The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 10/28/2025 Item #17B (Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Growth Management Plan Amendment)SEE REVERSE SIDE Proposed Agenda Changes Board of County Commissioners Meeting October 28, 2025 Add on Item 5B to be heard immediately following Awards and Recognitions: Check presentation by the Collier County Tax Collector, Rob Stoneburner.(Staff’s Request) Move item 16B3 to 11F: Recommendation that the Board adopt a Resolution designating that portion of Immokalee Road from Oil Well Road to US Route 41 as the “Charlie Kirk Memorial Highway,” and direct staff to install appropriate signage designating the “Charlie Kirk Memorial Highway” to be installed at each terminus of the designated roadway segment, at specified intervals along the road, and at all 4 intersections of I-75/Immokalee Road; consistent with County and FDOT signage standards. (Commissioner LoCastro’s Request) Move companion items 17A & 17B to 9C & 9D: This item requires Commission members to provide ex- parte disclosure. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance rezoning property from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) for a project to be known as 8928 Collier Boulevard RPUD to allow for 92 multifamily residential dwelling units with Affordable Housing. The subject PUD, consisting of 9.49± acres, is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately 1,300 north of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Hacienda Lakes Parkway in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [PL20230018397] Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan to create the Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict to allow for 92 multi-family residential dwelling units with affordable housing; directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Commerce. The subject property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, approximately 1,300 feet north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 9.49± acres. [PL20230013845] (Commissioner Hall’s Request) Notes: TIME CERTAIN ITEMS: Item 5B to be heard after Awards and Recognitions: Check presentation by the Collier County Tax Collector, Rob Stoneburner. Item 10A to be heard after Proclamations: Request that the Board adopt a Resolution that condemns anti- Semitism in all forms and expressions. Item 10B to be heard at 10:00 AM: Recommendation to prioritize the construction of the additional athletic fields, as recommended in the Hunden Partners studies, as the next phase of development of the Paradise Coast Sports Complex, pending the approval of the tourist development tax referendum. Items 11A, 11B & 11C to be heard Immediately following Item 10B: Presentation on funding strategies for countywide Stormwater Capital, Operations, and Maintenance program; resolution to borrow up to $65M via the Florida Local Government Finance Commission’s pooled commercial paper program for stormwater capital projects; and Resolution amending Resolution 2022-123 to add transportation improvements for commercial paper funding and increase authorized borrowing to up to $50M. Item 11D to be heard at 2:00 PM: Recommendation to approve a Resolution amending the Growth Management Community Development Department Services Fee Schedule, with an effective date of January 1, 2026, in accordance with the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 2-13. 10/27/2025 7:45 PM 10/28/2025 Item # 17.B ID# 2025-3712 Executive Summary Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan to create the Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict to allow for 92 multi-family residential dwelling units with affordable housing; directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Commerce. The subject property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, approximately 1,300 feet north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 9.49± acres. [PL20230013845] (Companion item to Item 17A, PUDZ-PL20230018397 8928 Collier Blvd.) OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) approve (adopt) the proposed small-scale Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment to create a new residential subdistrict to be called the Bonita Flores Residential Subdistrict, with a maximum of 92 multi-family residential dwelling units with affordable housing. CONSIDERATIONS: The subject petition is submitted as a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment (Growth Management Plan Amendment or GMPA). Per Florida Statutes, the request is heard once only by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and the Board. If approved by the Board, the petition’s proposed ordinance is adopted and transmitted to the Florida Department of Commerce. The GMP amendment requested is approximately 9.49± acres and is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, approximately 1,300 feet north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. This petition seeks to amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Map. The proposed Subdistrict text, as recommended for approval by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), is found in the proposed Ordinance’s Exhibit “A.” The process for adoption of a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment requires (in part) the following statutory standards be met [followed by staff analysis in bracketed and italicized text]. (1) A small-scale development amendment may be adopted under the following conditions: (a) The proposed amendment involves a use of 50 acres or fewer. [The proposed amendment pertains to a 9.49- acre property.] (b) The proposed amendment does not involve a text change to the goals, policies, and objectives of the local government’s comprehensive plan but only proposes a land-use change to the future land-use map for a site-specific small-scale development activity. However, text changes that relate directly to and are adopted simultaneously with the small-scale future land use map amendment shall be permissible under this section. [This amendment is for a site-specific Future Land Use Map change and directly related text changes.] (c) The property that is the subject of the proposed amendment is not located within an area of critical state concern unless the project subject to the proposed amendment involves the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of s. 420.0004 (3) and is located within an area of critical state concern designated by s. 380.0552 or by the Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.05(1). [The subject property is not within an Area of Critical State Concern.] (4) Comprehensive plans may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to s. 163.3177. [Internal consistency will be maintained between and among elements if the amendment is approved.] Based on the review of this small-scale GMP amendment petition, including the supporting data and analysis, staff makes the following findings and conclusions: • The purpose of this GMPA and companion PUDZ zoning petition is to permit up to 92 multi-family rental dwelling units, with 28 affordable housing rental dwelling units. • There are no adverse environmental impacts. • No historical or archaeological sites are affected by this amendment. • There are no concerns about impacts on other public infrastructure. • The use is generally compatible with surrounding development based upon the high-level review conducted for a GMP amendment. Page 2812 of 3380 10/28/2025 Item # 17.B ID# 2025-3712 The documents provided for the amendment support the proposed changes to the FLUE and map. The complete staff analysis of this petition is provided in the CCPC Staff Report. Collier County Planning Commission heard the petition, PL20230013845, the Bonita Flores Residential Subdistrict, on September 18, 2025, and voted unanimously 6-0 to forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation to adopt the proposed ordinance for petition PL20230013845 and approve transmittal to the Florida Department of Commerce and other statutorily required agencies. Implement prudent and inclusive policy development through effective planning for transportation, land use, and growth management. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost to process, review, and advertise this petition was borne by the petitioner via application and advertisement fees. Therefore, there are no fiscal impacts to Collier County as a result of the adoption of this amendment. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This is a small-scale growth management plan amendment requiring a transmittal hearing and adoption hearing before both the CCPC and the Board. The Board's adoption of the proposed amendment for transmittal to the Florida Department of Commerce (Florida Commerce) will commence following the thirty-day (30) challenge period for any affected person. Provided the small-scale development amendment is not challenged, it shall become effective thirty-one (31) days after receipt by Florida Commerce. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment is authorized by and subject to the procedures established in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, The Community Planning Act, and by Collier County Resolution No. 12-234, as amended. The Board should consider the following criteria in making its decision: "lan amendments shall be based on relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include but not be limited to surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary, indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue."" 163.3177(1)(f), F.S. In addition, s. 163.3177(6)(a)2, F.S. provides that FLUE plan amendments shall be based on surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of non-conforming uses inconsistent with the community's character. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The need to modify land uses and development patterns with antiquated subdivisions. i. The discouragement of urban sprawl. j. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community's economy. And FLUE map amendments shall also be based upon the following analysis per s. 163.3177(6)(a)8, F.S.: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use, considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. This item is approved as to form and legality. It requires an affirmative vote of four for approval because this is an Page 2813 of 3380 10/28/2025 Item # 17.B ID# 2025-3712 Adoption hearing of the GMP amendment. [HFAC] RECOMMENDATIONS: To adopt the proposed Ordinance for petition PL20230013845 and approve transmittal to the Florida Department of Commerce and other statutorily required agencies. PREPARED BY: Jessica Constantinescu, Planner II, Zoning Division ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance - 10-1-25 2. Staff Report - Bonita Flores GMPA 3. GMPA Hearing Packet 4. legal ad - agenda IDs 25-3712 & 25-3637 - Bonita Flores GMPA & PUDZ (PL20230013845) & (PL20230018397) -10-28-25 BCC Page 2814 of 3380 [24-CMP-01221/1975739/1] 79 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict PL20230013845 10/1/25 1 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-___ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89- 05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY FROM URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT, URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT TO URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT, BONITA FLORES RESIDENTIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR 92 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 1,300 FEET NORTH OF HACIENDA LAKES PARKWAY IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 9.49± ACRES [PL20230013845] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Catana Construction, Inc., requested an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 163.3187(1), Florida Statutes, this amendment is considered a Small-Scale Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Subdistrict property is not located in an area of critical state concern or a rural area of opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) on ___________________ considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan and recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and Page 2815 of 3380 [24-CMP-01221/1975739/1] 79 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict PL20230013845 10/1/25 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County did take action in the manner prescribed by law and held public hearings concerning the proposed adoption of the amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan on ___________________; and WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of law have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this small-scale amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. The text and map amendment are attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION TWO: TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Board of County Commissioners directs transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Commerce. SECTION THREE: SEVERABILITY. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION FOUR: EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be 31 days after Board approval. If timely challenged, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued before it has become effective. Page 2816 of 3380 [24-CMP-01221/1975739/1] 79 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict PL20230013845 10/1/25 3 of 3 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this _______ day of _________________, 2025. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By:________________________ By:________________________________ Deputy Clerk Burt L. Saunders, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: ________________________________ Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A – Proposed Text Amendment & Map Amendment Page 2817 of 3380 Exhibit A PL20230013845 Page 1 of 5 Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deleted. 8/12/2025 EXHIBIT A FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Policy 1.5: The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: A. URBAN – MIXED USE DISTRICT 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 35. Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** A. URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 35. Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict The Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict consists of approximately 9.49 acre and is located approximately ¼ mile north of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Hacienda Lakes Parkway. It is depicted on the Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Map. The purpose of this subdistrict is to allow multi-family residential dwelling units, inclusive of workforce housing targeted for essential service personnel such as, but not limited to police officers, fire personnel, child-care workers, teachers or other education personnel, health care personnel, or public employees. Recognizing the need for housing diversity and to make workforce housing feasible, development within this subdistrict shall comply with the following requirements and limitations: a) The development shall be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Page 2818 of 3380 Exhibit A PL20230013845 Page 2 of 5 Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deleted. 8/12/2025 b) The development shall be limited to a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre for a total of 92 multi-family rental units. c) Twenty-eight (28) units collectively referred to as “Set Aside Units” will be income and rent restricted as follows: 1. The ratio of unit size types (i.e.: 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, 3-bedroom, etc.) shall be consistent throughout the market rate and affordable units. 2. Fourteen (14) units will be rented to households whose incomes are up to and including 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County and the corresponding rent limits. 3. Fourteen (14) units will be rented to households whose incomes are up to and including 100% of the AMI for Collier County and the corresponding rent limits. 4. The Set Aside Units will be committed for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first unit. Income and rent limits may be adjusted annually based on combined income and rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. 5. Preference to fifty percent (50%) of the Set Aside Units shall be given to Essential Service Personnel (ESP). i. ESP means natural persons or families at least one of whom is employed as police or fire personnel, a childcare worker, a teacher or other educational personnel, health care personnel, active military, or public employee. ii. The period of time the rental will be reserved and advertised for ESP persons will be a minimum of 90 days from the date the unit is first available and 45 days thereafter. In the event that no ESP person rents a Set Aside Unit, then the unit may be offered to the general public (non-ESP) but shall remain rent and income restricted. iii. At a minimum, advertising will consist of providing written notice to the Collier County Community and Human Services Division and the human resource departments for local hospitals, the Collier County Public School District, Collier County Government, other municipalities within Collier County, all EMS and fire districts, and the Collier County Sheriff’s Office. iv. Advertising for the development shall identify the project prioritizes units for ESP households. v. The Developer shall maintain a waiting list of pre-qualified ESP renters for subsequent vacancies. Waitlist participants will be notified of subsequent vacancies. Page 2819 of 3380 Exhibit A PL20230013845 Page 3 of 5 Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deleted. 8/12/2025 vi. This commitment for ESP preference shall remain in effect for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first unit. d) The Density Rating System is not applicable to this Subdistrict. FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** * Mattson at Vanderbilt Residential Subdistrict Map * Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Map Page 2820 of 3380 Exhibit A PL20230013845 Page 4 of 5 Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deleted. 