The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 01/15/2008 Item #10D Agenda Item No. 100 January 15, 2008 Page 1 of 119 Executive Summarv Review the recently completed Vanderbilt Recreational Pier Feasibility Study and obtain direction from the Board of County Commissioners on how to proceed. Objective: Obtain direction from the Board of County Commissioners on how to proceed with the recently completed Vanderbilt Recreational Pier Feasibility Study. Considerations: On June 26, 2007 the Board of County Commissioners approved a feasibility study to build a Recreational Pier at Vanderbilt Beach. This study is completed and contains the following elements: · Technical report by Coastal Planning and Engineering (CP&E) discussing layout, permitting, costs, potential mitigation requirements and timeframe. . An alternative phased approach which would construct critical public restrooms, offices, and snack bar/restaurant facilities to be built now and accommodate future pier construction. · A traffic study conducted by Johnson Engineering on the impact this installation would have on the surrounding roadway infrastructure. · A parking study conducted by Parks & Recreation analyzing parking capacity at the Vanderbilt Beach Parking Garage. · A Crime analysis of the Naples Pier over the last 3 years with supporting documentation from Naples elected officials. This report has not been revicwed, vctted or discussed with the public or any Advisory Boards. In addition to presenting this report, direction is requested from the Board of County Commissioners on how to proceed and what public organizations this report should be reviewed and discussed with. Report Summaries and Conclusions: CP&E Technical Report: A recreational pier suitable for fishing and other uses can be constructed at the end of Vanderbilt Beach road entirely within county owncd right-of-way. This picr would be 930 feet in length from the Erosion Control Line (ECL) and encompass 1,060 feet at full deck length. It would have a width of22 feet to accommodate emergency vehiclcs and be ''0 foot off the water. The structural portions of the pier would be designed to withstand a minimum 20 year storm based on FDEP state wide data. More probably, our design would resist a 50 year stonn based on local data. A site specific wave height study would be rcquired as part of the final design to determine this. Decking and handrail would be of wood/composite material and designed to be sacrificial during significant stonn events. 3,700 SF of public restrooms, offices and snack bar/restaurant along with 1,700 SF of deck area adjacent to the snack bar/restaurant is included in this project. These facilities will be elevatcd and constructed directly above the existing Vanderbilt Beach Agenda Item No. 100 January 15, 2008 Page 2 of 119 turnaround. These facilities, especially the public restrooms are critically needed. Replacement of existing public facilities will require elevated structure design to comply with revised FEMA guidelines. Permitting for this project is possible and can be accomplished within 24 months. Permitting will be accomplished in phases with the overall site pennit secured first. This pier will extend 380 feet over critical hard bottom habitat that will complicate the permitting process. FDEP has provided a wcalth of information on the content of a pier application but not much on the permittability of building a pier over hard bottom. History however is on our side; all 6 recent pier projects throughout the state have been permitted, Some have required administrative hearings after initial applications have been rejected to be permitted. Although we will modiJ)' our design when practical to avoid critical habitat, some mitigation will be required. $1,250,000 has been allotted in our construction cost estimate to fund mitigation and monitoring that FDEP will require. We believe that this is sufficient especially when viewed in combination with the recently constructed and unutilized one acre artificial reef. Examples of mitigation activities that the FDEP might require are the relocation of existing coral outcroppings and coral growth monitoring. After permitting, which may require 2 years; this project can be constructed in 18 months. Overall preliminary cost estimates for the pier, site development, restrooms, offices, snack bar/restaurant along with the engineering, permits, mitigation and monitoring is estimated at approximately $8,640,000. These costs are broken down as follows: . Pier engineering, permitting and construction mgt - Pier construction - Facilities engineering, permitting and construction mgt - Restrooms, offices, snack bar/restaurant construction - Mitigation and monitoring - $ 800,000 $3,950,000 $ 280,000 $2,360,000 $ I ,250,000 . . . . Funding would be from Beach Park Facilities Fund (183) utilizing Tourist Development Taxes. The next step in the appropriation process would be to authorize $330,000 to fund the preliminary desih'l1, permitting and requcst for additional infomlation by FDEP to secure the permits. Sufficient reserves are budgeted in Beach Park Facilities Fund (183) to fund the $330,000 contract for Preliminary Design. Note that reserves are not sufficient to fund the entire project as estimated above. ,.-..." Alternative ADDroach - Construct Dublic restrooms, offices, and snack bar/restaurant facilities now: In development of this feasibility study, it became obvious that a phased approach could be possible. If phased, this project would construct the restrooms, offices, snack bar/restaurant and deck overlook now while planning for and verifying that the pier can be constructed some time in the future. The restrooms, offices, snack bar/restaurant and deck overlook would be a stand-alone elevated stl11cture; positioned directly above the existing Vanderbilt Beach turn-around as depicted on sheets 7 and II of the proposed layout drawings. Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 3 of 119 ~ The benefit of the approach would be to provide critically needed facilities now that tie into a master plan and expand public beach access and use. The existing public bathrooms at Vanderbilt Beach are inadequate and in need of expansion and replacement. Any significant work on these bathrooms will require elevated construction to comply with recently revised FEMA flood guidelines. A significant investment must be spent in the near future to expand/replace these bathrooms. Adding the offices and snack bar/restaurant to the bathrooms provides the needed facilitics, eliminates stand alone capital spending and preserves our ability to build a pier structure in the future. Permitting for this facility would be significantly simpler than a combined pier/facility project and most probably could be accomplished within 12 months. Construction could be accomplished in an additional 12 months making the total project duration 2 years. Some ramp rework would be required if a pier was constructed in the future. Estimated costs for this alternate would be $2,640,000 and broken down as follows: . Engineering, permitting and construction mg! - . Building, deck and ramp construction - . Site development, utilities, signage and landscaping - $ 280,000 $2,160,000 $ 200,000 .'~ The next step in the appropriation process would be to authorize funds for design and permitting to secure the penn its, confirm the costs, engineer the project and obtain bids for funding the construction. Sufficient reserves are budgeted in Beach Park Facilities Fund (183) to fund the $330,000 contract for Preliminary Design. Reserves may be sufficient to fund this alternative depending upon overall project expenditures within the Beach Park Facilities fund (] 83). Traffic Study A traffic study conducted by Johnson Engineering on the impact additional pier traffic would have on the surrounding roadway infrastructure indicated that at build-out in 2009, county concun'ency segments and non-concurrency segments will operate at acceptable levels of service and that the county's minimum level of service Standard D will be maintained. This study was based on direct traffic counts from the Naples Pier. Parkin!! Study A parking study conducted by Parks & Recreation staff indicated that sufficient capacity exists in the existing Vanderbilt Beach Parking Garage to accommodate additional parking requirements of this proposed pier. Since beginning operation in March 2006, the Vanderbilt Beach Parking Garage averages only 4 times per month when parking capacity is reached and only averages closure for 29 minutes per occunence usually between 10:30 am to ] :30 pm. March and April appear to be the busiest months with 13 to 16 closures occuning and averaging only 30 minutes per closure. r-- Naples Pier Crime Study Several concerns were voiced relative to the increased crime that this type of facility would bring into the area. A review of the City of Naples police reports for the entire area sunounding the Naples Pier for the last 3 years did not support the implied concerns. Emails from Mayor Barnett and Vice Mayor Nocera also strongly support this position Agenda Item No. 10D January 15, 2008 Page 4 of 119 indicating that the pier has been a very popular asset to the community with limited problems. The vast majority ofthe police reports were for fishing infractions like fishing with more that one pole or undersize catches. A summary of all infractions for the last 3 years is as follows: Infractions Fishing and other infractions Possession of Alcohol/Controlled Substance Theft Disorderly Conduct Robbery Criminal Mischief Burglary Traffic/Speeding Battery/Fighting Trespass Total Police Reports ~ 42 12 5 2 o 1 2 o 1 3 68 2006 61 20 5 4 o 4 7 3 2 1 107 2007 61 19 4 7 1 2 1 o o o 95 Advisorv Committee Recommendations: No Advisory Committees or public groups/organizations have reviewed this feasibility study. County Attornev Findinl!s: The County Attorney has not reviewed or approved this item for form or legal sufficiency. Fiscal Imnact: The source of these funds will be Category "A" Beach Park Facilities Fund (183), Tourist Development Tax. Cunent budgeted Beach Park Facility Fund reserves total $1,924,800. While sufficicnt to fund preliminary design, a combination of reserves and other financing sources will be necessary to proceed with construction. A budget amendment is necessary moving dollars from Fund (183) reserves to the appropriate Fund (183) project in order to fund any preliminary design contract. Growth Manal!ement Imnact: Depending on the approach and direction provided by the Board of County Commissioners the impact to the Growth Management Plan may vary. However, any approach taken will be consistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policies SlIpp0l1ing Objective 10.3 that addresses developed coastal barriers and shorelines. Recommendation: Obtain direction from the Board of County Commissioners on how to proceed with the recently completed Vandcrbilt Recreational Pier Feasibility Study. PreDared by: Gary McAlpin, CZM Director ~ Page I of ] Agenda Item NO.1 OD January 15, 2008 Page 5 of 119 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number: 100 Item Summary: Review the recently completed Vanderbilt Recreational Pier Feasibility Study and obtain direction from the Board of County Commissioners on how to proceed. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director) Meeting Date: 1/15/2008900:00 AM Approved By Gary McAlpin Costal Project Manager Date Public Services Coastal Zone Management 1/3/20085:19 PM Approved By Kathy Carpenter Executive Secretary Date Public Services Public Services Admin. 1/4/20088:32 AM Approved By Marla Ramsey Public Services Administrator Date Public Services Public Services Admin. 1/4/200811:11 AM Approved By OM3 Coordinator Applications Analyst Date Administrative Services Information Technology 1/4/200812:55 PM Approved By Mark Isackson Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 1/812008 i :35 PM Approved By Michael Smykowski Management & Budget Director Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 1/8/20084:20 PM Approved By James V. Mudd Board of County Commissioners County Manager Date County Manager's Office 1/912008 i :50 PM file:/ /C:\AgendaTest\Export\98-January%20 15,%202008\ 1 0.%20COUNTY%20MANAGER... 1/9/2008 VanderbiIt Recreational Pier Feasibility Study Prepared for: Collier County Coastal Zone Management Prepared by: Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. and Bridge Design Associates, Inc. December 2007 Revised January 2008 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Agenda Item No.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 6 of 119 Agenda Item No. 10D January 15, 2008 Page 7 of 119 Vanderbilt Recreational Pier Feasibility Study Table of Contents Proposed Pier Description................................. .................................................... ...... ....... ................1 Site Location .................. ...................... ................................................................................... ...........3 Design Criteria, Risk and Water Levels ............................................................................................3 Engineering and Technical Analysis .................................................................................................5 Permitting....................................................................................................................... ....................5 Sidescan Survey Geotechnical Investigation Results ........................................................................6 Diver Investigation of Vanderbilt Pier (R-29) Alignment.................................................................6 Natural Resource Management.................................. ..................................... .............. .....................9 Schedule and Cost.................... ......................................................................................................... .11 Special Pier Features................................................................ .............................................. ........... .14 Conclusions........................................................................................................................................ I 4 References...............................................................................................................:.... ..................... .15 List of Figures Figure No. I Map of Vanderbilt Beach showing property lines, hardbottom edge, proposed pier alignment and vicinity...............................................................................................2 2 Storm stage frequency curve......................................... ....................................................4 List of Tables Table No. I Environmental & Pennitting Issue Summary ................................................................... I 0 2 Vanderbilt Recreational Pier with Small Restaurant Construction Estimate.................... 12 3 Vanderbilt Recreational Pier Preliminary Total Cost Estimate ........................................13 List of Appendices Appendix No. A Vanderbilt Pier Pre-Pennit Application Meeting B Request for Comment C Geotechnical Exploration Results D Stonn Stage Return Period Figures and Tables and Telephone Conference E Pier Example Photographs F Summary of Sediment and Natural Resource Coverage G Property South of Vanderbilt Beach Road Right-of-Way 1 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Agenda Item No.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 8 of 119 Vanderbilt Recreational Pier Feasibility Study The purpose of the feasibility study is to describe the design, pennitting, scheduling and cost aspects of a project to build a pier at Vanderbilt Beach. The report was prepared as a planning and decision document. A proposed layout of the project was developed and is provided in Figure 1 and Sheets I-II at the end of this report. We suggest a two phase pennit application approach. The first phase to be submitted for site approval, and the second phase for approval of technical design. Without site approval, investments into technical design would be excessive. Bridge Design Associates, Inc. is the structural engineer for the project and Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. provides coastal engineering and pennitting services. An architect, and civil and geotechnical engineer will be needed to round out the design team. The end of Vanderbilt Beach Road is the only location in northern Collier County that has beach parking, public access and County owned property needed to support a recreational pier for county residents and visitors in northern Collier County. The County parking garage is a unique public structure supporting access to the beach. Collier County needs this type of facility to support the population growth in northern Collier County. No practical alternative is available. A pier the size of Naples' is desired. The proposed pier length will be 930 feet from the shoreline (ECL), and it will extend 380 feet over the hardbottom habitat regions mapped immediately offshore of the Vanderbilt Beach Road access point (vicinity of R-29). A shorter pier would not meet the County's needs. This feasibility report describes the hardbottom substrate based on new and eXlstmg investigations, along with the subsurface conditions. A moderately detailed examination of the hardbottom habitat was an add on to this year's marine sidescan survey and groundtruthing work. Pennittability is analyzed based on consultation with pennit agencies and their actual practices on recent projects in Florida. Ultimately, it is not known how the agencies will trcat the unique conditions at Vanderbilt Pier. The report includes a construction and total project cost estimate along with a list of tasks needed to bring the project to construction. Proposed Pier Description Recreational Pier Suitable for Fishing and Othcr Uses. 930 feet from ECL (1,060 ft at full deck height) 22 feet 20 feet NA VD-any higher would be unsuitable for fishing Naples pier is approximately 12 feet high Tenninal T-section Fishing parapets/balconies 3 shaded areas on pier Benches Others to be determined ADA ramp suitable for occasional light vehicles Building on Pier: Restaurant, restrooms and office: Deck area adjacent to Restaurant: Purpose: Length: Width: Deck Height: Features: 3,700 sf 1,700 sf I COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Agenda Item No. 10D January 15, 2008 Page 9 of 119 =1;;g:s -..- .. ....IK~....... ....._..-.............. __........ _..._ooow..""...._ ""1 -......, ,.. ..'''--'d ............. .:3d:J ~"'A'" .:w.Wl.;"'W~ ) 5 I \ ! ' ) I' I!. '-.J , IlliluHllIh' ' I I'll ) ) '1 ,~,I l! ~i6~i~~d l l.!!.il~. ,- ,,,I!: :sl; -Il!"-!'l' , ..II!II'I i"" 'I I ' .'ll! !"I~ I p~;r~~~~~~III~ i i:I"'I",I, , 8 ~~.. ",tl! ,f< e j _'~:I~i~~.~, Ii )" '1 Figure I: Map of V anderbilt Beach showing property lines, hardbottom edge (red line), proposed pier alignment and vicinity. 2 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Agenda Item No.