,000 Transfer to 4033 Transp Disadv 44,000 Transfer to 4050 EMS Fund 735,000 Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies 231,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures$ 5,877,000 14 Page 860 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT MSTU GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES At Buildout Other General Administration$ 31,000 Human Resources 8,000 Growth Mgt - Administration 5,000 Growth Mgt - Planning 31,000 Growth Mgt - Regulation 100,000 Communications Government & Public Affairs 37,000 Parks & Recreation 361,000 Transportation Mgt - Operations 40,000 Transportation Mgt - Landscaping 43,000 Transportation Mgt - Coastal Zone Management 4,000 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 23,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Expenditures$ 683,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally positive with respect to the County’s Operating Impacts. 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 outlay and capital fund subsidies. The impact fee updates for Correctional Facilities and Parks were adopted in 2015, and the corresponding adopted rates have been indexed. EMS and Law Enforcement impact fee studies were updated in 2016, and the associated rates were adopted in 2017. The Road impact fee update was adopted in 2019 with new rates phased-in over a three-year period. Impact fee 15 Page 861 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT updates for Roads, Parks, Law Enforcement, EMS, Correctional Facilities and Schools are currently underway. Over buildout, new development will be charged impact fees at rates enacted by the County at that time. The Economic Assessment model and future reports will be revised and reissued if the Board of County Commissioners adopts the impact fee updates and establishes new rates prior to hearing. The capital needs of the Corkscrew Grove East Village were discussed with the Collier County Sheriff, EMS, the Immokalee Fire Control District, and the School District. The capital analysis for these services was prepared in accordance with their input. 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 2024 Audit Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities (“AUIR”), the most recent source available, was generally used to calculate the achieved LOS. Other inputs were obtained from the relevant impact fee studies. Projected impact fee collections for the facilities specified in LDC Section 4.08.07 L are reflected in Table 9. The County’s impact fee schedule is included in the Appendix. Table 9: Corkscrew Grove East Village Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County Impact Fees Impact Fee Revenue Adopted Rates Required Facility Analysis: Roads - Impact Fees$ 35,834,000 Regional Parks$ 9,246,000 Community Parks$ 3,242,000 Law Enforcement $ 2,258,000 Jail$ 1,898,000 EMS$ 543,000 Schools$ 28,671,000 Water N/A Wastewater N/A Immokalee Fire Control District $ 9,146,000 Note: Immokalee Water and Sewer District will provide water and wastewater services. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 16 Page 862 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Collier County Road Capital Impacts Based on the results provided in the Traffic Impact Statement – Section 1, Road Segment Analysis (June 4, 2025) prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA, the Corkscrew Grove East Village is a significant traffic generator for the roadway network at this location and adversely impacts the following roadway segments:  SR 29 from 9th St. to CR 29A North  SR 29 from Hendry County Line to SR 82  SR 82 from Hendry County Line to SR 29 The Owner proposes to provide a transportation mitigation plan to stay consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Collier County’s GMP. The Owner may be required to assist the County with potential capacity/operational improvements for the roadway segments that are significantly impacted by the project. A detailed evaluation of applicable access points will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting to determine turn lane requirements, as more accurate parameters will be made available. The Owner proposes to pay the applicable Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project. The Owner proposes to provide transportation commitments that will be incorporated into the Development Document for the project. The mitigation plan will include specific improvements to be undertaken, fair share contribution commitments where appropriate, and site related improvements. Site related improvements are addressed as development occurs. Concurrency Fair-Share Estimate Appendix L to the Traffic Impact Statement – Section 1 Road Segment Analysis contains the roadway proportionate share calculation for Corkscrew Grove which will be developed as a pair of SRA Villages. The project traffic’s consumption of the projected added capacity is total traffic volume with project minus the unimproved service volume. The estimated roadway service volume in the improved condition uses the Collier County AUIR unimproved condition service volume multiplied by the ratio of LOS D service volumes shown in FDOT Generalized Service Volume Table 7 (Urban Condition, Class I Arterial, Appendix I) between the improved and unimproved cross sections (product rounded to the nearest hundred). Ex ratios:  2 lanes to 4 = 2,000/880 = 2.27  2 lanes to 6 = 3,020/880 = 3.43  4 lanes to 6 = 3,020/2,000 = 1.51 17 Page 863 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT That ratio isolates the effect of the additional lanes while keeping all other factors affecting service volume constant. The effect of all those other factors is reflected in the County’s published service volume in the unimproved condition and explains its relation to the average for all roads of like cross section. The Proportionate Fair share estimate allocable to Corkscrew Grove East Village is $24.9 million ($49.8 million cost for both Villages x 50 percent = $24.9 million allocable to East Village), which is less than the project’s projected road impact fees of $35.8 million. The Owner proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project, as applicable. Operational Fair-Share Estimate Based on the results provided in the Traffic Impact Statement – Section 2, Intersection Analysis (August 29, 2025) prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA, an operational fair-share contribution is not required. Corkscrew Grove East Village Regional Parks Capital Impacts The County imposes separate impact fees for community and regional parks. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the County’s Parks facilities are provided in the General Funds and MSTU Operating Impacts section. Regional Park capital impacts are presented in Table 10. Table 10: Corkscrew Grove East Village Regional Parks Capital Impacts Regional Park Facilities Regional Park Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue$ 9,246,000 Other Capital Revenues* 481,000 Total Capital Revenues$ 9,727,000 Regional Park Indirect Capital Costs Indexed Land & Facility Cost per Acre$ 590,288 Regional Park Acres at Achieved LOS 16.67 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Regional Park Acres$ 9,840,000 Regional Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs$ (113,000) Community Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 177,000 Total Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs$ 64,000 *Included in the Collier County General Funds and MSTU expenditures analysis Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 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. 18 Page 864 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 11: Corkscrew Grove East Village Regional Parks Level of Service LOS Share of Regional Park Facilities Regional Park Achieved LOS per County Staff 1.82 Corkscrew Grove East SRA Peak Seasonal Population 9,159 Corkscrew Grove East SRA Community Park Acreage 16.67 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 The indexed capital cost per Regional Park acre is calculated in Table 12. Table 12: Corkscrew Grove East Village Indexed Capital Cost per Acre Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Corkscrew Grove East Village Community Parks Capital Impacts Community Parks capital impacts are presented in Table 13. Table 13: Corkscrew Grove East Village Community Parks Capital Impacts Community Park Facilities Community Park Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue$ 3,242,000 Other Capital Revenues* 52,000 Total Capital Revenues$ 3,294,000 Community Park Indirect Capital Costs Indexed Land & Facility Cost per Acre$ 283,638 Community Park Acres at Adopted LOS 10.99 Corkscrew Grove East SRA Community Park Cost$ 3,117,000 Community Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs$ 177,000 Regional Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs (113,000) Total Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs$ 64,000 *Included in the Collier County General Funds and MSTU expenditures analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 The County’s adopted LOS for Community Parks is 1.20 acres per 1,000 peak population, and the achieved LOS is 1.22 acres. As such, the adopted LOS was used to estimate the number of Community Park acres needed to serve Corkscrew Grove East Village. 19 Page 865 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 14: Corkscrew Grove East Village Community Parks Level of Service LOS Share of Community Park Facilities Community Park Adopted LOS 1.20 Corkscrew Grove East SRA Peak Seasonal Population 9,159 Corkscrew Grove East SRA Community Park Acreage 10.99 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 The indexed capital cost per Community Park acre is calculated in Table 15. Table 15: Corkscrew Grove East Village Community Parks Level of Service Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 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. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the Law Enforcement facilities and equipment are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section. Direct capital impacts on Law Enforcement are presented in Table 16. Based on discussions with the Sheriff’s office, a substation is needed to serve Corkscrew Grove East Village. Under the adopted impact fee methodology, Corkscrew Grove East Village will generate sufficient impact fee revenues to cover the direct impact of law enforcement facilities and equipment. 20 Page 866 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 16: Corkscrew Grove East Village Law Enforcement Capital Impacts Law Enforcement Facilities Law Enforcement Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue$ 2,258,000 Other Capital Revenues* 409,000 Total Capital Revenues$ 2,667,000 Law Enforcement Direct Capital Costs: New Substation - Square Feet 4,500 Cost per Sq Ft$ 470 Cost of New Substation 2,115,000 Law Enforcement Indirect Capital Costs 552,000 Law Enforcement Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs$ - *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Source Collier County, DPFG, 2025 The County's 2016 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study is based on a Certified Police Officer per Capita LOS, consistent with the County adopted standards at the time. Since then, the County has adopted a Facility Square Footage per Capita LOS. A new impact fee study incorporating this methodology is underway. The Economic Assessment model will be revised upon the adoption of a new Law Enforcement impact fee study. 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 17. Table 17: Corkscrew Grove East Village Correctional Facilities Jail Facilities Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue$ 1,898,000 Other Capital Revenues* 104,000 Total Capital Revenues$ 2,002,000 Capital Cost (Land, Building, Vehicles, and Equipment) - indexed 2,002,000 Correctional Facilities Net Capital Impact$ - *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 The capital cost for correctional facilities is calculated below. 21 Page 867 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 18: Corkscrew Grove East Village Correctional Facilities Capital Cost Functional Population Units/ Functional Land Use Coefficient Square Feet Population Multi-Family (Low-Rise, 1-2 Floors) 0.83 1,279 1,062 Single-Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 1.81 2,848 5,152 Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft 2.34 283,500 663 Total Functional Population 6,877 Indexed Capital Cost per Functional Population$ 290.98 Total Capital Cost$ 2,002,000 Functional Population Coefficients obtained from the Collier County Correctional Impact Fee Study Update (2015). Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 The indexed capital cost per bed is calculated in Table 19. Table 19: Corkscrew Grove East Village Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost per Resident Description Figure Net Asset Value - Indexed$ 111,592,344 Number of Beds 1,304 Net Asset Value per Bed$ 85,577 Impact Fee LOS (Beds per 1,000 Functional Residents) 3.40 Asset Value per Functional Resident$ 290.98 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Collier County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Capital Impacts Emergency Medical Service (“EMS”) for the project will be initially provided by Collier County Medic Station 32 which is co-located at the Fire District’s Headquarters Station 32. If call volume and response time for the Corkscrew Grove East Village and the immediate area generate the need for an additional ambulance, Collier County EMS may choose to co-locate a medic facility at the new Immokalee Fire Control District station. For purposes of the Economic Assessment, it is assumed the space needed for a new ambulance will be leased at the highest annual rent as currently paid for similar space. The EMS level of service in the County’s AUIR is approximately one 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 60 percent of the County’s ambulance fee collections are Medicare patients and 10 percent are Medicaid patients. Medicare payments are not based on charged rates, but rather 80 percent of what the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services determines to be allowable. Table 20 calculates the allocable cost of EMS equipment needed to serve the Corkscrew Grove East Village using a peak seasonal resident population approach. 22 Page 868 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 20: Corkscrew Grove East Village EMS Capital Cost EMS Facility and Equipment Cost EMS Direct Capital Costs: Equipment Cost$ 903,567 Level of Service Standard 16,400 Per Capita Cost $ 55.10 Peak Resident Population 9,159 EMS Direct Capital Costs $ 505,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Table 21 compares the allocable EMS equipment needs to the estimated impact fee revenues. Table 21: Corkscrew Grove East Village EMS Capital Impact EMS Net Capital Impact EMS Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue$ 543,000 Other Capital Revenues* 13,000 Total Capital Revenues$ 556,000 EMS Capital Cost: EMS Direct Equipment Cost$ 505,000 EMS Net Capital Revenues Available for EMS-Growth Related Capital Needs 51,000 Total Capital Cost$ 556,000 *Included in the Collier County General Funds net fiscal impact buildout analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Personnel and operating costs for staffing and operating a new ambulance, including rent, are allocated in Appendix Table 17 based on the level of service in the 2024 AUIR and the peak residential population of the Corkscrew Grove East Village. The calculated General Fund EMS Expenditure per demand unit was multiplied by 187 percent to recognize the additional EMS cost. For conservatism of this analysis, it is assumed the General Fund will subsize 100 percent of the cost, whereas the actual subsidy is generally around 55 percent. The Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Roads, Regional and Community Parks, Law Enforcement, Correctional Facilities, and EMS capital and operating impacts. Water and Wastewater The project site is located within the Immokalee Water and Sewer District (“IWSD”) utility service area. Therefore, potable water and wastewater services for the Corkscrew Groves East Village project will be provided by IWSD. To address the potable water demands of the project, the following improvements are anticipated: 1. Regional Water Supply Facility: IWSD plans to construct a regional water supply facility on land currently owned by Alico Land Development Company and located just east of the SRA along the north side of SR 82. This facility will ensure an adequate potable water 23 Page 869 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT supply for the development and comply with the Florida Administrative Code standards for Public Water Systems. 2. Distribution of Potable Water: Within the project boundaries, potable water distribution will be coordinated between the Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District and the IWSD. Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District will oversee the initial installation of distribution infrastructure. The proposed potable water system will comply with all regulatory requirements, including considerations for the disposal of any waste products generated by the water treatment process. The system will adhere to approved generation rates and design criteria to ensure compliance with Level of Service (“LOS”) standards. Potable water demands, including Average Daily Demand (“ADD”) and Maximum Daily Demand (“MDD”), will be calculated in coordination with IWSD and the relevant permitting agencies. The following improvements are anticipated to meet the wastewater demands of the project: 1. Wastewater Treatment Facility: IWSD plans to construct a regional wastewater treatment facility on property currently owned by Alico Land Development Company, located just east of the SRA along the north side of SR 82. This facility will treat wastewater generated by the development in compliance with the Florida Administrative Code standards for wastewater treatment systems exceeding 10,000 gallons per day. 2. Wastewater Collection and Transmission: Within the project boundaries, wastewater collection and transmission infrastructure will be coordinated between the Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District and IWSD. Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District will oversee the initial installation of the necessary gravity sewer lines, force mains, and lift stations. The proposed wastewater treatment system will adhere to all regulatory requirements, including the proper disposal of waste products generated during the treatment process. Wastewater flows, including Average Daily Flow (“ADF”) and Peak Hourly Flow (“PHF”), will be calculated in coordination with IWSD and the appropriate permitting agencies to ensure compliance with Level of Service (“LOS”) standards. The Owner/Developer will not be obligated to pay Collier County Water-Sewer District potable water and wastewater impact fees. Instead, applicable connection fees will be calculated and paid directly to IWSD. The Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County’s Water and Wastewater capital and operating impacts. 24 Page 870 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Stormwater Management Existing stormwater on the site is generated by the agricultural activities that have historically taken place and are currently permitted. Stormwater is collected through a network of internal ditches and canals, which route the runoff to the on-site Water Retention Areas (“WRAs”) via pumps. Discharges from these WRAs are controlled through regulated control structures that limit offsite discharge rates. Offsite discharges flow into adjacent canals and/or culverts under Corkscrew Road, with the ultimate outfall directed into the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (“CREW”). The proposed SRA encompasses three distinct areas: the property west of Corkscrew Road, the property north of SR 82, and the property east of Corkscrew Road and south of SR 82. The existing site has historically been used for agricultural row crops, primarily oranges and tomatoes. The site is composed of an intricate network of agricultural infrastructure, including dikes, impoundment areas known as WRAs, perimeter ditches, and berms. These perimeter berms effectively prevent external surface water from flowing onto the site, ensuring that no stormwater flows from surrounding properties are accepted. Within the site, stormwater runoff from the agricultural fields is collected in perimeter ditches. From there, agricultural pumps transfer the excess runoff into the WRAs. These WRAs are equipped with drainage structures that direct stormwater either into adjacent canals, through culverts under Corkscrew Road, or directly into the CREW lands. Two canals currently traverse the site, ultimately discharging into CREW. These canals, essential for stormwater conveyance from surrounding properties, will be preserved. One of these, Cabbage Slough, will be partially relocated within the site to accommodate the proposed development. This relocation will maintain the canal's current capacity and flow patterns, ensuring that surrounding hydrology is not adversely affected. The other canal, Gator Slough, will remain unaltered to preserve its existing functionality. All WRAs adjacent to the SRA will be integrated into the stormwater management system. Discharges into the WRAs will occur only after the required water quality treatment has been achieved. Stormwater discharge into the WRA will only occur through control structures permitted by the South Florida Water Management District (“SFWMD”). The Owner of Corkscrew East Village SRA will be responsible for all costs associated with the design, permitting, construction, and operation of the proposed stormwater improvements required to serve Corkscrew East Village development. The SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment provides additional information. The Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Stormwater Management capital and operating impacts. 25 Page 871 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Irrigation Water The Corkscrew Groves project site has a long history of permitted agricultural withdrawals from the Lower Tamiami and Sandstone Aquifers that have not resulted in any known adverse impacts to natural environments. The agricultural water allocations currently permitted and used within the Corkscrew Groves project area total approximately 13.78 MGD on an annual average basis (5,028 MGY) and approximately 18.45 MGD on a maximum monthly basis (572 MGM). At build-out, the Corkscrew Groves project will result in converting approximately 1,447 acres of the currently permitted 3,100 acres of agricultural land into a residential development or about 47% of the currently permitted agricultural acreage. Prorating the currently permitted irrigation allocation to the 1,447 acres proposed for development yields an annual average day allocation of 6.48 MGD and a maximum month day allocation of 8.68 MGD for the proposed development area. The transition of agricultural use to residential/commercial use will result in approximately 432 acres of landscaping and turf within the Corkscrew Groves development requiring irrigation. The project irrigation demand for this amount of irrigated acreage as determined using the SFWMD Blaney-Criddle method is:  1.44 MGD on an annual average basis or 524 MGY (78% reduction in current use)  2.24 MGD on a maximum monthly basis or 68 MGM (74% reduction in current use) The proposed change in land use will result in a significant reduction in irrigation water usage at the project site. The Corkscrew Groves project will obtain a water use permit from the SFWMD which will allow withdrawal from onsite surface water and ground water sources to meet irrigation demands. 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 resupply the withdrawal lakes when needed. The proposed source aquifers for the wells are the Lower Tamiami Aquifer and Sandstone Aquifer as 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 while lake storage and re-supply by groundwater will minimize potential impacts to both surface and groundwater levels. The Owner/Developer would be responsible for all costs associated with the permitting, construction, and maintenance of the irrigation system. The SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment provides additional information. The Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Irrigation Water capital and operating impacts. 26 Page 872 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Solid Waste According to the Economic Assessment, the proposed SRA will increase the County’s peak residential population by approximately 9,615 peak population persons at buildout for 4,502 total dwelling units, including 362 affordable housing units. Using a tons per capita rate of 0.70 (per the 2024 AUIR), a population increase of 9,615 people will generate an additional 6,730.5 tons disposed per year. Commercial solid waste and residential curbside solid waste, recycling, and horticulture will be collected with Collier County’s franchise agreements by other franchise-approved haulers. Commercial recycling is open to market collection. Construction waste will be collected and processed by a local business specializing in the recycling of construction products. Collier County maintains a Board approved Disposal Capacity Agreement (DCA) with Okeechobee Landfill, Inc., that provides 930,000 tons of reserved capacity at Okeechobee Landfill. The waste generated and transferred to Okeechobee Landfill as part of the DCA is not included in the AUIR capacity LOS. Per the AUIR, for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the LOS Standard for capacity, it is assumed Collier County will renew, amend, or enter into a new agreement, as necessary, and continue to transfer. Commercial, municipal solid waste, and recycling containers will comply with Collier County ordinances. The project will utilize County-approved bear-resistant dumpsters/trash cans for all residential and non-residential uses, with locations of dumpsters being determined at the time of Site Development Plan (“SDP”) approval. All costs, including maintenance, of bear-resistant dumpsters will be borne by the Owner/Developer. 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. The Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County Solid Waste. COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT Collier County Schools Capital Impacts Three major sources of capital funds are available to Collier County Public Schools: the Capital Millage Tax, impact fees, capital outlay, and debt service. As shown in Table 22, the Capital Millage Tax has funded most of the School District’s capital projects over the past 10 years. Over that period, the School District collected $1.4 billion in Annual Capital Millage Tax, and annual Capital Millage Tax revenue is projected to triple from $99.1 million in 2015-16 to over $311.0 million in 2028-29. The School District’s capital revenues have provided $386.0 million in debt service funding, thereby positioning the School District to 27 Page 873 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT be debt-free by 2026, and pay-go financing of Aubrey Rogers High School, Bear Creek Elementary School (the District’s first new elementary school in 18 years), and the new elementary school in Ave Maria (scheduled to open in 2026). Table 22: CCPC Historical Enrollment and Capital Revenues Student Membership Capital County Permanent Elementary Middle Improvement School Impact Fee Population & High School(1) Tax (2) Revenue (2) 1 2015-16 356,874 42,748$ 99,171,443 $ 10,000,000 2 2016-17 362,634 43,321 119,452,273 12,000,000 3 2017-18 366,385 43,329 126,312,667 16,312,194 4 2018-19 371,939 43,447 132,117,173 14,000,000 5 2019-20 377,079 43,622 141,768,052 14,000,000 6 2020-21 385,980 41,208 150,062,073 23,918,248 7 2021-22 390,912 41,665 121,221,683 15,600,000 8 2022-23 404,310 42,256 155,853,979 26,152,692 9 2023-24 408,381 42,477 183,473,411 22,640,130 10 2024-25 413,300 42,550 186,718,691 19,000,000 Net Change/Total 56,426 (198)$ 1,416,151,445 $ 173,623,264 Projected: 2025-26 $ 260,439,696 2026-27 $ 275,117,472 2027-28 $ 293,829,264 2028-29 $ 310,913,136 Partial Uses of Capacity-Adding Capital Revenues Reduce Outstanding Debt FY 2016-2024$ 279,223,924 Reduce Outstanding Debt FY 2025 70,800,000 Reduce Outstanding Debt FY 2026 36,000,000 Aubrey Rogers High School (2023) 100,000,000 Bear Creek Elementary School (2025) 83,000,000 Elementary Q (Ave Maria) (2026) 80,000,000 Partial Uses of Capacity-Adding Capital Revenues $ 649,023,924 (1) Month 2 Monthly Membership Report (2) Amounts obtained from Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports and the 2024-25 Work Plan. Italized amounts obtained from Adopted Budgets as they were not separately reported in the ACFR. Source: Collier County, Collier County Public Schools, DPFG, 2025 From 2015-16 to 2024-25, the County added over 56,000 new permanent residents, but enrollment in School District elementary, middle, and high schools remained flat. As a result, the student generation rate per housing unit has declined considerably. According to the CCPC Capital Improvement Plan Fiscal Years 2025 through 2044, a robust housing market is expected in Collier County through 2028; however public school enrollment at brick and mortar schools is projected to remain steady. Factors moderating school enrollment during this growth period include the increase of charter school capacity and an expansion of the private school voucher program. As shown in Table 23, over 4,178 new charter school student stations have been added in the District over the past 10 years. 28 Page 874 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 23: Collier County Charter School Student Stations Student Student Collier County Stations Stations Charter Schools Year Built 2014-15 2024-25 1 Marco Island Charter Middle 1998 470 470 2 Immokalee Community Academy 2000 300 300 3 Marco Island Charter High 2011 350 350 4 Gulf Coast Charter Academy South 2013 336 701 5 Mason Classical Academy 2014 564 1,500 6 Collier Charter Academy 2017 - 1,145 7 BridgePrep of Collier 2018 - 1,000 8 Naples Classical Acadmey 2021 - 1,000 9 Optima Clasical Academy (Virtual Enrolled) 2022 - 97 Total 2,020 6,563 Increase in Charter School Capacity 2014-15 to 2024-25 4,178 Source: Collier County Public Schools, DPFG, 2025 Current school impact fees were adopted in 2015 based on the Collier County School Impact Fee Update Study (June 23, 2015) and were subsequently indexed based on the 2017 Indexing Calculations prepared by the County’s impact fee consultant. A school impact fee update is currently underway, and new school impact fees may be adopted before the end of 2025. Certain methodology and policy decisions are made by the Board of County Commissioners during the adoption of legally defensible impact fees. The new impact fees will take into consideration the decline in student generation rate, available capacity in existing schools, the significant increase in new school construction costs, the F.S. 1013.64(b) statutory cost caps, and the substantial increase in Capital Millage Tax available to fund new schools. It is beyond the scope of this analysis to calculate a legally defensible school impact fee. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed the School District will continue to rely on Capital Millage Tax for new school construction costs, and new development will be charged impact fees at rates enacted by the County at that time. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment model and report will be revised and reissued when the Board of County Commissioners adopts the impact fee update and establishes new rates. Corkscrew Grove East Village’s estimated demand for student stations is projected in Table 24 based on student generation rates in the 2015 School Impact Fee Update, the most recent adopted data available. Table 24: Corkscrew Grove East Village Projected Public School Enrollment Projected Residential Unit Type Units SGR Students Multi-Family (Low-Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 0.11 141 Single-Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 0.34 968 Total Market Rate Residential 4,127 1,109 Source: Collier County School District, DPFG, 2025 29 Page 875 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Projected enrollment by school type and 2028-29 available capacity in Planning Zone 6 is shown in Table 25. Table 25: Corkscrew Grove East Village Projected Enrollment by School Type Planning Zone 6 Projected 2028-29 School Type Students Percent Avail Capacity Elementary 517 47% 830 Middle 240 22% 455 High 352 32% 448 Total 1,109 100% 1,733 Source: Collier County School District, DPFG, 2025 The property owners of Corkscrew Grove East Village have reserved approximately 24.0 acres for a dedicated School Site, as depicted on the SRA Master Plan. A stipulation to the development order requires the Owner to convey real property for the School Site (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 School District, the School Reservation of the School Site to the School District fully mitigates for the development’s impact to the elementary, middle and high schools needed to serve Corkscrew Grove East Village." Projected school impact fee revenue is shown in Table 26. Table 26: Corkscrew Grove East Village School Impact Fee Revenue Units or School Impact Fee Category Sq Ft Impact Fee Total Multi-Family (Low-Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 $ 2,844.19 $ 3,638,000 Single-Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 $ 8,789.54 25,033,000 Total School Impact Fees 4,127 $ 28,671,000 Source: Collier County Public Schools, DPFG, 2025 As shown in Table 27, capital revenues consist primarily of ad valorem taxes and impact fees. The FY 2025 Capital Outlay Millage, which is determined locally by the School Board within parameters established by the State Legislature, is 1.1332 mills (subject to cap of 1.50 mills). The County voters approved a referendum in 2020 allowing the School District to reduce the Capital Outlay millage by 0.35 mills for four years and levy that millage for operating purposes. 