8/12/2025 Page 2821 of 3380 Exhibit A PL20230013845 Page 5 of 5 Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deleted. 8/12/2025 Page 2822 of 3380 PL20230013845 1 STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2025 SUBJECT: PL20230013845 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (GMPA); BONITA FLORES RESIDENTIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT (ADOPTION HEARING) COMPANION TO: PUDZ-PL20230018397 8928 COLLIER BLVD RPUD ELEMENTS: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AGENT/APPLICANT: Agent: Josh Philpott, AICP Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 1412 Jackson Street Suite 3 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Owner: Bonita Flores I, LLC 1-35 Trillium Drive Kitchener, Ontario N2E 0H2 Applicant: Justin Narine Catana Construction, Inc. 3899 Mannix Drive Suite 405 Naples, FL 34114 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The ±9.49-acre subject property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) approximately 1,300 feet north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway, within Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Page 2823 of 3380 PL20230013845 2 Site Location Page 2824 of 3380 PL20230013845 3 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes a small-scale Comprehensive Plan amendment to remove the subject property from the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and to re-designate it as the Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict within the Urban Mixed Use District of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). The applicant also proposes to amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and create a new map (“Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Map”) in the FLUM series to identify the Subdistrict. The proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment is attached as Exhibit “A”. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: To re-designate the property from the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to the Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict to allow for the development of up to 92 multifamily dwelling units, of which 14 units (15% of the total units) will be rented to households whose incomes are less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) and 14 units (15%) will be rented to households whose incomes are less than 100% of the AMI. The subdistrict will reserve fifty percent (50%) of the income-limited units will be rented to military veterans or Essential Service Personnel (ESP). A companion petition (PL20230018397) would rezone the property from Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). EXISTING CONDITIONS: Subject Property: The ±9.49-acre site is zoned Agricultural (A). The site is mostly undeveloped except for a Collier County Well Station (SRO 27S) located in the rear of the lot. The entire subject property is designated Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict as identified on the Future Land Use Map. Surrounding Lands: North – Future Land Use Designation: Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. Zoned: Hacienda Lakes PUD/DRI. Land Use: single-family residential. Density: 0.78 dwelling units per gross acre. Maximum of 1,760 dwelling units throughout 2,262.17± gross acres. East – Future Land Use Designation: Urban Residential Subdistrict. Zoned: Hacienda Lakes PUD/DRI. Land Use: single-family residential. Density: 0.78 dwelling units per gross acre. Maximum of 1,760 dwelling units throughout 2,262.17± gross acres. South – Future Land Use Designation: Collier Boulevard Lord’s Way Mixed Use Subdistrict. Zoned: Collier Boulevard Lord’s Way MPUD. Land Use: single-family residential. Density: 10.0 dwelling units per gross acre. Maximum of 690 dwelling units throughout 6.9± gross acres. West – Future Land Use Designation: Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. Zoned: Naples Lakes Country Club PUD. Land Use: single-family residential. Density: 1.67 units per gross acre. Maximum of 785 units throughout 470.02± gross acres. In summary, the future land use designations, zoning districts, and existing land uses in the surrounding area are residential. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) currently designates this property as Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. The Urban Page 2825 of 3380 PL20230013845 4 Residential Fringe designation is intended to provide transitional densities between Urban designated areas and Agricultural/Rural designated areas. The maximum allowable density within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict is 1.5 units per gross acre. The site is also located within the Residential Density Band of Activity Center #7. Residential Density Bands allow for increased density of up to 3.0 dwelling units per gross acre, within 1 mile of a Mixed Use Activity Center. Additional density in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict is attainable in various methods, including Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) or eligibility of Affordable Housing Density Bonuses. The applicant is proposing to re-designate the subject property from the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to create a new subdistrict known as the Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict, to allow multifamily residential development at a density of 10.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposed text for the new subdistrict allows these dwelling units at a maximum zoned height of 52 feet and four stories. Residential density, affordable housing, and compatibility (including appropriateness of the location) for this project are identified by staff as the main areas of concern to address. Density: The proposed subdistrict will allow up to 92 multifamily rental units, of which 28 units (30% of total) will be restricted as affordable. As mentioned previously, the maximum allowable density within the Urban Residential Fringe is 1.5 units per gross acre. The requested density of 10.0 dwelling units per acre is significantly higher than what is allowed within the current designation. However, the approved density of the immediate surrounding developments varies between 0.78 dwelling units per gross acre and 10.0 dwelling units per gross acre. As this project proposes to establish a new subdistrict, it is not limited by its Future Land Use designation and may request 10.0 dwelling units per acre. Affordable Housing: Of the proposed 92 multifamily rental units, the petitioner has committed to rent 14 units (15% of the total units) to households whose incomes are less than 80% of the AMI and 14 units (15% of the total units) to households whose incomes are less than 100% of the AMI. A preference for 50% of the affordable housing units will be given to Essential Service Personnel (ESP). Compatibility: FLUE Policy 5.6 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, a compatibility analysis may include a review of allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location, and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space, and location. The area surrounding the proposed subdistrict is primarily comprised of both single-family and multi-family residential, with access to Collier Boulevard (CR 951). The nearest commercial designation, Activity Center #7, allows a full array of commercial uses and intensities. Planning principles support locating higher intensity development closer to major roadways, with the intensity of uses diminishing as developments transition lower into single-family residential neighborhoods. An effect of developing a higher density residential community is the balance of preserving the living conditions of the adjacent community, especially maintaining residential character, privacy, and access to natural light. To ensure the surrounding residential communities are not significantly impacted, appropriate setbacks, screening, and landscape buffers should be Page 2826 of 3380 PL20230013845 5 established. A minimum 15-foot-wide type ‘B’ is provided on the northern project boundary, a minimum 15-foot wide type ‘D’ buffer is provided on the west project boundary adjacent to Collier Boulevard, and a minimum 10-foot-wide type ‘A’ buffer is provided on the southern project boundary, which is adjacent to a conservation easement within Lord’s Way MPUD. Compatibility can be more specifically addressed within the companion zoning petition. Staff finds that the requested multifamily use will be compatible with the surrounding area (at the level at which GMP amendments are reviewed for compatibility) and, in accordance with best practices, that this is an appropriate location to provide for higher density residential. Needs Analysis: Zonda conducted a market analysis (“8928 Collier Boulevard Rental Housing Market Study, Bonita Flores 1”, included in the backup materials), analyzing market conditions for the subject site by identifying the market area of Collier County (defined as the Collier County jurisdictional boundaries) and an additional 3-mile market area, referred to as the ‘Primary Market Area’, or ‘PMA’, was included to demonstrate the estimated population, rental demand, and rental square feet supply, and the employers within a 3-mile radius of the subject property that would benefit from having rental offerings, and in particular affordable housing offerings, available to employees. Staff notes the following from the market analysis: • The population of the PMA market area is expected to increase by 5.69% between 2024 and 2029, from 32,853 to 34,835 in 2029 per ESRI projections. • The average occupancy rate of the eleven Collier County apartment complexes where data was able to be obtained was 94.41%. Staff notes that the most recent Quarterly Rental Apartment Survey (July 2025) completed by the Collier County Community and Human Services Division indicates an average occupancy rate of 93.5% for all of Collier County. The survey is included in the backup materials for this petition. • Based on the demand modeling within a 3-mile radius of the subject property, the proposed affordable housing percentiles are consistent with the household income ranges supported by prevalent job types in the area. • A demand analysis of market rate apartments indicates a current annual deficit averaging 921, totaling a deficit of 4,603 market rate rental apartments in the market area over a 5- year period. The proposed project will help to decrease the deficit of market rate rental apartments upon its projected delivery in 2026. Based on the market analysis, staff agrees with the applicant that the provided data and analysis reasonably demonstrates a need for the proposed project. CRITERIA FOR GMP AMENDMENTS FLORIDA STATUTES: Data and analysis requirements for comprehensive plans and plan amendments are noted in Chapter 163, F.S., specifically as listed below. Section 163.3177(1)(f), Florida Statutes: (f) All mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. Page 2827 of 3380 PL20230013845 6 1. Surveys, studies, and data utilized in the preparation of the comprehensive plan may not be deemed a part of the comprehensive plan unless adopted as a part of it. Copies of such studies, surveys, data, and supporting documents for proposed plans and plan amendments shall be made available for public inspection, and copies of such plans shall be made available to the public upon payment of reasonable charges for reproduction. Support data or summaries are not subject to the compliance review process, but the comprehensive plan must be clearly based on appropriate data. Support data or summaries may be used to aid in the determination of compliance and consistency. 2. Data must be taken from professionally accepted sources. The application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted may be evaluated. However, the evaluation may not include whether one accepted methodology is better than another. Original data collection by local governments is not required. However, local governments may use original data so long as methodologies are professionally accepted. 3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections, which shall either be those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research or generated by the local government based upon a professionally acceptable methodology. The plan must be based on at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10-year planning period unless otherwise limited under s. 380.05, including related rules of the Administration Commission. Absent physical limitations on population growth, population projections for each municipality, and the unincorporated area within a county must, at a minimum, be reflective of each area’s proportional share of the total county population and the total county population growth. Section 163.3177(6)(a)2., Florida Statutes: 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. Page 2828 of 3380 PL20230013845 7 Section 163.3177(6)(a)8., Florida Statutes: (a) A future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land. The approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use shall be provided for the gross land area included in each existing land use category. The element shall establish the long-term end toward which land use programs and activities are ultimately directed. 8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. The petitioner must provide appropriate and relevant data and analysis to address the statutory requirements for a Plan Amendment. For this petition, a market analysis (“8928 Collier Boulevard Rental Housing Market Study, Bonita Flores 1”) was provided by the applicant. Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes: Process for adoption of small scale comprehensive plan amendment. (1) A small scale development amendment may be adopted under the following conditions: (a) The proposed amendment involves a use of 50 acres or fewer. [The subject site comprises 9.49± acres.] (b) The proposed amendment does not involve a text change to the goals, policies, and objectives of the local government’s comprehensive plan, but only proposes a land use change to the future land use map for a site-specific small-scale development activity. However, text changes that relate directly to, and are adopted simultaneously with, the small- scale future land use map amendment shall be permissible under this section. [This amendment does include a text change to the Comprehensive Plan and those text changes are directly related to the proposed future land use map amendment.] (c) The property that is the subject of the proposed amendment is not located within an area of critical state concern, unless the project subject to the proposed amendment involves the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of s. 420.0004(3), and is located within an area of critical state concern designated by s. 380.0552 or by the Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.05(1). [The subject property is not located within an Area of Critical State Concern.] (d) Comprehensive plans may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to s. 163.3177. Corrections, updates, or modifications of current costs which were set out as part of the comprehensive plan shall not, for the purposes of this act, be deemed to be amendments. [This amendment preserves the internal consistency of the plan and is not a correction, update, or modification of current costs which were set out as part of the comprehensive plan.] Page 2829 of 3380 PL20230013845 8 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) NOTES: The applicant conducted a hybrid Neighborhood Information Meeting, held on May 19, 2025 at South Regional Library and commenced at approximately 5:30 p.m. and ended at 6:15 p.m. The applicant’s agent, Joshua Philpott, AICP, explained the request for the proposed rezone and the companion small scale Growth Management Plan amendment. Mr. Philpott gave a brief presentation in which he gave an overview of the proposed project, introduced the project team, and explained the background of the existing property related to its existing zoning and Future Land Use designations. Mr. Philpott further outlined the details of the rezone and GMP amendment petitions, explaining that the requested multifamily rental project includes a commitment to provide 30% of the units for affordable housing at 80-100% AMI with 50% reserved for essential service personnel and active duty military. The NIM summary is included in the CCPC backup materials. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: • There are no adverse environmental impacts as a result of this petition. • No historic or archaeological sites are affected by this amendment. • There are no transportation or public utility-related concerns as a result of this petition. • There are no concerns about impacts on other public infrastructure. • There is a demonstrated need for the proposed use. • The site’s use will create minimal impact on the surrounding area. Environmental Review: Environmental Services Staff verified the acreage of native vegetation on site during the review of the Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDZ) for the project. The subject property is currently zoned Agricultural (A). The proposed GMP amendment has no effect on the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) regarding protecting native vegetation, the preservation requirement is 1.22 acres (15% of 8.15 acres). Native vegetation on-site will be retained by the requirements of CCME Policy 6.1.2 and section 3.05.07 of the LDC. Environmental Services staff recommend approval of the proposed petition. Transportation Review: A Transportation Impact Statement (TIS) prepared by Stantec Consulting Services dated May 2024 was submitted as part of this petition. Transportation Planning staff reviewed the TIS and the petition for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan using the current 2024 AUIR. Staff finds the TIS to be sufficient and have no objections to the Transmittal of this GMPA petition. Utilities Review: The project lies within the regional potable water service area and the south wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). Water and wastewater services are available via existing infrastructure within the adjacent right-of-way. Sufficient water and wastewater treatment capacities are available. Any improvements to the CCWSD’s water or wastewater systems necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the County at the time of utilities acceptance. LEGAL REVIEW: The County Attorney’s office reviewed the staff report on August 26, 2025. Page 2830 of 3380 PL20230013845 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Collier County Planning Commission forward petition PL20230013845 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict GMPA to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve and adopt and transmit to the Florida Department of Commerce and other statutorily required agencies. NOTE: This petition has been tentatively scheduled for the October 28, 2026 BCC meeting. Page 2831 of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age 1 of Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 •239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov/ NaNammeeofof PrPropopeerrtyty OOwwnneerr(s)(s)::____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NaNammeeofof AApppplliicantcant iiffddiiffffeerreenntt ththaannoowwnneerr::____________________________________________________________________________________ AAddddrreess:ss:___________________________________________________C_Ciity:ty: __________________________ SState:tate: ______________ ZZIIP:P: ____________________ TTeelleepphhononee::________________________________________ CelCelll::________________________________________ FFaax:x: ______________________________________ EE--MMaaiill AAddddrreess:ss:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NaNammee ofof AAggeennt:t: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ FiFirrmm:: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ AdAdddrreess:ss:___________________________________________C_Ciity:ty: ______________________________ StaState:te: __________________ ZZIIP: P: ____________________ TTeelleepphhononee:: __________________________________________ CellCell:: _________________________________________ _ Fax: Fax: __________________________________ EE--MMaaiill AAddddrreess:ss: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ EĂŵĞŽĨKǁŶĞƌ;ƐͿŽĨZĞĐŽƌĚƐ͗____________________________________________________ Address: __________________________City: _____________ State: _______ ZIP: __________ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: ____________________ Fax: ___________________ E-Mail Address: ________________________________________________________________ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 2QDQDGGLWLRQDOSDSHULQFOXGHWKH1DPH&RPSDQ\$GGUHVVDQG4XDOLILFDWLRQVRIDOO FRQVXOWDQWVDQGRWKHUSURIHVVLRQDOVSURYLGLQJLQIRUPDWLRQFRQWDLQHGLQWKLVDSSOLFDWLRQ DVZHOODV4XDOLILFDWLRQVRIWKH$JHQWLGHQWLILHGDERYH 6HH([KLELW, Bonita Flores I, LLC Mr. Justin Narine, Catana Construction Inc. 3899 Mannix Dr, Ste 405 Naples FL 34114 239-331-3425 justin.narine@catanaconstruction.com Josh Philpott, AICP Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 1412 Jackson St, Ste 3 Fort Myers FL 33901 (239) 225-4805 (239) 313-3025 josh.philpott@stantec.com Bonita Flores I, LLC (Michael Crijan, Director) #1-35 Trillium Drive Kitchener Ontario N2E 0H2 (239) 895-5291 -REVISED, May 24, 2024- Page 2832 of 3380 $ ,IWKHSURSHUW\LVRZQHGIHHVLPSOHE\DQ,1',9,'8$/7HQDQF\E\WKHHQWLUHW\WHQDQF\LQ FRPPRQRUMRLQWWHQDQF\OLVWDOOSDUWLHVZLWKDQRZQHUVKLSLQWHUHVWDVZHOODVWKHSHUFHQWDJHRI VXFKLQWHUHVW8VHDGGLWLRQDOVKHHWVLIQHFHVVDU\Ϳ͘ 1HHG+HOS" *0&'3XEOLF3RUWDO 2QOLQH3D\PHQW*XLGH (3HUPLWWLQJ*XLGHV RevLVHGPage of Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 •239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov/ ',6&/2685(2),17(5(67,1)250$7,21 % ,IWKHSURSHUW\LVRZQHGE\D&25325$7,21OLVWWKHRIILFHUVDQGVWRFNKROGHUVDQGWKH SHUFHQWDJHRIVWRFNRZQHGE\HDFK & ,IWKHSURSHUW\LVLQWKHQDPHRID75867((OLVWWKHEHQHILFLDULHVRIWKHWUXVWZLWKWKH SHUFHQWDJHRILQWHUHVW ' ,IWKHSURSHUW\LVLQWKHQDPHRID*(1(5$/RU/,0,7('3$571(56+,3OLVWWKHQDPHRI WKHJHQHUDODQGRUOLPLWHGSDUWQHUV 3(5&(17$*(2)2:1(56+,31$0( 3(5&(17$*(2)2:1(56+,31$0( 3(5&(17$*(2)2:1(56+,31$0( 3(5&(17$*(2)2:1(56+,31$0( Page 2833 of 3380 1HHG+HOS" *0&'3XEOLF3RUWDO 2QOLQH3D\PHQW*XLGH (3HUPLWWLQJ*XLGHV RevLVHGPage of Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 •239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov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age 2834 of 3380 1HHG+HOS" *0&'3XEOLF3RUWDO 2QOLQH3D\PHQW*XLGH (3HUPLWWLQJ*XLGHV RevLVHGPage of Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 •239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov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arcel is located east of Collier Boulevard and north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to the north and east. To the south is Urban Mixed Use District, Collier Blvd Lord's Way Mixed Use Subdistrict. To the west is Urban Residential Subdistrict - Residential Density Band Please see EXHIBIT "II"FLU Map 14 50 26 Royal Fakapalm 359 A Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict 9.5 ✔ viii, 10, 56, 164 Future Land Use Page 2835 of 3380 1HHG+HOS" *0&'3XEOLF3RUWDO 2QOLQH3D\PHQW*XLGH (3HUPLWWLQJ*XLGHV RevLVHGPage of Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 •239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov/ $6)2//2:68VH6WULNHWKURXJKWRLGHQWLI\ODQJXDJHWREHGHOHWHG8VH8QGHUOLQHWR ,GHQWLI\ODQJXDJHWREHDGGHGPXOWLOLQHILOODEOHDUHDVZLOOKROGDVPXFKWH[WDVQHHGHG & $0(1')8785(/$1'86(0$36'(6,*1$7,21)520 72 ' $0(1'27+(50$36$1'(;+,%,76$6)2//2:61DPH 3DJH ( '(6&5,%($'',7,1$/&+$1*(65(48(67(' 5(48,5(',1)250$7,21 3URYLGHJHQHUDOORFDWLRQPDSVKRZLQJVXUURXQGLQJGHYHORSPHQWV38''5,¶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³$´$%29( 3URYLGHDVXPPDU\WDEOHRI)HGHUDO86)LVK :LOGOLIH6HUYLFHDQG6WDWH)ORULGD*DPH )UHVKZDWHU)LVK&RPPLVVLRQOLVWHGSODQWDQGDQLPDOVSHFLHVNQRZQWRRFFXURQWKHVLWHDQGRU NQRZQWRLQKDELWELRORJLFDOFRPPXQLWLHVVLPLODUWRWKHVLWHHJSDQWKHURUEODFNEHDUUDQJHDYLDQ URRNHU\ELUGPLJUDWRU\URXWHHWF,GHQWLI\KLVWRULFDQGRUDUFKDHRORJLFDOVLWHVRQWKHVXEMHFWSURSHUW\ 127($//$(5,$/60867%($7$6&$/(2)1260$//(57+$1,´ ¶$WOHDVWRQHFRS\UHGXFHG WR[VKDOOEHSURYLGHGRIDOODHULDOVDQGRUPDSV /$1'86( )8785(/$1'86('(6,*1$7,21 6HH([KLELW,, 6HH([KLELW,9 6HH([KLELW9 6HH([KLELW9, 6HH([KLELW9,, Please see Exhibit “III” - Proposed FLUE Text Amendments No additional changes requested. Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict This GMPA does not require any further amendments, outside of the inclusion of the subdistrict text and subdistrict map as noted in Exhibit III. ✔ Page 2836 of 3380 1HHG+HOS" *0&'3XEOLF3RUWDO 2QOLQH3D\PHQW*XLGH (3HUPLWWLQJ*XLGHV RevLVHGPage of Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 •239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov/ 38%/,&)$&,/,7,(6 3URYLGHWKHH[LVWLQJ/HYHORI6HUYLFH6WDQGDUG/26DQGGRFXPHQWWKHLPSDFWWKHSURSRVHGFKDQJH ZLOOKDYHRQWKHIROORZLQJSXEOLFIDFLOLWLHV *52:7+0$1$*(0(17 ,16(57³<´)25<(625³1´)2512,15(63216(727+()2//2:,1* ,VWKHSURSRVHGDPHQGPHQWORFDWHGLQDQ$UHDRI&ULWLFDO6WDWH&RQFHUQ"5HIHUHQFH )$& ,)VRLGHQWLI\DUHDORFDWHGLQ$&6& ,VWKHSURSRVHGDPHQGPHQWGLUHFWO\UHODWHGWRDSURSRVHG'HYHORSPHQWRI5HJLRQDO,PSDFW SXUVXDQWWR&KDSWHU)6"5HIHUHQFH)$& ,VWKHSURSRVHGDPHQGPHQWGLUHFWO\UHODWHGWRDSURSRVHG6PDOO6FDOH'HYHORSPHQW$FWLYLW\ SXUVXDQWWR6XEVHFWLRQF)6"'RHVWKHSURSRVHGDPHQGPHQWFUHDWHDVLJQLILFDQW LPSDFWLQSRSXODWLRQZKLFKLVGHILQHGDVDSRWHQWLDOLQFUHDVHLQ&RXQW\ZLGHSRSXODWLRQE\WKDQ RISRSXODWLRQSURMHFWLRQV"5HIHUHQFH&DSLWDO,PSURYHPHQW(OHPHQW3ROLF\,I\HVLQGLFDWH PLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHVEHLQJSURSRVHGLQFRQMXQFWLRQZLWKWKHSURSRVHGDPHQGPHQW 'RHVWKHSURSRVHGODQGXVHFDXVHDQLQFUHDVHLQGHQVLW\DQGRULQWHQVLW\WRWKHXVHVSHUPLWWHGLQD VSHFLILFODQGXVHGHVLJQDWLRQDQGGLVWULFWLGHQWLILHGFRPPHUFLDOLQGXVWULDOHWFRULVWKHSURSRVHG ODQGXVHDQHZODQGXVHGHVLJQDWLRQRUGLVWULFW"5HIHUHQFH)$&,IVRSURYLGHGDWDDQG DQDO\VLVWRVXSSRUWWKHVXLWDELOLW\RIODQGIRUWKHSURSRVHGXVHDQGRIHQYLURQPHQWDOO\VHQVLWLYHODQG JURXQGZDWHUDQGQDWXUDOUHVRXUFHV5HIHUHQFH)$& 3URYLGHPDSRIH[LVWLQJ)XWXUH/DQG8VH'HVLJQDWLRQVRIVXEMHFWSURSHUW\DQGDGMDFHQWODQGV ZLWKDFUHDJHWRWDOVIRUHDFKODQGXVHGHVLJQDWLRQRQWKHVXEMHFWSURSHUW\ 3RWDEOH:DWHU 6DQLWDU\6HZHU $UWHULDO &ROOHFWRU5RDGV1DPHVSHFLILFURDGDQG/26 'UDLQDJH 6ROLG:DVWH 3DUNV&RPPXQLW\DQG5HJLRQDO ,IWKHSURSRVHGDPHQGPHQWLQYROYHVDQLQFUHDVHLQUHVLGHQWLDOGHQVLW\RUDQLQFUHDVHLQLQWHQVLW\IRU FRPPHUFLDODQGRULQGXVWULDOGHYHORSPHQWWKDWZRXOGFDXVHWKH/26IRUSXEOLFIDFLOLWLHVWRIDOOEHORZWKH DGRSWHG/26LQGLFDWHPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHVEHLQJSURSRVHGLQFRQMXQFWLRQZLWKWKHSURSRVHGDPHQGPHQW 6HH([KLELW,, 6HH([KLELW9,,, 6HH([KLELW,;DQG([KLELW; N N N Y ✔ ✔ ✔ Collier Boulevard ✔ ✔ ✔ Response: No, the property is not located within an area of critical concern pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1)(c), F.S. and it does not create an increase in population by 5%. Page 2837 of 3380 1HHG+HOS" *0&'3XEOLF3RUWDO 2QOLQH3D\PHQW*XLGH (3HUPLWWLQJ*XLGHV RevLVHGPage of Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 •239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov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´ ¶RUDWDVFDOHDVGHWHUPLQHGGXULQJWKHSUHDSSOLFDWLRQPHHWLQJ $OODWWDFKPHQWVVKRXOGEHFRQVLVWHQWO\UHIHUHQFHGDVDWWDFKPHQWVRUH[KLELWVDQGVKRXOGEHODEHOHGWR FRUUHODWHWRWKHDSSOLFDWLRQIRUPHJ³([KLELW,'´ 3ODQQLQJ&RPPXQLW\7$=PDS7UDIILF$QDO\VLV=RQHPDS=RQLQJPDSVDQG)XWXUH/DQG8VH0DSV 6RPHPDSVDUHDYDLODEOHRQWKH=RQLQJ'LYLVLRQZHEVLWHGHSLFWLQJLQIRUPDWLRQKHUHLQ ) 27+(5 ,GHQWLI\WKHIROORZLQJDUHDVUHODWLQJWRWKHVXEMHFW SURSHUW\ =RQLQJ6HUYLFHV6HFWLRQBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQQLQJ6HFWLRQBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6HH([KLELW;, < < ✔ ✔ ✔ Page 2838 of 3380 Page 2839 of 3380 10 Page 2840 of 3380 11 Page 2841 of 3380 12 Page 2842 of 3380 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 1412 Jackson St., Suite 3, Fort Myers FL 33901 June 3, 2025 Ms. Jessica Constantinescu Collier County Growth Management Department Comprehensive Planning Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: REVISED COVER LETTER for the Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment – PL20230013845 Dear Ms. Constantinescu: Enclosed for your review is a revised cover letter to accompany the Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment application, to change the Future Land Use designation within the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan for a 9.49+/- acre project located along Collier Blvd, approximately 1,300 feet north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway in unincorporated Collier County, Florida. This application is companion to the Planned Unit Development zoning application (PL20230018397) which will subsequently be submitted for review. The initial application request and cover letter was submitted to Collier County on March 6, 2024. Sufficiency responses were received on April 15, and April 19, 2024. As County comments requested further details on items discussed in the cover letter, the applicant cover letter was revised. This application cover letter replaces the original cover letter. BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject property for this Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) currently has a future land use map designation of Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, zoned Rural Agricultural and is currently undeveloped. The subject parcel is located within an urbanized area, along a six (6)-lane, county-maintained, arterial roadway, largely surrounded by existing and future residential housing developments. To the west of the property, across Collier Boulevard is the Naples Lakes Country Club. Adjacent to the property on the north and east is the Hacienda Lakes Mixed-use Planned Unit Development which is approved for a combination of single and multi-family dwelling units. To the south of the subject parcel is The Lord’s Way Planned Unit Development which was recently approved for a total of 690 residential units on 69 acres (10 dwelling units per acre) with affordable housing components. Page 2843 of 3380 June 4, 2025 Page 2 of 11 REQUEST Catana Construction Inc. (“Applicant”) is requesting approval to amend the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and the future land use designation for the 9.49+/- acre property to be recognized as Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict. The subdistrict would allow for multi-family residential development that would be consistent and compatible with the present and future residential developments surrounding the subject property. Additionally, the proposed subdistrict would help support policies of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan by providing new affordable housing units in order to meet the current and future housing needs of low and moderate workforce incomes, while ensuring new developments are compatible, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. The proposed multi-family development provides a maximum of 92 dwelling units, which will include one- and two-bedroom residences. It will include 28 affordable housing units, comprising 30% of affordable housing in the development. The project will be required to go through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezoning process to obtain approval; a subsequent application for the PUD is being submitted. The proposed subdistrict allows for a density of 10 units per acre with a requirement that 30% of the units be affordable housing. This would include fourteen units (15%) to be rented to households whose incomes do not exceed 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County, and fourteen units (15%) to be rented to households whose incomes do not exceed 100% of the AMI. This subdistrict allows for a density of 10 dwelling units per acre to include affordable housing, with a requirement to ensure that 50% of the affordable housing (14 units) are designated for military veterans or essential service personnel such as, but not limited to police or fire personnel, child-care workers, teachers or other education personnel, health care personnel, skilled building trades personnel, active duty military or government employees. This is intended to help address Collier County’s affordable housing challenges. Additionally, the subdistrict includes a requirement to maintain these affordable housing units at the income thresholds for a period of 30-years. The proposed project is in an ideal location for the proposed density. This currently vacant property is located amongst existing and future residential communities which will consist of single and multi-family developments, of which the adjacent multi-family will have comparable heights and densities. The subject property has adequate infrastructure to support the residential, as it is located along a 6-lane arterial, with proximity to schools, medical, commercial uses, and will be amongst other new residential developments with comparable densities. It would provide an excellent housing location for essential service personnel workers within the area. Page 2844 of 3380 June 4, 2025 Page 3 of 11 LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district identified (commercial, industrial, etc.) or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district? If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use, and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. Answer: Yes, the proposed land use is a new subdistrict which allows for an increase in density beyond the current future land use designation. Suitability of proposed land: The subject property is located within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and largely surrounded by residential land uses to the north, east, and west. The vacant properties adjacent to the north and south are under construction for residential communities which will have comparable densities and height. The property to the north is under construction for a residential project which will include single, villa, and multi-family residential. The Seven Shores community will have 4-story apartment communities (comparable height to this project). To the south it is bordered by the Collier Boulevard Lord’s Way Mixed Use Subdistrict which was recently approved for 10 dwelling units per acre, with affordable housing provisions, matching the density of the proposed Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict. It is currently under construction and will include a series of 4-story residential apartment buildings. Farther southeast of the property is a recently approved new subdistrict, Carman Drive Subdistrict, which provides for a multi-family development of 13.9 dwelling units per acre with approximately 22.6% affordable housing. Additionally, further south of the Collier Boulevard Lord’s Way Mixed Use Subdistrict is a planned unit development which will include a combination of retail, professional and medical office uses. Continuing south along Collier Boulevard, about 1 mile in distance from the subject property is a regional medical center. The proposed subdistrict would include a minimum of twenty-eight (28) affordable housing units, of which fourteen (14) would be exclusively for military veterans and essential services personnel, such as those medical professionals who may work nearby. The location is ideal for multi-family residential infill development and would be beneficial in providing affordable housing units and assisting with the critical affordable housing needs in Collier County. The provided market analysis provides more analysis and validates the demand for rental units and affordable housing units within this area of Collier County. Furthermore, the subject property is located along a major arterial with sufficient roadway capacity to support the proposed project. There is sufficient capacity in the County’s water and sewer services in the area. Environmentally sensitive land: The property is largely undeveloped and primarily infested with nuisance and exotic vegetation. Please see Exhibit “VII” – Environmental Report for further details regarding the environmentally sensitive lands of the property. Natural resources: The existing habitat on site is of poor wildlife value due to the abundant undesirable species and lack of herbaceous groundcover. Please see Exhibit “VII” – Environmental Page 2845 of 3380 June 4, 2025 Page 4 of 11 Report for further details regarding natural resources identified on the property and the protected species survey completed. Ground water: The property is located within the Collier County Water-Sewer District Boundary. The proposed project will connect to the county’s central water and sewer systems. ANALYSIS OF SMALL SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA IN FLORIDA STATUTES CHAPTER 163.3177 The request complies with the Florida Statutes pertaining to small scale comprehensive plan amendments. The applicable references are stated below, with further details following thereafter as to how this request complies. Section 163.3177(1)(f), Florida Statutes: (f) All mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. 