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 10 of 119 Site Location The siting of the pier is illustrated on Figure 1 and on plan Sheets I-II at the end of this report. The landward pier extension and the restaurant complex (facility) are located entirely within the Vanderbilt Beach Road right of way (Figure 1). The County owns the land to the south (Appendix G), where the parking garage is located. This property cannot be used as the piers' landward end given the deed restrictions which requires third party approval for any improvements. The County does not have a specific setback that pertains to a pier under these land use circumstances. A 30 foot setback is provided from the northern property and a nominal 6 foot setback is provided from the County property to the south. The offshore portion of the pier is positioned to minimize hardbottom impact. The pier extends over 380 feet of hardbottom that tem1inates in a bare spot sunounded by offshore hardbottom. This bare spot was verified by a sidescan survey (Appendix C) and a diver investigation along the pier alignment. The plan is to conduct sufficient mapping of hardbottom point resources, so that the pier placement will avoid or minimize impact to the coral species before mitigation is proposed. The pier includes a landward facility containing restrooms for the beach, an office and a small restaurant. The complex has been situated to FDEP guidance provided during the pre- application meeting. Only water dependent buildings can be located on the pier seaward of the ECL, which excludes a restaurant. The complex has been positioned within the seaward and landward alignment of adjacent development, landward of the ECL and will be elevated to meet CCCL building requirements. Design Criteria, Risk and Water Levels The State requires a pier to be designed to withstand the 20-year stonn event. CHAPTER 62B-33 :(k) Fishing or ocean piers or the extension of existing fishing or ocean piers shall be designed to withstand at a minimum the erosion, scour, and loads accompanying a t\.vcnty (20)-year storm event. Pier decking and rails may be designed to be an expendable structure. Major structures constructed on the pier shall be designed for the wind loads as set forth in the FBe. The pier deck elevation should be designed for the 20-year stonn elevation or 20 feet NA VD, since a deck any higher is undesirable for fishing. The State values (Appendix D) put the lowest horizontal structural member at 21.7 ft NGVD for the 100 year stonn, and the equivalent 20-ycar stonn level is also very high. In Figure 2 shown below, the measured 20-year return tide value is a couple of feet lower than that predicted by NOAA or Dean, even with adjustment for set up. After consultation with Ralph Clark (Appendix D), FDEP will provide the County the opportunity to reevaluate the design water level and wave height, so that a 20 year or higher design level can be achieved at the 20 foot deck height. 3 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Storm Stages, Collier County, FL I , I 20 Agenda Item No.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 11 of 119 18 --Naples Pier 1965-2007 Measurements (NOAA, 2007) -tl.-Dean, Chlu and Wang (1989), FOEP Profile R 50 (Includes wave setup) _" NOAA (1973). Collier/Lee County Line i / ~-:... -----, I irllll, 1I1tl- d:frLl 16 i5' > 14- < z Qi 12 m ;- 10 0> . iii 8 E 5 6 iii 4 : r--- . 10 NOTE: NAVD Is 1.26i\ higher than NGVO Figure 2: Storm stage frequency curve. 100 1000 Return Period (years) .J It is the structural engineers' intent to maximize the pier strength without compromIsmg its purpose as a fishing and recreational pier. Loads caused by a 20-year and 50-year storm wave will be analyzed. With the results from the new stonn water level and wave height study, it should be feasible to achieve or approach a 50-year design level for all design parameters. The pictures provided below illustrate the pier design challenges and features. In Photo 1, storm waves have reached the elevation of the lowest cross-member and deck of the pier, and frangible deck features have been lost as a means of protecting the core structure. The pier deck will blow out in the design stonn. Photo 2 shows where the deck has been knocked out by the waves and the cross-members have been lost on a couple of pile bents. The pier deck will be designed to be sacrificial, but the cross-members will be designed to survive the design storm. ",,~,~..-,-~: Photographs I and 2 illustrate classic pier failure modes. 4 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Agenda Item No. lOD January 15, 2008 Page12of119 The engineering should be accomplished in two phases, the first to define the elevations for critical pier components, and the second to conduct the wave force analysis and design of the structural members. Engineering and Technical Analysis Engineering and Technical Analysis can be broken down into 3 main areas: coastal and hydraulic engineering, structural engineering and geology/geotechnical engineering. Ralph Clark provided the following guidance (Appendix A) on the engineering and technical calculations required for pernlit review by the FDEP (July 2007) based on his initial review of the Panama City Beaches recent pier project: Wave height computations Wave loads Structural design computations Design erosion and scour for 20 year storm Geotechnical analysis Pile tip elevations Computations for pile breakout resistance A precursor investigation is needed to dctennine the storm surge plus wave height elevation needed to design the pier decks, so that they can be reviewed and approved by FDEP prior to detailed design. . ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~... ~ Photograph 3: Dania Pier was originally built over hardbottom. The pier includes a terminal t- section and a landward facility built on the deck. Permitting The procedures for pennitting a pier are well defined, with the process generally leading to a permit, but changes must be expected to reach agreement with the permit agencies. A pre-permit application meeting was conducted with FDEP, and the results are summarized in Appendix A. The FDEP provided a wealth of infornlation on the content of a pier pernlit application, but not 5 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 1 3 of 119 much on the permittability of building a pier over a hardbottom habitat. Piers built over hardbottom are not unusual, since there are a number of them on the east coast such as Dania Pier in Broward County (Photograph 3). An e-mail requesting advice on this issue was sent to all the pertinent permit agencies, and only one answer was received from NOAA fisheries (Appendix B). Their response was similar to fDEP's guidelines where it provided instruction on how to pennit the project. It is normal for the agencies to avoid making significant comments until they fully understand the environmental conditions at the site, which could take until late in the permit process at the 2nd requests for additional information stage. This is a means to control or limit their work load. The best strategy for permitting this project while minimizing expensive engineering and environmental services is to do a two phase permitting process. The first phase would be to provide a plan layout similar to plan Sheets 1-11, along with sufficient engineering and natural resources infonnation. The permit would be accompanied with a request to submit the detailed engineering and design (as requested by Ralph Clark) with the plans and specifications at a later date. In essence, the first submittal would be for site approval, while the second phase would be for approval of the technical design. Sidescan Survey Geotechnical Investigation Results Coastal Planning & Engineering geologists conducted a nearshore sidescan survey off of Collier County on June 15 and 16, 2007. The results of the survey covered the proposed pier location and are provided in Appendix C. Included in the figures are comparisons to the diver verified hardbottom edge of2006 and the nearshore sidescan survey conducted in 2003. During the sidescan sonar survey conducted in June 2007, a number of possible and probable hardbottom areas were interpreted from the sidescan sonar data. These sites were verified using scuba diver groundtruthing. These operations were conducted using DGPS positions integrated into the HVPACKMAX"'program. Target transects were laid out based on sidescan interpretations and generally oriented across transitions between what was interprcted as sandy bottoms and potential rock outcrops or other identified features of interest. The entire hardbottom extended along the proposed pier alignment was diver investigated. This operation was integrated with the annual monitoring program. A sub-surface investigation was conducted by a geotechnical sub-contractor at the edge of the beach to determine the substrate for the pier piles. The findings were similar to those found during the foundation investigation for the County garage. The top 28 feet consisted of various qualities of sand, with some rocks found at 18.5' below the surface (Appendix C). Diver Investigation of Vanderbilt Pier (R-29) Alignment After the sidescan survey was completed, the results were groundtruthed and a preliminary investigation was made of the marine resources along the possible pier alignment. The results confirmed the hardbottom edges shown on Figure I and in Appendix C. This operation also confirmed the gap within the hardbottom region proposed for the seaward terminating T -section. A description of the results follow: 6 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Agenda Item No.1 00 Januarv 15, 2008 Page 14 of 119 The following photograph represents knobby star corals (Solenaslrea sp.). These coral colonies are approximately 1-2' tall and are in good health. They occur roughly every 10 meters along the proposed pier location. The following photograph is of a massive starlet coral (Sideraslrea sp.). These corals form rounded domes along the bottom of the reef. They can grow to be I' across. 7 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Agenda Item No. 10D January 15, 2008 Page 15 of 119 The following photographs include two fish species that are commonly found within the proposed pier area, the sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus) and gray snappers (Lutjanus griseus). The nearshore region in the VICInIty of Vanderbilt Road access point has been monitored periodically since 2003 as part of the Collier County Beach Renourishment Project. The results of this investigation are summarized in Appendix G. The proposed pier location is next to FDEP Monument R-29. Diver transects were run in 2006 at R28+550 and R29+700. The hardbottom region in this area has between 41.4% and 79.9% average sediment coverage and between 43.3% and 15.9% macroalgae coverage, which can be seen in the photographs above. 8 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Agen.ja Item r~o. 100 January 15. 2008 Page 16 of 119 The DVD accompanying this report contains a five minute segment of underwater digital video taken over the proposed Collier County pier alignment. The following indented items describe the major elements on the video clip: The transect tape in the video represents the vector line where the pier would be built. Use this tape as a reference as the video is shot from east to west, away from shore. The large, yellowish structures are hard coral formations. As seen in the video, this area contains some of the largest corals seen in the nearshore. These corals would mostly likely have to be carefully transplanted away from this area prior to the start of pier construction. The round, brownish structures along the bottom are also hard corals. These too may have to be transplanted or mitigated for. The area in the video shows mostly low to moderate relief (<2 ft), with the reef dominated by macro algae cover. Several fish species are seen in the video. Most common are snappers and sheepshead, both of which are favorites of fishermen. Natural Resource Management The nearshore hard bottom contains a number of natural resources that require special management practices as part of the permitting and construction process. The permit application will need to identify the means of avoiding or minimizing impacts to the hardbottom resources, or where this is not practical, mitigate for any impacts. An environmental monitoring and mitigation plan will be prepared as part of the permit process. Since the hardbottom area is common to the pier and County beach nourishment projects, a joint monitoring and mitigation program may be feasible. The county has already constructed 1.1 acres of hardbottom mitigation, some or all of which might count towards mitigation of pier impacts. The pier may directly impact the hardbottom habitat by causing a shadow over the habitat or by debris caused by driving pier piles during construction. Indirectly, fishing hooks, lines, sinkers and related debris may impact the habitat. The direct shadowing may extend to a region I to 4 times the pier width, which may call for mitigation up to 0.8 acre in conjunction with construction impacts. Mitigation of 0.8 acres will cost $800,000, if not offset by the existing reef. Relocation of corals can also mitigate for the impact, and would cost approximate $200,000 from within the pier shadow. The Unifornl Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMi\M) calculation in conjunction consultation with pcrmit agencies is required to detennine the actual amount of mitigation required. A detailed inventory of individual corals is proposed as a basis for planning avoidance, minimization and mitigation of impacts. These costs are included in Table 2. 9 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. A summary of major environmental and pennit issues is listed below. Table 1 Environmental & Permitting Issue Summary . Major permit Issues Coral and hardbottom habitat for 380 feet of the pier route Modifications of and construction over dunes Concerns of neighbors . No substantive comments received from penuit agencies Insufficient information developed at time of coordination Insufficient time to review data provided to agencies . Investigation finding Knobby star coral (1-2' height) every 10 meters (30 feet) Starlet (up to l' diameter) corals . Pennit considerations- strategy: Avoid - May not be possible or acceptable to County Select another location-none suitable in County control Minilnize - Terminate T -section in hardbottom void Map coral and position pier piles to avoid where feasible Assign fishing/no fishing zones by pier configuration Mitigate - Transplant Large Coral Mitigate for hardbottom impacts . Pen11it Requirements/Restrictions Building types restricted on state lands seaward of ECL Special disposal of fish and other waste created on pier Shading analysis 10 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Agenda Item NO.1 OD January 15, 2008 Page 17 of 119 Agenda item NO.1 00 January 15. 2003 Page 18 of 119 Schedule and Cost Design, permitting and construction of this project will take between 36 and 42 months, if there are no major permit issues. Pern1itting could take up to two years based on recent experience with complex projects. Major complex issues are often brought up late during the permitting process. Construction will take about 2 weeks per pier pile bent, for a total time of at least 54 weeks, if the landward construction can be done simultaneously. Bid, award, and materials acquisition will take up the remaining 18 month construction window. The four phases and times of the project are summarized below. Preliminary Design and Permitting Phase Detailed Design Phase Request for Additional Information (RAT) Phase Construction Phase 6 months 6 months 6-12 months 18-months Tables 2 and 3 are the construction and total project cost estimates based on the plan shown in Sheets I - I 1. These estimates are preliminary and will be modified as the design arid the environment becomes better defined. The construction cost estimate (Table 2) includes the cost of the pier, restaurant facility with foundation street work and landscaping. The total project cost estimate (Table 3) lists the design, pennitting and engineering tasks required to implement the project. The list breaks the project down into four phases. There are advantages to constructing the restaurant and restroom facility separate from the pier. The combined structure planning will have to progress at the speed of the slowest dcsign and permitting process, which will be the pier. The restaurant and restroom facility can be permitted and built in a much shorter period of time. The second advantage is pennitting. The pier will require a state .ICP permit and a Federal pennit. The facility will need a state CCCL permit, but no federal pennit. Both will need building and zoning for the upland end of the structures. The pier is a civil structure while the facility is largely architcctural. Their will be additional cost of separating the structures, but the speed of construction can be accelerated. The cost directly related to the facility (restaurant and restroom) design and construction are bolded on Tables 2 and 3. Common upland costs arc assigned to the facility. We propose that a pe1l11it without the detailed calculations and design be submitted with a request to submit the detailed dcsign at a future date, once the site has been approved. This should reduce detailed design expenses that may be wastcd should a change in site layout be called for. The environmental cost will depend to a large part on the decisions made by the permit agencies. We have tried to anticipate these based on previous experience. II COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 2 V ANDERBIL T RECREATIONAL PIER WITH SMALL RESTAURANT CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE Agenda Item No. 100 January 15, 2008 Page 19 of 119 litem N Item Descrintion Est.atv Unit Unit Price Price 1 Mobilization 1 LUMP SUM $144.000 $144,000 2 New Concrete Beams - Fabrication & Installation (Incl. all incidental items such as concrete curbs, bearing pads, closure Dours & sealer\ 2.1 Tvne A (20'lonn) 240 LF $214 $51,360 2.2 Tvoe B 140 lono) 4,800 LF $214 $1.027,200 3 New Prestressed Piles - Fabrication & Installation 3.1 1a~ x 65' 1101 EACH 6.565 LF $125 $820,625 4 PDA Testinn 9 EACH $4.200 $37.800 5 Pile Can 5.1 New Pile Caps - Fabrication & Installation (Incl. Secondary 13 EACH $21,080 $274,040 Castinn & Sealer) {Incl. Linht Bellards' 5.2 New Pile Cap Fishing Section (INCLUDE PIER NEAR 15 EACH $26,114 $391,710 RESTAURANT 5.3 New Pile CaD at Tee End 2 EACH $56.633 $113,266 6 New Wood Railina & Deckin":' 'Incl. Hardware 61 Wood Railinn 2.320 LF $119 $276,080 6.2 3x6 Wood Deckin 25,600 SF $18 $460,800 6.3 Misc. Wood Blockinn for Pile Cans 1 LUMP SUM $13,000 $13.000 7 Cano,..,ies tSunnll/, Hardware & Installation) 4 EACH $34,000 $136,000 8 Fish Cleaninn Stations Incl. Hardware & Plumbinq) 3 EACH $8.000 $24,000 Scalise Marine FT 44 LF (4) leg fish cleaning station, or eaual 9 Misc_ Uahtino ReDairs - Fixtures & Outlets 1 LUMP SUM $180.000 $180,000 10 Streets, Drainaoe, Landscaoina and Access. 1 LUMP SUM $150,000 $150,000 11 Restaurant, Office & Restroom Facilt" w/Foundation 5,400 SF $400 $2,160,000 12 Utilities 1 LUMP SUM $50,000 $50,000 Pier Sub~total $3,949,881 Facilitv Sub~Total (Restaurant, Office, & Restrooms) $2,360,000 DTOTAL ESTIMATE Bold cost are associated with the restaurant/restroom facility and site work at the street end. 12 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. I $6,309,8811 Agenda item ~'-lo. 1 DD January 15, 2008 Page 20 of 1: 9 TABLE 3 VANDERBILT RECREATIONAL PIER PRELIMINARY TOTAL COST ESTIMA TE Phase I Task Cost Time (Months) ~... .... -. I. Preliminary DesiQn_<?Eld PermittinL - 6 __u. Coastal W~ve & Water Le-:el Study ... $19~700 --- DetailE;.9.~~_~ine Resou~s:_~_t0~pping ~90,000 D_u..!1e and Beach R.E!~Slurce Mapping $5,000 Constru_c~i~___?nd Sta~_~_L,:)n~s_ Su~ - ... 525,000 -- Offshore_I?C?_r.i!lg~!U~_E!C?tec~r:'_i~al Report - $21.600 I--- - Devela:Q_ ?ite:~lan and Pe~~_i~_Sketches ------- $1 8~ 000 .-.- Prepare & Submit P_e:_~.c!1it Application (1) -~ Technical $20.000 --- .. -- Marine Sciences 510,000 -~ .--- County ---. ----. $5,000 -~ II. Detailed Design - ~ :~eceive initial Perm_i'L~gency Guidan~~__~ Questions ---~ ----.-. $0 Way_eo: f0s:e and P~.!:lfllpact Analysis ------- $48.300 ... Pie!.StrLI0~.cal Oe~~_ ---- -- ----- $147:600 ---. Facil!:t.Fo~_r:'.dation ~!3_ig.n____________ .--- _~~,~oo De~i${rl,_~~cilty (R~~~~_~rant, Office & Re_~!!::~~ms~ _~9,000 .~~_reets, Drajnag~_~ !-andscaping D~~!~.n ---- $12,000 --- Site Utilities $20,000 --- CCCL Permit ---------- - $12,0~0 -- --- n -,.- -. Prime ------- .. 515.000 III. Respol2~e_ to A9E!_f'!gy Requ~~!f?r__J:.dditionallnformation - 6-12 - - ------- n~ -- l--- RAI C'[c~J} Times) ____ _____;-__,_ --. ---- __~~O,OOO ---- Prep9!_E!_~~_ Subm~! Plan_~~~ecifl~~tlgn~ -- ---- - .. . __ $30,000 ._~ 1--__ Submit Detailed Design and Calculations to FDEP $10.000 --- - ------------ --------------- -- ------------ -------- ------- County Bu.ii.9~~.9 & Zoning _ ~__-." ___ _ . $5,000 -- Prep_Clre ~nvironmental_~e':1itoring & Mitigation Plan 510,000 Prepare Addition Studies or Documents (ENE IS) as Needed TBD ...-- -- - IV. - .--.- Construction .-. - - $20,000 18 Bid and Award Pier Construction -- 53.2~ --.--- --..- ---- Facilit)'"_~onstruction -------- -- ~.. $2,360,000 ..- f----.. fonstruction Man9g~ment Pier Structural $82,500 ~C1<:_il~ty Foundation $41,250 --------- - Architectural $54.000 .-- ---.-- -- Civil & Lands~Cl:e_~ --.