30 Page 876 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 27: Corkscrew Grove East Village School Net Capital Impacts – Total Cash Flow Approach Capital Improvement School Impact Tax over Revenue/Expense Fee Revenue 25 Years Total School Capital Revenues: School Impact Fee Revenue $ 28,671,000 $ - $ 28,671,000 School District Capital Tax Revenue - 38,664,000 38,664,000 Total School Capital Revenues$ 28,671,000 $ 38,664,000 $ 67,335,000 Direct School Capital Expenditures 67,335,000 Net School Capital Expenditures$ - Source: Collier County Public Schools, DPFG, 2025 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 four lowest of all Florida school districts. A comparison of the School District’s millage history is shown in Figure 1. 31 Page 877 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Figure 1: Collier County School District Millage History Source: Collier County Public Schools, 2025 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 28. Table 28: Corkscrew Grove East Village Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout Operating School District Operating ResultsMillage At Buildout Ad Valorem Local Millage - Residential 3.1800 $ 6,718,000 Ad Valorem Local Millage - NonResidential 3.1800 269,000 Ad Valorem Local Millage Revenues$ 6,987,000 Ad Valorem Local Millage Operating Expenditures$ 6,987,000 Ad Valorem Local Millage Net Revenues$ - Source: Collier County Public Schools, DPFG, 2025 The Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally neutral respect to the Collier County School District. 32 Page 878 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Immokalee Fire Control District Immokalee Fire Control District Capital Impact The Corkscrew Grove East Village is located within the service area of the Immokalee Fire Control District (“Fire District”). Fire service for the project will be initially provided by the District’s Headquarters Station 32 in Ave Maria. However, a new fire station may be needed to serve the project at buildout. A stipulation to the development order requires the Owner to convey real property of approximately 3.0 acres for a Fire and co-located EMS station in exchange for fire impact fee credits and/or cash. The proposed stipulation states, “With respect to the conveyance of real property by the Applicant to the Fire District, the Fire Reservation of the Fire Site to the Fire District fully mitigates for the development’s impact to the Fire/EMS facilities needed to serve the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA." Capital impacts are shown in Table 29 and reflect the cost of a new fire station and the related vehicles and equipment. Capital costs are fully funded by impact fee and other capital revenues and an assumed one-time allocation of the annual net operating surplus generated by the project. Table 29: Corkscrew Grove East Village Immokalee Fire Control District Capital Impact Description Amount Amount Impact Fee Revenue: Impact Fee Revenue$ 9,146,000 Other Capital Revenue 1,016,000 Total Capital Revenue$ 10,162,000 New Station, Vehicles, and Equipment New Fire Station Sq. Ft. 12,000 Construction Cost per Sq. Ft.$ 700 Construction Cost$ 8,400,000 Land Value New Station 120,000 Total Land and Building$ 8,520,000 Vehicles and Equipment Engine and Equipment$ 1,219,000 Ladder Truck and Equipment 1,767,000 Attack Truck and Equipment 243,000 Water Tender and Equipment 572,000 Total Vehicles and Equipment 3,801,000 Total New Station, Vehicles and Equipment $ 12,321,000 One-Time Capital Revenue Excess (Deficiency) over Capital Cost (2,159,000) One-Time Allocation of Excess Annual Operating Surplus 2,159,000 Net Capital Impact$ - Source: Immokalee Fire Control District, DPFG, 2025 33 Page 879 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Projected impact fee revenues are presented in Table 30 and total $9.1 million. The adopted rates are based on the 2023 Impact Fee Update Study. Table 30: Corkscrew Grove East Village Immokalee Fire Control Impact Fee Revenues Impact Fee Calculated Land Use Units Total Sq. Ft. Rate Fee Residential 4,127 9,548,725 $ 0.94 $ 8,975,802 Commercial 283,500 283,500 $ 0.60 170,100 Total$ 9,145,902 Source: Immokalee Fire Control District, DPFG, 2025 The square footage of the Project at buildout is provided in Table 31. Table 31: Corkscrew Grove East Village Square Footage Square Feet Land Use Units per Unit Total Multi-Family Type 1 784 1,900 1,489,600 Type 2 210 1,430 300,300 Type 3 157 1,525 239,425 Type 4 128 1,925 246,400 Multi-Family (Low-Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 2,275,725 Single-Family Detached Type 1 1,073 2,200 2,360,600 Type 2 908 2,700 2,451,600 Type 3 784 2,800 2,195,200 Type 4 83 3,200 265,600 Single-Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 7,273,000 Total Residential 4,127 9,548,725 NonResidential 283,500 283,500 Source: Mr. Mike Timmerman, CRE, DPFG, 2025 Immokalee Fire Control District Annual Operating Impacts Operating expenditures to support a new fire station are estimated in Table 32. Because the current operating millage of the Immokalee Fire Control District is geared to much lower density development, the Corkscrew Grove East Village is projected to generate significant annual operating surpluses for the Fire Control District. 34 Page 880 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 32: Corkscrew Grove East Village Immokalee Fire Control District Annual Operating Impacts at Buildout Annual Annual Operating Impact at Buildout Calculations Amounts Annual General Fund Revenue Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Ad Valorem Tax Base $ 2,137,928,000 Immokalee Fire District Control Millage Rate 3.75 Annual Ad Valorem Revenue $ 8,017,000 $ 8,017,000 FY 2025 Annual General Fund Expenditures Personnel$ 7,204,911 Operating 1,468,658 Total Annual Personnel and Operating Costs $ 8,673,569 Square Feet per Facility Station 30 12,884 Station 31 12,000 Station 32 23,988 Headquarters Logistics Building 5,156 Total Square Feet 54,028 Annual Operating Cost per Square Foot$ 160.54 New Station Square Feet 12,000 New Station Annual Operating Expenditures$ 1,926,000 Estimated Ongoing Annual Surplus$ 6,091,000 One-Time Capital Cost (Not Covered by Capital Revenue) (2,159,000) Estimated Annual Surplus after One-Time Capital Cost$ 3,932,000 Source: Immokalee Fire Control District, DPFG, 2025 The Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally positive with respect to the Immokalee Fire Control District. 35 Page 881 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT APPENDIX Appendix Table 1: Collier County Base Assumptions COLLIER COUNTY STUDY PERIOD FY 2025 County Budget Year COLLIER COUNTYWIDE POPULATION 413,300 2025 County Permanent Population - Collier County 2024 AUIR 1.2084 Seasonal Population Coefficient - Collier County 499,426 2025 County Peak Seaonal Population - Collier County 2024 AUIR 86,126 2025 County Peak Seasonal Population COLLIER COUNTYWIDE EMPLOYMENT 283,739 Woods & Poole 2025 Employment 0.8897602 FTE Conversion Factor - IMPLAN 252,460 2025 In-Place FTE Employment COLLIER COUNTY PEAK TOURIST POPULATION 266,200 Collier County CVB Profile - March 2024 8,587 Peak Daily Tourists COLLIER COUNTYWIDE POPULATION AND JOBS 665,760 County Permanent Population and Jobs 751,886 County Peak Seasonal Population and Jobs 760,473 County Peak Seasonal Population, Tourists, and Jobs COLLIER UNINCORPORATED COUNTY POPULATION 376,216 2025 Unincorporated County Permanent Population - Collier County 2024 AUIR 1.2082 Seasonal Unincorporated Population Coefficient - Collier County 454,553 2025 Unincorporated County Peak Seaonal Population - Collier County 2024 AUIR 78,337 2025 Unincorporated County Peak Seasonal Population COLLIER COUNTY UNINCORPORATED EMPLOYMENT 229,808 Allocation basis consistent with prior years. COLLIER COUNTY UNINCORPORATED POPULATION AND JOBS 606,024 County Permanent Population and Jobs 684,361 County Peak Seasonal Population and Jobs COLLIER COUNTY MILLAGE RATES FY 2025 3.0107 County General Fund 0.0246 Water Pollution Control 0.2096 Conservation Collier Program 3.2449 County Wide Millage 0.6844 MSTU General Fund COLLIER COUNTY MILLAGE RATES FY 2025 0.2096 Conservation Collier Program Disclosure Only COLLIER COUNTY % HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION Shimberg Center for Housing Studies - 2024 Final Tax Roll Year 67% Single Family 35% Condominium 0% Rental Apartments $ 50,000 County Homestead Exemption $ 25,000 School Homestead Exemption Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 36 Page 882 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 2: Corkscrew Grove East Village Resident Population and Seasonal Population Coefficients Peak Permanent Seasonal Population Seasonal Persons Land Use by Impact Fee Category Per Unit Index Per Unit Residential (Units) Multi-Family (Low-Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1.04 1.21 1.26 Single-Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2.19 1.21 2.65 Source: Collier County 2016 EMS Impact Fee Update, DPFG, 2025 Appendix Table 3: Corkscrew Grove East Village Population and Employment Estimates Peak Seasonal Peak Permanent Persons Per Seasonal Population Permanent Residential Units Unit Population Per Unit Population Multi-Family (Low-Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 1.26 1,612 1.04 1,334 Single-Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 2.65 7,547 2.19 6,246 Total Market Rate Residential 4,127 9,159 7,580 Affordable Housing Units 362 Tota Housing Units 4,489 Employment Occupancy Non-Residential Sq Ft Coefficient % Employees Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft 283,500 2.50 95% 673 Total Non-Residential 283,500 673 Civic/Institutional 70,000 Grand Total Non-Residential (sf) 353,500 673 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Appendix Table 4: Corkscrew Grove East Village Population and Employment Summary Development Program and Demographic Summary At Buildout Permanent Population 7,580 Residential Seasonal Population 9,159 Employment 673 Permanent Population and Jobs 8,253 Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 9,832 Residential Seasonal Population, Tourists, and Employment 9,832 Public School Enrollment 1,109 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 37 Page 883 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 5: Corkscrew Grove East Village Public School Enrollment Projected Residential Unit Type Units SGR Students Multi-Family (Low-Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 0.11 141 Single-Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 0.34 968 Total Market Rate Residential 4,127 1,109 Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2025 Appendix Table 6: Corkscrew Grove East Village County Tax Base Units or Taxable Value Land Use Sq Ft per Unit/SF Buildout Multi-Family Type 1 784 $ 416,699 $ 326,692,000 Type 2 210 $ 271,939 57,107,000 Type 3 157 $ 320,819 50,369,000 Type 4 128 $ 367,819 47,081,000 Multi-Family (Low-Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 $ 481,249,000 Single-Family Detached Type 1 1,073 $ 483,357 $ 518,642,000 Type 2 908 $ 567,957 515,705,000 Type 3 784 $ 614,957 482,126,000 Type 4 83 $ 671,357 55,723,000 Single-Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 $ 1,572,196,000 Total Market Rate Residential 4,127 $ 2,053,445,000 Non-Residential Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft 283,500 $ 298 $ 84,483,000 Total Non-Residential 283,500 $ 84,483,000 Total Tax Base $ 2,137,928,000 Source: Mr. Mike Timmerman, CRE, Collier County, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2025 38 Page 884 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 7: Corkscrew Grove East Village School District Tax Base Units or Taxable Value Land Use Sq Ft per Unit/SF Buildout Multi-Family Type 1 784 $ 425,490 $ 333,584,000 Type 2 210 $ 280,730 58,953,000 Type 3 157 $ 329,610 51,749,000 Type 4 128 $ 376,610 48,206,000 Multi-Family (Low-Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 $ 492,492,000 Single-Family Detached Type 1 1,073 $ 500,179 $ 536,692,000 Type 2 908 $ 584,779 530,979,000 Type 3 784 $ 631,779 495,315,000 Type 4 83 $ 688,179 57,119,000 Single-Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 $ 1,620,105,000 Total Market Rate Residential 4,127 $ 2,112,597,000 Non-Residential Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft 283,500 $ 298 $ 84,483,000 Total Non-Residential 283,500 $ 84,483,000 Total Tax Base $ 2,197,080,000 Source: Mr. Mike Timmerman, CRE, Collier County, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2025 39 Page 885 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 8: FY 2025 Collier County General Funds and MSTU Revenue Budget Summaries Inter- Fed Payment GENERAL FUND GROUPING Ad Valorem Licenses & Governmental State Revenue State Sales in Lieu of Charges for Fines & Miscellaneous Interest/ Indirect Service REVENUES AND SOURCES Taxes Permits Revenues Sharing Tax Taxes Services Forfeitures Revenues Miscellaneous Charge 0001 General Fund$ 458,429,200 $ 241,500 $ 491,000 $ 16,438,800 $ 63,275,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 19,103,200 $ 447,800 $ 340,800 $ 1,613,200 $ 9,096,600 0002 AH Impact Fee Deferral Program 0003 Emergency Relief 0004 Economic Development 46,400 0011 Clerk of Circuit Court 3,167,200 70,700 500 469,600 0040 Sheriff 0060 Property Appraiser 0070 Tax Collector 35,146,800 649,700 0080 Supervisor of Elections Total General Fund Grouping Revenues$ 458,429,200 $ 241,500 $ 491,000 $ 16,438,800 $ 63,275,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 57,463,600 $ 518,500 $ 341,300 $ 2,732,500 $ 9,096,600 Inter- Fed Payment UNINCORPORATED GENERAL FUND REVENUES Ad Valorem Licenses & Governmental State Revenue State Sales in Lieu of Charges for Fines & Miscellaneous Interest/ Indirect Service AND SOURCES Taxes Permits Revenues Sharing Tax Taxes Services Forfeitures Revenues Miscellaneous Charge 1011 Unincorporated Area General Fund$ 66,045,800 $ 412,800 $ 3,087,300 $ 220,000 $ 295,800 $ 390,000 Transfers from Transfers from Reimburse from GENERAL FUND GROUPING Communication Special General Fund Constitutional Other REVENUES AND SOURCES Carry Forward Services Tax Assessments (001) Officers Other Transfers Advance/Repay Departments Total Less Restricted Total 0001 General Fund$ 146,698,800 $ 7,600,000 $ 20,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,459,100 $ 726,755,000 (28,536,400) $ 698,218,600 0002 AH Impact Fee Deferral Program 20,000 20,000 20,000 0003 Emergency Relief 542,300 542,300 542,300 0004 Economic Development 172,000 218,400 (2,400) 216,000 0011 Clerk of Circuit Court 15,194,800 18,902,800 (161,900) 18,740,900 0040 Sheriff 266,452,100 266,452,100 266,452,100 0060 Property Appraiser 10,521,700 1,313,300 11,835,000 11,835,000 0070 Tax Collector 35,796,500 35,796,500 0080 Supervisor of Elections 5,331,500 5,331,500 5,331,500 Total General Fund Grouping Revenues$ 147,433,100 $ - $ - $ 297,500,100 $ 7,600,000 $ 1,333,300 $ 250,000 $ 1,459,100 $ 1,065,853,600 $ (28,700,700) $ 1,037,152,900 Transfers from Transfers from Reimburse from UNINCORPORATED GENERAL FUND REVENUES Communication Special General Fund Constitutional Advance/ Other AND SOURCES Carry Forward Services Tax Assessments (001) Officers Other Transfers Repay Departments Total Less Restricted Total 1011 Unincorporated Area General Fund$ 12,982,800 $ 3,800,000 $ 16,000 $ 200,000 $ 388,500 $ 740,100 $ 88,579,100 $ (3,760,400) $ 84,818,700 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 40 Page 886 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 9: FY 2025 Collier County General Funds Revenue Demand Units $ Per Base Demand General Fund Grouping Revenue Category Budget Demand Base Multiplier Demand Unit Ad Valorem Taxes$ 458,429,200 CUMULATIVE AV 1.00 N/A N/A Licenses & Permits 241,500 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 665,760 $ 0.36 Inter-Governmental Revenues 491,000 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 665,760 $ 0.74 State Revenue Sharing - Fixed Portion 1,036,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion 15,402,000 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 37.27 State Sales Tax 63,275,000 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 153.10 Fed Payment in Lieu of Taxes 1,250,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Charges for Services 57,463,600 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 665,760 $ 86.31 Fines & Forfeitures 518,500 PEAKPOP 1.00 499,426 $ 1.04 Miscellaneous Revenues 341,300 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 665,760 $ 0.51 Interest/ Miscellaneous 2,732,500 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 665,760 $ 4.10 Indirect Service Charge 9,096,600 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 665,760 $ 13.66 Carry Forward 147,433,100 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers from General Fund (001) 297,500,100 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers from Constitutional Officers 7,600,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 751,886 $ 10.11 Other Transfers 1,333,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Advance/Repay 