1. Surveys, studies, and data utilized in the preparation of the comprehensive plan may not be deemed a part of the comprehensive plan unless adopted as a part of it. Copies of such studies, surveys, data, and supporting documents for proposed plans and plan amendments shall be made available for public inspection, and copies of such plans shall be made available to the public upon payment of reasonable charges for reproduction. Support data or summaries are not subject to the compliance review process, but the comprehensive plan must be clearly based on appropriate data. Support data or summaries may be used to aid in the determination of compliance and consistency. 2. Data must be taken from professionally accepted sources. The application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted may be evaluated. However, the evaluation may not include whether one accepted methodology is better than another. Original data collection by local governments is not required. However, local governments may use original data so long as methodologies are professionally accepted. 3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections, which shall either be those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research or generated by the local government based upon a professionally acceptable methodology. The plan must be based on at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10-year planning period unless otherwise limited under s. 380.05, including related rules of the Administration Commission. Absent physical limitations on population growth, population projections for each municipality, and the unincorporated area within a county must, Page 2846 of 3380 June 4, 2025 Page 5 of 11 at a minimum, be reflective of each area’s proportional share of the total county population and the total county population growth. Response: Detailed responses are included below pertaining to each of the three criteria stated in the applicable Florida Statute reference. 1: Support data, surveys and studies were prepared and utilized in the preparation of this project and its growth management plan amendment application. Collectively the following data and studies validate the compliance and consistency of the project with the comprehensive plan. A traffic impact statement was prepared to summarize the transportation impacts which will be generated by the proposed project. A level of services study was completed and provided as part of the application submittal, reviewing impacts on infrastructure and services which would support the project and its users. A market study was performed to validate the need for housing, to include the demand at various housing income levels. An environmental report was prepared which outlined the inspections and analysis done on the subject property. 2: The data was collected from professionally accepted sources. The data compiled and studied in the above criteria 1 was prepared and collected by consultant team professionals, as noted in Exhibit “I” of the initial application submittal. Additionally, each report or tool (noted in criteria 1) references further professionally accepted resources within them. 3: The Market Study provided with the application package summarizes current Collier County population patterns and growth estimates relying on Moody Analytics and the U.S. Census Bureau data. Section 163.3177(6)(a)2,. Florida Statutes The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. Response: The subdistrict is located within the County’s Urban designated area. Paragraphs f and g do not apply. With respect to paragraphs a, b, c, d, and e, the level of service study and market Page 2847 of 3380 June 4, 2025 Page 6 of 11 analysis provided as part of the application clearly demonstrate a need for additional rental housing in Collier County, and that this location is excellent in terms of addressing a portion of that need, in an urban area with existing public facilities and services. Relative to paragraphs h and j, this parcel is appropriate for conversion to higher density that will address a market need and maximize the efficient use of existing public facilities and services based on its location within urban designated lands, along a principal arterial. Maximizing the efficient use of existing public facilities and services in the urban area discourages sprawl by reducing the demand for conversion of rural lands to accommodate such demand. As to paragraph i, the proposed multi-family development does not directly contribute to job creation and diversification of the County’s economy, the lack of affordable rental housing negatively impacts those objectives. Availability of affordable housing is an important consideration for Collier County to attract new or relocating businesses and to support the existing businesses in the area. The addition of affordable housing in this area will strengthen the workforce, positively impacting the community’s economy. Section 163.3177(6)(a)8. Florida Statutes Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. Response: The proposed GMPA is consistent with the intent and procedural and substantive requirements set forth in the Florida Statute referenced above. As part of this application package, Exhibit “IX” Public Facilities Report outlines the various services and facilities necessary to support this proposed residential project. It further shows that there is adequate availability of these services and facilities to support the proposed project. Additionally, Exhibit “VII” Environmental report reviews the soils and environmental conditions of this land documenting its suitability for development. Furthermore, the size of the property in this urban area supports the density requested to develop this residential project. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY The request complies with the goals, objectives, policies, of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). A further analysis of the compliance with the GMP is provided below. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Page 2848 of 3380 June 4, 2025 Page 7 of 11 Policy 5.5: Discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl in order to minimize the cost of community facilities by: confining urban intensity development to areas designated as Urban on the Future Land Use Map; requiring that any additions to the Urban Designated Areas be contiguous to an existing Urban Area boundary; and, encouraging the use of creative land use planning techniques and innovative approaches to development in the County’s Agricultural/Rural designated area, which will better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agriculture and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for cost efficient delivery of public facilities and services. Response: The subject site is part of and largely surrounded by the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict which is intended to provide transitional densities between urban and agricultural areas. The proposed residential infill subdistrict will provide for dwelling unit densities that are consistent with residential development under construction nearby and provide a development which is supported by adequate community facilities, infrastructure, and services. Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code. Response: The proposed subdistrict and future planned unit development will result in a multi- family development located on a parcel which is surrounded by existing and future residential developments. The site will allow for residential infill providing compatible development with its adjacent lands. Furthermore, it includes affordable housing provisions, as do the approved developments planned at the south and southeast. This is complementary to the area and supports a logical use of the available capacity and infrastructure existing in the area. The project is proposed on an undeveloped property in an urban land use area, along a 6-lane major arterial. The subject property is located adjacent on the north and east sides to the Hacienda Lakes Mixed Use Planned Development, with the Seven Shores community currently under construction. The Seven Shores community will include a combination of single-family homes, twin villa residences, and six 4-story apartment buildings. To the south of the property is the Collier Boulevard Lord’s Way Mixed Use Planned Development, a 69-acre project, approved for 690 multi-family and/or single-family attached units, which includes affordable housing commitments. Construction of the Azalea Park project has commenced on this site, including 394 residential units, with a series of 4-story apartment buildings on this site. The use of the undeveloped property at 8928 Collier Boulevard for a residential multi-family project is an efficient use of the existing urban area through its creation of essential housing to support the local employers. It is amongst an already developed and/or under construction area which represents an efficient use of the land and all of the available resources within the area. Furthermore, the development of this site with rental units, and 30% being affordable housing rentals directly supports the housing needs of the major employers within the area without urban sprawl. Page 2849 of 3380 June 4, 2025 Page 8 of 11 Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. Response: The subdistrict will have its access along Collier Boulevard. The bridge location and access point will be coordinated to ensure adequate spacing with median openings are provided. As part of the PUD rezoning application, a future optional interconnection to the Hacienda Lakes property to the north is included on the Master Concept Plan. While we fully support providing interconnected access between the two projects, no current easements or agreements between the property owners exist. Furthermore, the current Hacienda Lakes PUD does not include an interconnection to the subject property, requiring the Hacienda Lakes PUD to be amended before final approval of an interconnection. Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. Response: The subdistrict will have its access along Collier Boulevard and does not have access to any other internal roads. The traffic impacts do not trigger the need for a traffic signal at the entrance of this property. As part of the PUD rezoning application, a future optional interconnection to the Hacienda Lakes property to the north is included on the Master Concept Plan. While we fully support providing interconnected access between the two projects, no current easements or agreements between the property owners exist. Furthermore, the current Hacienda Lakes PUD does not include an interconnection to the subject property, requiring the Hacienda Lakes PUD to be amended before final approval of an interconnection. Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. Response: The subdistrict will have its access along Collier Boulevard and does not have access to other local streets or adjoining neighborhoods. As discussed previously, a future interconnection to the Hacienda Lakes community to the north is proposed, but subject to the approval of a PUD amendment and other legal agreements between the two properties owners in the future. Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. Response: The proposed development will include one residential building which includes a variety of housing rental prices for one and two-bedroom units. The residential building will offer 14 units for rent at a low-income price range of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County and 14 Page 2850 of 3380 June 4, 2025 Page 9 of 11 units for rent at a moderate-income price range of the Collier County AMI. The community property also includes 30% open space, which includes a lake area and 1.22 acres of preserve area. The community is located adjacent to a 12’ paved multi-use path running along the east side of Collier Boulevard. This path allows for recreational uses, as well as walkable access to commercial uses south of the property along Collier Boulevard. Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective 6.1: Protect native vegetative communities through the application of minimum preservation requirements. (The Policies under this Objective apply to all of Collier County except for that portion of the County which is identified on the Countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay.) Response: Per Policy 6.1.1, the proposed development, consisting of 9.49+/- acres will meet or exceed the preserve requirement of 15%. The preserve will meet all Collier County requirements, and all required State and Federal agency permits will be obtained and provided to Collier County at the time of Site Development Plan. Objective 7.1: Direct incompatible land uses away from listed animal species and their habitats. (The County relies on the listing process of State and Federal agencies to identify species that require special protection because of their endangered, threatened, or species of special concern status. Listed animal species are those species that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has designated as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern, in accordance with Rules 68A-27.003, 68A-27.004, and 68A-27.005, F.A.C. and those species designated by various federal agencies as Endangered and Threatened species published in 50 CFR 17.) Response: As identified within the Environmental Report, future development on the property will meet or exceed the County’s habitat preserve requirements, will be consistent with Policy 7.1.4, and will comply with all state and federal listed species requirements. Transportation Element Policy 5.1: The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an Page 2851 of 3380 June 4, 2025 Page 10 of 11 adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. Response: Based upon Exhibit “X” Traffic Impact Statement, the proposed project is not a significant traffic generator for the roadway network at this location. The project trip generation will not negatively impact the level of service on Collier Boulevard. Housing Element Objective 1: Provide new affordable housing units in order to meet the current and future housing needs of legal residents with very-low, low, moderate and affordable workforce incomes, including households with special needs such as rural and farmworker housing in rural Collier County. Response: The proposed subdistrict would allow for 28 affordable and workforce rental housing units for a period of 30-years, of which 50% will be rented exclusively to essential service personnel and military veterans. This supports the Collier County housing needs for workforce incomes. CONCLUSION: In summary, the new subdistrict proposed for this property will allow for the opportunity to ensure there is a contiguous development pattern in this area which is along a major arterial with adequate capacity, adequate public services, and infrastructure to support it. The location and inclusion of affordable housing provisions will guarantee the development helps to support the critical challenge of affordable and workforce housing within Collier County. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (239) 225-4805, or josh.philpott@stantec.com. Sincerely, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Josh Philpott, AICP Principal, Planning Page 2852 of 3380 June 4, 2025 Page 11 of 11 Enclosures cc: Justin Narine, Catana Construction, Inc. Jillian Ward, AICP, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Joel Blikstad, P.E., Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Page 2853 of 3380 -REVISED, April 23, 2024- C-ottt*y Public SeMces Department Communrty & Human Services Division CERTIFICATE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPEDITED REVIEW Address/Location: 8928 Collier Boulevard, Naples FL 34114 Applicant /Agent:Justin Narine. Catana Construction, Ap licant / Josh Phil StanteDott c. Aoen Phone / Email: (239) 331-3425. iustin.narine@catanaconstruction.com I (239\ 225-4805. iosh. philpott@stantec.com Proposed Use residential multi-familV development Number of Affordable Housing Units Planned: Rental Rental Rental Rental Rental By _19- _9 1210/o - 1400/o 810/0 - 120% 51% - 80% 50% or less 30% or less Owner Occupied _ Owner Occupied _ Owner Occupied _ Owner Occupied _ Owner Occupied _ AMI - GAP lncome AMI - Moderate lncome AMI - Low lncome AMI - Very Low lncome AMI - Extremely Low lncome Permit Number,if available: PL20230013845 (GMPA) & PL20230018397 (PUD Proposed Land Use Restriction:PUD Restriction or AHDB Agreement _- Developer Agreement _- lmpact Fee Deferral Agreement _- Grant Restriction - Other: I hereby certify that the above described proiect meets the definition of providing affordable Housing in Collier County and as such is entitled to participale in the County's "Expedited Review Procedures of Affordable Housing" as described in the Coll nty Administrative Code through Resolution No. 2018.40 Date ?1ry1;>ct and Human Services Division By Date: 4123124 / Owner/ Developer/ Contractor This Certification must be submitted to the Growth Management Department with permit application package, or plan revisions, within nine months of date of issuance CommLrnity & Human Seryices oivision . 