--. $7,500 ..._-~ Prime-Coastal $51,823 ... ---- Construct or Implement Mitigation Plan __mo. .------ .- --- -- <;:onstru~t_~i.!lgation ___ -----.. $800,000 - -.." Relocate Coral -~ -- .-- $200,000 - I . M~:mltonng Pre-Construction .. _---..J20~000 - -- --------- - ----------- --- .------ .-- .-~-- During-C~!:1?lru_cti()_~_l~~l'JL_ 5150.0.00 _..~ --.... Post-Construction 550.000 . V. Senarate Proiect Permit and Construction Sunnlement '," .. Pier Sub~total $5,938,804 Facilitv (Restaurant, Office & Restrooms\ $2,699,750 TOTAL $8,638,554 36-42 Note: Item II and III will have some time overlap Bold cost are associated with the restaurant/restroom facility and site work at the street end. ]3 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Agenda Item NO.1 OD January 15, 2008 Page 21 of 119 Special Pier Features A number of special features have been integrated into the feasibility level design shown in Sheets 1-11. During the study, features from a wide variety of piers where investigated to assist in formulating the select design. Examples of pier layouts, shade canopies, pier buildings and restaurants are provided in Appendix G. The pier has been designed to appeal to both fishermen and non-fishennan. Nooks protruding out from the pier have been included to serve the fishermen, while covered pier areas are created for those who just want to observe nature. The alternating covered and uncovered areas create areas for the public without the intrusion of fishermen. The photograph of Juno Pier from Florida's east coast illustrates some of these features. ~,>, \ ,..~" '~"','\~' ""Zl/iif;.;;,:\' ~:,: Photograph 4. Juno Picr, Palm Beach County Florida Conclusions The construction of a pier at the Vanderbilt Beach access point is feasible, based on the preliminary investigation conducted for this study. Permitting of a long pier will depend on developing a monitoring and mitigation program acceptable to the pem1it agencies. The pier design and permitting should begin with an effort to seek site approval before moving to a detailed design phase. 14 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Agenda Item t'Jo. 100 January 15, 2008 Page 22 of 119 References Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., Collier County Beach Renourishment Project One Year Post-Construction Engineering Report, October 2007. Makowski, c., and Kruempel, c., 2006. Collier County Beach Renourishment Project: 2006 Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring Report. Boca Raton, Florida: Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. (Prepared for Collier County, Florida and FDEP). P:\Collier\8500.4 7 Pier\Vanderbilt Pier Study 122007.doc IS COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 23 of 119 PLAN SHEETS 1-11 , o-III!! !L ill! ep,....told: -"",LlTlC>;:::) ";[9l110;:::) ,,~ .Dk ~ JOO0'6'7i ,or,,"",, / ;~~ ~~~ WIII~ ~~:) '^ o " i~g ~g- ~~,g.( 55~~ i5t; ~~ ~~*i OWN" O~ , ~ 2~~ U'""'-!!' :Jiil,,-~ ~ ~~~ 8'-'50 :dlil~ ~ ~",8 81-',O~ _;;-o~ < i j~8~~ ' ,~ ~i~!~~J~ N , , ~a~~i~~B .. < i~~:~i~~ 5 0 u ~lt! ~ii";:;: ~~ ~ - ~5~~~~~E " ~ ~:~~~E;~~ ~ ~~'f'~~9'f:; , '" ~<;! "'iil8 '--~ ! i h;~~~~~~ ~ r:'J<l",2..::,[~fr ~I~ N " <.. , ~N _"""'M-] __..... _."_ "'-lO __,""" " ..". - lOll 'Ii -ePIJOL.d .A--l-L.I"r"lOO .;r~1:Tlo:::::> ...leTd +pq..::!:epuBA ..:ra'!'d l';;;1UOl"-l-"Iaa..:r;:>ag pesodo.td I I I I 1 I , 1 I I I L' ----~--------- ----- '.f" .=-/.."'0....'0],,,,-..',."..,,,....,',..'0 .,"~. j,"",."'''..; c",'.'.'-,,,,,.-,,; __~".., - .'v" , . . I .rIll!! '-I ".1 , "i" I ..1J... =PT,JC>l"';{ 'A':J-LI:L>-C>;:::> -'f~1TtC>:::> JaId +pqJapUBi\. ...l:C>ld rlO}U01~aa..t:;:l",CI p;;osodo..l;cl , I / I 1 I / I ~l " ':;il .,(,.. . ~' --- "'L--------------- ,..,-R __....~I."""r<;"..'''''.r..."".'''..,,..,''''..,.,.,.,...,,'-''.'''''_'oo.'L''"''.'''-/1m ,,""lJ'" ~ G-.--- T 0-; --- Q .' ,~ ,~---- ',J . Q .' 0? ---- Q , " e:;: -- --- Q , &~_.- Q , 8-~ -.-- T 0-~ --- T e-.~ ----- @:--- Q ~-- ~ .' ,'N\.3i' ':V. Q .' ~-- \..'OJ. ~ .' t.;L'~{_ "----'Y. - T t'.;. /: ;-.: ,~;:l~./ ! ,; Ii, ""....il' I! I j .1 ~~), I, I) I: ('-';1' ~L..:;' , ~;. . ',.,. I , f,_ ~.:!, <".." ,'", l'..-., . .,-~ ,', '. ~ ,J i ." @--.~I " "..l r;;)\~t___ ,.', b'. , ~ , ~~--- '~ Q , (.OL~ _"_ ':V-. c .' . ~-- 'f.i '~li . ~ i '1 ~. -- LL Q , @:~ --- "I .~ ~~--- Q , @,-~ !,iU i 'N --.- IL-'-.'" '~ _ Ld ~3 =~:[~uH r-11 ,JJ i 'I'.'')' ,1 ~ II IcL.J i " ~ " :.. :.i 31 &--- ~ .' G~--- ~ .' 0;--- "I G~---- ~ .i ~_._- ~ 8-:~---- "I .~ 8c?-'- "I &~----- .' ~._.- ~ .' ~--- - "I .' ~i @-;'-- "I -~ @,' ."1 f~_~ ___ =. ~ t ',- F~_. "". "j , , [- ,- -" ~~ I -1 :'1 '-'" 1 '.-'" -"", -, f';1~___ ~ ~ "" \I~-- -- I ~I ~, ,I: ~!+"---- --I 1---- \II 1 '1 @~r-~ -F , @-;-1,__11 " .~ I ~ --~ 'II ~, : I @)7~- - - -~ .'11 ' @~ ~-~ -h , , . " @-~ ------. , ' " @L -.- ~, ~j:-" - I ~--At:F @-" --It- I' Agenda It Janu Pa f"- .0 LJ') .-i ...... .-i ,Z o ...... h: o z o ...... f- ;; w --' w cr. w ...... 0.. o W Vl o 0.. o cr. 0.. i" " I," I~ 31 m N 00 ~!2 08 27 f 19 []'I . 'j l;; H .";~~~~~5 :-< ~'-'! ~_ ~2 no~" ;: ~ , ~ j '0 ! Q) ." " fl.'''''; 0 -0, ~ , "' ~ S+' ~ .,..... ~ .r-! " ~ t,o ~ , ~ 0 ~Q) u ~'O , ~ ~ I ." ~(1j ~ ~ ~> 0 U ill , [I ',Ill ", L a~~ , ....^""""'."\_........I~.\i.,,... _ ~''''I__''''''''' ~ I';f I I I ~i I ~i 1il ,.'I~illl H I i 'fOOI' !~ r j' , -, , ~I " ~3=\ - ' --I "- o -- L/'l ..... -- ..... ..... Z o ~ o z 19 I~ ,Iifj , -' IW I _L I- Z ~ ::l ~ , VJ 'w let: :r: I- ::l '0 ! VJ I o UJ VJ 10 I~ et: CL J--- -, --- I I _-:Jf--~ /, " []<i I' ' ]; 5' ,~ : jt ,.,~ ~ 'oi;~J.wg: ~ '''0".",.0 .x '" ~'" "S~~ , h j 1! ! Q) ." ~ ."" , ~O., 0 ~ , ~ c .S +' ~ ",..., '."" ~ ~,.O ~ u ~ , h 0 ~ Q) J ~"d , : ~ w '- ~I\J ~ ~ ,~ 0 ~.-> u ii II' " I, I": II' 'i'l i,'iT,;-- I"rl" ~ ~.~ "' ~~ ~~~~ 'I 'I"' I" " \ > - l\ ~~ I "'m_~-..I__ "" ,_ _ "".,,, '",,-,oo.:l> """n -/aJ< 'ol_ .",'" (])-- c:, 1 c:, '" @-- , c:, c:, '" @--+-- I , I c:,' 1 '" '" @---' , c:, ,I c:, "" @-~ c:, 1 c:, @}_.~ '" I c:, @_: Agenda it m N, 00 Janu, ctJ5 ,2 08 Pa 29 f 19 ~ ~ i>., %; <: U tI:J :;:::: .s: ~ '-' 'f i>., g, < U tI:J SO <: U i>., g, <: "" I:J}'-S tI:J SO <; U r-- o U"l ..... ~I ..... Z o '~ o z ,:3 c.. Cl Z w w w I- 0:: w ~ c.. -' <( ~ ~ Ci: Cl w Ul o c.. o 0:: c.. I- 19 IZ i~ i~ []~I : H ~'"'^" "" ~u '_ ~z ut'" :::"':';1 ID ,k ~ 'Q) ." ~'M ~ ,p., ~ ~ .! +' ~ ~~ lIl,,..., +i ~,o ~ : k 0 ~ Q) 0 ~"d " ~ ~ .~ h1J ~ ~> 8 11'1111'" .' I , I l ! 'I ' 11",,,,, ~ ~ , !fl:l!l ; l ilil~ .""".......IUJ.{m.;n,j.__a/\..".".,..,.\..,.._"'_ ,,,--<I>_-<fJtJ<'S .n../IIII< ''''...'3'''1 t >t~.'::- ,,- , t:;J t.!, ;s '" s -'--- t i &? CJ './., i. "" " " ~ Q'j o "" " ". ~ ~ Q2 , ~/~ ~! i~ ~,'::o.." " tl"--f ~ ~ ------>4 --~" .. 1 I~ "" i ItJ :::~/ ' /8; " .., / ", , $; '" I ,,, /..", '" 'io., ItJ Q2 / "'/' "" I . " I '~ -J' I" i~ t..---- 1- 1 f!: .._---~ ----\ ~i.s::" ~,I /fjfj ~. '<-:,i,~ 'V '--, t:;J t.!, ;S r;;:, / I " s::,' "0 Agenda It m N... 00 .. "anu !y(1.i) ,? 08 Pa 30 f 19 15- I: I~ "" I;' "- !,S! ..:..,' !~ ~ Q'j "- o Lf'l ..... ..... ..... z: o ~ o '2 :5 C>- I- 2 ..~ :::> j:: lfJ W a:: a:: w ...... C>- -' <:( ...... I- a:: <:( C>- O W lfJ o C>- O a:: C>- ~I 1j l, i~ ~.o, '0; ~'" ~~~o j~~;p; '~ ~ ,~ ~ a; aJ .~ [,,..., 0 ,0, ~ ~ 13 +' ~ ,...:,...., +i 113 ; i ~ ~ 0 I ~ (J U ;'0 , ~ ~ .~ n ~rU " ~> 8 " I .fl'lll t - ~...~ ~, L li~~ ....,.,.,...-'"",_,____.... ",-m"'h",,~I. '>l'NIlNiI.wimlm_ ro-~~ u"' , ~ ~h "'. -'! ,,~ "'~ ~~ ~ ~ E> ~ II i2 "--;.-..; ~I- ~ "- " " ~ ~ ~~ ~ "- ~ '" " " "'- ~ ~ '" , I i'l ~ ~~~~ "'~ " ~~~~ Sl rr,~ ~ ''''''~i2 t3 ~7~~ "~iQ~ 'i::,~~Si I ,I t;;;:P" ~ ~ :~~~ ~ 'i::, ~~ ~ O:l I '-.>:::j<::l :"'~9:!~ ~ ~ ~q i-..: ~ ~~~~ 8 ~ ~[;3 '<-: t-.. ~ ~ ~ , .. ~ " o o '" .' ~ " ~ " ~ ~ 4, .... '...,. ... '<c .. .. .. .. ... 'I~t,,:' I ~- i'1':; J= ~,~b ;;:; :: -'I.-_>j.--.___.___I-f.-_____ ~i -, ~, L .0.9 ~.~ ';:::;.: ",,: :.! 1.9-E _ --'e'- --:Zli"" I '-3 -F--~ .o,c ~ "----:9-,f ,-, ~J r,..;~ ~ il =: \S ~~ !ij ~;; "', .9-.1 " ~ =. ~ . " ~~ " ~,,~ tii:' 'l ~ Aaenda It m N OD ~ Janu', c:(j);2 08 Pa . 31 f 19 ~ ~ Ii! ~ rn:flJ " ~ ~ ~ ~, !Ii " Jl ;j "- h "'0: '~t ; i2 ~ ~ ';0 Co "- ~ R: ~ '" !3 Q .. .'( "' Z '1j !3 0 1J IS tJ ~ l1J Vl '" 0:: g l1J i ~ '~I c- '- Q ~ --' <5 !:' ~ ~ c- '" ~ )~ Cl 's: l1J I~ Vl 0 ~J C- O 0:: c- i-< ~ ~ , GJ ., " ,.,.., 0 ~Il, " k , '+' S,...., . . .,.., ~ :,0 i ; h 0 ~ GJ u U\! " ! ~ I ., ~ ~iD " 0 ~> U " UI!U' ~ ~~~~ ~ L ~I~; MOU.:UI!,.."...._..\...,.'u...",..""'I"............."'._...I...-......\-&_"'" " ~ " ~ z: ;; 0 ~ ~ --' UJ Cl , "" '" " ~ , ~ -.. 0 c:> ,. Cl '" UJ U'l 0 "- 0 "" "- . ......"'--"'''' r ~ ,~ " ~ ~~ ~...; "- 0 ~"" u~ ~ 011 ~ '" 0:' "- "- '" '" ~ "- ~ I ~ S "'I m I '''-.. :T'-' ~ .~ " - , ..::.' ~ ~ "' " !:l ~ 8 I '1' I ~ ,7: 'l! 'll !l '" 'l '" 0 0 '" ~ " !g "- '~ .~ .~ , , , '" '" .~ ~ ~i ~ " ~y-, "" ~~~~ c.:, ~5 ~ ~. ~~ ~ s "'::.: ~ ..... . ~ ~~ ~ "" '7;~ ~ ,'" ""~ S <::,~Q~ ~~~~ ..<.:J";:~ ""'~?s ~ -.:, S~ ~ ,,~ ~ 0., ;;::, ~ S>:: ,>-; @~~~ c..:i:::<r:,r..: '" , '" --I , : .-,J:;. ~:iS!, ::..o"~ ~~.' f!i~ ~~ <>.>"'" ~-. "''!< ,=i!.. '2:::._~~-- ~ -,-- :L~:r .' ~' i.___--- \..-.--- .j-? r~- ~:~,~~~1 I ! II, \" -_/- \ I \ \ . \ '\ \\ i \\n6,i! " I '", .._,_I.~_ :..:..1.:::.=__=:: L , !,- ! !)'>'~ !, ~ 2l ,~", .~~" lo: ?f ~,,<<>-t-~"~'~\i"" ~t::: "< .. 1 - --,,'~-- <.., <.., c.:::: I"" I'U!:. ; ~ '- " 23'=4' ~G ~- .~t ~ ~ " ':> " I '" 2 ~ :g " ~ '" :;: '" g; , a ~I ~ ".li ~ 15 tJ ':> .~ ~ . I , I :' I """l oc- ~I I ~ ~=,. -- ___ ---11 ~ "'" ~ .0,9 -~ ~ ~ '" a '" iO !:! ~ '" '" ~ a Ii; AgencJa It Janu Pa z o 6 w lfl cr. W - 0- l? z - I lfl - l.L o W cr. W Gj -' - f- Z <t U o W lfl o 0- o cr. 0- I~ ,~ !~ . I~ m ~~, 00 0'l5 Q J03 32 if 19 []i! il ~ ffiTIJ I-. I ~ , QJ ., " ,...., 0 ~o., ~ ~ " '"'"' . .~~ " . "...., ~ :j) , ) ~ l., 0 ~ QJ u "'0 " , I ; r:: ., ~ ,U " " 0 ~> u ir ' 111111111 ~Ii III ;" Ii !: I ii ,I' 1 Tlii! il: &~ ~ -: E~~~ ~ L ;i~~ < 'NOW1/S"""".a\'"",,-..,""<'_""""'" ""-"'1"""-"""1" -., - """ -re... ""'" ~ z ~ '" u ~ Q .~ , \-, Q ~ ~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ '" ~ u ~ Q .~ , \-, Q ~ ~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,. Q ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~~ ~ ;l ~ " ~ ~::l :i z z " ~ " ~~ 0 ~ ~o ",00 00 0 '" .~~ ;l ~~ ~ '" I" .~ .~ .~ !;it; ~ ~ ~ , <'" '" u " , ,'~ , uu u S ~z z ~ ;., ;., ':..r~ 'N "'0 0 , ~u u Z~ '!:1 t;u ~" ~E: O~ ~~ ~::1 Uu ~Z "'0 ~u Agenda It ~ 00 Janu' ,2 08 Pa f 19 []~l I !~ :! ~ ... '" .. ~ . c ~<<! ~'" =~ ~5 !~ ~~ a;~; h j 'il " aJ " " ,'M 0 ~o.. " " ;; i+' ~ .""'" " "'M ~ :,.0 " j u h 0 h " v 0'0 " ! ~ I ." ~('ij " ~ ~> 0 z 0 ~ .~ Q Q Q Q ~ ~ ~ ~ , Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ruj::~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ "<z '" "' "'~ 0;< ~~ ~~ , ~:;: ~< ~~ ~~ ~w ~~ 'r....g "'~ ",00 "'~ "'~ --~@ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ "~~ ~~ ~~ ~::1 ~~ 'o(gZij <'" <~ <~ uu uu uu UU .1 ~2!l ~z ~z ~z ~z ~o ~o "'0 ~o ~~~ ~u ~u ~u ~u ,."""-""""-or-"'..._I___"'-LO\_.''''''\".".,,,-,,''''.,,....]/''' ~._,-- :~-~~.~.~ ____ r~ c: ~:~ij :crr,.,j~T ': I, ::,' ~I "".j <;: ,'1 ~~ . ~ ; ~I . g . . ~. ~ . ~ .9,Z .O,r: I 'I ' ::[ i I I I ~~~~ Agenda It m N. 00 ~u y"T5 ,2 08 1'a 34 Of 19 S []"i · Ji [::; ~ Ji L/"J ...... ...... ...... z o t o ---~-} B ~- .-~=~=] ~ UJ U ...... .LL.. LL.. o UJ Vl ~ ,~ Vl Z ~ I- o UJ Vl o a.. o ~ a.. 0- i;~ .I~ ~~ ~ .0,ZI ~u- """""""_..L<R'-III.."_..._._........."..'-tlIl.."'_......',.. .1. ~ !I U=-J - -=-=-] =====] =====-1 ,'iff:. ,I , , r"""-t-"" -1~'H- ====J .';':r~~-~~-~- ------j " , ~ ~-,~ ---:"--,-...,.-~ 0,8'" ~~ ~5 ~~ ~~ "i'illi ;: ~ ~ ~ '0 " OJ .~ , ,..... 0 ~p, " " , S+' ~ orl ~ "' '.... to ~ ) : ~ 0 ~ OJ u "'(I , ! ~ I ~ ~rU " " 0 ~> u r , 11110 . , ~ ; I II ~ i i I' " I ! iFli!!! iL ll!; "",-,(J{JZ''''...'''", Agenda Item No. 10D January 15, 2008 Page 35 of 119 APPENDIX A V ANDERBILT PIER PRE-PERMIT APPLICATION MEETING Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 36 of 119 Conference Report Date: Location: Subject: July 6, 2007 FDEP Conference Room, Tallahassee, FL Vanderbilt Pier Pre-Application Meeting Participants: FDEP: Martin Seeling, Jamie Christoff, Ralph Clark Collier County: Gary McAlpin CPE: Steve Keehn The FDEP indicated that the following issues need to be addressed during the permit process. The County is considering dividing the pier into fishing and observation zone, and has not yet decided on.an entrance fee, The latter may impact whether the State sovereign lands lease has an annual fee. The deciding point is between whether fees are revenue generating or just for maintenance, County will prepare an operations plan. Lighting will need to conform to sea turtle guidelines. A shading analysis of the Gulfbottom is required. The design and permit application must address sinks, garbage and water disposal, along with other utilities. Fish cleaning may create BOD impacts. Fish carcasses can harm feeding birds. Disposal by grinding, downfall pipeline below water level or other methods should be identified. Trash collection, monofilament recycling and other matters addressed. Address construction debris. Pier construction not prohibited over hardbottom habitat, but agency will look at impacts -avoid, minimize, mitigate. Annual clean-up around pier reduces impacts. The bottom will be videoed before and after construction. Secondary impacts due to fishing and construction must be considered. Annual clean-up part of plan, Shading will affect algal and stony corals. Relocation of colonies may need to be considered, but a reeffor mitigation is not required, Ralph Clark has a list of calculations needed (attached). The lease required by the State for a pier is addressed in Rule 1821. All structures on pier (seaward of ECL) must be water dependent, i.e. no casino/gift shops/restaurants, Bait shops are marginally acceptable. A legal survey will be required, with names and addresses of owners within 1,000 feet. The State design criteria for the pier is the 20 year storm and Florida building codes. Address design forces and structural design/uplift forces. Goal I-year completion time. State lease must be signed and returned to FDEP before a NTP is issued, County must specify whether they want short or long term lease. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Agenda Item No. 10D January 15, 2008 Page 37 of 119 The County will need to coordinate with FWS, NMFS, FWC, FWRI, Vladimir from FDEP and Office of Aquatic Preserves, Leslie Greg may be the POC from FWC. Address disposal ofbio four/BOD material. position concession on north side, so prevailing winds are at their back. Permit application must address affects on shoreline caused by pier. Does it impact hardbottom? Plan must include methods to recover injured birds/mammals/pelicans. Spill and emergency response plan (sewage) needed. May have to address impervious surface and storm water impacts - how disposed. Pier will be suitable for forklift, golf carts or other light vehicles for servicing and emergencies. Local building permits. ENCL . FDEP memo December 29,2006 Subject: Panama City Pier - Design Computations . Standard Pier Permit Conditions from FDEP p:\cDllier\8500.4 7\conference report COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Steve Keehn Agenda IRaglN~aIOl:> January 15, 2008 Page 38 of 119 From: McAlpinGary [GaryMcAlpin@colliergov.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:29 AM To: Steve Keehn Cc: Bridgebbd@aol.com; ramsey-m Subject: RE: Vanderbilt Beach Pier location Steve, Thank you. Before we set the location, we will need to look at the required elevation and access to that pier elevation by the public. Tied in will also be the proposed restroom rebuild and location of the EeL. I would like to keep the restrooms east of the ECl if possible but at the same elevation as the pier accessible with ramps from Gulf Shore drive. I believe that the county owns 340 ft of access between R29+000 on the north to R29+340 to the south. A survey can confirm the points. I took them off GIS. Additionally, some other thoughts: . The pier should be between 950 and 1,000 feet long with a Tee at the end. What are your thoughts on the length of the Tee? . Width of the pier should accommodate emergency vehicles. - . Open Air Gazebo's for shade and to encourage sitting. One at the end for sure. The Naples pier has two and I don't want to appear to be copying their design so, we are open for suggestions for the other locations. . Water available on the pier at various locations. . We want to encourage sitting and enjoying the sunset and want portions of the pier off limit for fishing. . Benches along both sides of the pier and in the Gazebo areas. . Commissioner Halas wants to have 3 foot extension on the side of the pier for fishing. My thoughts are that they might be 3'X8' spaced along the outside. . The restroom facility should also include a small shop, a bait sales area, a snack bar and an area to sell drinks, along with a manager's office. . All lighting needs to be turtle friendly with shields Height, public access and the location of the ECl will determine the layout. let's start working on some rough concepts now. I would like to have some concept sketches to share with key individuals when the Board gets back in session in early September. That means that want to have worked it with my management prior to the fact. Gary From: Steve Keehn [mailto:Skeehn@coastalplanning.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 8:4S AM To: McAlpinGary Cc: Bridgebbd@aol.com Subject: Vanderbiit Beach Pier location Attached is a pdf drawing of the proposed pier location for your use. Srepften:KeJm. PE Senior Coastal Engineer Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. 2481 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Boca Raton, FI 33431 Phone 561-391-8102 (Fax 9116) Mobile 561-441-5499 skeehn@coastalplanning.net 7/17/2007 Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 39 of 119 Telephone Conference Report Date: June 27, 2007 Participants: Gary McAlpin, Steve Keehn Subject: Vanderbilt Pier Guidance . FDEP Meeting scheduled for July 10'h (6'\ The following guidance was provided by Gary on the pier: . The County wants pier length similar to Naples. A 500' pier is unacceptable. . Restroom needs to be rebuilt to FEMA standards -19 feet above MHW. . The pier deck should have a gazebo at Gulf end and center, with a little T-section on the end. . A 20 foot wide pier with fishing nook (3'xu') every 50 feet is desired. . The pier deck should have room and rated for emergency vehicle for the length of the pier. . Consider a refreshment standlbait shop with appropriate facilitates at end of pier. . Benches will be placed along pier. . Design transition to beach access and parking garage. . Possible topics: Lighting 24 Hour Operations Public Benefit Species Relocation p:\collier\RS00.47\telephone conference report COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 40 of 119 Telephone Conference Report Date: July 17, 2007 Participants: Gary McAlpin, Collier County Subject: Vanderbilt Pier I. Locate restrooms and bar on pier landward of ECL with bait shop, snack bar and manager's office. 2. Turn key design, Coastal, structural and arch details. 3. Friday - Definition Design - Build 4. Looking for layout - rendering. 5. Reef and hardbottom - concerns from agencies. Get any controversy out now. 6. Gazebo at end and middle of pier. Benches at strategic locations. 7. Elevations beach/pier. 8. Similar to Juno Pier. p:\collier\8500.47\telephone conference report 7-19-07 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Agendl?l~ 100 January 15. 2008 Page 41 of 119 Clark, Ralph From: Clark, Ralph Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 11: 19 AM To: 'Dave Hemphill' Cc: Christoff, Jamie; Seeling, Martin; Brantly, Robert Subject: Panama City Pier - Design Computations Dave: Per our discussions, the following additional information is what I will be requesting during our engineering review of the Panama City Pier application for a Joint Coastal Permit. The JCP application does not explicitly slate this information, and this design information will be necessary for a coastal engineering and structural review of the structure in order to determine design adequacy for a 20-year storm event, which is the Department's standard for ocean piers. During my initial review of the application, I may raise addttional questions based upon the information submitted, but I wanted to let you know up front that I will need the following design computations. \. Design wave height computations. 2. Design wave load computations. 3. Structural design computations using the design wave loads. 