250,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Reimburse from Other Departments 1,459,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 751,886 $ 1.94 Total$ 1,065,853,600 $ 309.14 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2025 Appendix Table 10: FY 2025 Collier County MSTU Revenue Demand Units $ Per Base Demand General Fund Grouping Revenue Category Budget Demand Base Multiplier Demand Unit Ad Valorem Taxes$ 66,045,800 CUMULATIVE AV 1.00 N/A N/A Licenses & Permits 412,800 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 606,024 $ 0.68 Charges for Services 3,087,300 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 606,024 $ 5.09 Fines & Forfeitures 220,000 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 606,024 $ 0.36 Miscellaneous Revenues 295,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 0.43 Interest/ Miscellaneous 390,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 0.57 Carry Forward 12,982,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Communication Services Tax 3,800,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 5.55 Special Assessments 16,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers from General Fund (001) - FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers from Constitutional Officers 200,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Other Transfers 388,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Advance/Repay - FIXED 1.00 - N/A Reimburse from Other Departments 740,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 1.08 Total$ 88,579,100 $ 13.76 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2025 41 Page 887 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 11: Corkscrew Grove East Village General Funds Revenue at Buildout GENERAL FUND GROUPING $ Per REVENUES Demand Base Demand At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV$ 3.0107 $ 6,437,000 Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS$ 0.36 3,000 Inter-Governmental Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS$ 0.74 6,000 State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion PERMPOP$ 37.27 283,000 State Sales Tax PERMPOP$ 153.10 1,160,000 Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS$ 86.31 712,000 Fines & Forfeitures PEAKPOP$ 1.04 10,000 Miscellaneous Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS$ 0.51 4,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous PERMPOP&JOBS$ 4.10 34,000 Indirect Service Charge PERMPOP&JOBS$ 13.66 113,000 Transfers from Constitutional Officers PEAKPOP&JOBS$ 10.11 99,000 Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS$ 1.94 19,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues$ 309.14 $ 8,880,000 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2025 Appendix Table 12: Corkscrew Grove East Village MSTU Revenue at Buildout MSTU GENERAL FUND $ Per REVENUES Demand Base Demand At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV$ 0.6844 $ 1,463,000 Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS$ 0.68 6,000 Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS$ 5.09 42,000 Fines & Forfeitures PERMPOP&JOBS$ 0.36 3,000 Miscellaneous Revenues PEAKPOP&JOBS$ 0.43 4,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous PEAKPOP&JOBS$ 0.57 6,000 Communication Services Tax PEAKPOP&JOBS$ 5.55 55,000 Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS$ 1.08 11,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Revenues$ 13.76 $ 1,590,000 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2025 42 Page 888 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 13: FY 2025 Collier County General Funds and MSTU Expenditure Budget Summaries GENERAL FUND GROUPING Personal Operating Grants and Advance/ Indirect Cost EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES Services Services Capital Outlay Aid Remittances Repay Reimbursement 0001 General Fund$ 57,775,700 $ 53,775,200 $ 100,000 $ 3,230,600 $ 10,200,500 $ 11,356,800 0002 Impact Fee Deferral Program 0003 Emergency Relief 0007 Economic Development 149,400 56,000 10,600 0011 Clerk of Circuit Court 13,917,100 3,441,400 262,400 0040 Sheriff 213,395,800 47,017,100 6,039,200 0060 Property Appraiser 9,178,600 2,616,400 40,000 0070 Tax Collector 17,404,100 3,339,500 2,480,600 0080 Supervisor of Elections 3,298,900 2,002,600 30,000 Total General Fund Grouping Expenditures$ 315,119,600 $ 112,248,200 $ 8,952,200 $ 3,230,600 $ 10,200,500 $ 11,356,800 $ 10,600 UNINCORPORATED GENERAL FUND Personal Operating Grants and Advance/ Indirect Cost EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES Services Services Capital Outlay Aid Remittances Repay Reimbursement 1011 Unincorporated Area General Fund$ 22,574,100 $ 16,232,100 $ 40,000 $ 500,000 $ 1,597,900 Personal Services Operating Services Transfers to Transfers to Restricted for Distribution of Capital Outlay GENERAL FUND GROUPING Constitutional General Fund Unfunded Excess Fees to Grants and Aid EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES Officers (001) Other Transfers Reserves Requests Govt Agencies Total Remittances 0001 General Fund$ 323,224,600 $ 160,992,400 77,562,800 $ 698,218,600 $ 125,082,000 0002 Impact Fee Deferral Program 20,000 20,000 - 0003 Emergency Relief 542,300 542,300 - 0007 Economic Development 216,000 216,000 0011 Clerk of Circuit Court 1,120,000 18,740,900 17,620,900 0040 Sheriff 266,452,100 266,452,100 0060 Property Appraiser 11,835,000 11,835,000 0070 Tax Collector 12,572,300 35,796,500 23,224,200 0080 Supervisor of Elections 5,331,500 5,331,500 Total General Fund Grouping Expenditures$ 323,224,600 $ 20,000 $ 162,654,700 $ 77,562,800 $ - $ 12,572,300 $ 1,037,152,900 $ 449,761,700 Personal Services Operating Services Capital Outlay Grants and Aid Transfers to Transfers to Restricted for Distribution of Remittances UNINCORPORATED GENERAL FUND Constitutional General Fund Unfunded Excess Fees to Indirect Cost EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES Officers (001) Other Transfers Reserves Requests Govt Agencies Total Reimbursement 1011 Unincorporated Area General Fund$ 2,279,500 $ 35,407,400 $ 6,187,700 $ 84,818,700 $ 40,944,100 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 43 Page 889 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 14: FY 2025 Collier County Expenditure Budget Summaries Fund # General Fund Description Total Budget 0001 General Fund$ 698,218,600 0002 Utility Impact Fee Deferral Program 20,000 0003 Emergency Disaster 542,300 0004 Economic Development 216,000 0011 Clerk of Circuit Court 18,740,900 0040 Sheriff 266,452,100 0060 Property Appraiser 11,835,000 0070 Tax Collector 35,796,500 0080 Supervisor of Elections 5,331,500 Total General Fund Groupings$ 1,037,152,900 Fund Type Operating Budget General Fund Groupings$ 449,761,700 Special Revenue Funds 278,884,400 Capital Funds - Enterprise Funds 68,414,700 Internal Service Funds 118,394,800 Trust and Agency Funds 84,200 Transfers and Reserves 232,707,200 Total Operating Services, Excluding Public Utilities$ 1,148,247,000 Division/Agency Operating Budget Board of County Commissioners$ 25,789,500 Constitutional Officers 351,914,300 Corporate Business Operations Department 153,104,600 Public Safety 94,921,800 Growth Management Community Development 210,823,600 Court Related Agencies 7,041,300 Office of the County Manager 129,404,900 Public Services Department 74,844,400 Transportation Management Services 100,402,600 Total Operating Budget Before Public Utilities$ 1,148,247,000 Public Utilities 401,592,400 Grand Total Total Operating Budget$ 1,549,839,400 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 44 Page 890 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 15: FY 2025 Collier County Appropriations by Program Budget Summaries General Funds Permanent Grouping Total General Funds Special Revenue Capital Funds Enterprise Internal Service (Trust) Funds Transfers and Less Division Grouping Total Funds Total Total Funds Total Funds Total Total Reserves Total Remittances Board of County Commissioners$ 1,625,300 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,625,300 $ 1,625,300 County Attorney 3,526,600 193,000 - - - - - 3,719,600 3,526,600 Other General Administration 16,831,200 3,613,400 - - - - - 20,444,600 7,264,300 Property Appraiser 12,105,100 - - - - - - 12,105,100 12,105,100 Supervisor of Elections 5,507,800 - - - - - - 5,507,800 5,507,800 Clerk of Courts 18,506,200 - - - - - 1,120,000 19,626,200 18,506,200 Sheriff 271,823,100 3,989,100 - - - - 2,706,700 278,518,900 271,823,100 Tax Collector 23,584,000 - - - - - 12,572,300 36,156,300 23,584,000 Corporate Business Operations Administration 541,300 - - - - - - 541,300 541,300 Human Resources 5,728,200 532,900 - - - - - 6,261,100 5,728,200 Information Technology - - - - 19,343,000 - 3,438,500 22,781,500 - Procurement Services 3,049,900 - - - - - - 3,049,900 3,049,900 Risk Management Division - - - - 83,286,400 - 37,184,400 120,470,800 - Emergency Management Division 5,073,400 2,798,100 - - - - 613,100 8,484,600 5,044,600 Emergency Services & Fire District Grants - 7,542,300 - - - - 9,364,700 16,907,000 - Emergency Medical Services EMS - - - 52,283,800 - - 11,414,400 63,698,200 - Fire Districts - 4,920,800 - - - - 911,200 5,832,000 - Growth Mgt - Administration - 12,501,200 - - - - - 12,501,200 - Growth Mgt - Planning 1,525,200 6,563,100 - - - - - 8,088,300 1,525,200 Growth Mgt - Regulation 2,058,100 32,606,900 - - - - 710,500 35,375,500 2,058,100 Growth Mgt - Housing Policy and Econ Development 1,486,000 1,671,800 - - - - 2,310,800 5,468,600 981,200 Growth Mgt - Econ Development and Innovation Zones - 7,296,800 - - - - 12,701,800 19,998,600 - Growth Mgt - Conservation Collier - 44,258,000 - - - 84,200 61,166,400 105,508,600 - Growth Mgt - Reserves and Transfers - - - - - - 23,882,800 23,882,800 - Court Administration - 3,514,800 - - - - 488,800 4,003,600 - Circuit & County Court Judges 71,700 - - - - - - 71,700 71,700 Public Defender 486,800 - - - - - - 486,800 486,800 State Attorney 730,000 - - - - - - 730,000 730,000 Guardian Ad Litem Program 4,600 - - - - - - 4,600 4,600 Court Related Technology - 1,630,800 - - - - 113,800 1,744,600 - County Manager Operations 2,319,100 - - - - - - 2,319,100 2,319,100 Office of Management & Budget 2,823,700 1,179,300 - - - - 1,284,100 5,287,100 2,823,700 Communications Government & Public Affairs - 2,542,500 - - - - - 2,542,500 - Pelican Bay Services - 5,944,200 - - - - 2,224,800 8,169,000 - Dori Slosberg Driver Education - 193,000 - - - - 82,600 275,600 - Corporate Compliance & Continous Improvement 831,800 - - - - - - 831,800 831,800 Tourist Development Council - 26,089,000 - - - - 15,246,600 41,335,600 - Sports & Special Events Complex - 8,213,100 - - - - 2,244,900 10,458,000 - Bayshore CRA - 4,400,800 - - - - 8,269,100 12,669,900 - Immokalee CRA - 1,861,200 - - - - 1,980,400 3,841,600 - Fleet Management - - - - 15,765,400 - 902,600 16,668,000 - Facilities Management Division 22,471,200 90,400 - - - - 2,445,100 25,006,700 22,471,200 Public Services Administration 420,500 - - - - - - 420,500 420,500 Operations and Veteran Services 2,721,300 - - - - - - 2,721,300 2,721,300 Domestic Animal Services 4,736,000 329,500 - - - - 8,200 5,073,700 4,636,000 Community and Human Services 9,182,200 2,692,900 - - - - 617,900 12,493,000 9,182,200 Library 8,987,300 285,400 - - - - 522,600 9,795,300 8,987,300 Museum - 2,861,000 - - - - 42,200 2,903,200 - Parks & Recreation 17,930,400 19,438,500 - - - - 1,516,800 38,885,700 17,930,400 Public Health 1,490,200 - - - - - - 1,490,200 1,490,200 University Extension Service 1,005,000 43,200 - - - - 13,300 1,061,500 1,005,000 Transportation Mgt - Operations - 33,495,000 - - - - 1,303,800 34,798,800 - Transportation Mgt - Landscaping - 3,018,800 - - - - - 3,018,800 - Transportation Mgt - Stormwater Operations - 11,631,900 - - - - 252,400 11,884,300 - Transportation Mgt - Water Pollution Control - 4,157,600 - - - - 2,555,300 6,712,900 - Transportation Mgt - Coastal Zone Management - 1,328,600 - - - - 161,800 1,490,400 - Transportation Mgt - Airport Operations - - - 9,128,300 - - 2,195,200 11,323,500 - Transportation Mgt - Public Transit & NE 578,500 - - 7,002,600 - - 1,203,400 8,784,500 578,500 Transportation Mgt - MPO - 11,700 - - - - - 11,700 - Transportation Mgt - Improvements Districts & MSTU - 15,443,800 - - - - 6,933,900 22,377,700 - Total$ 449,761,700 $ 278,884,400 $ - $ 68,414,700 $ 118,394,800 $ 84,200 $ 232,707,200 $ 1,148,247,000 $ 439,561,200 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 45 Page 891 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 16: FY 2025 Collier County General Funds Expenditure Demand Units $ Per Department Budget Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand Demand Board of County Commissioners$ 1,625,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A County Attorney 3,526,600 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 2.35 Other General Administration 7,264,300 PERMPOP 0.50 413,300 $ 8.79 Property Appraiser 12,105,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 8.05 Supervisor of Elections 5,507,800 PERMPOP 0.50 413,300 $ 6.66 Clerk of Courts 18,506,200 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 12.31 Sheriff Law Enforcement 195,143,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 760,473 $ 256.61 Law Enforcement Paid by BCC 5,371,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 760,473 $ 7.06 Detention & Corrections 64,783,800 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 0.15 760,473 $ 12.78 Bailiffs 6,525,300 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 0.05 760,473 $ 0.43 Tax Collector 23,584,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 15.68 Corporate Business Operations Administration 541,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Human Resources 5,728,200 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 3.81 Procurement Services 3,049,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 2.03 Emergency Management Division 5,044,600 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 760,473 $ 6.63 Growth Mgt - Planning 1,525,200 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 751,886 $ 2.03 Growth Mgt - Regulation 2,058,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 751,886 $ 2.74 Growth Mgt - Housing Policy and Econ Development 981,200 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Circuit & County Court Judges 71,700 PEAKPOP 1.00 499,426 $ 0.14 Public Defender 486,800 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 1.18 State Attorney 730,000 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 1.77 Guardian Ad Litem Program 4,600 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 0.01 County Manager Operations 2,319,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 1.54 Office of Management & Budget 2,823,700 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 1.88 Corporate Compliance & Continous Improvement 831,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Facilities Management Division 22,471,200 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 14.94 Public Services Administration 420,500 PERMPOP 0.50 413,300 $ 0.51 Operations and Veteran Services 2,721,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Domestic Animal Services 4,636,000 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 11.22 Community and Human Services 9,182,200 PERMPOP 0.50 413,300 $ 11.11 Library 8,987,300 PEAKPOP 1.00 499,426 $ 18.00 Parks & Recreation 17,930,400 PEAKPOP 1.00 499,426 $ 35.90 Public Health 1,490,200 PERMPOP 0.20 413,300 $ 0.72 University Extension Service 1,005,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transportation Mgt - Public Transit & NE 578,500 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 1.40 General Funds Grouping Totals Less Remittances$ 439,561,200 Remittances 10,200,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A General Funds Grouping Totals Plus Remittances$ 449,761,700 Transfer to 1001 Road & Bridge 27,675,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 751,886 $ 36.81 Transfer to 1051 Court Administration 2,401,700 PEAKPOP 1.00 499,426 $ 4.81 Transfer to 1060 MHz Radio System 1,323,700 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 0.50 760,473 $ 0.87 Transfer to 3081 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap 9,660,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 751,886 $ 12.85 Transfer to 4030 CATT Transit Enhance 2,761,600 PEAKPOP 1.00 499,426 $ 5.53 Transfer to 4033 Transp Disadv 2,380,400 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 5.76 Transfer to 4050 EMS Fund 30,421,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.87 760,473 $ 74.76 Other Transfers 86,030,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers to General Fund 1001 20,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Advance/Repayments 11,356,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Restricted for Unfunded Requests - FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers to Constitutional Officers 323,224,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Reserves 77,562,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies 12,572,300 PEAKPOP 1.00 499,426 $ 