3339 TamiarniT.ail Easl, Suite 211 ' Naples, Florid? 34112-5361 239252-CARE 12213), 23S-252-CArE (2233)' 239-252-4230 (RSVP) . !a vw colti€rgov rcUtllmanservices Name of Development: Bonita Flores Residential lnfill Subdistrict Size of Property: 9.49 acres Total Number Residential Units Planned: 92 Page 2854 of 3380 June 2023 1 GMP Amendment Pre-Application Meeting Standard Comments Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive // Naples, FL 34104 // Phone: 239-252-2400 The Comprehensive Planning Section schedules all GMP amendment pre-application meetings, which are mandatory, and coordinates the review of all amendment petitions received. Per the current Fee Schedule (Resolution 2021-193), the non-refundable pre-application meeting fee is $500.00; it is credited towards the petition fee if the petition is submitted within nine months. The petition fee is $16,700.00 for a large-scale petition ($9,000.00 for a small-scale petition), which is non-refundable, plus a proportionate share of the legal advertising costs. For small-scale petitions, there are only two hearings – one each before the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and Board of County Commissioners (BCC); one legal ad is placed in the Naples Daily News prior to CCPC hearing, and one prior to BCC hearing. For all other amendment petitions, a total of four public hearings are held – Transmittal hearing before CCPC and BCC, and Adoption hearing before CCPC and BCC. The estimated legal advertising costs will be provided to each petitioner and payment will be required prior to advertising for any hearings; any refund due the petitioner after hearings will be provided at that time. In addition to the petition fee and legal ad costs noted above, payment must also be made for a Traffic Impact Study Review Fee. This fee should be submitted directly to the Transportation Planning Section. Please see their website and/or contact them for more details. There is cost to advertise for and conduct a Neighborhood Information Meeting, and to post a public hearing notice(s) (sign(s)). Chapter 10 of the Land Development Code (LDC) and requires the petitioner of a site-specific GMP amendment to hold a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM); this would occur after a finding of sufficiency of the petition submittal but prior to the first public hearing. The LDC also requires the petitioner of a site-specific GMP amendment to post a notice(s) of the public hearings on the property, for both Transmittal and Adoption hearings. A small-scale amendment is limited to a parcel <50 acres and is limited to a map amendment only and any directly-related text; the map amendment cannot result in a conflict between the map and text – there can be no internal inconsistency in the GMP. Note: Notwithstanding the significant changes made in 2011 (HB7207) to Ch. 163, Florida Statutes, Collier continues to consider demonstration of need and reduction in greenhouse gas in evaluating GMP amendments. For the most part, there is no guidance/criteria/standards provided in the GMP by which to review amendments for consistency; an exception is for significant impacts upon public facilities as provided for in Policy 1.1.2 of the CIE. However, Chapter 163, F.S., does provide guidance. Note particularly the requirement to provide appropriate data and analysis. Generally, staff reviews for, and an applicant should adequately address in the submittal: • Appropriateness of uses/compatibility with surrounding area. • Impact upon surrounding properties – will it make them less developable under their present FLUM designation? Will it create a domino effect leading to future designation changes on the surrounding properties? • Need for the designation change – data and analysis, e.g. market demand study for commercial uses, to demonstrate the change is warranted, that more inventory of the requested uses is needed. Too often, the data only demonstrates the petition site is viable for the proposed uses (“build it & they will come”) rather than demonstrate there is a need for a new or expanded GMP provision to provide for the proposed uses, and that the need is at the subject location. The data should be specific to the proposed land uses, proposed Page 2855 of 3380 June 2023 2 trade service area, persons per household in subject area, etc. as applicable. It is recognized there is more than one acceptable methodology, e.g. radial distance from site (ULI standards for neighborhood/community/regional commercial centers), drive time, etc. Regardless of methodology, the raw data needs to be submitted to allow staff to review it for completeness and accuracy (sometimes parcels are omitted, double counted, included when shouldn’t be, etc.). Also, as with all submitted documents, maps of trade service area need to be legible and include adequate identification features, e.g. major roads, Section-Township-Range. • Whether there is a specific or general community vision that the amendment addresses, e.g. a redevelopment area. • The proposed amendment should correlate to the results of the needs analysis. Too often a need is demonstrated for one set of uses but the amendment is for other uses or goes beyond those uses for which a need is demonstrated (e.g., need is for rental apartments, but amendment allows multifamily uses generally). • LOSS (level of service standards) impacts upon public facilities – roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, drainage, solid waste, parks & recreation facilities, etc. • Within the above is consideration of site-specific impacts, e.g. impact upon wetlands and listed species habitats on-site and nearby; and, traffic impacts (operational/safety) from the traffic volume generated/attracted and/or the ingress/egress points – turning movements, median openings, traffic signals, etc. Included within this would be a comparison between impacts that would be expected under the existing zoning and/or FLUM designation vs. that which could be expected under the proposed amendment. • Consistency/conformity/harmony with other Goals, Objectives, Policies (GOPs) and provisions in the Element being amended and any other Element of the GMP relevant to the petition, as well as any other applicable regulations (e.g. Manatee Protection Plan, specific LDC provisions). • Furtherance of existing GOPs relevant to the petition. • Furtherance of any other plans or designations that is applicable or relevant to the petition (e.g. a redevelopment plan, Area of Critical State Concern, Rural Area of Opportunity). • Energy efficiency and conservation, reduction of greenhouse gases, reduction of vehicle miles travelled, etc., as [previously] required in HB 697 (2008). • GMP amendment provisions/requirements for a comprehensive plan and plan amendment in Ch. 163.3177(1)(f), and 163.3177(6)(a)2. and 8., Florida Statutes. It is important to carefully organize the amendment package; be sure all exhibits are consistently labeled, are in the proper order, and are correctly referenced on the pages of the application. For site-specific amendments, be sure to clearly identify the subject site, include North arrow and scale, and source. A petition narrative is often helpful. Page 2856 of 3380 Pre-app notes: PL20230013845 8929 Collier Blvd (GMPA) • The applicant is proposing approximately 90 multifamily dwelling units (rental) on 9.25 acres for an approximate density of 9 DUs/acre. Access is proposed to be on Collier Blvd and the development will be generally consistent with the Lords Way PUD/subdistrict to the south. • List and address Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.6 and Policies 7.1-7.4 as applicable. • List and address applicable provisions of Florida Statues 163.3187 and 163.3177 for amending the Growth Management Plan (GMP), including 163.3177.(1).(f), which requires that all amendments be based on relevant/appropriate data and analysis. • Provide a needs analysis demonstrating the demand for the proposed use at this location, as well as the appropriateness of the subject site. The needs analysis should address the requested density increase as well as the proposed affordable housing income thresholds. Please include narrative justification for the market area utilized. • GMPA requires a Neighborhood Informational Meeting (NIM) which can be combined with the PUDA/DOA NIM. • There was a discussion of potentially matching the affordability commitment of 30% that’s proposed in the Ascend Naples project that will be heard at the Planning Commission on 9/22/23. The project numbers for that project are PL20220003213 (GMPA) and PL20220002908 (PUDZ). Page 2857 of 3380 1 Rachel Hansen From:ThomasClarkeVEN Sent:Wednesday, September 6, 2023 5:46 PM To:Rachel Hansen Subject:FW: PL20230013845 8929 Collier Blvd ( GMPA) Attachments:PUDZ-PUDA checklist FOR REVIEWERS 2-2017.doc; Environmental data Checklist updated December 2016.doc Rachel, Craigs notes for your GMPA today. Thomas Clarke Operations Analyst - Zoning Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-2526 From: Craig Brown <Craig.Brown@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2023 5:45 PM To: ThomasClarkeVEN <Thomas.Clarke@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: PL20230013845 8929 Collier Blvd ( GMPA) Thomas, Here are my notes these notes apply to both the GMPA and the PUDZ. 1. Please provide Environmental Data: Please provide FLUCFCS aerial map of the subject property please include the invasive exotic plant percentage amounts and indicate which FLUCFCS are being considered Native Vegetation. Identify on a current aerial the acreage, location and community types of all upland and wetland habitats on the project site, according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS), and provide a legend for each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified. Aerials and overlay information must be legible at the scale provided. Provide calculations for the acreage of native vegetation required to be retained on-site. In a separate report, demonstrate how the preserve selection criteria pursuant to 3.05.07 have been met. Where applicable, include in this report an aerial showing the project boundaries along with any undeveloped land, preserves, natural flowways or other natural land features, located on abutting properties. 2. Please provide a current Listed species survey, which should include listed plants for the subject property. Provide supporting exhibits (i.e. Panther zones ect.) be sure to include Black Bear and Florida Bonneted Bat as part of the evaluation. Provide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Provide a survey for listed plants identified in 3.04.03 Page 2858 of 3380 2 3. Provide calculations on-site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be retained, the max. amount and ratios permitted to be created on-site or mitigated off-site. Exclude vegetation located within utility and drainage easements from the preserve calculations (LDC 3.05.07.B-D; 3.05.07.F; 3.05.07.H.1.d-e). (15 % of native vegetation is required for preservation.) Label the Master plan with a note that the preservation is to be addressed off-site and provide the calculation in the packet submitted. 4. Please address how the proposed project is consistent with Conservation Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 6.1 and Objective 7.1. 5. Explain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation requirements and minimizes impacts to listed species as required in the CCME. (The preservation requirement is 15% of the native vegetation existing onsite). 6. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to listed species. Describe the measures that are proposed as mitigation for impacts to listed species. (If found onsite). 7. Demonstrate that the design of the proposed stormwater management system and analysis of water quality and quantity impacts fully incorporate the requirements of the Watershed Management regulations of 3.07.00. Environmental fee $2,500.00 (PUDZ only) Craig Brown Environmental Supervisor Development Review Division (239) 252-2548. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Page 2859 of 3380 Environmental Data Checklist Project Name __________________________________________________ The Environmental Data requirements can be found in LDC Section 3.08.00 1. Provide the EIS fee if PUD or CU. 2. WHO AND WHAT COMPANY PREPARED THE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT? Preparation of Environmental Data. Environmental Data Submittal Requirements shall be prepared by an individual with academic credentials and experience in the area of environmental sciences or natural resource management. Academic credentials and experience shall be a bachelor's or higher degree in one of the biological sciences with at least two years of ecological or biological professional experience in the State of Florida. Please include revision dates on resubmittals. 3. Identify on a current aerial, the location and acreage of all SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) and include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Wetlands must be verified by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) or Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) prior to SDP or final plat construction plans approval. For sites in the RFMU district, provide an assessment in accordance with 3.05.07 F and identify on the FLUCFCS map the location of all high quality wetlands (wetlands having functionality scores of at least 0.65 WRAP or 0.7 UMAM) and their location within the proposed development plan. Sites with high quality wetlands must have their functionality scores verified by the SFWMD or DEP prior to first development order approval. Where functionality scores have not been verified by either the SFWMD or DEP, scores must be reviewed and accepted by County staff, consistent with State regulation. 4. SDP or final plat construction plans with impacts to five (5) or more acres of wetlands shall provide an analysis of potential water quality impacts of the project by evaluating water quality loadings expected from the project (post development conditions considering the proposed land uses and stormwater management controls) compared with water quality loadings of the project area as it exists in its pre-development conditions. The analysis shall be performed using methodologies approved by Federal and State water quality agencies, and must demonstrate no increase in nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) loadings in the post development scenario. 5. Where treated stormwater is allowed to be directed into preserves, show how the criteria in 3.05.07 H have been met. 6. Where native vegetation is retained on site, provide a topographic map to a half foot and, where possible, provide elevations within each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified on site. For SDP or final plat construction plans, include this information on the site plans. 7. Provide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Survey times may be reduced or waived where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low, as determined by the FFWCC and USFWS. Where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low, the survey time may be reduced or waived by the County Manager or designee, when the project is not reviewed or technical assistance not provided by the FFWCC and USFWS. Additional survey time may be required if listed species are discovered 8. Provide a survey for listed plants identified in 3.04.03 9. Wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans in accordance with 3.04.00 shall be required where listed species are utilizing the site or where wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans are required by the FFWCC or USFWS. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats. Identify the location of listed species nests, burrows, dens, foraging areas, and the Page 2860 of 3380 location of any bald eagle nests or nest protection zones on the native vegetation aerial with FLUCFCS overlay for the site. Wildlife habitat management plans shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Bald eagle management plans are required for sites containing bald eagle nests or nest protection zones, copies of which shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 10. For sites or portions of sites cleared of native vegetation or in agricultural operation, provide documentation that the parcel(s) were issued a permit to be cleared and are in compliance with the 25 year rezone limitation pursuant to section 10.02.06. For sites permitted to be cleared prior to July 2003, provide documentation that the parcel(s) are in compliance with the 10 year rezone limitation previously identified in the GMP. Criteria defining native vegetation and determining the legality, process and criteria for clearing are found in 3.05.05, 3.05.07 and 10.02.06. 11. Identify on a current aerial the acreage, location and community types of all upland and wetland habitats on the project site, according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS), and provide a legend for each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified. Aerials and overlay information must be legible at the scale provided. Provide calculations for the acreage of native vegetation required to be retained on-site. Include the above referenced calculations and aerials on the SDP or final plat construction plans. In a separate report, demonstrate how the preserve selection criteria pursuant to 3.05.07 have been met. Where applicable, include in this report an aerial showing the project boundaries along with any undeveloped land, preserves, natural flowways or other natural land features, located on abutting properties. 