4. Design erosion and scour computations for profile changes due to a 20-year storm event. 5. Geotechnical analysis. 6. Pile tip elevations (not shown in the preliminary plans you provided me). 7. Computations for pile breakout resistance and design of pile tip elevations showing connectivity to the storm tide, wave loads, and soil conditions. Should you have any questions, please let me know. Ralph Clark 7/6/2007 Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15. 2008 Page 42 of 119 STANDARD PIER PERMIT CONDITIONS (1) The following standard permit conditions shall apply to this permit unless waived by the Department or modified by special permit condition: In the event of a conflict between a standard condition and a special condition the special condition shall prevail. (a) The permittee shall carry out the construction or activity for which the permit was granted in accordance with the plans and specifications which were approved by the Department as part of the permit. Any deviation therefrom, without written approval from the Bureau, shall be grounds for suspension of the work and revocation of the permit pursuant to Section 120.60(7), Florida Statutes, and may result in assessment of civil fines or issuance of an order to alter or remove the unauthorized structure, or both. No other construction or activities shall be conducted. No modifications to project size, location, or structural design are authorized without prior written approval from the Department. A copy of the permit, notice to proceed, approved plans, any modifications, time extensions, or permit transfers shall be conspicuously displayed at the project site. (b) The pemlittee shall conduct the construction or activity authorized under the permit using extreme care to prevent any adverse impacts to the beach and dune system, marine turtles, nests and their habitat or adjacent property and structures. (c) The permittee shall allow any duly authorized member of the staff to enter upon the premises associated with the project authorized by the permit for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the terms of the permit and with the rules of the Department, until all construction or activities .authorized or required in the permit have been completed, and all reports, certifications, or other documentation ofproject performance are received and accepted by the Department. (d) The permittee shall hold and save the State of Florida'; the Department, its officers and employees, harmless from any damage, no matter how occasioned and no matter what the amount, to persons or property which might result from the construction or activity authorized under the permit and from any and all claims and judgements resulting from such damage. ' (e) The permittee shall allow the Department to use all records, notes, monitoring data and other information relating to construction or any activity under the permit, which are submitted, for any purpose it may deem necessary or convenient, except where such use is otherwise specifically forbidden by law. (f) The pennittee shall not disturb existing beach and dune topography and vegetation except as expressly authorized in the permit. Before the project is considered complete, any disturbed topography or vegetation shall be restored as prescribed in the permit, with suitable fill material or revegetated with appropriate beach and dune vegetation. (g) All fill material placed seaward of the control line shall be sand which is similar to that already existing on the site in both coloration and grain size, All such fill material sh3ll.be free of construction debris, rocks, clay, or other foreign matter, shall be obtained from a source landward of the coastal construction control line or from a source authorized' pursuant to Section 161.041, Florida Statutes and shall, in general, not contain greater than 5 percent fines (passing the #200 sieve) or gravel exclusive of shell material (retained by the #4 sieve) and be free of coarse gravel or cobbles. . (h) If surplus sand fill results from any approved excavation ~,eaward of the control line, such material shall be distributed seaward of the control line on the site, as directed by the Bureau staff, unless otherwise specifically authorized by the permit. (i) Any nati ve salt resistant vegetation destroyed during construction shall be replaced with plants of the same species or, by authorization of the Bureau, with other native ~.alt-resistant vegetation suitable for beach and Agenda Item No. 10D January 15, 2008 Page 43 of 119 June stabilization. Unless otherwise specifically authorized by the staff, all plants installed in beach and coastal areas - whether to replace vegetation displaced, damaged, or destroyed during construction or otherwise - shall be of species indigenous to Florida beaches and dunes, such as sea oats, sea grape, saw palmetto, panic grass, saltrneadow hay cordgrass, seashore salt grass, and railroad vine. . G) All topographic restoration and revegetation work is subject to approval and acceptance by the Department staff; and the status of restoration shall be reported as part of the final certification of the actual work performed. ,; (k) This permit has been issued to a specified property owner and is not valid for any other person unless' formally transferred, . An applicant requesting transfer of a permit shall sign two copies of the permit transfer agreement form, agreeing to comply with all terms and conditions of the permit, and return both copies to the Bureau. No work may proceed under the permit until a copy of the transfer agreement approved by the Department has been received by the new owner, A copy of the transfer agreement shall be displayed on the construction site along with the permit. An expired permit may not be transferred. (I) The permittee shall immediately inform the Bureau of any change of mailing address of the permittee and authorized agent until all requirements of the permit are met. (m) The permittee shall provide periodic progress reports certified by an engineer or architect (as appropriate due to the nature of the project) registered in the State of Florida on the form "Periodic Report" - DEP Form 73-111 (Revised 1-85) to the Bureau. The reports shall be submitted on a monthly basis beginning at the start of construction and continuing until all work has been completed. The engineer or architect shall certify that all construction as of the date of each rcport has been performed in'compliance.with the plans and the project description approvcdas a part of the permit, and with all condition~ of the permit; or shall specify any deviation from the plans, projectdescriptioh or conditions ofthepcrmit. The report shall. also state the percent of completion of the project and each major individual component. (n) All construction on the permitted structure shall stop when the foundation pilings have been installed: At that time the pennittee shall provide a certification by a professional land surveyor registered pursuant to Chapter 472, Florida Statutes, that all aspects of the location, and all elevations of the foundation construction are in accordance with both the plans and the project description approved by the Department of Environmental Protectiori as part of the permit. This certification shall be on a form "Foundation Location Certification" "DEP Form 73-114 (Revised 1-85), hereby incorporated by reference and attached hereto. The foundation location certification shall be based upon such surveys performed in accordance with Chapter 4 n,Florida Statutes, as are necessary to determine the actual elevations, configuration, and the dimensioned relationship of the installed pilings to the control line. This certification shall also specify the actual pile tip and pile head elcvations and any grade beam or cap elevations. Any deviation from, the foundation location and elevations as permitted shall be ciearlynoted and described in detail as part of the certification. Construction shall stop and the certification shall be submitted and accepted prior to proceeding with further vertical construction. The BUreau shall notify the permittee of approval or rejection of the certification within fourteen (14) working days after staff receipt of the certification. All survey information upon which the certification is based shall be made available to the Bureau upon request (0) The permittee shall provide the Department with a final report certified by an engineer oiarchitect registered in the State of Florida within thirty (30) days following completion ofthe work. This certification shall state that: all locations and elevations specified by the permit have been verified; that all major structures are specifically constructed in ac.cordance wi th Section 62B-33 .007(5), Florida Administrative Code; other construction and activities authorized by the permit have been performed in compliance with the plans and project description' approved as a part of the pcnnit, and all conditionsofthe permit; or snail describe any deviations from the approved '.plans, project description or permit conditions and any work not performed. Such certification shall not relieve the . permittee of the provisions of (I )(a) above. Ifnone ofthe permitted' work is petfonned, the permittee shall inform . Agenda Item No, 100 ' January 15, 2008 Page 44 of 119 the Department in writing no later than 30 days following expiration of the permit. The final certification shall be on the form "Final Certification" DEP Form 73-115B (Revised 1-85). (2) The permittee agrees to provide free access on or about tlje pier to department employees for the purpose of conducting observations or data acquisition., Sufficient space, shall be provided for the installation and maintenance of scientific instrumentation such asthose used to recorq tides, waves, sediment, temperature, turbidity, water quality, meteorology, hydrology, and hydrographics.' , (3) The permittee agrees to allow bureau staff engineers acce~s immediately following major storm events to evaluate any structural damage and/or beach and coastal erosion cO!lditions. , ,. . General:Copies~f any forms referenced above may b6: obtained by writing to the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and. Wetland ResO\lrces, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 3] 0,Tallahassee,.Florida32399, orby telephoning (850)487~4475. 18-21 : SOVEREIGNTY SUBMERGED LANDS MANAGEMENT - eRulemaking -~kra i\'~~b.ofOO January 15, 2008 Rule Chapter: 18-21 Chapter Title: SOVEREIGNTY SUBMERGED LANDS MANAGEMENT ~ e.Q~rg_QtTr.\.I...ste.es....QLlot.emaLlmQrQv~m-.ent.I[I,lstiJ.!Dd 17Q!:J;>.nmODlill 18~21 : SOVEREIGNTY SUBMERGED LANDS MANAGEMENT ...--...-----..-' ,----,---_._----,.._-,..._."'.-.,~.-'_.'..,-._.......,-'.,_._--_._..__._..,..,..._-,-~._---_..._-~--._.._._._- Proposed rules open for pubHc comment: 0 Index of Rules Filed During Preceding Week: 0 List of Rules Affected (Section XIV): 0 Recent Activities Since 14/20/2007 (90d'y,) ,. Rule version!> that became effective: 0 Recent F.A.W. Notices: .2. ,. AddtQ"F1WJJrlte Meeting and Hearing notices published: 1__ Rule Proposals publlshed-; 0 Click on the rule number to see the detail of the rule. Press Ctrl-f to search by text. Rule No Rule Title 11.l:.:4_L.ctQL Intent 1..8-:.:4.1.QO;t Scope and Effective Date l.a-:2J-,-QQJ Definitions 1.6:::?J_,Q_Q4.. Management policies, Standards, and Criteria 18:21.004Ql Addi~jOnal Requirements and Procedures for Concurrent Review of Related -- -- - ----- - Applications 18-21 00405 Grandfather Provisions 18~21 0041 FlorIda Keys Marina and Dock Siting Pollcles and Criteria 1,R-21.005 Forms of Authorizatlon 111-21 0051 Delegation of Authority le_~_ZLQ.o_Sp__ Procedures for the Review of Applications to Conduct GeophYSical Testing la.~.2_LQ_Q7__ Applications for Letter of Consent l!i:21,Q.Qz?_ Applications for Use Agreements lJt~.41--,Q.Q_8___ Applications for Lease 1.6_-=_2_LQ_U&.L Grandfather Structure Applications 18-21.0082 Applications for Special Event Authorizations 1B-21009.... ApplicatIons for Public Easement 1B~21 010 Applications for Private Easement 1 B-21 011 Payments and Fees 18~21.012 Spoil Islands https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ChapterHome.asp?Chapter= 18-21 Latest Effective Version Date D 3/27/1982 D 3/15/1990 Cl 1/1/2006 Cl 10/27/2005 D 10/12/1995 D 3/15/1990 D 2/25/1985 CJ 3/8/2004 D 10/27/2005 U 1/25/19B7 U 12/11/2001 D 1/25/1987 Cl 8/10/2005 I) 8/10/2005 [) 10/15/1998 [) 8/10/2005 D 8/10/2005 Cl 1/1/2006 Cl 3/27/1982 7/19/2007 Agenda Item No. 100 January 15, 2008 Page 46 of 119 APPENDIX B REQUEST FOR COMMENT VANDERBILT BEACH, FLORIDA PIER FEASIBILITY STUDY AND NOAA NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICES (NMFS) E-MAIL RESPONSE DATED AUGUST 31, 2007 Agenda ~~o{G\J January 15, 2008 Page 47 of 119 Steve Keehn From: Sent: To: Mark Sramek [Mark.Sramek@noaa.gov] Friday, August 31, 2007 8:55 AM Steve Keehn Cc: Mike Nowicki Subject: [Fwd: Request for Comment - Vanderbilt Beach, FI Pier Feasibility Study] Attachments: PRELIMINARY PLAN VIEWpdf Dear Mr. Keehn: NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Southeast Region, Habitat Conservation Division, has reviewed your August 30, 2007, electronic mail (e-mail) message and project aerial plan view concerning the construction of a pier in the Gulf of Mexico, in Collier County, Florida. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Incorporated, is prcparing a feasibility report which would include the design and anticipated environmental impacts from the project. The proposcd pier would be similar to the existing Naples Pier and would extend approximately 950 feet into the Gulf of Mexico. Approximately 400 feet of the structure would be constructed over marine hardllive bottom habitats. Your c-mail is requesting our agency's comments concerning natural resources occurring in the project area that are within NMFS management responsibilities. Marine habitats in the project area are designated as essential fish habitat (EFH) as identified in the 2005 generic amendment of the Fishcry Management Plans for the Gulf of Mexico. The gcneric amendment was prcpared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Managemcnt Council as required by the 1996 amendment to the Magnuson-Stevcns Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The proposed project would require authorization from thc Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District Regulatory Division. Fcderal agencics that permit activities potentially impacting EFH are required to consult with NMFS and, as a part of the consultation process, prepare an EFH assessment. Regulations require that EFH assessments include: I. A description of the proposed action; 2. An analysis of the effects (including cumulative effects) of the proposcd action on EFH, the managed fish species, and major prcy specles; 3. The Fcdcral agency's views rcgarding the effects of the action on EFH; and, 4. Proposed mitigation, if applicable. EFH consultation should be initiated as soon as specific project design and construction impact information are available. EFH consultation can be initiated independent of other project review tasks or can bc incorporated in cnvironmcntal planning documents. Upon review of the EFH assessmcnt, NMFS will determinc if it is necessary to provide EFH conservation recommendations on the project. Finally, the project area is within the known distribution limits of a federally listed threatened species under purview ofNMFS. In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, it is your responsibility to review this proposal and identify actions that may affect endangered or threatened species. Determinations involving listed species should be reported to our Protected Resources Division 12/17/2007 Agenda n~ofGb January 15, 2008 Page 48 of 119 at the letterhead address, If it is detcrmined that thc activitics may adversely affect any species listed as endangered or threatened under Protected Resources Division purview, formal consultation must be initiated. Thank you for consideration of these comments. If you have additional questions regarding preparation of an EFH assessment for this project, please contact me by telephone at (727) 824-5311, or replying to this e-mail mcssage. ___m__ Original Message mum Subject:FW: Request for Comment - Vanderbilt Beach, Fl Pier Feasibility Study Date:Tue, 28 Aug 200716:46:50 -0400 From: Steve Keehn <Skecl1n@coastaIRlanning.net> To:M;!rk.Sramek@nQaa.gov Subject: Request for Comment - Vanderbilt Beach, FI Pier Feasibility Study Collier County is planning a new Gulf of Mexico pier at VanderbiJt Beach, Florida. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. is preparing a feasibility report to develop the design, permitting, environmental, scheduling and cost aspects of the project need permit, design and build the pier. The report will be a decision document for the County. As such, we would appreciate your comments and guidance addressing the environmental and permitting issues important to your specific agency. In particular, we need to identify the type field investigations, biological reports & studies and environmental documents required to address critical resources and permitting. The site is located 8 mile north of Naples Florida on the southwest Florida coast. The proposed pier would be similar in size to the Naples' pier, extending approximately 950 feet from the shoreline into the Gulf of Mexico, The pier project will extend approximately 400 feet over the nearshore hardbottom habitat region. A preliminary pier alignment is shown on the attached drawing. AT-section is proposed at the seaward end, sited within a suspected sand patch. The County has selected this specific location as it provides the best beach access to residents and visitors who do not live near the beach. The access point at the end of Vanderbilt Blvd (vicinity of FDEP monument R-29) is the only locally controlled public access point within the beach area located between Wiggins Pass and Clam Pass, and it services a county area extending almost 20 miles inland. The access point has ample public parking. The cunent investigation is rudimentary, sufficient for planning more detailed work for the permitting and design stage. It will be supplement by the existing comprehensive nearshore monitoring program (Collier County Beach Nourishment Project, Environmental Monitoring FDEP Permit No. 0222355- 001-JC 2006 with the latest report dated January 2007). In addition to a previously planned side scan survey, a one day diver investigation of the proposed pier alignment is planned for this month. The attached map shows the edge of the nearshore habitat region based on this years side scan results. Detailed investigations will be planned once the pier project permitting phase is formally approved by the County, We have already discussed this project with the FDEP Joint Coastal Permitting section. They provided guidance on State lands, turtle lighting, hardbottom habitat shading and impacts, design standards among other permitting and environmental issue. They suggested we coordinate specifically with your agencies on this project, and ask for your guidance. 12/17/2007 Agenda 1t'.!W.%.ofOb January 15, 2008 Page 49 of 119 Please provide any comments or questions to myself or our project senior biologist Chris Makowski (561-391-8102). Please forward this document to the any other environmental profession that may be pertinent to this type of permit action.. Thanks Stepfwt J(.eJm. PE Senior Coastal Engineer Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. 2481 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Boca Raton, F133431 Phone 561-391-8102 (Fax 9116) Mobile 561-441-5499 skeehn@coasta1 RlanniD~.net 12/1 7/2007 Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 50 of 119 APPENDIX C GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION RESULTS 2007 Sidescan Survey Results 2007 Standard Penetration Boring Results (GF A) 2004 Geotechnical Exploration Results from the Vanderbilt Beach Parking Garage (Forge Engineering, Inc.) Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 51 of119 u ;; ~ w ci . z ~ ~ 0 w u: w z " . <5 .!!!:a:: :!! z . w o.w ~ ~g . ~n: ;: ~ .-.... ;; z. ~ .c~ ~ ~i "- . u:~ , :3 ;:!.JgJ 0 'Ow <J D.. ~~;;! ~c 0" ,!! ~ g~i~ ~ 0.", ~ ~:il u f> '0 ~ 0. <J c:( ~u-'"' 0$0:':.. (,)<'4....... e ~ . . ~ - . - . i1l~ N . . . ~ 1 ~ 1 o z 0 ~ "' "' () ~ ~ w 0 () w ~ " () ~ " " () w 11: 11: w ~ :. 