25.17 Total$ 1,037,152,900 1.00$ 614.82 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 46 Page 892 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 17: EMS Adjusted Operating Expenditures for New Ambulance Description Amount Transfer to 4050 EMS Fund$ 30,421,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 760,473 $$ Per Demand Unit$ 40.00 Corkscrew Grove East PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 9,832 Projected EMS Operating Expenditures$ 393,280 Index 187% Projected EMS Operating Expenditures$ 735,000 Corkscrew Grove East PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 9,832 Revised $$ Per Demand Unit$ 74.76 Alternate Calculation based on Level of Service Company Description Officer Paramedics EMTs New Ambulance Annual Operating Expenditures: Annual Personnel Cost per FTE$ 159,310 $ 111,000 $ 84,000 # of FTEs 3 3 3 Annual Personnel Cost$ 477,930 $ 333,000 $ 252,000 Personal Services$ 1,062,930 Operating Expense 228,000 17% Annual Facility Lease 26,000 Total Annual Operating Cost$ 1,316,930 Description Amount New Ambulance Annual Operating Expenditures: Total Annual Operating Cost$ 1,316,930 General Fund Subsidy Percentage 100% General Fund Annual Cost$ 1,316,930 Level of Service Standard 16,400 Per Capita Amount$ 80.30 Corkscrew Grove East PEAKPOP 9,159 Projected EMS Operating Expenditures$ 735,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Emergency Medical Service (“EMS”) for the project will be initially provided by Collier County Medic Station 32 which is co-located at the Fire District’s Headquarters Station 32. If call volume and response time for Corkscrew Grove East Village and the immediate area generate the need for an additional ambulance, Collier County EMS may choose to co-locate a medic facility at the new Immokalee Fire Control District station. For purposes of the Economic Assessment, it is assumed the space needed for a new ambulance will be leased at the highest annual rent as currently paid for similar space. Personnel and operating costs for staffing and operating a new ambulance, including rent, are allocated in Appendix Table 17 above based on the level of service in the 2024 AUIR and the peak residential population of the Corkscrew Grove East Village. The calculated General Fund EMS Expenditure per demand unit was multiplied by 187 percent to recognize the additional EMS cost. For conservatism of this analysis, it is assumed the General 47 Page 893 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Fund will subsize 100 percent of the cost, whereas the actual subsidy is generally around 55 percent. Appendix Table 18: FY 2025 Collier County MSTU Expenditure Demand Units $ Per Department Budget Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand Demand Other General Administration 1,515,500 PERMPOP 0.50 376,216 $ 4.03 Human Resources 532,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 684,361 $ 0.78 Emergency Management Division 21,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 0.03 Growth Mgt - Administration 375,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 0.55 Growth Mgt - Planning 2,142,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 3.13 Growth Mgt - Regulation 6,966,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 10.18 Communications Government & Public Affairs 2,542,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 684,361 $ 3.72 Pelican Bay Services 156,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Immokalee CRA 237,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Parks & Recreation 17,899,400 PEAKPOP 1.00 454,553 $ 39.38 Transportation Mgt - Operations 2,757,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 4.03 Transportation Mgt - Landscaping 3,018,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 4.41 Transportation Mgt - Coastal Zone Management 256,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 0.38 Transportation Mgt - Improvements Districts & MSTU 422,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Indirect Cost Reimbursement 1,597,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 2.33 Remittances 500,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers 37,686,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Advances - FIXED 1.00 - N/A Reserves 6,187,700 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Total$ 84,818,700 1.00$ 72.94 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 48 Page 894 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 19: Corkscrew Grove East Village General Funds Expenditures at Buildout GENERAL FUND GROUPING $ Per EXPENDITURES Demand Base Demand At Buildout County Attorney PEAKPOP&JOBS$ 2.35 $ 23,000 Other General Administration PERMPOP 8.79 67,000 Property Appraiser PEAKPOP&JOBS 8.05 79,000 Supervisor of Elections PERMPOP 6.66 51,000 Clerk of Courts PEAKPOP&JOBS 12.31 121,000 Sheriff Law Enforcement PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 256.61 2,523,000 Law Enforcement Paid by BCC PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 7.06 69,000 Detention & Corrections PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 12.78 126,000 Bailiffs PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 0.43 4,000 Tax Collector PEAKPOP&JOBS 15.68 154,000 Human Resources PEAKPOP&JOBS 3.81 37,000 Procurement Services PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.03 20,000 Emergency Management Division PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 6.63 65,000 Growth Mgt - Planning PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.03 20,000 Growth Mgt - Regulation PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.74 27,000 Circuit & County Court Judges PEAKPOP 0.14 1,000 Public Defender PERMPOP 1.18 11,000 State Attorney PERMPOP 1.77 13,000 Guardian Ad Litem Program PERMPOP 0.01 - County Manager Operations PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.54 15,000 Office of Management & Budget PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.88 18,000 Facilities Management Division PEAKPOP&JOBS 14.94 147,000 Public Services Administration PERMPOP 0.51 4,000 Domestic Animal Services PERMPOP 11.22 85,000 Community and Human Services PERMPOP 11.11 84,000 Library PEAKPOP 18.00 165,000 Parks & Recreation PEAKPOP 35.90 329,000 Public Health PERMPOP 0.72 5,000 Transportation Mgt - Public Transit & NE PERMPOP 1.40 11,000 Transfer to 1001 Road & Bridge PEAKPOP&JOBS 36.81 362,000 Transfer to 1051 Court Administration PEAKPOP 4.81 45,000 Transfer to 1060 MHz Radio System PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 0.87 9,000 Transfer to 3081 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap PEAKPOP&JOBS 12.85 126,000 Transfer to 4030 CATT Transit Enhance PEAKPOP 5.53 51,000 Transfer to 4033 Transp Disadv PERMPOP 5.76 44,000 Transfer to 4050 EMS Fund PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 74.76 735,000 Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies PEAKPOP 25.17 231,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures$ 614.82 $ 5,877,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 49 Page 895 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 20: Corkscrew Grove East Village MSTU Expenditures at Buildout MSTU GENERAL FUND $ Per EXPENDITURES Demand Base Demand At Buildout Other General Administration PERMPOP$ 4.03 $ 31,000 Human Resources PEAKPOP&JOBS$ 0.78 8,000 Emergency Management Division PEAKPOP&JOBS$ 0.03 - Growth Mgt - Administration PEAKPOP&JOBS$ 0.55 5,000 Growth Mgt - Planning PEAKPOP&JOBS$ 3.13 31,000 Growth Mgt - Regulation PEAKPOP&JOBS$ 10.18 100,000 Communications Government & Public Affairs PEAKPOP&JOBS$ 3.72 37,000 Parks & Recreation PEAKPOP$ 39.38 361,000 Transportation Mgt - Operations PEAKPOP&JOBS$ 4.03 40,000 Transportation Mgt - Landscaping PEAKPOP&JOBS$ 4.41 43,000 Transportation Mgt - Coastal Zone Management PEAKPOP&JOBS$ 0.38 4,000 Indirect Cost Reimbursement PEAKPOP&JOBS$ 2.33 23,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Expenditures 72.94 $ 683,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 50 Page 896 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 21: Collier County Impact Fee Schedule for Applicable Services Demand Regional Community Law ` Unit Roads Parks Parks Enforcement Jail EMS Multi-Family (Low-Rise, 1-2 Floors) Unit$ 6,950.00 $ 1,230.24 $ 455.20 $ 296.56 $ 228.91 $ 67.50 Single-Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. Unit$ 8,090.00 $ 2,694.32 $ 933.83 $ 586.95 $ 499.19 $ 142.07 Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft Sq Ft$ 13.77400 N/A N/A$ 0.73064 $ 0.64536 $ 0.18367 Demand Land Use Unit Schools Water Wastewater Multi-Family (Low-Rise, 1-2 Floors) Unit$ 2,844.19 N/A N/A Single-Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. Unit$ 8,789.54 N/A N/A Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft Sq Ft N/A N/A N/A Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 51 Page 897 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 22: Corkscrew Grove East Village Impact Fee Revenues for Applicable Services Demand Demand Regional Community Law Land Use Units Unit Roads Parks Parks Enforcement Jail EMS Schools Multi-Family (Low-Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 Unit$ 6,950.00 $ 1,230.24 $ 455.20 $ 296.56 $ 228.91 $ 67.50 $ 2,844.19 Single-Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 Unit$ 8,090.00 $ 2,694.32 $ 933.83 $ 586.95 $ 499.19 $ 142.07 $ 8,789.54 Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft 283,500 Sq Ft$ 13.77400 N/A N/A$ 0.73064 $ 0.64536 $ 0.18367 N/A Demand Demand Regional Community Law Land Use Units Unit Roads Parks Parks Enforcement Jail EMS Schools Multi-Family (Low-Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 Unit$ 8,889,000 $ 1,573,000 $ 582,000 $ 379,000 $ 293,000 $ 86,000 $ 3,638,000 Single-Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 Unit$ 23,040,000 $ 7,673,000 $ 2,660,000 $ 1,672,000 $ 1,422,000 $ 405,000 $ 25,033,000 Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft 283,500 Sq Ft$ 3,905,000 $ 207,000 $ 183,000 $ 52,000 $ - Total$ 35,834,000 $ 9,246,000 $ 3,242,000 $ 2,258,000 $ 1,898,000 $ 543,000 $ 28,671,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 52 Page 898 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 23: 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 2024-2025 SCHOOL FTE ENROLLMENT (Part 2 General Fund by Schools) 18,788 Elementary 9,324 Middle 13,594 High 675 Alternate Schools 5,256 Charter Schools 47,637 Total SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 2015 IMPACT FEE UDPATE 49% Elementary 23% Middle 28% High 100% Total FY 2025 MILLAGE RATES 2.0820 Required Local Effort 0.7480 Discretionary 0.3500 Addiitional Millage 3.1800 Total General Fund Millage 1.1332 Capital Improvement Millage 4.3132 Total Millage 2.0820 Required by State Law 2.2312 Total Discretionary Local 4.3132 Total Millage Source: Collier County School District, DPFG 2025 53 Page 899 of 1742CORKSCREW GROVE EAST 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 March 6, 2025 (except for sections identified as being updated June 20, 2025, July 29, 2025, and August 29, 2025), 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. 54 Page 900 of 1742 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT 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. According to the Economic Assessment, the proposed SRA will increase the County’s peak residential population by approximately 9,615 peak population persons at buildout for 4,502 total dwelling units, including 362 affordable housing units. Using a tons per capita rate of 0.70 (per the 2024 AUIR), a population increase of 9,615 people will generate an additional 6,730.50 tons disposed per year. Commercial solid waste and residential curbside solid waste, recycling, and horticulture will be collected with Collier County’s franchise agreements by other franchise-approved haulers. Commercial recycling is open to market collection. Construction waste will be collected and processed by a local business specializing in the recycling of construction products. Collier County maintains a Board approved Disposal Capacity Agreement (DCA) with Okeechobee Landfill, Inc., that provides 930,000 tons of reserved capacity at Okeechobee Landfill. The waste generated and transferred to Okeechobee Landfill as part of the DCA is not included in the AUIR capacity LOS. Per the AUIR, for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the LOS Standard for capacity, it is assumed Collier County will renew, amend, or enter into a new agreement, as necessary, and continue to transfer. Commercial, municipal solid waste, and recycling containers will comply with Collier County ordinances. The project will utilize County-approved bear-resistant dumpsters/trash cans for all residential and non-residential uses, with locations of dumpsters being determined at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP) approval. All costs, including maintenance, of bear-resistant dumpsters will be borne by the owner/developer. 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. Page 1 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Resubmittal\Public Facilities Impact Assesssment Report (7-28-2025).docx Page 901 of 1742 The project site is located within the Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) utility service area. Therefore, potable water services for the Corkscrew Grove East Village project will be provided by IWSD. To address the potable water demands of the project, the following improvements are anticipated: 1. Regional Water Supply Facility: IWSD plans to construct a regional water supply facility on land currently owned by Alico Land Development Company and located just east of the SRA along the north side of SR 82. This facility will ensure an adequate potable water supply for the development and comply with the Florida Administrative Code standards for Public Water Systems. 2. Distribution of Potable Water: Within the project boundaries, potable water distribution will be coordinated between the Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District and the IWSD. Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District will oversee the initial installation of distribution infrastructure. The proposed potable water system will comply with all regulatory requirements, including considerations for the disposal of any waste products generated by the water treatment process. The system will adhere to approved generation rates and design criteria to ensure compliance with Level of Service (LOS) standards. Potable water demands, including Average Daily Demand (ADD) and Maximum Daily Demand (MDD), will be calculated in coordination with IWSD and the relevant permitting agencies. The Owner/Developer will not be obligated to pay Collier County potable water impact fees. Instead, applicable connection fees will be calculated and paid directly to IWSD. Irrigation Water An irrigation 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 quantify the anticipated irrigation water usage expected at the buildout of the SRA. The assessment shall identify the sources of water proposed for irrigation use and shall identify proposed methods of water conservation. The Corkscrew Grove project site has a long history of permitted agricultural withdrawals from the Lower Tamiami and Sandstone Aquifers that have not resulted in any known adverse impacts to natural environments. The agricultural water allocations currently permitted and used within the Corkscrew Grove project area total approximately 13.78 MGD on an annual average basis (5,028 MGY) and approximately 18.45 MGD on a maximum monthly basis (572 MGM). At build-out, the Corkscrew Grove project will result in converting approximately 1,447 acres of the currently permitted 3,100 acres of agricultural land into a residential development or about 47% of the currently permitted agricultural acreage. Prorating the currently permitted irrigation allocation to the 1,447 acres proposed for development yields an annual average day allocation of 6.48 MGD and a maximum month day allocation of 8.68 MGD for the proposed development Page 2 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Resubmittal\Public Facilities Impact Assesssment Report (7-28-2025).docx Page 902 of 1742area. The transition of agricultural use to residential/commercial use will result in approximately 432 acres of landscaping and turf within the Corkscrew Grove development requiring irrigation. The project irrigation demand for this amount of irrigated acreage as determined using the SFWMD Blaney-Criddle method is: • 1.44 MGD on an annual average basis or 524 MGY (78% reduction in current use) • 2.24 MGD on a maximum monthly basis or 68 MGM (74% reduction in current use) The proposed change in land use will result in a significant reduction in irrigation water usage at the project site. The Corkscrew Grove project will obtain a water use permit from the SFWMD which will allow withdrawal from onsite surface water and ground water sources to meet irrigation demands. 