12. Include on a separate site plan, the project boundary and the land use designations and overlays for the RLSA, RFMU, ST and ACSC-ST districts. Include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 13. Where off-site preservation of native vegetation is proposed in lieu of on-site, demonstrate that the criteria in section 3.05.07 have been met and provide a note on the SDP or final plat construction plans indicating the type of donation (monetary payment or land donation) identified to satisfy the requirement. Include on the SDP or final plat construction plans, a location map(s) and property identification number(s) of the off-site parcel(s) if off-site donation of land is to occur. 14. Provide the results of any Environmental Assessments and/or Audits of the property, along with a narrative of the measures needed to remediate if required by FDEP. 15. Soil and/or ground water sampling shall be required at the time of first development order submittal for sites that occupy farm fields (crop fields, cattle dipping ponds, chemical mixing areas), golf courses, landfill or junkyards or for sites where hazardous products exceeding 250 gallons of liquid or 1,000 pounds of solids were stored or processed or where hazardous wastes in excess of 220 pounds per month or 110 gallons at any point in time were generated or stored. The amount of sampling and testing shall be determined by a registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment and shall at a minimum test for organochlorine pesticides (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 8081) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 metals using Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) soil sampling Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) FS 3000, in areas suspected of being used for mixing and at discharge point of water management system. Sampling should occur randomly if no points of contamination are obvious. Include a background soil analysis from an undeveloped location hydraulically upgradient of the potentially contaminated site. Soil sampling should occur just below the root zone, about 6 to 12 inches below ground surface or as otherwise agreed upon with the registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment. Include in or with the Environmental Site Assessment, the acceptable State and Federal pollutant levels for the types of contamination found on site and indicate in the Assessment, when the contaminants are over these levels. If this analysis has been done as part of an Environmental Audit then the report shall be submitted. The County shall coordinate with the FDEP where contamination exceeding applicable FDEP standards is identified on site or where an Environmental Audit or Environmental Assessment has been submitted. 16. Shoreline development must provide an analysis demonstrating that the project will remain fully functional for its intended use after a six-inch rise in sea level. Page 2861 of 3380 17. Provide justification for deviations from environmental LDC provisions pursuant to GMP CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13), if requested. 18. Where applicable, provide evidence of the issuance of all applicable federal and/or state oil and gas permits for proposed oil and gas activities in Collier County. Include all state permits that comply with the requirements of Chapter 62C-25 through 62C-30, F.A.C., as those rules existed on January 13, 2005. 19. Identify any Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones (WRM-ST) within the project area and provide an analysis for how the project design avoids the most intensive land uses within the most sensitive WRM-STs and will comply with the WRM-ST pursuant to 3.06.00. Include the location of the Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones on the SDP or final plat construction plans. For land use applications such as standard and PUD rezones and CUs, provide a separate site plan or zoning map with the project boundary and Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones identified. 20. Demonstrate that the design of the proposed stormwater management system and analysis of water quality and quantity impacts fully incorporate the requirements of the Watershed Management regulations of 3.07.00. 21. For sites located in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern-Special Treatment overlay district (ACSC- ST), show how the project is consistent with the development standards and regulations in 4.02.14. 22. For multi-slip docking facilities with ten slips or more, and for all marina facilities, show how the project is consistent with 5.05.02. Refer to the Manatee Protection Plan for site specific requirements of the Manatee Protection Plan not included in 5.05.02. 23. For development orders within RFMU sending lands, show how the project is consistent with each of the applicable Objectives and Policies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP. 24. The County Manager or designee may require additional data or information necessary to evaluate the project’s compliance with LDC and GMP requirements. (LDC 10.02.02.A.3 f) The following to be determined at preapplication meeting: (Choose those that apply) a. Provide overall description of project with respect to environmental and water management issues. b. Explain how project is consistent with each of the applicable objectives and policies in the CCME of the GMP. c. Explain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation preservation requirement in the CCME and LDC. d. Indicate wetlands to be impacted and the effects of the impact to their functions and how the project’s design compensates for wetland impacts. e. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to listed species. Describe the measures that are proposed as mitigation for impacts to listed species. 25. PUD zoning and CU petitions. For PUD rezones and CU petitions, applicants shall collate and package applicable Environmental Data Submittal Requirements into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) document, prior to public hearings and after all applicable staff reviews are complete. Copies of the EIS shall be provided to the County Manager or designee prior to public hearings. 26. Is EAC Review (by CCPC) required? Page 2862 of 3380 27. PUD master plan or PPL/SDP site plan notes: Where preserves occur adjacent to development off site and will be used in lieu of landscape buffers, include the following condition in the environmental commitments section of the PUD document. Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic vegetation removal in accordance with LDC sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E.1. Supplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC section 3.05.07. 28. Additional comments 29. Stipulations for approval (Conditions) Page 2863 of 3380 Environmental PUDZ-PUDA Checklist (non-RFMU) Project Name__________________________________ 1. Is the project is in compliance with the overlays, districts and/or zoning on the subject site and/or the surrounding properties? (CON, ST, PUD, RLSA, RFMU, etc.) (LDC 2.03.05-2.03.08; 4.08.00) Not in CV Library 2. Submit a current aerial photograph (available from the Property Appraiser's office) and clearly delineate the subject site boundary lines. If the site is vegetated, provide FLUCFCS overlay and vegetation in ventory identifying upland, wetland and exotic vegetation (Admin. Code Ch. 3 G.1. Application Contents #24). FLUCFCS Overlay -P627 3. Clearly identify the location of all preserves and label each as “Preserve” on all plans. (LDC 3.05.07.H.1). Preserve Label- P546 4. Provide calculations on site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be retained, the max. amount and ratios permitted to be created on-site or mitigated off-site. Exclude vegetation located within utility and drainage easements from the preserve calculations (LDC 3.05.07.B-D; 3.05.07.F; 3.05.07.H.1.d-e). Preserve Calculation - P547 5. Created and retained preserve areas shall meet the minimum width requirements per LDC 3.05.07.H.1.b. Preserve Width - P603 6. Retained preservation areas shall be selected based on the criteria defined in LDC 3.05.07.A.3, include all 3 strata, be in the largest contiguous area possible and shall be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off-site preservation areas or wildlife corridors. (LDC 3.05.07.A.1-4) Preserve Selection- P550 7. Principle structures shall be located a minimum of 25’ from the boundary of the preserve boundary. No accessory structures and other site alterations, fill placement, grading, plant alteration or removal, or similar activity shall be permitted within 10’ of the boundary unless it can be shown that it will not affect the integrity of the preserve (i.e. stem wall or berm around wetland preserve). Provide cross-sections for each preserve boundary identifying all site alterations within 25’. (LDC 3.05.07.H.3; 6.01.02.C.) Preserve Setback – New 8. Wildlife survey required for sites where an EIS is not required, when so warranted. (LDC 10.02.02.A.2.f) Listed Species - P522 9. Provide Environmental Data identifying author credentials, consistency determination with the GMPs, off-site preserves, seasonal and historic high water levels, and analysis of water quality. For land previously used for farm fields or golf course, provide soil sampling/groundwater monitoring reports identifying any site contamination. (LDC 3.08.00) Environmental Data Required – P 522 10. PUD Document and Master Plan shall state the minimum acreage required to be preserved. (LDC 10.02.13.A.2) Master Plan Contents-P626 11. If the PUD includes a Preserve Tract section UP FOR DISCUSSION – DISCUSS WITH CAO When listing preserve uses, the following is suggested: A. Principal Use: Preserve; B. Accessory Uses: All other uses (list as applicable or refer to the LDC – see 1-3 below as typical uses listed by agents) (ensure the text states “subject to LDC section related to Allowable uses within County required preserves” Alternate format: A. Uses subject to LDC section Allowable uses within County required preserves: 1. Nature trails that do not reduce the amount of required preserve. 2. Passive Recreation uses, as per LDC requirements. 3. Stormwater only when in accordance with the LDC. Page 2864 of 3380 PUD Commitments and Site Plan notes Where preserves occur adjacent to development off site and will be used in lieu of landscape buffers, include the following condition in the environmental commitments section of the PUD document or master plan: Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic vegetation removal in accordance with LDC sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E.1. Supplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC section 3.05.07. 12. PUD Document shall identify any listed species found on site and/or describe any unique vegetative features that will be preserved on the site. (LDC 10.02.13.A.2.) Unique Features- P628 Example: A management plan for the entire project shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements and procedures of the LDC for listed species including but not limited to Black Bear, Gopher Tortoise and listed birds. The management plan shall be submitted prior to development of the first phase of the project. 13. Review cross-sections if provided; they are not required with the PUD. However, sometimes they are provided. Is there any fill proposed in the preserve? Additional Comments: Page 2865 of 3380 Environmental Data Checklist Project Name __________________________________________________ The Environmental Data requirements can be found in LDC Section 3.08.00 1. Provide the EIS fee if PUD or CU. 2. WHO AND WHAT COMPANY PREPARED THE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT? Preparation of Environmental Data. Environmental Data Submittal Requirements shall be prepared by an individual with academic credentials and experience in the area of environmental sciences or natural resource management. Academic credentials and experience shall be a bachelor's or higher degree in one of the biological sciences with at least two years of ecological or biological professional experience in the State of Florida. Please include revision dates on resubmittals. 3. Identify on a current aerial, the location and acreage of all SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) and include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Wetlands must be verified by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) or Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) prior to SDP or final plat construction plans approval. For sites in the RFMU district, provide an assessment in accordance with 3.05.07 F and identify on the FLUCFCS map the location of all high quality wetlands (wetlands having functionality scores of at least 0.65 WRAP or 0.7 UMAM) and their location within the proposed development plan. Sites with high quality wetlands must have their functionality scores verified by the SFWMD or DEP prior to first development order approval. Where functionality scores have not been verified by either the SFWMD or DEP, scores must be reviewed and accepted by County staff, consistent with State regulation. 4. SDP or final plat construction plans with impacts to five (5) or more acres of wetlands shall provide an analysis of potential water quality impacts of the project by evaluating water quality loadings expected from the project (post development conditions considering the proposed land uses and stormwater management controls) compared with water quality loadings of the project area as it exists in its pre-development conditions. The analysis shall be performed using methodologies approved by Federal and State water quality agencies, and must demonstrate no increase in nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) loadings in the post development scenario. 5. Where treated stormwater is allowed to be directed into preserves, show how the criteria in 3.05.07 H have been met. 6. Where native vegetation is retained on site, provide a topographic map to a half foot and, where possible, provide elevations within each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified on site. For SDP or final plat construction plans, include this information on the site plans. 7. Provide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Survey times may be reduced or waived where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low, as determined by the FFWCC and USFWS. Where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low, the survey time may be reduced or waived by the County Manager or designee, when the project is not reviewed or technical assistance not provided by the FFWCC and USFWS. Additional survey time may be required if listed species are discovered 8. Provide a survey for listed plants identified in 3.04.03 9. Wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans in accordance with 3.04.00 shall be required where listed species are utilizing the site or where wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans are required by the FFWCC or USFWS. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats. Identify the location of listed species nests, burrows, dens, foraging areas, and the Page 2866 of 3380 location of any bald eagle nests or nest protection zones on the native vegetation aerial with FLUCFCS overlay for the site. Wildlife habitat management plans shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Bald eagle management plans are required for sites containing bald eagle nests or nest protection zones, copies of which shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 10. For sites or portions of sites cleared of native vegetation or in agricultural operation, provide documentation that the parcel(s) were issued a permit to be cleared and are in compliance with the 25 year rezone limitation pursuant to section 10.02.06. For sites permitted to be cleared prior to July 2003, provide documentation that the parcel(s) are in compliance with the 10 year rezone limitation previously identified in the GMP. Criteria defining native vegetation and determining the legality, process and criteria for clearing are found in 3.05.05, 3.05.07 and 10.02.06. 11. Identify on a current aerial the acreage, location and community types of all upland and wetland habitats on the project site, according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS), and provide a legend for each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified. Aerials and overlay information must be legible at the scale provided. Provide calculations for the acreage of native vegetation required to be retained on-site. Include the above referenced calculations and aerials on the SDP or final plat construction plans. In a separate report, demonstrate how the preserve selection criteria pursuant to 3.05.07 have been met. Where applicable, include in this report an aerial showing the project boundaries along with any undeveloped land, preserves, natural flowways or other natural land features, located on abutting properties. 12. Include on a separate site plan, the project boundary and the land use designations and overlays for the RLSA, RFMU, ST and ACSC-ST districts. Include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 13. Where off-site preservation of native vegetation is proposed in lieu of on-site, demonstrate that the criteria in section 3.05.07 have been met and provide a note on the SDP or final plat construction plans indicating the type of donation (monetary payment or land donation) identified to satisfy the requirement. Include on the SDP or final plat construction plans, a location map(s) and property identification number(s) of the off-site parcel(s) if off-site donation of land is to occur. 