0 '< :. '" w m '" " ro z " w 0 '" w 0 0. () 0 z 0 " z ~ " w ~ ~ ~ I I 00 w ro 0 ~ N Z ;: W 0 " w " 0 Z 0 o w " m ~ I ~ 0 Z W " u: 8 [( " w w > " " ~ ~ 118 B z z Q 0 ~ ~ f= i= (3 a is is Z Z '" '" () () "' "' w w o 0 (i) ill ~ M o 0 o 0 N N o z ~ o M ~~~8 ~~1'J8 f-<I)::.i':: ww::>o ~~~i ~~:i'~ ..:8~8 ~~~b Oz<(I ~:S~~ ","-a:~ UlWOll: ~:;:z~ at;;~-~ ~ 'Z;OllJ. ~ 8",~~ o ~~~~ GFA INTERNATIONAL REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PROPOSED PIER WEST END OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD NAPLES, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FOR COASTAL PLANNING AND ENGINEERING, INC. OCTOBER 9, 2007 Agenda Item No. 100 January 15, 2008 Page 52 of 119 Gffi Agenda Item No.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 53 of 119 October 9, 2007 Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. Attention: Mr. Steve Keehn 2481 NW Boca Raton Boulevard Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Phone: (561) 391-8102 Fax: (561) 391-9116 Reference: Proposed Vanderbilt Beach Pier West End of Vanderbilt Beach Road Collier County, Florida GFA Project No. 07-0667 Dear Mr. Keehn: GFA has completed the subsurface exploration for the above-referenced project in accordance with the geotechnical investigation services agreement for this proiect. The scope of services was completed in accordance with our geotechnical proposal (P-07-0296.geo). The purpose of our subsurface exploration was to classify the nature of the subsurface soils and general geomorphic conditions. This report contains the results of our subsurface exploration for the project to date. It is our understanding that the proposed project will consist of new pier construction. No preliminary site plans, construction details, or structural loads are available at this time. A total of one (1) standard penetration test (SPT) boring to a depth of approximately 75 feet below ground surface (BGS) was completed for this study. The boring was located at the west end of Vanderbilt Beach Road, at the south side of the roundabout, in Naples, Collier County, FL, according to site sketch delivered to GFA by the client. Please see Appendix 0: "Record of Test Borings" for a detailed description of the conditions found in the boring. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project and look forward to a continued association. Please do not hesitate to contact us If you have any questions or comments, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed. Respectfully Submitted, GFA INTERNATIONAL Florida Certificate of Authorization Number 4930 ~A---?~~- ~z..e-//o,i hristopherJ. PacittQ. P.E. 7'f7 Profession'll Engineer #59445 State of Flor'ida I ,.' ".-"., (~/'I ;;:,~,,~ / / /"/--)-----' I ..' . '.- Chris New, E.!. Senior Staff Engineer Copies: 3, Addressee Environmental Geotechnical Structural Design ConBlruclion Materials Testing Thre6hold and SpeclallnsPtctions GlIlfCorurOffit'l' 5851 CVlInlry L.lkc~ Dr. Fori MyCl'1;, FI.J)lJ05 (239)41!9.244J (2J9)4R9-34311 Fax (:orpllrolt' Office 442 N.W. 35th Strcct BncnRlIloll.. FL3343! (561) :l4 7~0070 (.~61) 341-081)1} FilX TrCR:'lllreCOIt$IOfficl' 7K~2S.W.EllispcWilY Slnilr1. FL.l'1997 (772) 4&9-99K9 (772) 4S9.29XIJ I:ax OrllllldDOmee 96S9Trndcport Dr. Orlando. FL 32R27 (407} 447-98(15 (407) 447.9116& ('ax Agenda Item No. 10D January 15, 2008 Page 54 of 119 Proposed Pier West End of Vanderbilt Beach Road Naples. Collier County, Florida GFA Project No. 07-0667 Brief Geotechnical Report October 9. 2007 Pege 2 of 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION. ..........",.....,........... ....... .......... ............................. ........... .............. ........... 3 1.1 scope of Services ........................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Project Description ....................................,.....................................................................3 2.0 OBSERVATIONS.................................................................. ............ .......................... ........ 3 2.1 Site Inspection.......,.. ..........."..................., ".................................................................... 3 2.2 Field Exploration ........................................,.................".............,................................... 3 2.3 Laboratory Analysis........... ................................................................. .,.,....... .........,........ 4 2.4 Geomorphic Conditions..... ............, ...... ........ ................,..............,......,................., .......... 4 2.5 Hydrogeological Conditions.. .......... ..... ...................... ................... ............,........... ........... 4 3.0 REPORT L1M ITA TIONS....... ...... ................................................................... ...................... 5 4.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS........................,...............................................,.......... 5 Appendix A - Vicinity Map Appendix B - Test Location Plan Appendix C - Legend of Test Symbols & Notes Related to Boring Appendix D - Record of Test Boring Appendix E - Discussion of Soil Groups Appendix F - Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report by ASFE Gffi Agenda Item No. 10D January 15, 2008 Page 55 of 119 Proposed Pier West End of Vanderbilt Beaoh Road Naples, Collier County, Florida GFA Project No. 07-0667 BriefGeorechn~alReport Ootob9r 9, 2007 Page 30f5 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Scope of Services The objective of our geotechnical services was to collect subsurface data for the subject project, summarize the test results, and discuss any apparent site conditions that may have geotechnical significance for building construction. The following scope of services are provided within this report: 1. Prepare records of the soil boring logs depicting the subsurface soil conditions encountered during our field exploration. 2, Conduct a review of each soil sample obtained during our field exploration for classification and additional testing if necessary. 1.2 Project Descrl ption It is our understanding that the proposed project will consist of new pier construction. No preliminary site plans, construction details, or structural loads are available at this time. 2.0 OBSERVATIONS 2.1 Site Inspection The recovered samples were not examined. either visually or analytically, for chemical composition or environmental hazards. GFA would be pleased to perform these services for an additional fee, if required. 2.2 Field Exploration A total of one (1) standard penetration test (SPT) boring to depth of approximately 75 feet below ground surface (BGS) was completed for this study. The location of the boring performed is illustrated in Appendix B: "Test Location Plan". The SPT boring method was used as the investigative tool within the boring. Penetration tests were performed in substantial accordance with ASTM Procedure D-1586, "Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils". This tesl procedure consists of driving a 1.4-inch 1.0. 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-lnch increment, is an indication of soil strength. G~ Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 56 of 119 Proposed Pier West End of Vanderbilt Beach Road Naples, Collier County, Florida GFA Project No. 07-0667 Brief Geotechnical Report October 9, 2007 Page 4 0(5 The soil samples recovered from the soil boring were visually classified and their stratification is illustrated in Appendix 0: "Record of Test Boring". It should be noted that soil conditions might vary between the strata interfaces, which are shown. The soil boring data reflect information from a specific test location only. Site specific survey staking for the test locations was not provided for our 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 confined to the zone of soli likely to be stressed by the proposed construction and knowledge of vicinity soils. 2.3 Laboratory Analysis Soil samples recovered from our field exploration were returned to our laboratory where they were visually examined in general accordance with ASTM 0-2488. Samples were evaluated to obtain an accurate understanding of the soil properties and site geomorphic conditions. After a thorough visual examination of the recovered site soils, no laboratory tests were deemed neccessary. Bag samples of the soil encountered during our field exploration will be held in our laboratory for your inspection for 30 days and then discarded unless we are notified otherwise in writing. 2.4 Geomorphic Conditions The boring logs derived from our field exploration are presented In Appendix 0: "Record of Test Borings". The boring log depicts the observed soils in graphic detail. The Standard Penetration Test boring indicates the penetration resistance, or N-values logged during the drilling and sampling activities. The classifications and descriptions shown on the log is 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 our field exploration, the groundwater table was encountered at depths of approximately 1.5 feet below the existing ground surface. The groundwater table will fluctuate seasonaily depending upon local rainfall and other site specific and/or local influences. Brief ponding of stormwater may occur across the site after heavy rains. No additional investigation was Included in our 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 our office for additional guidance. G~ Agenda Item No. 10D January 15, 2008 Page 57 of 119 Proposed Pier West End of Vanderbilt Beach Road Naples, Collier County, Florida GFA Project No. 07-0667 BfrefGeorechmcalRep~t October 9, 2007 Page 50f5 3.0 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 Pier at the west end of Vanderbilt Beach road in Naples, 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 construction. If variations then appear evident, it may be necessary to reevaluate infonmation and professionai opinions as provided in this report. In the event changes are made in the nature, design, or locations of the proposed structure, the evaluation and opinions contained in this report shall not be considered valid, unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions modified or verified in writing by GFA International. Please also find in AppendiX F a supplement by the American Society of Foundation Engineers (AS FE) that is entitled "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report". The supplement will help explain further limitations of geotechnical reports, the nature of geotechnical issues and Information concerning the management of your geotechnical risks. 4.0 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 any other borings. While the boring is representative of the subsurface conditions at its respective location and for its 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 soli log is approximate and the description represents our interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the designated boring locations on the particular date drilled. Any third party reliance of our geotechnical report or parts thereof is strictly prohibited without the expressed written consent of GFA International. The methodology (ASTM 0-1586) used in performing our borings and for determining penetration resistance is specific to the sampling tools utilized and does not reflect the ease or difficulty to advance other tools or materials. Gffi Agenda Item No. 10D January 15, 2008 Page 58 of 119 Appendix A . Vicinity Map Gffi Vicinity Map Agenda Item NO.1 OD January 15, 2008 Page 59 of 119 Proposed Pier West End of Vanderbilt Beacl1 Rd. Naples, Collier County Florida , '. o " , N w<t)E S ~, ~ :> ili' J(l'li~_' i 2. -'IO'i-n I 2 .1./1 :'. :z }t~\ '" ~.....lll _l~_V .~~..'~::~~f~~.;~:,:. '.' ;"Col\~eiii'A,,~' 1 09ih AVe N lOSth Avo:; N 91 "._._w_,_.__"_ ':T l06th A"'~ N", . - ItlSth AveN % . l04th Ave N 103rd Ave N ..., "9- l<:! % '" - .:=r .", - % ., I i -~ ~ ~ i, " '.' /'j ":'e );j),",~ -' - ,"" .~. .,.~\t'll ,~:: ! i i "Naple$ Park I v '-'i-"-'''''''''-'- Ja\'t'.C1!~ ~()\\'-' .:5 .VaTlderblJt Be . ~ '. -_>'!<;hRd "" . ;:-1':5 ,,", 2 . g,}: g 'r-' '< ::;:I ~ ~ ..::' 15 e. ;; iI'. "" '" \!) .Scale Is an approximation and may not be accurate. ;;, i ~::.:'1 ~. '" .. ~ i:-;" '2 '....1 .. ',I' :~:,'" ' :'-',::':,' "'::'-" ,-,.,'-...., -,.' --:"""--"':''"'.' i:,;::,':.?':i;,'_ lJav,c,ll.c..I>Y Golf CliJlt "\: . b "" ~ .1 a W~d D~ck Trl ;;':"k '. ~?6;',,-::-, .fjiik,;';';;/l.'d'" .>1.," '/ -",. .(,jo .,....1'" If' 10 Pc' ~J" a' . Agenda Item NO.1 OD January 15, 2008 Page 50 of 119 Appendix B - Test Location Plan Gffi Agenda Item No. 100 January 15. 2008 Page 61 of 119 Test Location Plan Proposed Pier West End of Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Naples, Collier County Florida N W~E S '\ .. 'Scale is an approximation and may not be accurate. Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 62 of 119 Appendix C . Legend of Test Symbols & Notes Related to Boring Gffi Agenda Item No, 100 January 15. 2008 Page 63 of 119 II Symbol KEY TO SYMBOLS Description !?j:;:;:~,te,,__~~ol.s In.\ [0..",.:.:, mllllJI F.!&~'~;':;~~l "'//2 .hri-~ Sand (SP) Silt (Mr.) weathered limestone (WLS) ~:L.s_s_ll~~,l!!. -y_. water table at boring completion ..J\,_ Boring continues ~oil.l?~.p1",,,,_~ prj Standard penetration test ~c:>j:..",~.:_ 1. Boring locations were estimated from existing features. 2. These logs are subject to the limitations, conclusions, and recommendations in this report. 3. Results of tests conducted on samples recovered are reported .em the logs. - ~.,.-=...;:::=:-== Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 64 of 119 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 in the field by offsetting from existing reference marks and using a cloth tape and survey wheel. 3. The borehole was backfilled to site grade following boring completion, and 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 soli samples. 5. The Record of Test Boring is subject to the limitations. conclusions and recommendations presented in the Report text. 6. "Field Test Datan shown on the Record of Test Boring IndIcated as 11/6 refers to the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and means 11 hammer blows drove the sampler 6 inches. SPT uses a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. 7. The N~value from the SPT is the sum of the hammer blows required to drive the sampler the second and third 6- inch increments. 8. The soil/rock strata interfaces shown on the Records of Test Boring are approximate and may lIary from those shown. 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. 9. Relative densitv for saods/aravels and consistency for siltsJclavs are described as follows: SPT CPT SANDS/GRAVELS SPT CPT SIL TSICLA YS BLOWS/FOOT KG/CM' RELATIVE DENSITY BLOWS/FOOT KG/CM' CONSISTENCY 0-4 0-16 Verv loose 0-1 0-3 Verv soft 5-10 - 17-40 Loose 2-4 4-9 Soft 11-30 41-120 Medium Dense 5-8 10-17 Firm 31-50 over 120 Dense 9-15 18-31 SUff over 50 Verv Dense 16-30 32-60 Verv stiff 31-50 over 60 Hard 10. Grain size descriotlons are as follows: NAME SI iMITS Boulder 12 Inches or more Cobbles 3 to 12 Inches Coarse Gravel % to 3 Inches Fine Gravel No.4 sieve to ~ inch Coarse Sand No. 10 to No.4 sieve ! Medium Sand No. 40 to No.1 0 sieve 1 Fine Sand No. 200 to No. 40 sleye I Fines Smaller than No. 200 sielle o fi " t" 11. a 10ltl005 re ated to adiectives used in soil rock descriotlons: PROPORTION ADJECTIVE APPROXIMATE ROOT DIAMETER ADJECTIVE Uo to 10% with a trace Less than 1/32" Fine roots 10 to 30% with some 1132" to 1,4" Small roots 30 to 50% with 1/." to 1" Medium roots Greater than 1" Laroe roots Gffi Agenda Item No. 100 January 15, 2008 Page 65 of 119 Appendix 0 . Record of Test Boring Gffi .,~, Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 66 of 119 l RECORD OF TEST BORING pno.mCT/LOCATlON: PROPOSED PIER AT VANDERBILT BEACH, NAPLES. FL PRO.IECT NO: 07-0667 START: 9/24/07 FINISH: 9/24/07 BORING LOCATION: SEE SITE PLAN DRILL: DIETRICH 0-50 DRILL CONTRACTOR: ELEV.: N/A GROUNDWATER: 1.5' BORING METHOD: SPT/MUD ROTARY ELEV.! DEPTH ~O 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-. 1-. 1-6 1-1 1-0 1-9 1-10 1-11 1-12 1-13 1-14 1-15 1-16 1-17 1-111 1-19 L,O 1l001lNG NO: B-1 WEATHER: N/A DRILLER: ROBERT LAINKO GFA INTERNATIONAL DATE CHECKED: 9/24/07 "LUll) LOSS: N/A 5011. SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA OTHER COMPONENTS STANDARD PENETRATION TEST REC. (%, OEPTH N CUR V E 10 30 50 MAJOR SOIL COMPONENT ".:': 3 5 , . light brown to light gray with some shell and a trace of silt. 100 0'-2' 10 .. .. .. . I .X-.._:..:;.;;.:.:.; 91l~107 ..... . ". ~ , , , light gray with some shell. -----. --...-.- -..-- -or -....---- __I_ n.... 12.\t.. 100 2'-4' .........11 . :"'11 I "'1' . --....... ~. ... 100 ~'-6' 12 ,. 1 ,- .. I.. i i.:.. ~ , .. , 100 6',8' 11 '1--" , -.-- . '--.-- - \ -- 1- ..... :: .: 100 8'.10' 14 --.- -- P.... 1-... ..-------...-. j. ......._- I '1/(;,1 ........1 j:::::.':; I; :'.': ~ ~ i .'~ ~ SAND (SP) Very Loose to Medium Dense '- -.... Gray with some shell and a trace of silt. l'''-::- 1". -- '..-- 5 .- l-I..- ... . ---.. - -----.-- ._m. __"I.... -- .. _. ...- ,1-: _'.:: I::: ....,.._ .. .... --......--.....- --- ....1- .....1. ...... I 1.... -- ..."-' 6 -fl---I. --....----- -)-"-- --.... , , :.......... J , 15 13'-t5' v: Ii! 1:\1j j Li\E Gray with traces of Slit. rock and shell. 50 18'-20' SOlI ilml roc" :wmplcs rl'ctlYcrc<! \Ising. ASTM D-15H6 lest Jlmcc(IIIn.;~. GrA INTERNATIONAL ,$, Agenda Item NO.1 OD January 15, 2008 Page 67 of 119 RECORD OF TEST BORING ELEV./ PRo.meT/LOCATION: PROPOSED PIER AT VANDERBILT BEACH, NAPLES. FL DEPTH -" -2:'. -23 f-74 -25 2(; 27 .,. - 29 -:lO -31 . -37 -33 -34 -35 -36 -- 37 -3[1 -39 -40 -4l -11" _. -43 -44 -45 SOIL'SYMBOlS AND FIELD TEST DATA ,')\f"'j :\'(i);~ [d'dl I d.1 tiLi!: ; [..d. 0 t;~,;; "'d.1 ::T"::rl; ." ~!~I' ! ! d I[ .-- 11111! ; [III' ! . I 1111 , I, I' i 1'1 ( I I i 111\ ill I I III ~: I I' , 'II -' 11ft J ill illli! I II I I II ' l l:l il MAJOR SOil COMPONENT I' I SAND (SP) Very Loose to Medium Dense SILT (ML) Very Soft to Firm OTHER COMPONENTS Bit chatter from 20.5' to 21. 5'. Gray with a trace of silt. Bit chatter from 26.5' to 28'. Light gray with sand, clay and a' trace of rock. Lighl gray with sand and a trace of rock. Light gray with sand. GFA INTERNATIONAL BORING NO: B-1 REC. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (%J DEPTH N CUR V E 10 30 50 I 1_ 'd'.., '1"-"-'" -- d.. ~_ _ __." ~'H _.. __ f _.__+_u___. 100 . 23',25' _______n. .--1 . --.. "db_~ 1-"- --..- Id - .~:~::: I ""- T.---..:~~ 5 .~. d _d ! ..- '. . I' -1.... .-~-' Ln__._.o. _.__ .._...... I ___...d__. ____" [---- d_ --... ---..-.-...-...--- 100 28'-30' ...." -- .+--.. - 200 33'-35' 2 _u_ .....\ ............-.-- r--' .. ........--... I I--:::I-,~ I .... ..,_.....ww. ..---.- I i_f.... ..I..n..' 100 I'" 36'--40' 3. ._.u ... ._._._._~.... I i-- 'w"'_ ... ........-...... .--- I....... --.---- !---. --- j--"" ..- . .-- r ...~.~.. ...c..... =~ _____........._ ..._.___1 j.... ..._.._.. _._H'_ ._. I 2 r .........- I'" ..- .---.-.. -.---- __n i ,"_.__.__ .._____ 100 43'~"5' . /~,~~ >-tjIlNA'\O'i' I'IW.JECTfLOCATlON: PROPOSED PIER AT VANDERBILT BEACH, NAPLES, FL REV.! Di:PlH SOIL SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA 4' 47 48 49 '0 51 52 1):1 54 5!:i 56 57 50 5. .0 111 67. 63 84 65 66 -(jl ," I;: " (TI: ,9 5';&'5' I 9/-l'::1l l,::I'rc"'l.. <.\.1';;/::'<:'/ k,. <f~' 6~J "10 Agenda Item NO.1 OD January 15, 2008 Paoe 68 of 119 RECORD OF TEST BORING MAJOR SOil COMPONENT SILT (ML) Very Soft to Firm " " ,., ,., WEATHERED LIMESTONE (WLS) Loose to Very Dense OTHEB COMPONENTS Light brown to green with traces of clay and sand. Tan with some sill. Bit chatter from 57' to 58'. Light gray. Bit chatter from 66' to 68'. GFA INTERNATIONAL BORING NO: B-1 HEC 1%1 DEPTH ST ANDAHD PENETRATION TEST CURVE N '00 48'"50' 100 5:1'.55' 100 58'-60' I 36 50 63'-65' 100 6!r-70' 51 10 30 50 r ... .u_ i L: :_=- ---- I I ,... .----- j..,.. - 3 . r- :f:- I i I , '1-' 7 .l-- .\,. I ... ....1 I L ! i t 12 . ---I ....-------,- . ..-"\ .1- ~~. Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15. 2008 P~n'; R9 of 119 RECORD OF TEST BORING PROJ,"cr/LOCATION: PROPOSED PIER AT VANDERBILT BEACH, NAPLES. FL EL.EV.f DEPTH -71 -77 -"13 I- "I I- 75 .,6 -"/7 -l8 --,9 f--60 f-- 0' rll2 f- 83 I- 04 f--Ob 1-86 - 09 -90 f--91 0'/ 08 SOIL SYMBOLS ANO HELD TEST OA r A ffE.'