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 resupply the withdrawal lakes when needed. The proposed source aquifers for the wells are the Lower Tamiami Aquifer and Sandstone Aquifer as 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 while lake storage and re-supply by groundwater will minimize potential impacts to both surface and groundwater levels. The Owner/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 analysis required above, the wastewater assessment shall specifically consider, to the extent applicable, the disposal of waste products generated by the proposed treatment process. The project site is located within the Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) utility service area. Therefore, wastewater services for the Corkscrew Grove East Village project will be provided by IWSD. The following improvements are anticipated to meet the wastewater demands of the project: 1. Wastewater Treatment Facility: IWSD plans to construct a regional wastewater treatment facility on property currently owned by Alico Land Development Company, located east side of the SRA on the north side of SR 82. This facility will treat wastewater generated by the development in compliance with the Florida Administrative Code standards for wastewater treatment systems exceeding 10,000 gallons per day. 2. Wastewater Collection and Transmission: Within the project boundaries, wastewater collection and transmission infrastructure will be coordinated between the Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District and IWSD. Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District will oversee the initial installation of the necessary gravity sewer lines, force mains, and lift stations. Page 3 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Resubmittal\Public Facilities Impact Assesssment Report (7-28-2025).docx Page 903 of 1742The proposed wastewater treatment system will adhere to all regulatory requirements, including the proper disposal of waste products generated during the treatment process. Wastewater flows, including Average Daily Flow (ADF) and Peak Hourly Flow (PHF), will be calculated in coordination with IWSD and the appropriate permitting agencies to ensure compliance with Level of Service (LOS) standards. The Owner/Developer will not be obligated to pay Collier County wastewater impact fees. Instead, applicable connection fees will be calculated and paid directly to IWSD. Stormwater Management A stormwater management impact assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The stormwater management impact assessment shall, at a minimum, provide the following information: A. An exhibit showing the boundary of the proposed SRA including the following information: All responses to the questions below are shown on the Village Master Plan submitted as Exhibit A to this Public Facilities Impact Assessment Report. 1) The location of any WRA delineated within the SRA; Areas designated WRA within the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA are shown on the Village Master Plan submitted as Exhibit A to this Public Facilities Impact Assessment Report. 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; and Existing stormwater on this site is generated by the agricultural activities that have historically taken place and are currently permitted. Stormwater is collected through a network of internal ditches and canals, which route the runoff to the on- site Water Retention Areas (WRAs) via pumps. Discharges from these WRAs are controlled through regulated control structures that limit offsite discharge rates. Offsite discharges flow into adjacent canals and/or culverts under Corkscrew Road, with the ultimate outfall directed into the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW). Please reference the “Storm Water Management Impact Assessment Exhibits” included with this submittal. 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. Page 4 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Resubmittal\Public Facilities Impact Assesssment Report (7-28-2025).docx Page 904 of 1742 Land uses to the north, east, and west is agricultural. Lands to the south are agricultural and public lands outside of the RLSA boundary. 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; Corkscrew Grove East Village will ultimately outfall to the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW). 2) The peak allowable discharge rate (in cfs/acre) allowed for the SRA per Collier County Ordinance 90-10 or its successor regulation; The site is located within the Cocohatchee River Canal Basin. The peak allowable discharge, per Ordinance No. 2019-19, is 0.04 cfs/ac. 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 proposed SRA encompasses three distinct areas: the property west of Corkscrew Road, the property north of SR82, and the property east of Corkscrew Road and south of SR82. The existing site has historically been used for agricultural row crops, primarily oranges and tomatoes. The site is composed of an intricate network of agricultural infrastructure, including dikes, impoundment areas known as WRAs, perimeter ditches, and berms. These perimeter berms effectively prevent external surface water from flowing onto the site, ensuring that no stormwater flows from surrounding properties are accepted. Within the site, stormwater runoff from the agricultural fields is collected in perimeter ditches. From there, agricultural pumps transfer the excess runoff into the WRAs. These WRAs are equipped with drainage structures that direct stormwater either into adjacent canals, through culverts under Corkscrew Road, or directly into the CREW lands. Two canals currently traverse the site, ultimately discharging into CREW. These canals, essential for stormwater conveyance from surrounding properties, will be preserved. One of these, Cabbage Slough, will be partially relocated within the site to accommodate the proposed development. This relocation will maintain the canal's current capacity and flow patterns, ensuring that surrounding hydrology is not adversely affected. The other canal, Gator Slough, will remain unaltered to preserve its existing functionality. Page 5 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Resubmittal\Public Facilities Impact Assesssment Report (7-28-2025).docx Page 905 of 1742 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 In the post-development condition, all agricultural operations will be discontinued, agricultural ditches will be filled, and the site will be redeveloped into a mixed-use village with a master surface water management system. The existing perimeter berms will be retained to ensure that surrounding flow patterns remain unaffected; however, these berms may be modified during construction to comply with South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) criteria. The master surface water management system will provide the necessary water quality treatment and nutrient removal through a combination of traditional stormwater storage methods, such as wet detention and dry retention areas, prior to discharging into WRAs or the offsite CREW Lands. Stormwater from the site will discharge into CREW via multiple existing culverts under Corkscrew Road and the two (2) existing canals that traverse the property described in the previous section. 5) If a WRA has been incorporated into the stormwater management system of an SRA, the report shall demonstrate compliance with the provisions of Section 4.08.04.A.4.b. All WRAs adjacent to the SRA will be integrated into the stormwater management system. Discharges into the WRAs will occur only after the required water quality treatment has been achieved. Stormwater discharge into the WRA will only occur through control structures permitted by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The owner of Corkscrew East Village SRA will be responsible for all costs associated with the design, permitting, construction, and operation of the proposed stormwater improvements required to serve Corkscrew East Village development. School Concurrency The adopted level of service for schools is based upon permanent Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity: 100% for high school Concurrency Service Areas (CSAs); 95% for elementary school CSAs; and 95% for middle school CSAs. The subject site is within the E11 Immokalee Area 1 CSA for elementary schools, the M5 Immokalee Area CSA for middle schools, and the H5 Immokalee Area CSA for high schools. The FISH capacity and enrollment data below is per the Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for fiscal years 2025 through 2044. The E11 CSA includes three elementary schools, Eden Park, Highlands, and Lake Trafford. They have a combined FISH capacity of 2,517 students, a 2024/2025 enrollment of 1,922 students, and a projected 2028/2029 enrollment of 2,063 students (82% capacity). Page 6 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Resubmittal\Public Facilities Impact Assesssment Report (7-28-2025).docx Page 906 of 1742The M5 CSA includes one middle school, Immokalee Middle. There is a FISH capacity of 1,715 students, a 2024/2025 enrollment of 1,419 students, and a projected 2028/2029 enrollment of 1,260 students (73% capacity). According to the CCPS CIP, enrollment at Immokalee Middle is being monitored. The H5 CSA includes one high school, Immokalee High. There is a FISH capacity of 2,221 students, a 2024/2025 enrollment of 1,993 students, and a projected 2028/2029 enrollment of 1,773 students (80% capacity). According to the CCPS CIP, enrollment at Immokalee High is being monitored. The proposed Corkscrew Grove East Village consists of up to 4,127 dwelling units (not including the 375 affordable housing units), broken down by type in the table below in accordance with Collier County Impact Fee Ordinance(s) methodology and terminology and applying the student generation rates (SGR) established in the 2015 Collier County School Impact Fee Study (the most recent data available) the Corkscrew Grove East Village is anticipated to generate 1,109 new students at buildout. Residential Unit Type Units SGR Projected Students Multi-family (condo, duplex, 1,279 0.11 141 single-family attached, etc.) Single-family detached < 4,000 2,848 0.34 968 SF TOTAL 4,127 1,109 As the total projected number of students will be distributed between the E11, M5, and H5 CSAs, the Owner/Developer of the Village has reserved a 24-acre dedicated school site as depicted on the SRA Master Plan (Exhibit A of this document). The Owner/Developer will also design the Village stormwater system to accommodate necessary stormwater treatment and storage for the school site. A stipulation to the development order requires the Owner/Developer to convey real property for the school site in exchange for education impact fee credits. The proposed stipulation states: “With respect to the conveyance of real property, by the Applicant to the School District, the reservation of the school site to the School District fully mitigates for the developments impact to the elementary, middle, and high schools needed to serve the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA.” Fire and EMS The Corkscrew Grove East Village is located within the service area of the Immokalee Fire Control District (Fire District). Fire and EMS services for the project will be initially provided out of Station 31 in Immokalee. However, a new fire (and co-located EMS) station may be needed to serve the project at buildout. A stipulation to the development order requires the Owner/Developer to convey real property for a three-acre site for a fire and co-located EMS station in exchange for fire impact fee credits and/or cash. The proposed stipulation states: “With respect to the conveyance of real property by the Applicant to the Fire District, the reservation of the site to the Fire District fully mitigates for the developments impact to the fire and EMS facilities needed to serve the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA.” Page 7 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Resubmittal\Public Facilities Impact Assesssment Report (7-28-2025).docx Page 907 of 1742Transportation Impacts See the Traffic Analysis provided as part of this SRA application for transportation impacts. Page 8 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Resubmittal\Public Facilities Impact Assesssment Report (7-28-2025).docx Page 908 of 1742MEMORANDUM Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment PREPARED FOR: Michael Bosi, Collier County 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 Michael Oyakojo, Jacobs DATE: January 5, 2025 Introduction Collier County, Florida (the County) Growth Management Division (GMD) engaged Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs) to conduct a peer review of the “Economic Assessment of Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) (Report) prepared by Development Planning & Financing Group (DPFG) on behalf of Alico, Inc. (the Applicant). The version reviewed herein was the most recently revised version dated June 20, 2025. 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. Page 1 of 14 Page 909 of 1742 Corkscrew Grove East 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. 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, parks, law enforcement, jail, emergency medical services (EMS), schools, and fire control district. 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: L. 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/government/growth-management/divisions/planning-and-zoning-division/comprehensive-planning- section/rural-lands-stewardship-area/rural-lands-stewardship-area-history-and-archive Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 1-5-26.docxCorkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment_PeerReviewDraft Page 910 of 1742 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment funding mechanisms shall address any adverse impacts to adopted minimum levels of service pursuant to Chapter 6 of the LDC. 1. 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. 2. This demonstration will be made for each unit of government responsible for the services listed above, using one of the following methodologies: a. Collier County Fiscal Impact Model. The fiscal impact model officially adopted and maintained by Collier County. b. 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 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA to demonstrate fiscal neutrality using an Alternative Fiscal Impact Model, as defined by the LDC Section 4.08.07 L.1. b. Although the fiscal impact requirements are specified in the LDC, there remains a considerable amount of flexibility in both the interpretation and application of the law. DPFG is required to measure fiscal neutrality at the project’s horizon year or buildout. The timing of when buildout is expected to occur is not identified in the DPFG report. The neutrality assessment is simply evaluated for whenever buildout 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. 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. • 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 Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 1-5-26.docxCorkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment_PeerReviewDraft Page 911 of 1742 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 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 are possibilities that the development plans for the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA 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 the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA uses a marginal/average cost hybrid methodology to determine the project’s impact on capital and operating costs,”2 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 • Immokalee Fire Control 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. 1.1 Key Assumptions Jacobs was provided with DPFG’s Report and their corresponding fiscal analysis Microsoft Excel model (filename: Corkscrew Grove SRA Econ Assess 2025.08.29 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. 1.1.1 Inflation All costs (whether historical or future) were adjusted to reflect 2025 dollars. Inflation is typically excluded from fiscal neutrality analysis (constant dollar approach), which enables comparisons across 2 DPFG Report, Page 8 Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 1-5-26.docxCorkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment_PeerReviewDraft Page 912 of 1742 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment years and across projects. The County’s FY 2025 budget, and the FY 2025 budgets for Collier County School District and Immokalee Fire Control District were used for the analysis. 1.1.2 Sales, Just and Taxable Real Estate Values To estimate potential tax revenues, DPFG utilized estimated taxable values for residential (per unit) and non-residential (per sq. ft.) land uses. Sales values for residential units were provided by the Applicant based on their internal market analysis and market analysis performed by third party consultant. 1.1.3 Annual Absorption by Use Not applicable 1.1.4 Millage Rates DPFG utilized fiscal year (FY 2025) millage rates as follows to determine annual ad valorem (property) tax revenues for the forecast period for the County and MSTU. • 3.0107 County General Fund • 0.0246 Water Pollution Control • 0.2096 Conservation Collier Program • 3.2449 County Wide Millage • 0.6844 MSTU General Fund 1.1.5 Corkscrew Grove East VillageSRA 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 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA development. The seasonal population per unit assumptions utilized were: • Single Family Detached < 4,000 Sq Ft: 2.65 • Total Multifamily (Low Rise, 1-2 Floors): 1.26 1.1.6 Structure of Funds For the purposes of fiscal impact analysis, three taxing authorities were evaluated: Collier County (through its General Fund), the Immokalee Fire Control District, and the Collier County School District (“School District”). Each has separate taxing authority, and the Collier County School Board levies its own taxes and receives part of its funding from the State of Florida. The DPFG Report tests the project’s fiscal neutrality for County operating impacts, County capital impacts, Fire operating impacts, Fire capital impacts, Schools operating impacts, and Schools capital impacts. 1.1.7 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 Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 1-5-26.docxCorkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment_PeerReviewDraft Page 913 of 1742 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 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 extraordinary services within a specific district funded by a separate ad valorem property tax. In addition, a water pollution control tax is collected county-wide. 1.1.8 Immokalee Fire Control District Service to the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will be provided by the Immokalee Fire Control District from the Immokalee Fire Control District / County Public Safety Complex Headquarters (Station #32) in Ave Maria. These facilities are funded from impact fees revenues and operations from an Ad-valorem property tax revenues. 1.1.9 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 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. 1.1.10 Enterprise and Internal Service Funds Collier County maintains two different types of proprietary funds: enterprise and internal service. Enterprise funds report, with more detail, the same functions presented as business-type activities in the government-wide financial statements for water and sewer, solid waste disposal, emergency medical services, transit, and the airport authority. The Collier County Water and Sewer District Fund, the Solid Waste Disposal Fund, and the Emergency Medical Services Fund are tracked individually as 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 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment reflect the impact of the annual general fund contributions to Fund 4030 CATT Transit Enhance and Fund 4033 Transportation Disadvantaged, which are enterprise funds. There are no other impacts to consider with respect to transit enterprise funds in the Economic Assessment.3 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. 3 DPFG Report, Page 14 Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 1-5-26.docxCorkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment_PeerReviewDraft Page 914 of 1742 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 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, 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. 1.1.11 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 (roads), parks, law enforcement, EMS, schools, fire control district, and correctional facilities. Based on the analysis, at buildout, Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA annual total general fund operating expenditures are projected at approximately $5,877,000 against revenues of approximately $8,880,000, resulting in a fiscal surplus of $3,003,000. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA annual total MSTU operating expenditures are projected at approximately $683,000 against revenues of approximately $1,590,000 resulting in a fiscal surplus of $907,000. 1.1.12 Transportation (Roads) 1.1.12.1 Operating Impacts Transportation Services is a special revenue fund within the County’s budget. This fund was established for the maintenance of roads and bridges countywide. The principal funding source for Transportation Services is a subsidy from the General Fund. Based on the 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions Traffic Impact Statement, the Corkscrew Grove East Village is a significant traffic generator and may adversely impacts these three road segments: SR 29 from 9th to CR 29A North, SR 29 from Hendry County Line to SR 82 and SR 82 from Hendry County Line to SR 29. The developer may be required to provide some assistance to the County on capacity/operational improvements to the road segments that may be significantly impacted by the project. 1.1.12.2 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 impacts from the perspective that the owner 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, Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will generate approximately $35.8 million in Road Impact Fee revenues to the County, based Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 1-5-26.docxCorkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment_PeerReviewDraft Page 915 of 1742 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment on the development parameters and current road impact fee rate table. This is more than the $24.9 million proportionate fair-share estimate for the project. The operational fair share estimate is pending as of the time of our review. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for transportation (road) impacts to be reasonable, subject to the approval of the companion Developer Agreement. 1.1.13 Potable Water and Wastewater The Corkscrew Groves East Village project is located within the Immokalee Water and Sewer District (“IWSD”) utility service area. Hence, IWSD will be responsible for the provision of water and wastewater utility services to Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. To meet the potential demands due to this project, necessary capital infrastructure improvements to the water and wastewater systems are envisaged in line with all regulatory requirements and standards. The project developer will be required to pay the applicable connection fees to IWSD. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for potable water and wastewater public facilities and services to be reasonable. 1.1.14 Stormwater Management “The proposed SRA encompasses three distinct areas: the property west of Corkscrew Road, the property north of SR 82, and the property east of Corkscrew Road and south of SR 82. The existing site has historically been used for agricultural row crops, primarily oranges and tomatoes. The site is composed of an intricate network of agricultural infrastructure, including dikes, impoundment areas known as WRAs, perimeter ditches, and berms. These perimeter berms effectively prevent external surface water from flowing onto the site, ensuring that no stormwater flows from surrounding properties are accepted.”4 All associated costs with the design, permit, construction, and operation of the proposed stormwater improvements will be borne by the Owner. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for stormwater management public facilities and services to be reasonable. 1.1.15 Irrigation Water “The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA project site has a long history of permitted agricultural withdrawals from the Lower Tamiami and Sandstone Aquifers that have not resulted in adverse impacts to natural environments.”5 The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA project will result in converting approximately 1,447 acres of agricultural land into a residential development at build-out. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will apply for a water use permit from SFWMD for the use of surface water and ground water sources onsite for irrigation needs. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will be 4 DPFG Report, page 25 5 DPFG Report, Page 26 Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 1-5-26.docxCorkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment_PeerReviewDraft Page 916 of 1742 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment responsible for all relevant costs for the permitting, construction and maintenance of the irrigation system. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of irrigation water as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. 1.1.16 Solid Waste The approved Collier County’s hauler contractor will be responsible for the collection of solid waste generated within Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. County-approved bear-resistant dumpsters and trash cans will be used for the project. The developer will cover the costs associated with the maintenance and operations of the dumpsters. Solid waste collected within Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will be disposed at Okeechobee Landfill through Immokalee Transfer Station. The county maintains a disposal capacity agreement with Okeechobee Landfill with 930,000 tons of reserved capacity. 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. 1.1.17 Parks Per the County’s 2022 AUIR, the current level of service (LOS) for all county-owned and maintained community and regional parks is a combined 3.90 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 1.22 acres • Community Parks: adopted 1.20 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 1.82 acres are based on a county staff recommendation. 1.1.17.1 Capital Impacts The County imposes separate impact fees for community and regional parks. The impact fee revenues of community parks were calculated to be $3,242,000 (plus other capital revenues of $52,000 for a total of $3,294,000) and regional parks were $9,246,000 (plus other capital revenues of $481,000 for a total of $9,727,000). The cost of estimated acreage ($283,638 per acre) required to achieve the County LOS for community parks forms the basis for capital impacts, which DPFG estimated at $3,117,000, leading to an estimated surplus of $177,000 for community parks. Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 1-5-26.docxCorkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment_PeerReviewDraft Page 917 of 1742 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 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 $590,288. The cost of the regional parks of $9,840,000 is more than the estimated impact fee and other capital revenues of $9,727,000 of the regional parks by $113,000. While there is a projected deficit of $113,000 for the regional parks, the forecast surplus of $177,000 for community parks offsets this, and results in the total regional and community parks capital impact to be a slightly positive $64,000.6 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. Based on the adjustment to the achieved LOS discussed above, Jacobs finds that parks are fiscally neutral or slightly positive. 1.1.18 Law Enforcement (Sheriff Department) 1.1.18.1 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 $2,258,000 and other capital revenues at $409,000. Capital costs are included to equip the required number of officers, amounting to a total of $2,115,000. The estimated revenues exceed the forecasted direct capital costs and result in a fiscal surplus in the amount of $552,000. 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. 1.1.19 Emergency Medical Services 1.1.19.1 Capital Impacts According to EMS management, Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will be served by the EMS facility located within the Immokalee Fire District’s Headquarters Station 32. If the call volume necessitates it, an additional ambulance may be leased, and space rented for its operation. DPFG projects total capital revenues of $556,000. EMS direct capital costs were estimated at $505,000, which is less than the combined projected impact fee of $543,000 and other capital revenues of $13,000, leaving about $51,000 for indirect / related capital cost. Therefore, the impact is neutral. 6 DPFG Report, Page 19 Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 1-5-26.docxCorkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment_PeerReviewDraft Page 918 of 1742 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of emergency medical services as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. 1.1.20 Immokalee Fire Control District 1.1.20.1 Operating Impacts The current millage rate and the projected tax base of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA result in annual ad valorem revenues of $8,017,000. The annual operating expenses to serve Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA population, based on an average of the fire district’s existing stations and population served, are $1,926,000. Thus, there is a projected operating fiscal surplus. 1.1.20.2 Capital Impacts The capital needs for fire control district will be funded by impact fees. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will generate adequate capital revenues for Immokalee Fire Control District, with matching levels of capital costs. In exchange for impact fee credits, and prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy, a 3.0-acre parcel shall be donated by the owner to the Immokalee Fire Control and Rescue District. The parcel shall be located within proximity to the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA development. A new station will be constructed and placed into operation if sufficient development occurs within the potential service area to ensure the funding of capital and operating costs of the new station is financially feasible. DPFG projects total capital revenues of $10,162,000 with additional operating surplus of $2,159,000 to match $12,321,000 capital cost for construction, vehicles, and equipment. Therefore, the impact is neutral. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fire control district as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. 1.1.21 Schools The analysis uses student generation rate (SGRs) as shown below: • Single Family Detached < 4,000 Sq Ft: 0.34 • Multi-Family (Low-Rise, 1-2 Floors): 0.11 1.1.21.1 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 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is fiscally neutral. DPFG estimates ad valorem local millage revenues at buildout of $6,987,000, with matching levels of operating expenditures. 1.1.21.2 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 2015 Collier County School Impact Fee Update Study (and indexed on the 2017 Indexing Calculations) to determine the appropriate application of the fees, and the revenues derived from fees. DPFG uses adopted school impact fee as shown below: • Single Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft.: $8,789.54 Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 1-5-26.docxCorkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment_PeerReviewDraft Page 919 of 1742 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment • Multi-Family (Low-Rise, 1-2 Floors): $2,844.19 Revenues to pay for growth related capital expenditures are derived from ad valorem taxes and impact fees on residential-only units, and a capital outlay millage of 1.1332 mills (subject to a cap of 1.50 mills).7 Hence, the residential development will have an impact on the determination of fiscal neutrality. In this case, the revenue from the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA development program results in a net fiscal neutrality. Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2025 Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of schools as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. 1.1.22 Additional Public Services Correctional facilities were evaluated by DPFG for fiscal neutrality. Jacobs categorizes correctional facilities as an additional service because they are not required by the minimum requirements defined in the Collier County LDC. While this additional public service is not a required element of the economic assessment, DPFG did include it in their analysis. 1.1.22.1 Correctional Facilities 1.1.22.1.1 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 residential units. 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. Combined revenues from impact fees of $1,898,000 and other capital revenues of $104,000 amount to $2,002,000, with comparable capital outlays, resulting in a finding of fiscal neutrality.8 7 As the result of a referendum, the school capital millage rates were reduced by 0.35 mills for 4 years, beginning in FY 2020. DPFG provided a comparative analysis if the capital millage rate reverts to the 1.50 millage rate at the end of the 4-year referendum period. 