~fj is:' ;~i'i~ I"" iji'i' ~ 4~ r~; 1t~ w f~1.:~ ,.. 11.;1;//:1'1 16 Ii" MAJOR SOIL COMPONENT OTHER COMPONENTS IlORING NO: B.1 ST ANOAAO PENETRATION TEST nEe. (%1 Dl::PTH N CUR V E 100 73'.75' 10 30 50 _ 1.__.. _.L.._ -I-- I 30 ..1 --~.. - 1 . --............. 1 -.. ... --...... -- ..1..... .. -. .... ..-1.- 1 I . I. .. WEATHERED LIMESTONE (WLS) Loose to Very Dense Light gray. .. ... .-...... I- 92 ..I. .... - 93 ~94 -9ti GFA INTERNATIONAL I.... Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15. 2008 Page 70 of 119 Appendix E . Discussion of Soil Groups Gffi Agenda Item No. 100 January 15, 2008 Page710f119 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-gralned fraction and must not interface with its free-draining characteristics. GP and SP GROUPS. Poorly graded graveis 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 iacking (sometimes called skip-graded, gap-graded or step-graded). This last group often results from borrow plt-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 Land 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 slits, clayey silts or inorganic silts with relatively low plasticity. Also included are loess type soils and rock flours, cL and cHGROUPS. In these groups the symbol C stands for clay, with Land 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. Gffi Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 72 of 119 OL 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. Gffi Agenda Item No. 100 January 15, 2008 Page 73 of 119 Appendix F - Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report by ASFE Gffi Agenda Item NO.1 OD January 15, 2008 Page 74 of 119 Important Information About Your 1- Geotechnical Engineering Report Geotechnical Services Are Perlormed lor Spocillc Purposos, Persolls, and Projects Geotechnical engireels structure their services to meet Ihe specilic nceds 01 their clienls. A geotechnical engineering sludy conducled lor a civil engi- neer may notfulOIl the needs 01 a construction contractor or even anolher civil engineer. Because eech geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotf.chnical engineeting report is lmique, prepared solely lor Ihe clff",1. No one except YOll shonld rely OIl your geolechnical engineering report without Orsl conlerring wilh the geotechnical engineer who prepared il. Alld 110 olle - not even you - should apply Ihe reporl lor any purpose or project exceplll1e OIle originally contemplallld. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because thOse relying on a geoteChnical enQineering report did not read il all. Do not rely on an execulive summary. Do not read selected elemenls only. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Basad on A UniqUe Set 01 Project-SpeeUIe FactOPS Geotechnical engineers consider a number 01 unique, project-specific taco tors when establishing Ihe scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals. objectives. aM risk management prnferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configurallon; the location 01 the stnx;lure on the sile; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lo~. and underground ulllllles. Uniess the geoteellnicai engineer who conducted Ihe study speCifically indicates oth- erwise, do nol rely on a geolechnical.ngineering reporl thai was: . not prepared lor you, . nol prepared lor your projec!. . not prepared lor the specific site explored, or . compleled belore important prolect changes were made. Typical changes that can erode Ille reliabilily 01 an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that alfeet: . the funclion ot the proposed slruclure, as when iI's changed lrom a parking garage to an oflice building, or from a lighl induslriai plant 10 a relrigeraled warehouse. . elev3lion, configuralion, localion, orientation, or weight 01 the prOjJosed structure. . composilion ollhe design team, or . project o\\llership. AS a general rule, al."ys inlorm your geotechnical engineer ot project changes~n minor ones-ilnd reQuest an assessmenl 01 Iheir impact. Geotechnical engineers cannol ar:cepI rosponsibllily or liabilily lor problmns IIIal ocwr l1eciIuse IIIeir reporls do IIOt consid.r rl8velopm.nls of whicn tlleY were nol illlormed. Subsumce Candltions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based On conditions that existed al lI1e time the study was perlorrruJd. Do not rely on a geolecfmical engineer. IlIg reporlwhose adequacy may have been aflected by: the passaIje of lime; by n~n-marle events, such as construction on or ad~cent 10 Ihe site; or by nalural events. such as floods, p.arthquakes, or groundwater Iluctua. tions. AI..ys contact the geotechnical engineer belore applying the repon 10 delermine il il is slill reliable. A minor amount 01 addilionaltesting or analysis could prevenl major problems. Most Geotechnical Findinus Are Prolessillllal OPinions Site exploration Identities subsurtace conditions only at those pOints where subsunace lests are conducted or samples are laken. Geotechnical eng;- neers review li~d and laboralory data and then apply Iheir professional ludgment to render an opinion about subsurlace condifions Ihroughout the site. Aclual subsurtace condilions may differ-sometimes significanlly.... from those indicated in your reporl. Retaining the geotechnrcal engineer 'N110 developed your report to provide construction observalion is Ihe most elleclive method of managing the risks associaled wilh unanticipated condllions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construclion recommendalions inciuded in your report. Those recommendations are no/final. because geotechnical engi- neers deveiop Ihem pnncipafiy lrom judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize lheir recommendalions only by observing act~I.__j .-----.-.- subsurlace conditions revealed during conslruclion. rhe gea/echiJical engineer who developed your repOlI cannol assulT1lJ responsibilily or liability lor fi1e report's r",ommenrta/iOlls if fi1a/ engineer docs not pertolTTl cans/metion abserva/ion, A Geotechnical Engineering Repnl't Is Subject to MisintBl'Pf'tltation Other design team members' misinterpretalion of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in cost~ probtems. Lower thai ris\< by having your geo- technicat engineer COllfer wilh appropriate members of the design tr.am alter submitting ihe report. Also retain your geolechnical engineer to review perli- nent elements of the ()Jsign tearn's plans and speclllcations. Contl<lCtors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce thai risk by having your geotechnical ""gineer parlicipate in prebid and preconslmction conferences, and by providing constmclion observaiion. Do Not Redraw the Enginelll"s Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare linal boring and lesting logs based upon their interpretalion ot lield togs and laooralory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report shollid never IJe redrawn for inclusion "1 architeclural or other design drawinns. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceplable, but recognize U,at separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance 'Some owners and design prolessionals mistakenly believe ihey can make cont"",lors liable lor unanlicipatert suhsurlace condilions by limiting whal Ihey provide lor bid preparalion. To help prevent costly probiems, give con- Iractors the compielt: geotechnical engineering report, till/preface il wilh a ciea~y wrlllen leller 01 transmittal. In lhalleiler, advise conlractors Ihallhe reporl was not prepared lor purposes 01 bid developmenl and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage Ihem 10 conler with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the reporl (a modest fee may IJe required) andlor 10 conduct additional stUdy 10 obtain the specilic types 01 inlormatlon lhey need or preler. A prebid conference can also be vaiuable. 8e sllre contrac- lors !JaVa sufficient time to pertorm addilional study. Onty then mighl you be in a posillon to give conlraclors Ihe best informalion available to you, while requiring tlwm 10 at least share some ollhe Iinanc,,1 responsibililies stemming irom unanticipated condilions Read Responsibility Pl'OVisions Closely Some clients, design pro\essionals, and conlractors do not recognize Ihal geolechnical engineering is lar less exacl than olher engineering disci- plines. This iack 01 understanding has created unrealistic expectations that Agenda Item No. 100 January 15, 2008 Page 75 of 119 have led 10 disappointmenlS, claims, and dispules, To help reduce !he risk of such outcomes. geotechnicai engineers commonly include a variety 01 oxplanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "Iimitalions' many 01 these prOVIsions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize Ihelr own responsibiiities and risks. Read Ihese provisions etasetr Ask QUesllons. Your geolechnical engineer should respond fully and lrank~. Geoenvll'onmlllltal Concerns Are Not Covel'8d The equipment, techniques. and personnel used to perlorm a gooanviran. manl1Jl stUdy diller signilicantly from those used 10 perlorm a gealechnical study. For thai reason, a geotB\:hnicai engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmentat Iindings, conclusions, or recommendat\ons: e.g., aboul the likelihood 01 encnunlering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems Imve led to /JUmerous PIOjer,t failures. II you have not yel obtained your own geoen- vironmenlal inlormation, ask you, geolecllllical consultanllor risk man- agemenl guidance. 00 not rely on an environmen/at report prepared lor someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal With Mold Oiverse strategies can be apptiOd rturing building design, conslruction, operalion, and maintenance 10 prevenl signilicanl amounts 01 mold Irom grOWing on indoor sulfaces. To be elleclive, all such slralegies should be devised lor the express purposeo! motd prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with dilig",,1 oversight by a profassional mold prevention consuttant. Because jusl a small amount 01 water or moisture can lead to Ihe developmenl 01 severe mold inlestallons, a nllm- ber 01 mold prevention slrategies fncus nn keeping building surlaces dry. Whiie groundwarer, water inliltralion, ~nd simiiar tssues may have been addressed as part ollhe geotechnicai engineering sludy whose findings are conveyed in Ihis report, Ihe geolechni~.1 engineer in charge ollhis project is nol a molrt prevenlion conSllIl~nt; none 01 the services per- lonned in connection with the geoteChnical engineer's sludy were desIgned or conducted lor t!Je purpose 01 mold pfBven- lion, Praper fmplemenlalion 01 the recommendallons conveyed in this report will not 01 itself be suflicientto prevent mold lrom grawing in or on the structure Involved. Rely, on Your ASFE-MembBl' Gentechnclal Enlllneel' lor Additional Assistance Membership in ASFtlfHE BLST PHlP'[ ON EoVlTH exposes geolechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniQucs that can be 01 genuine beneftt lor everyone involved wilh a construciion project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer lor more inlonnalion. A5FE THE BEST PEOPLE ON EARTM 8811 Co/ewille Road/S"i~ G106, Silver Spnng, MO 20910 Telephone: 3011565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589.2017 e-mail: mfo@asle.org YMW.3slc.org CO/lytiglll 2004 ~y 11$FE, fllc. Dllp/icil/ion. reprodllctiDn, or (.of1J1ng (J( tills documenl, III whole 01 ;1/ pJftt, by allY moans ~'1flatsoeve[. is stllctJy f}mhibired, excl1pf Willi ASFf's speCifIC written pemllSSIOfl EXCllfplinO. fjllofllfg. or (l/llllrYli.~e lI)(/rRCIlflg lVl'l11'1h1D trom (fIls dacmttem {s pcmrJrred ooly IVIIII tlro (1.1prCSS Iwilloll pC/mIssllJ,1 of IIS,..E. dnd ollly lor fJu(fJOses of .~t::I/(JI.1ffY fOSlJIJICh Of book review. Oltly mlmOOrs of ASFE may fJSe I/ns docvment fJS a COnf!J!emtl/l1 10 Of is an tJI~lIltm 0111 geolochnic,?/ e"ilintcrilllJ (cport. Any a/iMf (ifill, mdivJ(/u;rI, {I( ollte' mllity tfJal so USllS 1II1s doctlmGIlI :vil/101I1 be/no 01/1 ASfE m~mher could /:Ill commitlino negi/{,'enl or illlcntill/lill (traudOJOI1I) miSrlprosant:rtirm. IlGUl080<110MUI' ~'."'l , i . . I , . ! , n L: : "J i.:,,; 1.,;(, I~-I ';j l~ l,i\'; ~'I !1l ~~ [;1 :"..J I " ~ rJ :~;:.' f" , Ii... ~] '-"f, 1'(' ;~\~ I I I t.\~ .i~ I I ~ '" , I] 'I I.! Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15, 2,008 Page 76 011119 FORGE ENGINEERING, INC. FORENSIC, GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS Report of Geotechnical Exploration PROPOSED VANDERBILT BEACH PARKING GARAGE South of Vanderbilt Beach Road, East of Ritz Carlton Naples, Collier County, Florida Forge Engineering Project Number 864-001.01 Report of Geotechnical Exploration Vanderbift Beach Parking Garage Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15. 20W FORGE Project No. 864-PQ,gll177 of 1'f9 July 15, 2004 .., '1'. ..' " This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Walker Parking Consultants for specific application to the proposed Vanderbilt Beach Parking Garage. Forge Engineering, Inc_ has endeavored to compiy with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice' common to the local area. FORGE makes no other warrant, express, or implied. -, ".1 ..:1 "l":,! ~~ Project Information Our understanding of your needs for this project is based on discussions with you, together with some assumptions we have made based on our experience in the area. We have also received a copy of an undated and untitled boundary survey plan of the existing Vanderbilt Beach Parking Lot. ~~ 1';1 ti~ I 'j~ '"~ I~1 We understand the proposed new parking garage will be constructed at the location of the existing parking lot south of Vanderbilt Beach Road. You indicated the 3-level structure will encompass about 40,920 square feet of ground floor area (330 feet by 124 feet), and be built with pre-cast concrete columns and floor slabs supported on auger- cast pilings. ..........1. "J Maximum column loads are estimated to be on the order of 625 kips. We assume up to two feet of structural fill will be required over the site to raise existing site grade to finished subgrade elevation. "'j I'.'l i~ i" '.". ~\ (\' ~ ~j Site Conditions As shown on the appended Sit.E;! Location Map, the site is located on the south side of Vanderbilt Beach Road and east of the Ritz Carlton in Naples, Collier County, Florida. The west side of the site is bordered by mangroves, while further to the west is the Gulf of Mexico. .~il . .\ I At the time of our exploration, the site was currently being used as an asphaltic parking lot for the nearby Vanderbilt Beach. The surface over the site appeared to be at the elevation of the Vanderbilt Beach Road. ::.,'j ~"1 C',i... 1 ;.,:1 2 ":'1 t;J.;t,\iM.'~~~.~.~.ttr~i~;:$i?~~15:*;f,ii'~~~!4W~":~I'~~~~;;:':': Report of Geotechnical Exploration Vanderbi/f Beach Parking Garage Agenda Item No. )!fa FORGE Project No. Brf,lfiti.f1.fYt-,i5 ~f 11 ~ July 15.~84 -, Subsurface Conditions The subsurface conditions across the site were explored with eight Standard Penetration Test borings drilled to a depth of 60 feet below the existing ground surface. The number, depth,. and location of the borings were determined by FORGE. The boring locations were determined in the field by a representative from FORGE by referencing existing site features shown on the provided plans to those found at the site. The borings were drilled by FORGE and the approximate boring locations are shown on the Field Exploration Plan, in the Appendix. j ,~;~ , I I ""I "~' ~ii: .:.... I ~J ~:-ill Soil samples obtained from the borings were classified by a geotechnical engineer from FORGE. Boring logs summarizing the findings are in the Appendix. The generalized subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations are summarized in the following table: f ~ .~., ~;; h ~ f'l.'.'. l~ GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE DEPTH (FT) SOIL DESCRIPTION USC") FROM TO 0 3 Loose to Medium Dense SAND to Slightly Silty SP, SP-SM SAND; Occasional Roots 3 6.5 Very Loose to Loose Organic SAND, with Silt SP-SM 6.5 13 Very Loose to Medium Dense Silty SAND, SM Occasional Shell 13 17 Very Hard LIMESTONE, (Boulders)'2) N/A 17 60 Very Loose to Dense Very Silty SAND, with Gravel SM (Weathered Limestone) (1) Unified Soil Classification (2) LIMESTONE was not encountered in B-2, B-3, B-4 and B-6. .,~ :'\'~1 .~) .".1, ....j ,'.'\' " .~ ".'\'. ~\ .J The groundwater level was encountered in the borings at an approximate depth of 4 to 5.3 feet below the existing ground surface at the time of drilling. The groundwater level will vary with rainfall, construction activities, and tidal fluctuations of the nearby Gulf of l'v1exico. '.....~ ,';' <.: 1 " :~i 3 . ):,~~" 'W~;~~'K<k~~~4~~#i.~~I:p~:;;.~.i~':;!'tti.Tl Report of Geotechnical Exploration Vanderbilt Beach Parking Garage Agenda Item No. 1~ FORGE Project No, 86-!t-mi-ES'1Jid~ 19 Juiy 15.2'054 I', ~.' tt Evaluation and Recommendations Our evaluation is based on the project information provided to us, the findings of our field exploration program, laboratory testing, and our experience in the area. The subsurface conditions will vary across the site. Should new information become available during design or the conditions encountered during construction be substantially different from the information presented in this report, please contact us so we may evaluate the new information. I ':1' :i ~ ! %1 ~ I "M' ;~, "-.1 Due to the anticipated column loads and the near surface organic soil stratum encountered in the borings, shallow foundations, and slabs-on-grade without soil ~ .. improvement would undergo excessive total and differential settlement and are not favorable options. It is our opinion based on our local experience, an end user risk assessment, a limited cost analyses performed on similar projects, and the subsurface conditions the proposed s~r.ucture should be founded on deep foundations. ''''1 ;~,} ''''j .~~ "i 'i,~ Auqer-Cast Piles At this site an augercast pile will achieve its capacity through skin friction primarily in the weathered limestone stratum. We calculate the following design capacities are available for piles installed into the weathered lim~stone stratum as follows: '.1 J ] ESTIMATED DESIGN COMPRESSIVE CAPACITIES (TONS) AUGER-CAST PILES Pile Depth - 14-inch 1S-inch (feet) Diameter Diameter 45 50 N/A 50 65 SO 55 SO 100 60 N/A 130 ,J :~ ~. -';.' t )} , j "0.1 .1- The above design capacities are based on a factor of safety of two and appropriate grout strength. To confirm these design values and to meet current building codes load tests must be conducted, We recommend a maximum design uplift capacity of one-half the compressive capacity be assigned to these piles. Should a higher uplift capacity be required, then load testing should be completed to confirm the desired capacity is "~'I I' ~ J 4 I t~~~\\\1_~~ft>>t~~:~':'i;ij:\~i.\ii':iv:~~;\H~~\;(;'i~:~~~, -:f:{\':"i~{~~ ..~J -I I:'. I it,' ~\ ~ t~ ~M:: m :,. :.('~. ~ I '~ ()~, \} ~;j "I :;~ ] '.'! :"-~. J\l~ I ;,J ~ ~ ~'" ',\ -,. .J 1.l .~'::. ''-] " :.~ ,el Report of Geotechnical Exploration Vanderbilt Beach Parking Garage Agenda Item No. 100 January 15, 201)'9 FORGE Project No. B64-1lQ1J,EIBO of 119 July 15, 2004 available. The following table is presented to provide designers with lateral load design parameters for the assumed compressive design values. ESTIMATED LATERAL LOAD/DEFLECTION AUGER-CAST PILES ULTIMATE MAXIMUM DEPTH TO DIAMETER LATERAL DEFLECTION MOMENT ZERO MOMENT LOAD (kips) (inches) (inch-oounds) (feet) 5 0.1 19x1(t 16 14-inch 10 0.3 92 x 10' 23 10 0.1 50 x 10"- 24 i 18-inch 70 0.8 43 x 10' 39 Linear interpolation is appropriate for values between those listed. We recommend that a factor of safety of at least two be associated with the ultimate lateral load. Once the compressive design values are confirmed, FORGE should be engaged to conduct a final level lateral analysis specific to each pile type and load. Auger-cast piles require careful observation/monitoring by a representative from FORGE at the time of installation to verify the conditions assumed in design are achieved during construction of test and production elements. We recommend the auger-cast pile foundation installation specifications include a section similar to the one presented below: 1. The pile contractor used to install the test piles shall be the same contractor used for the production piles. 