8 DPFG Report, Page 21 Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 1-5-26.docxCorkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment_PeerReviewDraft Page 920 of 1742 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 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 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA development is fiscally neutral, as defined, for Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA for Collier County, the Immokalee Fire Control District, and the Collier County School District. It is important to recognize that fiscal neutrality relies on accurate projections – often 20 years or more into the future. A significant deviation from the development plan will require an adjustment or new analysis to capture changes to this fiscal neutrality determination, which may involve, for example, adjusting the mix of uses or other mechanisms that will impact the future revenue and expense streams. In addition, fiscal impact analysis is only one step in the development program and the County- Developer relationship framework. This fiscal impact analysis will be supplemented and augmented by several 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 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA qualify 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 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA development would meet the County’s requirements for fiscal neutrality. Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 1-5-26.docxCorkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment_PeerReviewDraft Page 921 of 1742 APPENDIX A 2. Sources and Assumptions Assumption / Calculation Source Model Tab / Report Chart Comment Collier County Impact Fee Schedule Collier Country Residential Impact Fees (Residential) 2025 Impact Fee Schedule Checked Collier County Impact Fee Schedule Collier County Commercial Impact Fees (Commercial) 2025 Impact Fee Schedule Checked Community Parks Impact Fees Impact Fee Schedule Comm Parks Impact Fee Rev Checked Regional Parks Impact Fees Impact Fee Schedule Regional Parks Impact Fee Rev Checked Roads Impact Fees Impact Fee Schedule Roads Impact Fee Rev Checked EMS Impact Fees Impact Fee Schedule EMS Impact Fee Rev Checked Law Enforcement Impact Fees Impact Fee Schedule Law Enforce Impact Fee Rev Checked Jail Impact Fees Impact Fee Schedule Jail Impact Fee Rev Checked Collier County Fiscal Year 2025 Collier County Millage Rates Adopted Budget County Inputs Checked 2025 Unincorporated Country Peak Seasonal Population Collier County 2024 AUIR County Inputs Checked 2025 Collier County Permanent Population Collier County 2024 AUIR County Inputs Checked Collier County Peak Tourist Population Collier County CVB Profile- March 2024 County Inputs Checked Collier County Fiscal Year 2025 State Revenue Sharing Adopted Budget General Fund Rev Demand Units Checked Collier County Fiscal Year 2025 Ad Valorem Taxes Adopted Budget General Fund Rev Demand Units Checked Average Taxable Value Per Unit Calculation Residential Just+Taxable Value Checked Total Taxable Value Calculation Residential Just+Taxable Value Checked General Fund Grouping Revenues and Collier County Fiscal Year 2025 Sources-- General Fund Adopted Budget General Fund Grouping Matrix Checked Residents Per Housing Unit Calculation Persons Per Unit Checked Residential Functional Population Coefficient Calculation EMS Pop & Employ Checked Functional Resident Coefficient Calculation EMS Funct Res Non-Residential Checked Total Land & Facility Cost Per Acre Parks Impact Fee Study Parks Impact Per Res Checked Student Generation Rates School Impact Fee Update Study School Inputs Checked FY 2025 Millage Rates CCPS FY25 Final Budget Book School Inputs Checked FY 2025 School FTE Enrollment CCPS FY25 Final Budget Book School Inputs Checked [Document number] 14 Page 922 of 1742 Page 923 of 1742Page 924 of 1742Page 925 of 1742Page 926 of 1742Page 927 of 1742Page 928 of 1742Page 929 of 1742Page 930 of 1742Page 931 of 1742Page 932 of 1742Page 933 of 1742Page 934 of 1742Page 935 of 1742Page 936 of 1742Page 937 of 1742Page 938 of 1742Page 939 of 1742Page 940 of 1742Page 941 of 1742Page 942 of 1742Page 943 of 1742Page 944 of 1742Page 945 of 1742Page 946 of 1742Page 947 of 1742Page 948 of 1742Page 949 of 1742Page 950 of 1742Page 951 of 1742Page 952 of 1742Page 953 of 1742Page 954 of 1742Page 955 of 1742Page 956 of 1742Page 957 of 1742Page 958 of 1742Page 959 of 1742Page 960 of 1742Page 961 of 1742Page 962 of 1742Page 963 of 1742Page 964 of 1742Page 965 of 1742Page 966 of 1742Page 967 of 1742Page 968 of 1742Page 969 of 1742Page 970 of 1742Page 971 of 1742Page 972 of 1742Page 973 of 1742Page 974 of 1742Page 975 of 1742Page 976 of 1742Page 977 of 1742Page 978 of 1742Page 979 of 1742Page 980 of 1742Page 981 of 1742Page 982 of 1742Page 983 of 1742Page 984 of 1742Page 985 of 1742Page 986 of 1742Page 987 of 1742Page 988 of 1742Page 989 of 1742Page 990 of 1742Page 991 of 1742Page 992 of 1742Page 993 of 1742Page 994 of 1742Page 995 of 1742Page 996 of 1742Page 997 of 1742Page 998 of 1742Page 999 of 1742Page 1000 of 1742Page 1001 of 1742Page 1002 of 1742Page 1003 of 1742Page 1004 of 1742Page 1005 of 1742Page 1006 of 1742Page 1007 of 1742Page 1008 of 1742Page 1009 of 1742Page 1010 of 1742Page 1011 of 1742Page 1012 of 1742Page 1013 of 1742Page 1014 of 1742Page 1015 of 1742Page 1016 of 1742Page 1017 of 1742Page 1018 of 1742Page 1019 of 1742Page 1020 of 1742Page 1021 of 1742Page 1022 of 1742Page 1023 of 1742Page 1024 of 1742Page 1025 of 1742Page 1026 of 1742Page 1027 of 1742Page 1028 of 1742Page 1029 of 1742Page 1030 of 1742Page 1031 of 1742Page 1032 of 1742Page 1033 of 1742Page 1034 of 1742Page 1035 of 1742Page 1036 of 1742Page 1037 of 1742Page 1038 of 1742Page 1039 of 1742Page 1040 of 1742Page 1041 of 1742Page 1042 of 1742Page 1043 of 1742Page 1044 of 1742Page 1045 of 1742Page 1046 of 1742Page 1047 of 1742Page 1048 of 1742Page 1049 of 1742Page 1050 of 1742Page 1051 of 1742Page 1052 of 1742Page 1053 of 1742Page 1054 of 1742Page 1055 of 1742Page 1056 of 1742Page 1057 of 1742Page 1058 of 1742Page 1059 of 1742Page 1060 of 1742Page 1061 of 1742Page 1062 of 1742Page 1063 of 1742Page 1064 of 1742Page 1065 of 1742Page 1066 of 1742Page 1067 of 1742Page 1068 of 1742Page 1069 of 1742Page 1070 of 1742Page 1071 of 1742Page 1072 of 1742Page 1073 of 1742Page 1074 of 1742Page 1075 of 1742Page 1076 of 1742Page 1077 of 1742Page 1078 of 1742Page 1079 of 1742Page 1080 of 1742Page 1081 of 1742Page 1082 of 1742Page 1083 of 1742Page 1084 of 1742Page 1085 of 1742Page 1086 of 1742Page 1087 of 1742Page 1088 of 1742Page 1089 of 1742Page 1090 of 1742Page 1091 of 1742Page 1092 of 1742Page 1093 of 1742Page 1094 of 1742Page 1095 of 1742Page 1096 of 1742Page 1097 of 1742Page 1098 of 1742Page 1099 of 1742Page 1100 of 1742Page 1101 of 1742Page 1102 of 1742Page 1103 of 1742Page 1104 of 1742Page 1105 of 1742Page 1106 of 1742Page 1107 of 1742Page 1108 of 1742Page 1109 of 1742Page 1110 of 1742Page 1111 of 1742Page 1112 of 1742Page 1113 of 1742Page 1114 of 1742Page 1115 of 1742Page 1116 of 1742Page 1117 of 1742Page 1118 of 1742Page 1119 of 1742Page 1120 of 1742Page 1121 of 1742Page 1122 of 1742Page 1123 of 1742Page 1124 of 1742Page 1125 of 1742Page 1126 of 1742Page 1127 of 1742Page 1128 of 1742Page 1129 of 1742Page 1130 of 1742Page 1131 of 1742Page 1132 of 1742Page 1133 of 1742Page 1134 of 1742Page 1135 of 1742Page 1136 of 1742Page 1137 of 1742Page 1138 of 1742Page 1139 of 1742Page 1140 of 1742Page 1141 of 1742Page 1142 of 1742Page 1143 of 1742Page 1144 of 1742Page 1145 of 1742Page 1146 of 1742Page 1147 of 1742Page 1148 of 1742Page 1149 of 1742Page 1150 of 1742Page 1151 of 1742Page 1152 of 1742Page 1153 of 1742Page 1154 of 1742Page 1155 of 1742Page 1156 of 1742Page 1157 of 1742Page 1158 of 1742Page 1159 of 1742Page 1160 of 1742Page 1161 of 1742Page 1162 of 1742Page 1163 of 1742Page 1164 of 1742Page 1165 of 1742Page 1166 of 1742Page 1167 of 1742Page 1168 of 1742Page 1169 of 1742Page 1170 of 1742Page 1171 of 1742Page 1172 of 1742Page 1173 of 1742Page 1174 of 1742Page 1175 of 1742Page 1176 of 1742Page 1177 of 1742Page 1178 of 1742Page 1179 of 1742Page 1180 of 1742Page 1181 of 1742Page 1182 of 1742Page 1183 of 1742Page 1184 of 1742Page 1185 of 1742Page 1186 of 1742Page 1187 of 1742Page 1188 of 1742Page 1189 of 1742Page 1190 of 1742Page 1191 of 1742Page 1192 of 1742Page 1193 of 1742Page 1194 of 1742Page 1195 of 1742Page 1196 of 1742Page 1197 of 1742Page 1198 of 1742Page 1199 of 1742Page 1200 of 1742Page 1201 of 1742Page 1202 of 1742Page 1203 of 1742Page 1204 of 1742Page 1205 of 1742Page 1206 of 1742Page 1207 of 1742Page 1208 of 1742Page 1209 of 1742Page 1210 of 1742Page 1211 of 1742Page 1212 of 1742Page 1213 of 1742Page 1214 of 1742Page 1215 of 1742Page 1216 of 1742Page 1217 of 1742Page 1218 of 1742Page 1219 of 1742Page 1220 of 1742Page 1221 of 1742Page 1222 of 1742Page 1223 of 1742Page 1224 of 1742Page 1225 of 1742Page 1226 of 1742Page 1227 of 1742Page 1228 of 1742Page 1229 of 1742Page 1230 of 1742Page 1231 of 1742Page 1232 of 1742Page 1233 of 1742Page 1234 of 1742Page 1235 of 1742Page 1236 of 1742Page 1237 of 1742Page 1238 of 1742Page 1239 of 1742Page 1240 of 1742Page 1241 of 1742Page 1242 of 1742Page 1243 of 1742Page 1244 of 1742Page 1245 of 1742Page 1246 of 1742Page 1247 of 1742Page 1248 of 1742Page 1249 of 1742Page 1250 of 1742Page 1251 of 1742Page 1252 of 1742Page 1253 of 1742Page 1254 of 1742Page 1255 of 1742Page 1256 of 1742Page 1257 of 1742Page 1258 of 1742Page 1259 of 1742Page 1260 of 1742Page 1261 of 1742Page 1262 of 1742Page 1263 of 1742Page 1264 of 1742Page 1265 of 1742Page 1266 of 1742Page 1267 of 1742Page 1268 of 1742Page 1269 of 1742Page 1270 of 1742Page 1271 of 1742Page 1272 of 1742Page 1273 of 1742Page 1274 of 1742Page 1275 of 1742Page 1276 of 1742Page 1277 of 1742Page 1278 of 1742Page 1279 of 1742Page 1280 of 1742Page 1281 of 1742Page 1282 of 1742Page 1283 of 1742Page 1284 of 1742Page 1285 of 1742Page 1286 of 1742Page 1287 of 1742Page 1288 of 1742Page 1289 of 1742Page 1290 of 1742Page 1291 of 1742Page 1292 of 1742Page 1293 of 1742Page 1294 of 1742Page 1295 of 1742Page 1296 of 1742Page 1297 of 1742Page 1298 of 1742Page 1299 of 1742Page 1300 of 1742Page 1301 of 1742Page 1302 of 1742Page 1303 of 1742Page 1304 of 1742Page 1305 of 1742Page 1306 of 1742Page 1307 of 1742Page 1308 of 1742Page 1309 of 1742Page 1310 of 1742Page 1311 of 1742Page 1312 of 1742Page 1313 of 1742Page 1314 of 1742Page 1315 of 1742Page 1316 of 1742Page 1317 of 1742Page 1318 of 1742Page 1319 of 1742Page 1320 of 1742Page 1321 of 1742Page 1322 of 1742Page 1323 of 1742Page 1324 of 1742Page 1325 of 1742Page 1326 of 1742Page 1327 of 1742Page 1328 of 1742Page 1329 of 1742Page 1330 of 1742Page 1331 of 1742Page 1332 of 1742Page 1333 of 1742Page 1334 of 1742Page 1335 of 1742Page 1336 of 1742Page 1337 of 1742Page 1338 of 1742Page 1339 of 1742Page 1340 of 1742Page 1341 of 1742Page 1342 of 1742Page 1343 of 1742Page 1344 of 1742Page 1345 of 1742Page 1346 of 1742Page 1347 of 1742Page 1348 of 1742Page 1349 of 1742Page 1350 of 1742Page 1351 of 1742Page 1352 of 1742Page 1353 of 1742Page 1354 of 1742Page 1355 of 1742Page 1356 of 1742Page 1357 of 1742Page 1358 of 1742Page 1359 of 1742Page 1360 of 1742Page 1361 of 1742Page 1362 of 1742Page 1363 of 1742Page 1364 of 1742Page 1365 of 1742Page 1366 of 1742Page 1367 of 1742Page 1368 of 1742Page 1369 of 1742Page 1370 of 1742Page 1371 of 1742Page 1372 of 1742Page 1373 of 1742Page 1374 of 1742Page 1375 of 1742Page 1376 of 1742Page 1377 of 1742Page 1378 of 1742Page 1379 of 1742Page 1380 of 1742Page 1381 of 1742Page 1382 of 1742Page 1383 of 1742Page 1384 of 1742Page 1385 of 1742Page 1386 of 1742Page 1387 of 1742Page 1388 of 1742Page 1389 of 1742Page 1390 of 1742Page 1391 of 1742Page 1392 of 1742Page 1393 of 1742Page 1394 of 1742Page 1395 of 1742Page 1396 of 1742Page 1397 of 1742Page 1398 of 1742Page 1399 of 1742Page 1400 of 1742Page 1401 of 1742Page 1402 of 1742Page 1403 of 1742Page 1404 of 1742Page 1405 of 1742Page 1406 of 1742Page 1407 of 1742Page 1408 of 1742Page 1409 of 1742Page 1410 of 1742Page 1411 of 1742Page 1412 of 1742Page 1413 of 1742Page 1414 of 1742Page 1415 of 1742Page 1416 of 1742Page 1417 of 1742Page 1418 of 1742Page 1419 of 1742Page 1420 of 1742Page 1421 of 1742Page 1422 of 1742Page 1423 of 1742Page 1424 of 1742Page 1425 of 1742Page 1426 of 1742Page 1427 of 1742Page 1428 of 1742Page 1429 of 1742Page 1430 of 1742Page 1431 of 1742Page 1432 of 1742Page 1433 of 1742Page 1434 of 1742Page 1435 of 1742Page 1436 of 1742Page 1437 of 1742Page 1438 of 1742Page 1439 of 1742Page 1440 of 1742Page 1441 of 1742Page 1442 of 1742Page 1443 of 1742Page 1444 of 1742Page 1445 of 1742Page 1446 of 1742Page 1447 of 1742Page 1448 of 1742Page 1449 of 1742Page 1450 of 1742Page 1451 of 1742Page 1452 of 1742Page 1453 of 1742Page 1454 of 1742Page 1455 of 1742Page 1456 of 1742Page 1457 of 1742Page 1458 of 1742Page 1459 of 1742Page 1460 of 1742Page 1461 of 1742Page 1462 of 1742Page 1463 of 1742Page 1464 of 1742Page 1465 of 1742Page 1466 of 1742Page 1467 of 1742Page 1468 of 1742Page 1469 of 1742Page 1470 of 1742Page 1471 of 1742Page 1472 of 1742Page 1473 of 1742Page 1474 of 1742Page 1475 of 1742Page 1476 of 1742Page 1477 of 1742Page 1478 of 1742Page 1479 of 1742Page 1480 of 1742Page 1481 of 1742Page 1482 of 1742Page 1483 of 1742Page 1484 of 1742Page 1485 of 1742Page 1486 of 1742Page 1487 of 1742Page 1488 of 1742Page 1489 of 1742Page 1490 of 1742Page 1491 of 1742Page 1492 of 1742Page 1493 of 1742Page 1494 of 1742Page 1495 of 1742Page 1496 of 1742Page 1497 of 1742Page 1498 of 1742Page 1499 of 1742Page 1500 of 1742Page 1501 of 1742Page 1502 of 1742Page 1503 of 1742Page 1504 of 1742Page 1505 of 1742Page 1506 of 1742Page 1507 of 1742Page 1508 of 1742Page 1509 of 1742Page 1510 of 1742Page 1511 of 1742Page 1512 of 1742Page 1513 of 1742Page 1514 of 1742Page 1515 of 1742Page 1516 of 1742Page 1517 of 1742Page 1518 of 1742Page 1519 of 1742Page 1520 of 1742Page 1521 of 1742Page 1522 of 1742Page 1523 of 1742Page 1524 of 1742Page 1525 of 1742Page 1526 of 1742Page 1527 of 1742Page 1528 of 1742Page 1529 of 1742Page 1530 of 1742Page 1531 of 1742Page 1532 of 1742Page 1533 of 1742Page 1534 of 1742Page 1535 of 1742Page 1536 of 1742Page 1537 of 1742Page 1538 of 1742Page 1539 of 1742Page 1540 of 1742Page 1541 of 1742Page 1542 of 1742Page 1543 of 1742Page 1544 of 1742Page 1545 of 1742Page 1546 of 1742Page 1547 of 1742Page 1548 of 1742Page 1549 of 1742Page 1550 of 1742Page 1551 of 1742Page 1552 of 1742Page 1553 of 1742Page 1554 of 1742Page 1555 of 1742Page 1556 of 1742Page 1557 of 1742Page 1558 of 1742Page 1559 of 1742Page 1560 of 1742Page 1561 of 1742Page 1562 of 1742Page 1563 of 1742Page 1564 of 1742Page 1565 of 1742Page 1566 of 1742Page 1567 of 1742Page 1568 of 1742Page 1569 of 1742Page 1570 of 1742Page 1571 of 1742Page 1572 of 1742Page 1573 of 1742Page 1574 of 1742Page 1575 of 1742Page 1576 of 1742Page 1577 of 1742Page 1578 of 1742Page 1579 of 1742Page 1580 of 1742Page 1581 of 1742Page 1582 of 1742Page 1583 of 1742Page 1584 of 1742Page 1585 of 1742Page 1586 of 1742Page 1587 of 1742Page 1588 of 1742Page 1589 of 1742Page 1590 of 1742Page 1591 of 1742Page 1592 of 1742Page 1593 of 1742Page 1594 of 1742Page 1595 of 1742Page 1596 of 1742Page 1597 of 1742Page 1598 of 1742Page 1599 of 1742Page 1600 of 1742Page 1601 of 1742Page 1602 of 1742Page 1603 of 1742Page 1604 of 1742Page 1605 of 1742Page 1606 of 1742Page 1607 of 1742Page 1608 of 1742Page 1609 of 1742Page 1610 of 1742Page 1611 of 1742Page 1612 of 1742Page 1613 of 1742Page 1614 of 1742Page 1615 of 1742Page 1616 of 1742Page 1617 of 1742Page 1618 of 1742Page 1619 of 1742Page 1620 of 1742Page 1621 of 1742Page 1622 of 1742Page 1623 of 1742Page 1624 of 1742Page 1625 of 1742Page 1626 of 1742Page 1627 of 1742Page 1628 of 1742Page 1629 of 1742Page 1630 of 1742Page 1631 of 1742Page 1632 of 1742Page 1633 of 1742Page 1634 of 1742Page 1635 of 1742Page 1636 of 1742Page 1637 of 1742Page 1638 of 1742Page 1639 of 1742Page 1640 of 1742Page 1641 of 1742Page 1642 of 1742Page 1643 of 1742Page 1644 of 1742Page 1645 of 1742Page 1646 of 1742Page 1647 of 1742Page 1648 of 1742Page 1649 of 1742Page 1650 of 1742Page 1651 of 1742Page 1652 of 1742Page 1653 of 1742Page 1654 of 1742Page 1655 of 1742Page 1656 of 1742Page 1657 of 1742Page 1658 of 1742Page 1659 of 1742Page 1660 of 1742Page 1661 of 1742Page 1662 of 1742Page 1663 of 1742Page 1664 of 1742Page 1665 of 1742Page 1666 of 1742Page 1667 of 1742Page 1668 of 1742Page 1669 of 1742Page 1670 of 1742Page 1671 of 1742Page 1672 of 1742Page 1673 of 1742Page 1674 of 1742Page 1675 of 1742Page 1676 of 1742Page 1677 of 1742Page 1678 of 1742Page 1679 of 1742Page 1680 of 1742Page 1681 of 1742Page 1682 of 1742Page 1683 of 1742Page 1684 of 1742Page 1685 of 1742Page 1686 of 1742Page 1687 of 1742Page 1688 of 1742Page 1689 of 1742Page 1690 of 1742Page 1691 of 1742Page 1692 of 1742Page 1693 of 1742Page 1694 of 1742Page 1695 of 1742Page 1696 of 1742Page 1697 of 1742Page 1698 of 1742Page 1699 of 1742Page 1700 of 1742Page 1701 of 1742Page 1702 of 1742Page 1703 of 1742Page 1704 of 1742Page 1705 of 1742Page 1706 of 1742Page 1707 of 1742Page 1708 of 1742Page 1709 of 1742Page 1710 of 1742Page 1711 of 1742Page 1712 of 1742Page 1713 of 1742Page 1714 of 1742Page 1715 of 1742Page 1716 of 1742Page 1717 of 1742Page 1718 of 1742Page 1719 of 1742Page 1720 of 1742Page 1721 of 1742Page 1722 of 1742Page 1723 of 1742Page 1724 of 1742Page 1725 of 1742Page 1726 of 1742Page 1727 of 1742Page 1728 of 1742Page 1729 of 1742Page 1730 of 1742Page 1731 of 1742Page 1732 of 1742Page 1733 of 1742Page 1734 of 1742Page 1735 of 1742Page 1736 of 1742Page 1737 of 1742Page 1738 of 1742Page 1739 of 1742Page 1740 of 1742Page 1741 of 1742Page 1742 of 1742