2. The auger-cast pile contractor shall submit evidence the essential men proposed for this project has minimum of 5 years experience in the installation of auger-cast piles. 3. The equipment used to install the auger-cast piles shall be capable of penetrating to the maximum required depths. 4. The grout for the auger-cast piles shall have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of at least 5000--psl or as directed by the structural engineer. 5 " '1i\:1~,~~iil:!,r.t\W1f~l~~??:;Pii-Jly:;~;~~~:;~~~\~,.;.~~;;),:,:.;;~'~~ Agenda Item NO.1 OD January 15. 2008 Page 81 of 119 APPENDIX D STORM STAGE RETURN PERIOD FIGURES AND TABLES AND TELEPHONE CONFERENCE REPORT WITH RALPH CLARK DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2007 SUBJECT: STORM WATER LEVEL ...J U. >- .... r:: ::l o (.J ... CIl (5 (.J l/I CIl C) t\3 .... en E ... o .... en \ , \ \ \ , \ \ \ I '\\ \\ ~ ., I 0. \ ::J , - \ Q) - (J) '\\ - Q) - > \ C1l - ;;: \ -' (J) - . Q) v \ - ::J li , ~ \ I'- C \ - 0 ~ 0 0 \ , N L() \ I-- , I ~ 0::: \ , 1!! \ \: 0 \ "" \ I-- Z e ~ 0.. (J) Q) \ - 0.. , c C \ Q) UJ ::J \ I E 0 >< \ Q) LL - \ ~ c I-- ::J -.:: ::J (J) cr> 0 I-- C1l CO () 1--, Q) cr> -- 2: ~ Q) I- ~ Q) I'- Ol --l I I-- 0 c -.:: 0 C1l .~ I I-- N S , , 0 I L() I CD V () ! , ~ cr> c ~ C1l -.:: C"l , i ~ I'- I Q) ::J ,- i:i: .<= cr> i i () ~! I , (J) ! , i Q) c ~, , 0. C1l ,- C1l Q) 0 i Z 0 Z , f I , I J. I "i' I ! , i I ! I i , , ! , o N co ...... (0 ...... "<t ...... N ...... co o ...... (0 "<t N (C^"N Jaal) a6eJS WJoJS Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 82 of 119 o o o ...... o 0 0 ...... - ::; l/I ... "- t\3 .... ell 'i >- .... - 0 0 "tl <::! 0 .... ';: N ell <2: a.. t r:: rn ... ~ 0 ::l ~ .... " ell ~ a:: w , w fY , 0 w [" ...... 0 Of) , E " iii 0 " > w a: " , z ~ c w Q ro ro E z ~ -,; -,; ~ > .2 w '" -;:, "' w ;;; CO! ~, .!!! "0 c 0 rn > " , <( w > Z rn Iii . -c ... w 0 a: ...... z .... .,. 6 0 m "' -c g "5 Y iL Agenda Item No. 100 January 15, 2008 Page 83 of 119 Telephone Conference Report Date: November 13,2007 Time: 1 :30 PM Subject: Storm Water Level and Wave Height Calculation for Pier Design Participants: Ralph Clark, FDEP, B BCS I talked to Ralph Clark about the design water level and wave height for a pier at the 20 year return interval. The published water level plus wave height would push the deck height above 20 FT NGVD, which is the desired height for a fishing pier. The published height values appear to be larger than suggested by recent history measurements and experience. Using a combination of the water level history from the Naples Pier tide station, water levels hind cast from historic storms produced by the Corps of Engineers, and model studies, a lower combined height may be justified, Ralph states that with the proper supporting information the FDEP may be able to accepta combined height lower than the published FDEP values. Ralph Clark is assembling a report on the existing pier performance in the State of Florida. His information shows that the Naples Pier was constructed in 196] and it was damaged by Tropical Storm Keith on November 23, ] 988, which had a 6 FT storm tide. Damage from Hurricane Donna in the 1960's is not known. The FDEP research arm at FSU is in the process of recalculation water level return interval information on Panhandle, Florida. The work is being conducted by Robert Wang. Ralph said he would be willing to review a combined water level and wave height report prior to submittal of a entire permit package and give his opinion on its suffienciency. p/collier/8500.47/telephone conference report Nov 13,07 Collier County FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY Beaches and Shores Resource Center COLLIER COUNTY I Combined Total Storm Tide Values for Various Return Periods ! Return Period - Combined Total Storm Tide Level* above NGVD (ft.) TR (years) Profile One Profile Two Profile Three Profile Four 500 18.9 17.5 16.3 15.\ 200 t6.9 15.7 ]4.5 13.9 100 15.2 14.] 13.\ 12.9 I 50 t3.\ ]2.2 ll.5 11.5 II 20 I 10.0 9.4 9.4 9.4 \0 II 7.t i 6.8 I 7.1 I 7.\ *Includes contributions of: wind stress, barometric pressure, dynamic wave set-up and astronomical tide. PTarne J t N I ..LEE _90UNTX_ VanHtblll ~II,Ql'I :0 /; ~ " ProfO(! 2 :0 ...........l'J D~,jOf'$ .Pn~, ::u l!l :0 21 :0 21 Go.rdon$ :0 Pan 8 Profile 3 Collier County Profile Locations Ket-wA)!'din Island rrotilf!' 4: o 1 2 3 .- mil" GlJl.F OF Download the 100 year Hydrograph data file DATA http://beach10.beaches.fsu.edu/collier.html Agenda ~t'~f.r ~oo~ ~O January 15, 2008 Page 84 of 119 E.' .... ' .,,:~lIIIl BSRC Home_""" 12/17/2007 Agenda Item No. 10D January 15. 2008 Page 85 of 119 100 - Year 100. Year Florida State Plan Coordinates for Storm Design County Storm Range Monument Grade Elevation (ft.) Elevation (ft.) Collier R001 R001 726436.250 223078.062 22.4 1.9 R002 R002 725495.193 223418.505 22.4 1.9 R003 R003 726436.250 223078.063 22.4 1.9 R004 R004 723568.245 223968.293 22.3 1.9 R005 R005 722601.976 224364.440 22.3 1.9 R006 R006 721661.000 224773.188 22.3 1.9 R022 R022 705668.011 228699.451 21.9 1.9 R023 R023 704714.375 229032.625 21.9 1.9 R024 R024 703700.135 229177.605 21.8 1.9 R025 R025 702657,772 229595.787 21.8 1.9 R026 R026 701679.032 229607.882 21.8 1.9 R027 R027 700695.375 229750.313 21,7 1.9 R028 R028 699512.530 229922.136 21.7 1.9 R029 R029 698675.639 230101.954 21.7 1.9 R030 R030 697665.976 230298.027 21.7 1.9 R031 R031 696642.183 230465.698 21.6 1.9 R032 R032 695653088 230651.516 21.6 1.9 R033 R033 694660.188 230862.125 21.6 1.9 R034 R034 693648.875 231040.750 21.6 1.9 R035 R035 692656.378 231168.587 21.5 1.9 R045 R045 682488.589 232239.212 21.3 1.9 R046 R046 681383.119 232299.047 21.3 1.9 R047 R047 680409.685 232314,060 21.2 1.9 R048 R048 679476.707 232328.825 21.2 1.9 R049 R049 678409.602 232343589 21.2 1.9 R050 R050 677323.866 232373.165 21.2 1.9 R051 R051 675998.160 232474.314 21.1 1.9 R052 R052 675120.608 232594,199 21.1 1.9 R053 R053 674076.534 232689.818 21.1 1.9 R054 R054 673006.100 232711.616 21.0 1.9 R055 R055 671959.812 232734.833 21.0 1.9 R056 R056 671040.457 232825.414 21.0 1.9 R057 R057 670276.305 232902.238 21.0 1.9 R058 R058 668531.334 233456,764 20.9 1.9 R059 R059 667557.580 233607.481 20.9 1.9 R060 R060 666513.772 233905.400 20.9 1.9 R061 R061 665477.166 234198.203 20.9 1.9 R062 R062 664456.753 234191.994 20.8 1.9 R063 R063 663472.688 234413.688 20.8 1.9 R064 R064 662560.667 234574.574 20.8 1.9 R065 R065 661782.691 234659.134 20.8 1.9 R066 R066 660976.765 234838,515 20.7 1.9 R067 R067 660180.777 234914.559 20.7 1.9 R068 R068 659373.809 234980.285 20.7 1.9 R069 R069 658564.431 235034.690 20,7 1.9 R070 R070 657769.998 235111.455 20.6 1.9 R071 R071 656975.926 235229.700 20.6 1.9 R072 R072 656184.737 235369.073 20.6 1.9 Revised Feb 2002 15 [I. .:: tJGv'[J Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15. 2008 Page 86 of 119 APPENDIX E PIER EXAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 87 of 119 EXAMPLES OF PIERS, COVERING FOR SHADE AND FACILITIES Dania Pier Oania Pier was original built over hardbottom. The pier includes a terminal t-section and a landward facility built on a elevated deck. ~.. ~ COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. DECK LAYOUT & BUILDINGS Pompano Beach Pier Naples Pier Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 88 of 119 Commercial Pier, Ft. Lauderdale" Juno Beach Pier Tournofolk, UK SHADE Pier with unique design Deerfield Gazebo at Commercial Pier Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 89 of 119 Marine shade cover Jacksonville Pier ~~ ~,'''-- ~ "', . . lI. . '.'. . . 'e........ ,'. Juno Beach Pier VIEW OF ALONG PIER LENGTH Pompano Pier Dania Beach Pier Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15,2008 Page 90 of 119 :t -.; " \ " I Deerfield Deerfield Pier ~" "';,. . .--\ ':."~,':? ~,. \~... ,.,,.,,,,,,,iij;~,,,- ~~i;-' ~"'__M'. Juno Pier PIER BUILDINGS AND FACILITES Old Jacksonville Pier Restaurant Restaurant shaded dining Wrest Point Agenda Item No. 10D January 15, 2008 Page 91 of 119 Gravesend Town Pier, UK Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 92 of 119 APPENDIX F SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCE COVERAGE VICINITY OF PROPOSED PIER (2006 POST-CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT) . ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~> '" M on "'l - -c " h 0 ,.; N N - M .n > "-'u < ~ :;J "-' ,-., ~ 6 '" '-' :E ~ '<: .". r-: CO) 00 - ~ ~ - ,,; .". - .; ,..: ..... .... .... .... .... ... ~ ~~8 z '" ~'-' M M on ,,;$~ 0 .... '" ,.; ,..: .n .n ,,; 00 .... - .... >~~ <~~ "-'~ ~ = ~ Z ~~ .... r-- "'" '" r-- on .....> ,.; ,.; .... a; N = ~o 00 00 .". r-- on -c ~u "-' " ~ ~ U 0 -c 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ -c .... on 0 00 -c "-' :; .". -c on r-- .". r-- ~ + + + + + + < -c r-- 00 '" - M Z .... .... Ql .... 2 M ~ ~ Q( ~ ~ ~ ,,~ ~s: "! M .". .... .... .". ~o .... N .; N N .; "-'u " ~ ~ . ~.~ "os: '" .... .... .". .... 00 >uo .... .". r-- M ....; '" <""U = = = = = z o~ ~ . "-' ~~ "os: .... on .... >uo 0 0 0 <=; 0 .... <ou = 0 = ~~ u = 0 ~~~ ,,~"s: >;g~o 0 0 .... .... "'l 0 <~~u = = 0 ~~~ ~ ~ S " ~ ~ ~ tis: ~ -c .... on - "'l .... - <0 N = = ,,; -c ,,; ~u .... .... .... .... 0 ~ ~ ~ " ~ u ~ ~~ ,,~s: .... "'l "l '" M .... ~oo = M M .n ,.; N ~u .... - .". .... M .... U ~ ~ = ~ u 0 -c 0 00 0 ~~ -c .... on o 00 -c ~~ .". -c on r-- .". r-- + + + + + + -c r-- 00 '" .... M ~z .... .... .... .... M M ~o:: ~ 0::0:: 0:: ~ Agenda Item NO.1 OD January 15, 2008 Page 93 of 119 APPENDIX G PROPERTY SOUTH OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY Agenda Item No. 100 January 15, 2008 Page 94 of 119 Agenda RegeNoofC!P January 15, 2008 Page 95 of 119 Steve Keehn From: McAlpinGary [GaryMcAlpin@colliergov.net] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007240 PM To: Steve Keehn Subject: FW: Request for Comment - Vanderbilt Beach, FI Pier Feasibility Study Attachments: Coral Ridge QCD to CC 966-1864pdf; Vanderbilt Beach County Land.ppt From: ZimmermanSue Sent: Friday, August 31,20071:17 PM To: McAlpinGary Cc: motet; RussellHans Subject: RE: Request for Comment - Vanderbilt Beach, FI Pier Feasibility Study Gary: Attached is a copy of the Quit-Claim Deed from Coral Ridge-Collier Properties, Inc. (a predecessor to WCI) to Collier County, together with an aerial of the property identified by folio no. 00168400005. It appears from the legal description attached to the Quit-Claim Deed as Exhibit A that this property extends to the Mean High Water Line on the western border. We would suggest: 1. Have the legal descriptions for all three exhibits to the attached Quit-Claim Deed plotted and confirmed by a surveyor, 2, Based on the reservations contained in the Quit-Claim Deed and Declarations of Covenants and Restrictions. this matter should be reviewed by the County Attorneys Office to determine that a pier would be permitted; and 3. Based on the Preliminary Plan View, it appears that the pier extends from the right-of-way area, so if the legal description from the attached Quit-Claim Deed does not include the right-of-way area, then you might want to check with Transportation as to the legal description and western extent of the Vanderbilt Beach Road right-of-way. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any additional questions or comments. Thank you. Sue From: motet Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 8: 17 PM To: ZimmermanSue Subject: FW: Request for Comment. Vanderbilt Beach, FI Pier Feasibility Study Importance: High Sue, Can you please help with this? Thanks. From: IVJcAlpinGary Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:54 AM To: motet 8/31/2007 Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15. 2008 Page 96 of 119 L() o o o o .q- CO CO r- o o o Z o o lL - TRAFFIC, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE STUDY Vanderbilt Fishing Pier ~ Prepared by: Johnson Engineering, Inc. .--- ENGINEERING December 2007 ~ Agenda Item NO.1 OD January 15. 2008 Page 97 of 119 Agenda Item No. 100 January 15, 2008 Page 98 of 119 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY .....................................................................................3 1. Site location and study area:.... ......................... ........................ ................................... .........................................3 2. PrinciPal findings: .......... ............... ................. .... .............. ............. .... ......... ........................3 3. Conc~usions and recommendations ....................... ...................... ............................. ......................................3 Figure 1: Location Map .................. .................... ................... ......................... .............. ..................................4 II. PROPOSED PROJECT ...........................................................................................................5 Ill. AREA CONDITIONS..............................................................................................................5 IV. PROJECTED TRAFFIC...........................................................................................................5 A. Site traffic (2009 horizon year)..... .................................... ................ ........................................ ............5 Table 1 Trip Generation Summary.. ......................... . ..................... ................ . .............6 Table 2 Trip A~signment...... .................. ........................... ................. ...... 6 Figure 2 Project Traffic Distribution Map.. ............................ .............. ............... ........................ 7 B. Non-site traffic (2009 horizon year).............. ........................ .... ........... ............... ................8 Tabk 3 Backgmund Traffic (2009)...... ......................................... ............................. ...................... .........8 Table 4 Concurrency Segments Background Vo~umes (2009 without Project)...................... ............... ............. ................ 8 Tabl.e 5 Concurrency Segments Background VoLumes (2009 with Project) ................................ ..................... ...9 V. ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................................................9 VI. IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................9 _ VII. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................1(, APPENDIX I TRAFFIC, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SURVEY................................................. 11 2 Agenda Item No.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 99 of 119 l. Introduction and Summary A. Purpose of report and study objectives This report was generated to evaluate the number of vehicular traffic, pedestrian and bicycle trips generated by the proposed recreational fishing pier and to determine the level of service impacts to the adjacent roadway network. The information presented in this report can also be used to address roadway concurrency requirements of Collier County's Land development Code and the Transportation Element, Policy 5.1 of Collier County's Growth Management Plan. B. Executive summary 1. Site location and study area: The Vanderbilt Fishing Pier is to be located within Township 48 South, Range 25 East, and Section 32 of Collier County Florida. The physical property is approximately 100 foot wide right-of.way extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road west of Gulf Shore Drive. This report examines an area of influence that is similar in character and size of Naples existing and historic Fishing Pier located at the terminus of 12'" Avenue South. 2. Principal findings: The surrounding roadway network will be capable of accommodating the vehicular traffic attracted to the proposed Fishing Pier recreational facility including the projected build-out year background traffic with remaining capacity available for future growth. Roadway concurrency and traffic operations, currently and at the horizon year of 2009, will function at an acceptable level of service. Pedestrian sidewalks and protected crossings leading to the proposed Fishing Pier and beach access are currently in place. 3. Conclusions and reC01111l1endations Traffic impacts of the proposed project can be accommodated within the County Transportation Concurrency Network without offsite improvements. Level of service analysis demonstrates the availability of roadway capacity currently and at the project's build-out year, 2009. The proposed project will not impact any Collier County Concurrency Seglnents that are currently operating or projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service within the projected five-year planning period. Therefore, this project is consistent with the County's C;ro'N1:h Management Plan, Transportation Element and Policy 5.1. 3 H" _c. "~O'p:. .~. ,: COASTAL ZOhL MAxAGEl\JENT PROPOSED \'Al\DERAILT flSH~G PIER Collier Connry. Flonda JOHNSErjN ::s~, :T"'IC~j~:. t~''''~ P'"'C".'" :~-. ENGINEERING ".J-"" ;_"l , Figure 1: Location Map 4 Agenda Item NO.1 OD January 15, 2008 Page 101 of 119 II. Proposed Project The Vanderbilt Fishing Pier is to be located within Township 48 South, Range 25 East, and Section 32 of Collier County Florida. The physical property is approximately 100 foot wide right- of-way extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road west of (julf Shore Drive. Public parking is currently available at the newly opened Vanderbilt Parking Garage facility located within walking distance of the proposed pier boardwalk. The parking garage opens at 8:30 A.M. and has a vehicular capacity of 340 parking spaces. The adjacent roadways leading to the site are Vanderbilt beach Road from the east and Gulf Shore Drive from the north. Other connecting roadways include Vanderbilt Drive and U.SAI, Tamiami Trail North. III. Area Conditions The proposed Fishing Pier location is currently a County Public Beach access with the following land use characteristics surrounding the subject site: Residential T Durist Overlay and COl1uuercial, C-3, and Residential, RSF-3, to the north. Residential multi-family zoning, RMF-6, located to the _.east and PUD, Pelican Bay, to the south. The surrounding urban area is 95% built out with sporadic infill residential lots located mostly to the north-east. The project study area of influence was determined based on 2%, 2%, 3% rule in accordance with Collier County's TIS Guidelines and Procedures as amended. Traffic distribution was evaluated using formulas based on the grcwity Illodel generator ~ attractor pairing lnethodology. The adjacent roadways consist of 2-lane urban roadway sections north-south collector, Gulf Shore Drive and 2-lane cast-west collector roadway, Vanderbilt Beach Road. Vanderbilt Drive is currently a 2-lane collector north-south roadway that is planned to be widened to a 4-lane facility according to Collier County 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan. Tamiami Trail, U.S. 41 is a major State Arterial6-lane facility intersecting Vanderbilt Beach Road east of Vanderbilt Drive. Collier County CAT system currently operates a transit bus route along Tamiami Trail, U.S. 41 (Red Route IA & 1 B) providing an alternative transportation Inodc to the area. Pedestrian sidewalks and protected crossings leading to the proposed Fishing Pier and beach access are currently in place. IV. Projected Traffic A. Site traffic (2009 horizon year) The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, Th Edition, is the industry- standard reference for estin1ating vehicular trip generation nUlnbers for c01nn10nly sought land use categories. However, a specific land use code for fishing piers is not available and the dosest relevant land use referenced in the 7''' Edition is a County or City Park. To better evaluate trip generation nun1bers for the proposed Vanderbilt Fishing Pier, a traffic count survey of Naples existing fishing Pier was conducted to dcternline the actual nU111ber of vehicles arriving and parking during a typical weekday. The survey also included pedestrian and bicycle traffic counts arriving to the pier. The following table sUlnmarizes the observed traffic tnultiuH..)(Jal arrivals attracted to Naples historic fishing pier: 5 Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15. 2008 Page 102 of 119 Parking Lot Parking Lot Angle Total Pedestrian Bicycle AM Peak . PM Peak North West Parking Vehicular Arrivals Arrivals of Adjacent Of Adjacent Driveway Driveway Arrivals Street . Street 359 57 85 501 126 31 70 30 Table 1 Trip Generation Summary Due to the nature of recreational activities at the fishing pier, the patronage or visiting public will spend anywhere between one hour to a full day at the fishing pier. The vehicular average daily traffic (ADT), therefore, will be compared to the ADT of the adjacent roadways as an alternative to the PM peak hour as normally done. The adjacent roadway capacities (Service Volumes) were converted to ADT using the following formula: (SERVICE VOLUME ) ADT= PEAK SEASON F ACTOR x DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION FACTOR Service Volumes, Peak Season and Directional Distribution Factors were obtained from Collier County's Latest Concurrency Segment Tables. Service Volumes for segments not covered by County Concurrency were deternlincd hy sitnilar 2~lanc collector facilities. The vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle arrivals represent one 'A'ay trips. The vehicular trips will return to their origin sometime after the duration of the visit. Therefore, the estilnatcl trips that <lrc impacting the adjacent segment arc hvice that of the observed clrrivals. The trips were distributed on adjacent roadways consistence with the distribution lllap (Figure 2).~1anllal site traffic assignments were then Gltaloged for each County road segment in ADT and presented in the table helow followed hy the distrihution map. SEGMENT ROAOWAY FROMITO ASSIGNED SERVICE % SERVICE NUMBER NAME (SEGMENT) TRIPS ADT VOLUME VOLUME 109 Vanderbilt Beach Road Gulf Shore Drive to US 41 802 25460 3.15% 100 Tamiami Trail US 41 Immokalee Road to 301 65280 0.46% Vanderbilt Beach Road 101 Tamiami Trail US 41 Vanderbilt Beach Road to 301 71537 0.42% Gulf Park Drive 39 1111h Avenue N. Gulf Shore Dr to Vanderbilt 100 13032 0.77% Drive 40 111lh Avenue N. Vanderbilt Dr to U.S. 41 100 19426 0.55% N/A Vanderbilt Drive 111 Ave_ to Vanderbilt 200 22276' 0.89% Beach Road N/A Gulf Shore Drive Bluebill Ave to Vanderbilt 200 16900' 1.18% Beach Road Table 2 Trip Assignment 6 Figure 2 Project Traffic Distribution Map ~-J \ Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15. 2008 Page 103 of 119 - '- 10% 10% .. . 111TH AVE N IMMOKAlEE RD 100 0; '"' I '" 60% -- 601 VANDE RBILT BE ACHRD Vanderbilt Pier ;; '" 'II ,,% ~ 0; if> .~ Collier Count)'. Floridrl 1IiJIIIII, ill",. --..".,- ".' , -,~,. - ~ '-' - - ...,,' ,,~"_<:::, '~"F::'~ :~.': E ~ G J NEE R J N G ';;'," :;:' ,~:~;;';' COASTAL ZO;...""E 11A.l'\AGE..\1B..T PROPOSED Vk"TIERBll..T FISHr\G PIER I..a. ." 'd h. Dr,: :;r~ ,C.:>7~"" ~.,_.,,: ""o~c 7 Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 104 of 119 B. Non-site traffic (2009 horizon year) Traffic growth leading up to the horizon year was determined by a comparison of th County's 2006 Average Daily Traffic report and the County's latest Concurrency Table and 2006 AUIR. An estimate of the background traffic volumes was determined from a best fit linear trend analysis obtained by tabulating traffic count data taken at stations within the impacted area, A current copy of the concurrency segment table was also obtained from Collier County Transportation Staff. The following Background Traffic grmvth rates and projected ADTs were determined from the County's 2006 ADT Report followed by the County Roadway Segments Background Volumes with and without the project. STA SEGM LOCATION 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 % 2009 # ADT ADT ADT ADT ADT Growth Pro;' 524 109 Vanderbilt Beach Road west of U.S. 41 19171 20036 20680 20080 19579 0.45% 20339 577 100 US 41 (SR 45) south of 99th Ave North 47581 49071 53423 51118 52282 2.41% 56420 563 101 US 41 (SR 45) south ofVanderbttt Beach Rd. 44546 46390 49739 0' 45504 1.40% 49967 633 N/A Vanderbilt Dr. north of Vanderbilt Bch Rd. 7670 6958 7223 7526 6135 -3.26% 5851 585 39 111th Ave North west of Vanderbilt Dr (CR 901) 4593 4774 5500 0' 4402 0.33% 4901 613 40 111th Ave North west of Vanderbilt Dr (CR 901) 8493 8383 9292 0' 7721 -1.66% 7698 Table 3 Background Traffic (2009) (2006 ADT Report) * Indicates that counts were not taken due to 2005 Hurricane. SEGMENT ROADWAY FROMITO BACKGROUND SERVICE % SERVICE NUMBER NAME (SEGMENT) ADT VOLUME VOLUME 109 Vanderbilt Beach Road Gulf Shore Drive to US 41 20339 25460 79.90% 100 Tamiami Trail US 41 Immokalee Road to 56420 65280 86.42% Vanderbilt Beach Road 101 Tamiami Trail US 41 Vanderbilt Beach Road to 49967 71537 69.85% Gulf Park Drive 39 1111h Avenue N. Gulf Shore Dr to Vanderbilt 4901 13032 37.60% Drive 40 111lh Avenue N. Vanderbilt Dr to U.$ 41 7698 19426 39.63% N/A Vanderbilt Drive 111 Ave_ to Vanderbilt 5851 22276' 26.27% Beach Road N/A Gulf Shore Drive Bluebill Ave to Vanderbilt 5400 16900' 31.95% Beach Road Table 4 Concurrency Segments Background Volumes (2009 without Project) * Service volunles were calculated based on silnilar road\\'ay characteristics. 8 t SEGMENT ROADWAY NUMBER NAME 109 Vanderbilt Beach Road 100 Tamiami Trail US 41 101 Tamiami Trail US 41 39 111 th Avenue N. 40 111th Avenue N. Table 5 Concurrency Segments Background Volumes (2009 with Project) FROMITO BACKGROUND (SEGMENT) + Project Gulf Shore Drive to US 41 Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road Vanderbilt Beach Road to Gulf Park Drive Gulf Shore Dr to Vanderbilt Drive Vanderbilt Orto U.S. 41 N/A Gulf Shore Drive 111 Ave. to Vanderbilt Beach Road Bluebill Ave to Vanderbilt Beach Road * Service vohnnes were calculated hased on siInibr roadway characteristics. N/A Vanderbilt Drive Agenda Item No. 100 January 15, 2008 Page 105 of 119 SERVICE VOLUME % SERVICE VOLUME 25460 83.04% 65280 86.90% 71537 70.27% 13032 38.37% 19426 40.14% 22276' 27.16% 16900' 33.14% Table 5 illustrates that the County Concurrency Segments and non Concurrency Segments will operate at an acceptable level of service including the project trips applied at the horizon year. The County's Minimum Level of Service Standard D will be maintained, v. Analysis A. Site access: Roadway access to the site will be from the eXistIng Vanderbilt C;aragc access point connection onto Vanderbilt Reach Road. Pedestrian traffic will walk to the fishing pier via existing protected crosswalks and sidewalks for an approximate distance of 350 feet from the garage driveway. R. Capacity and level of service: As demonstrated in Tables 4 and 5 of this report and in accordance with Collier County Concurrency Management rules, future roadway conditions will accolnmodate the propo~ed project traffic. C. Traffic safety: The proposed project will not create a traffic safety concern based on the projected operating level of service conditions within the area of influence. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities should be reevaluated at time of site planning and design to insure a safer inter- modal interaction. VI. Improvement Analysis The arterial and collector level of service analysis of this report demonstrates the availability of capacity to accommodate both the project and background (non-site) traffic at the proposed horizon year with no inlproVCInent nece~sary. 9 VII, Conclusion Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 106 of 119 Traffic impacts of the proposed developmcnt can be accommodated within the impacted transportation nctwork and at the proposed build-out ycar without offsite improvement. The proposed project will not impact any Collier County Concurrency Segments or intersections that arc currently opcrating or are projected ro operate at an unacceptable level of service within the projected five~year planning period. Therefore, this project is consistent with the County's (,rowth Managcment Plan, Transportation Element and Policy 'j,l and should pass the County Roadway Concurrency detennination. 10 APPENDIX I TRAFFIC, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SURVEY 11 Agenda Item NO.1 OD January 15, 2008 Page 107 of 119 - ENGINEERING Johnson Engineering, 1nc. 2)')0 St~nford Court- 1'''l'le" 1'1. H 112 \l,'\\W .jul 11 bnlll'1l !!inccrin!!. ,-'Ulll Naples Pier Parking Average Daily Traffic I 1 1 I~ . _ Start TilJJ~ 08:]5 AM 08:30 AM __D8:45 AM Total 09:00 AM 09:15 AM 09:30 AM ! 09:45AM i Total 10:00 AM i IO:[SAM 10:30 AM I 10:45_A_i\/L Total 11:00 AM 11:15AM IUOAM []:45 AM Total 12:0{) PM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 11:45 PM Total 01:00 PM 01:15 PM 01:30 PM _ 0 JA~U~M Total i 02:00 PM I 02:15 PM I 02:30 PM I I 02:45PM__I_ Total 0300 PM 03:!5 PM 03:30 PM , ----9JA~~~1~ 04:00 PM I 04:]5 PM I 04:30 PM 04:45 PM Total I __,Grou~s Printed- Unshifted __ PIER PARKING I PIER PARKING From North I From East North Drivcwa~-~-~::~~_~ii~-p~~kill 35 1 I I 7 1 I 11 2 53 14 3' 6 3 16 61 ]2 9 10 i - 371 16 17 4 7 44 , I II 4' __ ..___<LJ 61 1.6~ II 5 2 17 File Name Site Code Start Date Page No PIER PARKING From West W c_~t Q!!-ycowa 21 H-- 8, 2 2 2 5 II ~I : I n --'41-'- 0' ,I ~I l' -------"'-+------ 51 ~I 7; _41 221 6' 12 H -----~----- .18 1.1 8 ' k i UL:_ 39 I 4 4 4 8 20 12 ] ! , .1, I! (t. 5 2: 3 .1 .0__ s 2 I 2 I 6 Agenda Item NO.1 OD January 15, 2008 Page 108 of 119 : Vehicle Parking Counts : 00000000 11/7/2007 : 1 I o ._2 1 lot. Total-] 47 8 15 70 o! 2' , I I 01 '1T- 5 <) 7 I> 27 () 8 16 13 17 54 , , ;1 ;i __00---1____ (i: 2! I: I, 01 I 4, 19 19 9 L 54 61 3' 0' I 10 24 14 " 7. 51 I o 2 7 7 <) ..B... JI 4 , ' , I "' 8 17 II IL 49 II _n.___ I> .1 ' 18 13 14 !J 58 2 1 .1 II ill 2: 3_. 6 6 6 8 ___-.LL 32 JOHNseN Agenda Item No. 100 January 15, 2008 Page 109 of 119 ENGINEERING Johnson Engineering, Inc. 2350 Stanford COllrt Naples, 1'1. 34] 12 VI"'JI.'VI'. jolll1S0nenginl'cring.colll File Name Site Code Start Date Page No : Vehicle Parking Counts : 00000000 : 11/7/2007 :2 ----- Grouns Printed- U nshifted ._- j --1 PIER PARKING PIER PARKING PIER PARKING I , I . From North From East From West "--- j Start Time N on.h privcwav "._~~__P.~rkin ' .WcstDrivcwav 05:00 PM 7 I I 05:15 PM 4 3 ~I- 0530 PM +- 6 2 _.---- __.----'li:15_ PM ._ I~t 2 ----. Total 8 Int. Total I 9 7 9 3 28 06:00 PM ~~- 2! _J_l 06:15 PM H 06:30 PM Q~:45 PM Tolal 29 5' 21 07:00 PM )1 5 0 07:15 PM ) 0 0 07:30 PM 0 0 0 Grand T olal 359 85 57 A pprch % 100 100 100 Total % 71.7 17 i ] 1.4 10 7 14 5 36 8 3 o SOl 13 . ENGINEERING JOHNS Johnson Engineering, Inc. 2.15(1 Stanford Com! o;"l'le;. FL )4] 12 \\W\..\" -,1 ul 1 n:;Ol1 cngi Ilcni n g.l'O III Pedestrian and Bicycle Arrival Counts ~..- __~r.Q.l,!p.s,_"'!"intcd- LJnshifted Naples Pier ______E~(J~_~ort.h_ ~J~rlTimc_ 08;30 AM 08:45 AM Total 09:00,AM 09:15 AM 09:30 AM 09:45 AM I T~-- 10:00 AM 10:]5 AM! lO:30AM _~Q:~~ AM Total II:OOAM 11:15AM 11:30AM 1]:45 AM I un Total I 12:00 PM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12_:45 PM Total 01:00 PM 01 15 PM 01:30 PM !lL42.!~_M_ Total I 02:00 PM 1l2:!5 PM 02::10 PM 02:45 PM Total 03:00 PM 03:15 PM O:UO PM 03:45 PM ___ Total 04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM Q4:45 PM Total r~~____ 6 t 7 6 2 3 2; lJ 5 2 3 I II 2 ] 5 II III 5 o II II 5 I Il (, ________~L____ 7 I ] I 2 i o! 6T ] II 3 ] <) ;1 (I -.--Q- 4 14 Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15. 2008 Page 110 of 119 File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Naples Pier From East Bicvcles .--------::-T- Oi II' OJ II o 2 01 21 , , -, , , -' 2, ] : 7T"- - ~ln 01 ~I ________Jl-l-_ I II II I II I III I, II' H II 0' I [) o 2 2 4, bicycles peds 00000000 11/29/2007 1 Int.-:r~t~-1'1 6 I 7 6 2 5 2 15 7 4 5 -~ 18 2 3 6 _0 II 5 I II __0__ 6 I [) 9 _J_ 13 I ] ] II 7 II 4 1 III 2 2 2 2 8 I1t11IIIII ENGINEERING Johnson Engineering, Inc. 2.))0 Slanforcl Court Naples. FL 14112 W\~ "'-. joh l1:,on cnt,:irwcrir\2.("OI1l ~.. _ StarLT..i..rDC 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30PM 05:45 PM. Total Agenda Item NO.1 OD January 15, 2008 Page 111 of 119 File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Groups Printc~!2!!~!!!f!cd____ Naples Pier _ r~ol!l.N!trth 06:00 PM ~ 06:15 PM .. 06:30 PM -----~5T~~------~ 07:00 PM 07:15 PM 07:30 PM Grand Total I Apprch % I, Totalo/" I -, I Peds 3: 51 I' . ~_.__.. 6 15 Naples Pier From East l?if:YI;:\~~ _ I I o o 2 II 21 II 0 , 6 2 i ...,Z 2: 30...-........--61.-- 2 0 2 0 5 0 126 31 100 : 100 RO.3 : 19.7 15 : bicycles peds : 00000000 : 11/29/2007 :2 -i;rt:Totall 4 6 I -------"-. 17 13 II 8 4 36 2 2 5 157 Naples Pier Parking Vehicular Activity Agenda Item No. 100 January 15, 2008 Page 112 of 119 [C] T~t~IN umber of Arrivals [ 50 0-- :;; :;; :;; :;; '" '" '" :;; :;; '" '" '" '" '" :;; :;; :;; ... '" '" '" '" '" CL :;; :; :; a; a; in ... '" '" '" CL CL :; :; in 6 ... ... '" '" CL CL :; :; 6 ... '" '" CL CL CL :; :; ~ N en '" CL :; :; ~ N ... ... '" '" CL CL :; :; N ... '" '" CL CL N iO iO ... '" '" CL 'i ... '" '" ... on on .; ... .; Time of Day 45 40 35. 30- 25 20 15 10 5. :; CL '" "" 16 O""Ol ~~ 1- 0- _ ~ C") , E >,;: 2rom -::>OJ t1l c t1l -ot1lCL c-, CD OJ <( ~ III E E ::J U) >- ;!:: :0 !!! III ~ Ql Cl III .... III C) Cl c :i! .... III D. == :0 .... Ql "C C III > In - c ., E E o o .c C o :::; OJ c '1: CD 0- o ., E j:: ., - lG E '" o ~ c. c. <( :::;:::;:::; o..o..CL 000 "''''0 N":-:N o 0 0 - -- :::;:::;:::; <(<(<( 000 ~~9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " u.. In ., :; c :E " Cl lG ~ ., > <( :::;:::;:::;:::; o..o..CL;3 0000 ~~o';"': NN";"':...- B.9oo :::;:::;ii <(<(<(<( ggoo ....00 o......Crio <Il <Il ,.,'" t1l t1l "0"0 o CD ~~ c~ o 0 1l " .- <.l ~ .- I-~ :::;:::;:::;:::;:::;:::;:::;:::;:::;:::; o..o..o..o..o..CLo..o..CLo.. ooooagoogg MOOeQ..QQ.... ';":N';":MM:;::NN;:~ .9.9.9.9.90.9.900 :::;:::;:::;:::;:::;i:::;:::;ii <(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<( ~~~~~g~~gg ;:;:~~~o;:~o.;..: ~ ~ ~ ~~~o~gggog~~~~gggggoo .r:. - c o ::E ~ ., c. " u.. In ., E j:: ..... o ~ " .c E " z OMMONNM......OM~~M~MMM......NOO .c - c o ::E <DcocotD 9000 -5 ~ >.. cb ro Ci.m c :::;<(""';; co <0(0 r- r- (Ooc.oo,?f'-..r--. r-9""9 ~9~9~~~~br-r-br-9ID9~ I Ci)..c CD ..c .0 ~. L"l: 9 c:r I a ....... ..c Q) .0 ~~E~EEro~Q~~~b~E..cE ~~~_~~~~m~~~~rnw.sm ~~fr8~~~~~~~~~~~8~ (f) 20 LL (f) Z '" N .... " Cl E .. ~ <I., -lZ'. Gr-rr-'( W A \ pl,~ RECEIVED ,-, ~ '1/1111 ".t. l.\N hvlY"\~g~~ylu-.--v \ a.. ~t.Je_1&1119 I . C ,.H'~A~ ZONE MMNAGEMENT V ANDERBIL T BEACH GARAGE GARAGE FULL, DATES & TIMES ~ DATE TIME LENGTH COUNT TOTALS MARCH 3-6 First Day, did not get full. 564 3-9 2:00 pm I hour 1153 3-11 12:00 pm 1 hour 664 3-14 10:30 am 30 mins 463 3-15 11 :00 am 30 mins 887 3-16 11 :00 am I hour 640 3-18 11 :00 am 30 mins 715 3-19 12:00 pm I hour 823 3-21 10:30 am 20 mins 602 3-28 12:30 pm 30 mins 524 3-31 10:30 am 30 mins 574 APRIL 4-15 II:OOam 30 mins 913 4-16 11:30am I hour 1018 4-20 II:OOam I hour 536 MAY 5-7 I :00 pm 30 mins 695 5-28 II:OOam 30 mins 840 5-29 11:00 am I hour 612 JUNE No closings this month JULY 7-4 . 12:00 pm 1 hour 725 7-15 10:30 am 30 mins 482 AUGUST 8-13 1:00pm 30 mins 543 8-20 11 :00 am 30 mins 394 SEPTEMBER 9-16 9:00 am 30 mins 401 Agenda Item No. 100 January 15, 2008 Page 115 of 119 9-23 12:00 P!ll 30 mins 459 9-30 12:00 pm 30 mins 444 OCTOBER 10-1 10:00 am 30 mins 507 NOVEMBER No closings this month DECEMBER 12-28 12:00 pm 30 mins 639 12-29 11:00am 30 mins 743 12-30 12:30 pm 30 mins 686 ~ DATE TIME LENGTH COUNT TOTALS JANUARY 1-6 11:00 am 1 hour 635 1-13 12:00 pm 1 hour 626 1-15 1 :00 pm 30 mins 560 1-20 1:30 pm 30 mins 705 FEBRUARY 2-10 12:00 pm 30 mins 720 2-20 12:30 pm 30 mins 580 2-21 11:30 am 30 mins 706 2-22 12:15 pm 1 hour 631 2-23 11 :30 am I hour 705 2-24 11 :00 am 1 hour 754 2-25 10:30 am 1 hour 834 MARCH 3-8 10:40 am 30 mins 733 3-9 11 :00 am 30 mins 642 3-10 10:00 am 30 mins 852 3-11 Closed 10:00 am 30 mins Twice 1:00pm 30 mins 906 3-13 11 :00 am 30 mins 715 3-15 11 :00 am 30 mins 678 3-18 12:00 pm 30 mins 596 3-23 10:30 am 1 hour 878 3-24 10:00 am 30 mins 845 3-25 10:00 am 1 hour 961 3-31 Closed 12:00 pm 30 mins Twice 2:00 pm 30 mins 818 r~.' - Agenda Item NO.1 00 " ' January 15, 2008 . Page 116 of 119 I . APRIL 4-1 Closed 11:00 am 1 hour Twice 1:00pm 30 mins 960 4-3 11 :00 am 30 mins 811 4-4 12:00 pm 30 mins 828 4-7 11 :00 am 30 mins 707 4-8 1:00 pm 30 mins 745 4-13 12:00 pm 30 mins 770 4-14 10:30 am 30 mins 810 4-18 II:OOam 30 mins 490 4-21 1:00 pm I hour 653 4-22 Closed 12:00 pm 30 mins Twice 2:00 pm 30 mins 855 4-24 10:00 am 30 mins 366 4-28 11:00 am 20 mins 657 4-29 Closed 12:00 pm 30 mins Twice 2:00 pm 30 mins 859 MAY 5-5 10:30 am 30 mins 642 5-27 10:45 am 30 mins 840 5-28 11:00 am 30 mins 805 JUNE 6-3 1 :00 pm 30 mins 698 6-9 10:00 am 30 mins 638 6-23 10:00 am 30 mins 661 JULY 7-4 1:00 pm 30 mins 603 7-8 1:00pm 30 mins 619 7-14 10:00 am 30 mins 572 AUGUST . 8-19 10:00 am 30 mins 573 SEPTEMBER 9-2 11:00 am 30 mins 810 9-3 12:00 pm/ 30 mins 672 OCTOBER No closings this month NOVEMBER No closings this month Naples Pier Crime Anaiysis Infractions 2005 2006 ~ Fishing and other infractions 42 61 61 Possession of Alcohol/Controlled Substance 12 20 19 Theft 5 5 4 Disorderly Conduct 2 4 7 Robery 0 0 1 Crimina' Mischief 1 4 2 Burglary 2 7 1 Traffic/Speeding 0 3 0 Battery/Fighting 1 2 0 Tresspass 3 1 0 Total Police Reports 68 107 95 Agenda Item NO.1 00 January 15, 2008 Page 117 of 119 Agenda Il'~ofcb January 15, 2008 Page 118 of 119 McAlpinGary From: HalasFrank Sent: Friday, July 27,20073:18 PM To: muddj; ochsJ Cc: ramsey_m; McAlpinGary Subject: FW: Naples PierNanderbilt Pier FYI From: jIM Burke [mailto:therightperson@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:22 PM To: HalasFrank Subject: Fw: Naples Pier/Vanderbilt Pier Frank, FYI-uu Original Message -un From:driohnnvs@aQI.&om To: theriQhtpE!rson@msn.com Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:58 PM Subject: Re: Naples PierNanderbilt Pier Your not, Jim Our Pier has been an asset to our community with limited problems ..I would be a great idea for it to happen in the northern end of town, I believe the commmunity would love it...Vice Mayor Johnny Nocera --u-Original Messageu-u From: jIM Burke <tberigblpersoo@msn&QD1> To: cjtxcouncil.@naplesgov.com Sent: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 3:45 pm Subject: Naples PierjVanderbilt Pier Mayor Barnett, we spent a bit of time together during the "Annexation Wars." I was always accompanied by the "Professor." The reason for this email is that the suggestion of a Vanderbilt Pier has caused a number of emails, from PB residents, denouncing such an idea and citing the Naples Pier as a glaring example of why a Pier is a bad idea. The NP is cited as a center for "drugs, illicit sex, vandalism, assorted criminal activities and a gathering place for undesirables." These emails are being sent to the CCC and I have seen most of them. A rewcnt one has caused me to ask myself what have I missed? I am sure that this criminal and illicit sexual activity would have received sensational coverage from local news outlets. I haven't seen it. In adition my experiences with the Naples Pier have been most pleasant. Am I missing something? ~ AOL now offers free email to everyone, Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL...col1). 12/1 0/2007 Agenda Ii'<lil!l~.ofcb January 15, 2008 Page 119 of 119 . McAlpinGary . From: HalasFrank Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 3:20 PM To: muddj; ochsJ Cc: ramseLm; McAlpinGary Subject: FW: Naples PierNanderbilt Pier From: jIM Burke [mailto:therightperson@msn,com] Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 9:43 AM To: Mayornaples@aol.com Subject: Re: Naples Pier(Vanderbilt Pier Mayor Bill, your sentiments are my feelings also. thank you for the info. ---. Original Message ---- From: Mavomaples@flol.com To: lberiahtoerson@msn.com Cc: mmoose@o~gjo.J/"j:..Qm Sent: Friday, July 27,20078:43 AM Subject: Re: Naples Pier/Vanderbilt Pier Dear Jim, Thanks for your e-mail. As you know I am celebrating my 34th year here in Naples. The Naples Pier has been a stellar landmark for Naples as long as I can remember. It serves our young and old alike. It draws tourists and locals, all enjoy walking on It, or under It, sitting on a bench on it, fishing off of it, or just watching a sunset from the end of it. I love the Naples Pier. and to this day my family, friends, and myself continue to use and enjoy it. For some person or persons to allege that the Naples Pier is anything other than what I described above is ludicrous, and they must be delusionall We monitor it closely at night, there is always a beach patrol officer nearby to assist citizens and answer questions. What else can I possibly say? Best Regards, Mayor Bill Get a sneak peek of the all-new AQl,.so.m. ] 2/1 0/2007