14. Provide the results of any Environmental Assessments and/or Audits of the property, along with a narrative of the measures needed to remediate if required by FDEP. 15. Soil and/or ground water sampling shall be required at the time of first development order submittal for sites that occupy farm fields (crop fields, cattle dipping ponds, chemical mixing areas), golf courses, landfill or junkyards or for sites where hazardous products exceeding 250 gallons of liquid or 1,000 pounds of solids were stored or processed or where hazardous wastes in excess of 220 pounds per month or 110 gallons at any point in time were generated or stored. The amount of sampling and testing shall be determined by a registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment and shall at a minimum test for organochlorine pesticides (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 8081) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 metals using Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) soil sampling Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) FS 3000, in areas suspected of being used for mixing and at discharge point of water management system. Sampling should occur randomly if no points of contamination are obvious. Include a background soil analysis from an undeveloped location hydraulically upgradient of the potentially contaminated site. Soil sampling should occur just below the root zone, about 6 to 12 inches below ground surface or as otherwise agreed upon with the registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment. Include in or with the Environmental Site Assessment, the acceptable State and Federal pollutant levels for the types of contamination found on site and indicate in the Assessment, when the contaminants are over these levels. If this analysis has been done as part of an Environmental Audit then the report shall be submitted. The County shall coordinate with the FDEP where contamination exceeding applicable FDEP standards is identified on site or where an Environmental Audit or Environmental Assessment has been submitted. 16. Shoreline development must provide an analysis demonstrating that the project will remain fully functional for its intended use after a six-inch rise in sea level. Page 2867 of 3380 17. Provide justification for deviations from environmental LDC provisions pursuant to GMP CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13), if requested. 18. Where applicable, provide evidence of the issuance of all applicable federal and/or state oil and gas permits for proposed oil and gas activities in Collier County. Include all state permits that comply with the requirements of Chapter 62C-25 through 62C-30, F.A.C., as those rules existed on January 13, 2005. 19. Identify any Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones (WRM-ST) within the project area and provide an analysis for how the project design avoids the most intensive land uses within the most sensitive WRM-STs and will comply with the WRM-ST pursuant to 3.06.00. Include the location of the Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones on the SDP or final plat construction plans. For land use applications such as standard and PUD rezones and CUs, provide a separate site plan or zoning map with the project boundary and Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones identified. 20. Demonstrate that the design of the proposed stormwater management system and analysis of water quality and quantity impacts fully incorporate the requirements of the Watershed Management regulations of 3.07.00. 21. For sites located in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern-Special Treatment overlay district (ACSC- ST), show how the project is consistent with the development standards and regulations in 4.02.14. 22. For multi-slip docking facilities with ten slips or more, and for all marina facilities, show how the project is consistent with 5.05.02. Refer to the Manatee Protection Plan for site specific requirements of the Manatee Protection Plan not included in 5.05.02. 23. For development orders within RFMU sending lands, show how the project is consistent with each of the applicable Objectives and Policies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP. 24. The County Manager or designee may require additional data or information necessary to evaluate the project’s compliance with LDC and GMP requirements. (LDC 10.02.02.A.3 f) The following to be determined at preapplication meeting: (Choose those that apply) a. Provide overall description of project with respect to environmental and water management issues. b. Explain how project is consistent with each of the applicable objectives and policies in the CCME of the GMP. c. Explain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation preservation requirement in the CCME and LDC. d. Indicate wetlands to be impacted and the effects of the impact to their functions and how the project’s design compensates for wetland impacts. e. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to listed species. Describe the measures that are proposed as mitigation for impacts to listed species. 25. PUD zoning and CU petitions. For PUD rezones and CU petitions, applicants shall collate and package applicable Environmental Data Submittal Requirements into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) document, prior to public hearings and after all applicable staff reviews are complete. Copies of the EIS shall be provided to the County Manager or designee prior to public hearings. 26. Is EAC Review (by CCPC) required? Page 2868 of 3380 27. PUD master plan or PPL/SDP site plan notes: Where preserves occur adjacent to development off site and will be used in lieu of landscape buffers, include the following condition in the environmental commitments section of the PUD document. Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic vegetation removal in accordance with LDC sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E.1. Supplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC section 3.05.07. 28. Additional comments 29. Stipulations for approval (Conditions) Page 2869 of 3380 Environmental PUDZ-PUDA Checklist (non-RFMU) Project Name__________________________________ 1. Is the project is in compliance with the overlays, districts and/or zoning on the subject site and/or the surrounding properties? (CON, ST, PUD, RLSA, RFMU, etc.) (LDC 2.03.05-2.03.08; 4.08.00) Not in CV Library 2. Submit a current aerial photograph (available from the Property Appraiser's office) and clearly delineate the subject site boundary lines. If the site is vegetated, provide FLUCFCS overlay and vegetation in ventory identifying upland, wetland and exotic vegetation (Admin. Code Ch. 3 G.1. Application Contents #24). FLUCFCS Overlay -P627 3. Clearly identify the location of all preserves and label each as “Preserve” on all plans. (LDC 3.05.07.H.1). Preserve Label- P546 4. Provide calculations on site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be retained, the max. amount and ratios permitted to be created on-site or mitigated off-site. Exclude vegetation located within utility and drainage easements from the preserve calculations (LDC 3.05.07.B-D; 3.05.07.F; 3.05.07.H.1.d-e). Preserve Calculation - P547 5. Created and retained preserve areas shall meet the minimum width requirements per LDC 3.05.07.H.1.b. Preserve Width - P603 6. Retained preservation areas shall be selected based on the criteria defined in LDC 3.05.07.A.3, include all 3 strata, be in the largest contiguous area possible and shall be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off-site preservation areas or wildlife corridors. (LDC 3.05.07.A.1-4) Preserve Selection- P550 7. Principle structures shall be located a minimum of 25’ from the boundary of the preserve boundary. No accessory structures and other site alterations, fill placement, grading, plant alteration or removal, or similar activity shall be permitted within 10’ of the boundary unless it can be shown that it will not affect the integrity of the preserve (i.e. stem wall or berm around wetland preserve). Provide cross-sections for each preserve boundary identifying all site alterations within 25’. (LDC 3.05.07.H.3; 6.01.02.C.) Preserve Setback – New 8. Wildlife survey required for sites where an EIS is not required, when so warranted. (LDC 10.02.02.A.2.f) Listed Species - P522 9. Provide Environmental Data identifying author credentials, consistency determination with the GMPs, off-site preserves, seasonal and historic high water levels, and analysis of water quality. For land previously used for farm fields or golf course, provide soil sampling/groundwater monitoring reports identifying any site contamination. (LDC 3.08.00) Environmental Data Required – P 522 10. PUD Document and Master Plan shall state the minimum acreage required to be preserved. (LDC 10.02.13.A.2) Master Plan Contents-P626 11. If the PUD includes a Preserve Tract section UP FOR DISCUSSION – DISCUSS WITH CAO When listing preserve uses, the following is suggested: A. Principal Use: Preserve; B. Accessory Uses: All other uses (list as applicable or refer to the LDC – see 1-3 below as typical uses listed by agents) (ensure the text states “subject to LDC section related to Allowable uses within County required preserves” Alternate format: A. Uses subject to LDC section Allowable uses within County required preserves: 1. Nature trails that do not reduce the amount of required preserve. 2. Passive Recreation uses, as per LDC requirements. 3. Stormwater only when in accordance with the LDC. Page 2870 of 3380 PUD Commitments and Site Plan notes Where preserves occur adjacent to development off site and will be used in lieu of landscape buffers, include the following condition in the environmental commitments section of the PUD document or master plan: Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic vegetation removal in accordance with LDC sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E.1. Supplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC section 3.05.07. 12. PUD Document shall identify any listed species found on site and/or describe any unique vegetative features that will be preserved on the site. (LDC 10.02.13.A.2.) Unique Features- P628 Example: A management plan for the entire project shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements and procedures of the LDC for listed species including but not limited to Black Bear, Gopher Tortoise and listed birds. The management plan shall be submitted prior to development of the first phase of the project. 13. Review cross-sections if provided; they are not required with the PUD. However, sometimes they are provided. Is there any fill proposed in the preserve? Additional Comments: Page 2871 of 3380 1 Rachel Hansen From:Michael Sawyer Sent:Wednesday, September 6, 2023 3:35 PM To:ThomasClarkeVEN; Rachel Hansen Subject:Pre-App notes for Collier Boulevard GMPA Please provide the following notes for Transportation Planning: For this GMPA: Transportation Planning: A methodology meeting by email is required and provide a note on the TIS cover sheet that the fee will be collected at the time of GMPA submittal. Address all transportation elements of the GMP. Provide both ITE and SIC use codes in the TIS. For the companion PUD (not this GMPA): A trip limit/cap Developer Commitment based on TIS will be required using standard language: “The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed ____ two-way PM peak hour net trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval.” Also, note with the PUD that potential interconnections are not possible/practicable due to adjacent PUD development(s) accommodations. The access crossing the canal may require relocation and/or modification of the stormwater canal and/or the multi-use pathway due to elevation/construction requirements which may also require additional/expansion of easement into the project limits; again, this is not an issue for the GMPA but will be at the time of PUD conceptually. Suggest investigating this access sooner rather than later. Let us know of any questions moving forward. Respectfully, Michael Sawyer Project Manager II Transportation Management Services Department Transportation Planning 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 239-252-2926 michael.sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Page 2872 of 3380 Addressing Checklist (Rev 10/2022) Page 1 of 1 Operations & Regulatory Management Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 www.colliercountyfl.gov ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and upload via the CityView Portal with your submittal. Items marked with (*) are required for every application, other items are optional and may not apply to every project. Forms are valid for 6 months following their submittal; an updated form will be required for a new submittal after that timeframe and any time the properties within the project boundary are modified. Additional documents may be attached to this form and can include: -* LOCATION MAP and/or SURVEY showing the proposed project boundary. -List of additional folio numbers and associated legal descriptions. - E-mail from Addressing Official for any pre-approved project and/or street names. LOCATION INFORMATION *FOLIO (Property ID) Number(s) of subject property or properties. [Attach list if necessary] *LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties. [Attach list if necessary] STREET ADDRESS(ES) where applicable, if already assigned. PROJECT INFORMATION Acceptance of this form does not constitute project and/or street name approval and is subject to further review by the Addressing Official. Pre-Approval may be requested by contacting us at GMD_Addressing@colliercountyfl.gov or 239-252-2482 prior to your submittal. CURRENT PROJECT NAME PROPOSED PROJECT NAME PROPOSED STREET NAME(s) LATEST APPROVED PROJECT NUMBER [e.g., SDP-94-##, PPL-2002-AR-####, PL2017000####] Page 2873 of 3380 Page 2874 of 3380 Page 2875 of 3380 EXHIBIT “I” QualiﬁcaƟons of the Consultants and Professionals Bonita Flores ResidenƟal Inﬁll Subdistrict (PL20230013845) Agent: Josh PhilpoƩ, AICP Stantec 1412 Jackson St., Suite 3 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Josh.PhilpoƩ@stantec.com Planning: Beth Rozansky, AICP Stantec 3510 KraŌ Road Suite 200 Naples FL 34105‐5029 Beth.Rozansky@stantec.com Engineering: Joel Blikstad, M.Eng., P.E. Stantec 1412 Jackson St., Suite 3 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Joel.Blikstad@stantec.com Environmental: Craig SchmiƩler, CSE, PWS Stantec 1412 Jackson St., Suite 3 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Craig.SchmiƩler@stantec.com Tra ffic Engineer: MaƩhew Maher, PE, PTOE, RSP2I Stantec 300 Primera Boulevard, Suite 300 Lake Mary, FL 32746 MaƩhew.Maher@stantec.com Housing Analysis: Susan Heffron, ACIP, LEED AP BD+C Zonda 3200 Bristol Street, Suite 640 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SHeffron@zondahome.com Page 2876 of 3380 * denotes projects completed with other firms Joshua Philpott AICP Senior Planner 22 years of experience · Fort Myers, Florida Josh is an urban planner with 21 years of experience in community and land use planning, with a focus on airport planning and compatibility. His experience includes working on a variety of large-scale projects for both public and private sector clients. Prior to joining Stantec, Josh was the manager of planning for the Lee County Port Authority and was responsible for managing the long-term planning, noise, and airspace programs for Southwest Florida International Airport and Page Field General Aviation Airport. During his time there, he worked on several projects and initiatives to protecting the long-term operational capacity of the airport from encroachment of incompatible development, while also helping guide future development of non-aviation uses at both airports. Josh represented LCPA on several committees and working groups including the Lee County MPO Technical Advisory Committee, the FDOT Airport Zoning Re-write (F.S. Chapter 333) working group, South-Central Florida Metroplex Study, and the FDOT Airport License working group. Josh was also the project manager for the 2011 Part 150 Noise Study that involved the implementation of NextGen flight procedures to help reduce the aircraft noise and overflights of populated areas, while increasing airport operation efficiency. EDUCATION Bachelor of Science, Natural Resource Management (Concentration in Urban Planning), Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, North Carolina, United States, 2002 REGISTRATIONS Certified Planner #151648, American Institute of Certified Planners MEMBERSHIPS Member, American Planning Association Member, Florida Planning and Zoning Association Member, Florida Airport Council PROJECT EXPERIENCE URBAN PLANNING Lee County Department of Community Development* | Lee County | Fort Myers, Florida | Senior Planner Responsible for preparation of staff reports analyzing merits of applications for compliance with Land Development Code and consistency with Lee County Comprehensive Plan. Presented staff analysis and testimony at public hearings for Lee County Hearing Examiner and County Commissioners, Planning Agencies, Zoning Boards, City of Bonita Springs, and Town of Fort Myers Beach. Reviewed Zoning Applications for Administrative Approval, Special Exception, Consumption on Premises, Conventional Rezoning, Variance, and Development of County Impact, and Development of Regional Impacts. Managed and coordinated GIS data and operations and oversee specialty GIS projects for Lee County Community Development. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE The Ivy Towers Airspace Analysis | Naples, Florida | 2017 | Senior Planner Provided preliminary airspace review for The Ivy Towers, a proposed multi-story multi-family development which is located along the extended centerline of the approach to Runway 05 at Naples Municipal Airport. The airspace analysis was done to determine the potential height of the buildings without negatively impacting the navigable airspace around the airport. LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Hyatt Coconut Plantation Vacation Resort | Estero, Florida | 2017 | Senior Planner Responsible for ensuring the project complied with all aspects of the zoning and land development code regulations for the expansion of the Hyatt Coconut Plantation Resort. PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLANNING Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park | Collier County | Collier County, Florida | 2016 | Senior Planner Assisted with facilitating the public outreach component of the public information campaign and community visioning effort for this 160-acre regional park, resulting in a citizen driven design process that culminated in a Master Plan that was approved by the Board of Commissioners in 2016. Page 2877 of 3380 Beth Rozansky AICP, MBA COMMUNITY PLANNER 12 years of experience · Naples, Florida Beth is an urban planner with over 10 years in County government planning, impact fee administration and public private partnership experience. In her county government roles, she helped facilitate development agreements and partnerships for roadways and other community facilities. She spearheaded community charettes and workshops to successfully develop a master plan for a 420-acre mixed-use economic development community. As impact fee administrator, was responsible for collection and implementation of 9 impact fee systems, including the development of a new mobility fee system. She also has over 21 years in the military, presently serving as a logistics and supply officer, having managed million- dollar budgets and contracts for the Navy. She extends her skills beyond the office and military, having served on a County advisory board for infrastructure surtax citizen oversight and various other local nonprofit roles. She brings a strong understanding of land planning, financial considerations, and developing solutions to advance projects forward. Beth's experience includes facilitating projects and negotiations amongst different entities, whether local, state and federal agencies and private interests. EDUCATION MBA, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA, 2010 Bachelors, Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA, 2005 Associates, Information Systems Technology, Air Force Community College, Montgomery, Alabama, USA, 2006 CERTIFICATIONS & TRAINING American Institute of Certified Planners, American Planning Association's Professional Institute, Florida, 2012 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Care Volunteer & Veteran Services Volunteer, Avow Hospice, Naples, Florida, US Board Member, Women's Foundation of Collier County, Naples, Florida, USA 11-2021 - 8/2022 Advisory Board Member, Collier County Advisory Board: Infrastructure Surtax Oversight Committee, Naples, FL, USA 1/2019-10/2020 EMPLOYMENT HISTORY U.S. Navy Reserves Supply Corp Officer 2012 – 2024 ꞏ 12 years Supply and logistics officer assigned to the Defense Logistics Agency. Trained to support diverse responsibilities of logistics and supply, with specialty in aviation supply management. Deployed Oct 2020-2021 providing contract management for all communications and information technology in support of Operation East Africa Counter Terrorism. U.S. Air Force Reserves Command Post Controller 2002 - 2012 ꞏ 10 years Managed command and control systems for various Air Force units. Activated in support of Operation Enduring Freedom from April 2003 through August 2005. Sarasota County Government Impact Fee Administrator 2013 - 2016 ꞏ 3 years Responsible for the collection and implementation of 9 impact fee systems generating over $15 million annually to fund improvements to road, fire, emergency medical services, law enforcement, justice, government, parks, libraries, and school facilities. Facilitated development agreements and public private partnerships totaling over $125 million for roadways, land interests, park projects, stormwater facilities, transit facilities, and other community facilities. Implemented a new mobility fee system and led the adoption of the ordinance. Coordinated interlocal funding agreements between state, local municipalities, private developers, and nonprofit organizations. Sarasota County Government Senior Planner 2007 - 2013 ꞏ 6 years Developed first ever Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for the county, coordinating stakeholder interests through a robust public engagement program and County Commission adoption. Facilitated updates to the Capital Improvement Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Sarasota County Government Planner 2005 - 2007 ꞏ 2 years Evaluated and processed land use change petitions. Provided community assistance in understanding land use planning. Page 2878 of 3380 * denotes projects completed with other firms Joel Blikstad P.E. Senior Project Manager 10 years of experience · Fort Myers, Florida Joel brings over 9 years of experience in land development to Stantec. He's an efficient, organized leader with proven management skills in a range of project sizes. He has experience in both the public and private sector land development projects, with extensive knowledge of permitting, stormwater management and utility design, project scheduling and coordination, and client management. EDUCATION Master of Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States, 2016 Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering, Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, Florida, United States, 2013 REGISTRATIONS Professional Engineer #84364, State of Florida, 2017- Present PROJECT EXPERIENCE INSTITUTIONAL SITE DESIGN Community School of Naples* | Community School of Naples, Inc. | Naples, FL, USA | USD 6.5M | 2019-2022 | Project Manager Joel served as project manager for several campus expansion projects for the Community School of Naples, including a new STEM facility, football stadium, performance gym, volleyball courts, and lower school dining facility. Joel served as engineer-of-record, responsible for overseeing the design, permitting, construction observation, and project closeout. This project was completed during Joel's tenure at RWA, Inc. TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN Collier Area Transit (CAT) Transfer Facility* | Collier County | Immokalee, FL, USA | 2020 | Project Manager Project Manager responsible for oversight of the design of a Collier Area Transfer facility in Immokalee, Florida. Responsibilities included design of the sanitary sewer, stormwater management, and water distribution systems, as well as a 60% design set of plans. The final deliverable was a Design Criteria Package delivered to the design-build team. COMMERCIAL LAND DEVELOPMENT Naples Infiniti/Volvo* | AMSI, Inc. | Naples, FL, USA | USD 1.8M | 2016-2017 | Civil Engineer Joel was the staff engineer responsible for the design and technical support for a new car dealership in Naples, FL. Joel was responsible for all the technical support for this project, including creating construction plans, coordinating with several different consultants, preparing and submitting permitting paperwork, and designing the supporting utility infrastructure and drainage. This project was completed during Joel's tenure at RWA, Inc. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE Apartment Development at Pine Island Road | Land America, LLC | Cape Coral, FL, USA | USD 4.6M | 2022- Present | Project Manager Joel leads a team of engineers, landscape architects, and environmental professionals to design, engineer, and permit a multi-family development with a total of 437 units in five buildings in Cape Coral. The project includes permits through the City of Cape Coral, South Florida Water Management District, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the Florida Department of Transportation. The project also includes platting through the City of Cape Coral. As part of the project, the team was faced with designing the development around existing commercial outparcels, as well as constructing a frontage road to serve adjacent properties. The project team is working closely with the City of Cape Coral to resolve transportation, landscaping, stormwater, and utility infrastructure concerns to ensure the proposed development would work for both the client and the City. Page 2879 of 3380 * denotes projects completed with other firms Craig Schmittler C.S.E., P.W.S. Senior Ecologist 40 years of experience · Fort Myers, Florida A well-recognized talent in the Southwest Florida Environmental Community, Craig offers over 39 years of environmental project experience that includes work on numerous habitat restoration projects and habitat management plans, regional mitigation banks, Developments of Regional Impact (DRI’s), large-scale residential golf course communities, commercial/industrial developments, agricultural projects, aquaculture projects, FDOT road and utility projects, FEMA emergency housing site assessments and commercial mines. He is an authorized gopher tortoise agent and has completed hundreds of successful gopher tortoise relocations, He is considered an expert in the environmental permitting processes for the US Army Corps of Engineers, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, South Florida Water Management District, Southwest Florida Water Management District along with numerous local state and municipal regulatory agencies. He is also recognized as an expert in the field of jurisdictional wetland assessments, listed species assessments and permitting, gopher tortoise relocations and listed species management plans. EDUCATION Master of Science, Zoology, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, United States, 1984 Bachelor of Science, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, United States, 1982 REGISTRATIONS Professional Mangrove Trimmer, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Certified Senior Ecologist, Ecological Society of America Qualified Stormwater Management Inspector, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Authorized Gopher Tortoise Agent, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Professional Wetland Scientist #776, Society of Wetland Scientists Advanced Open Water Diver, Professional Association of Diving Instructors MEMBERSHIPS Member, Florida Association of Environmental Professionals Member, Florida Native Plant Society Member, Society of Wetland Scientists Member, National Association of Environmental Professionals Member, Ecological Society of America PROJECT EXPERIENCE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING Districtwide Mitigation and Environmental Services Support, FDOT District 4 WETLAND RESTORATION AND MITIGATION Pond Apple Slough, FDOT District IV* | Florida | Senior Environmental Scientist Sheridan Street Natural Area, FDOT District IV* | Florida | Senior Environmental Scientist ENDANGERED SPECIES/SPECIES AT RISK ASSESSMENTS Riverwood DRI | El Jobean, Florida | Senior Ecologist Bonita Bay DRI | Bonita Springs, Florida | Senior Ecologist Pelican Landing DRI | Bonita Springs, Florida | Senior Environmental Scientist Bell Property Gopher Tortoise Permitting and Relocations | Manatee County, Florida Esplanade Gopher Tortoise Permitting and Relocations | Sarasota County, Florida Naples Memorial Gardens | Collier County, Florida | Project Manager NATURAL RESOURCE SERVICES Alico DRI | Lee County, Florida | Project Ecologist Grey Oaks | Barron Collier Partnership | Collier County, Florida | 2008-present | Primary Ecologist Rodina South | Viera Company, The | Hendry County, Florida | 2009-present | Senior Ecologist Brookhill Utility Improvements Design | City of Fort Myers | Lee County, Florida | 2008-present | Ecologist Pelican Landing Master Planned Community | WCI Communities LP | Lee County, Florida | 2008-present | Ecologist Pelican Marsh Master Planned Community | WCI Communities LP | Collier County, Florida | 2008-present | Ecologist Madison Park Residential Community | Centex Homes | Collier County, Florida | 2008-present | Senior Ecologist Page 2880 of 3380 * denotes projects completed with other firms Matthew Maher PE, PTOE, RSP₂ᵢ Traffic Engineer and Transportation Planner 16 years of experience · Lake Mary, Florida Mr. Maher is a Senior Traffic Engineer who has twelve years of experience. He has served as a Project Manager during traffic engineering and transportation planning projects for both public and private sector clients, which have involved the oversight of traffic impact studies, alternative analyses, concept development studies, traffic signal plans, parking demand studies, transit-oriented development studies, traffic operation analyses, Complete Streets studies and traffic calming studies. Whether he is presenting technical findings to clients or explaining the results of analyses in layman's terms at Public Information Centers and planning board testimonies, Mr. Maher's knowledge of and passion for traffic engineering is evident. EDUCATION ArcGIS Course, Rutgers University, New Jersey, 2014 Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering, Transportation Concentration, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 2008 CERTIFICATIONS & TRAINING Roadway and Traffic Safety Improvement Program, NJLTAP - Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey, United States, 2020 Road Safety Audit 3-Part Series, Florida LTAP Center, Tampa, Florida, United States, 2020 Traffic Signal Design Workshop, CAIT - Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey, United States, 2019 Highway Safety Manual Workshop, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia, United States, 2017 CAIT - Rutgers University, Traffic Calming, Piscataway, New Jersey, United States, 2020 REGISTRATIONS Road Safety Professional 2 #4 (Infrastructure), Transportation Professional Certification Board Inc., 2019-2022 Professional Engineer #097599, State of New York Professional Engineer #79833, State of Florida Certified Professional Traffic Operations Engineer #3404, Transportation Professional Certification Board Inc. Professional Engineer #24GE04998500, State of New Jersey MEMBERSHIPS Member, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2008- Present PROJECT EXPERIENCE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Garden State Parkway Interchange 127 Southbound Entrance Merge Improvements - Concept Study, OPS A3679, Task D-10 | New Jersey Turnpike Authority | Woodbridge, New Jersey | 2019-Present | Project Manager Route 46/Route 3/Valley Road/Notch Road Interchanges Project | New Jersey Department of Transportation | Township of Little Falls, Borough of Woodland Park and the City of Clifton, Passaic County, New Jersey | USD 160M | 2008-2021 | Task Manager Jersey City Traffic Engineering On-Call | Jersey City, NJ | 2018-2020 | Task Manager Cape May County Professional General Engineering Services and Project Management Support | Cape May County, New Jersey | 2015-2019 | Task Manager US Route 9W (Fletcher Avenue) at I-95 | New Jersey Department of Transportation | Fort Lee, New Jersey | USD 4.4M | 2008-Present | Traffic Engineer Cross Street (CR 626) Reconstruction, Augusta Boulevard to East Veterans Highway (CR 528) | County of Ocean | Ocean County, New Jersey | 2018-Present | Task Manager Garden State Parkway Crossover Mitigation Study - Dualized Roadways | New Jersey, United States | 2019- 2020 | Project Manager Design Assessment of Emergency Access Gates and Access Control Study, OPS A3758, Task O-2 | New Jersey Turnpike Authority | Various Locations, New Jersey | 2020 | Traffic Engineer TRAFFIC SAFETY Somerset County Roadway Safety Study | Somerset County, NJ, USA | 2020-2021 | Project Manager Applying Video Data Analytics to Determine Near-Miss Collisions | PANY&NJ | New York, New York, United States | 2020 | Project Manager Page 2881 of 3380 SUSAN C. HEFFRON, AICP, LEED AP BD+C sheffron@zondahome.com • (704) 277-9084 SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS • Extensive experience in land acquisition and entitlements, market research and analysis, budgeting, planning, and program, process, and project management • Effectively able to communicate complicated concepts in an understandable, persuasive manner with culturally diverse audiences • Successful maximization of limited resources through strategic and tactical plans to achieve client satisfaction, enhance overall performance and increase productivity while meeting deadlines and goals • Adept and experienced in problem solving and providing solutions with excellent qualifications in project organization, leadership and interpersonal communications in both the public and private sectors PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE VICE PRESIDENT - ADVISORY 2023 – Present ZONDA SENIOR MANAGER - ADVISORY 2021 – 2023 ZONDA REGIONAL MARKET ANALYST 2018 – 2020 DR HORTON STRATEGIC MARKETING MANAGER 2016 – 2018 TAYLOR MORRISON MARKET ANALYST 2014 – 2016 DR HORTON PERFORMANCE MANAGER 2010 – 2014 JONES LANG LASALLE ENTITLEMENT PLANNER 2007 – 2010 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FORWARD PLANNER IN LAND ACQUISITION 2004 – 2007 KB HOME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER 2003 – 2004 CITY OF CONCORD SENIOR PLANNER 2000 – 2003 CITY OF CONCORD EDUCATION, TRAINING, LICENSES, AND CERTIFICATIONS MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION PFEIFFER UNIVERSITY MASTER OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE BACHELOR OF ARTS IN ARCHITECTURE, BACHELOR OF ARTS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE Minor in Western Antiquity and Classical Languages License, North Carolina Real Estate Broker Certified, American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Certified, LEED AP BD + C (Building Design and Construction) Member, American Planning Association Page 2882 of 3380 COLLIER BLVD(CR 951)FUTURE LAND USE (FLU): COLLIER BLVD. LORD'S WAY MIXED USE SUBDISTRICTCOLLIER BOULEVARD LORD'S WAYFUTURE LAND USE (FLU): URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICTHACIENDA LAKESSUBJECT PROPERTY(9.5 AC.)FUTURE LAND USE (FLU):URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT100' COLLIER COUNTYDRAINAGE CANAL120' PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY (C.R. 951)FUTURE LAND USE (FLU): URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBRISTRICT - RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BANDNAPLES LAKES COUNTY CLUB FUTURE LAND USE (FLU): URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICTHACIENDA LAKESNFeet0120240The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scalethe drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay.The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec.Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.Tel:www.stantec.comStantec Consulting Services Inc.1821 Victoria Avenue Suite 1Fort Myers, FL 33901-3436(239) 939-10202024.02.28 4:10:01 PM \\us0255-ppfss01\shared_projects\215618460\planning\drawing\planning_exhibits_maps\215618460 exhibit_4 Project No.Figure No.DateReference SheetTitleClient/ProjectNotesRevisionCOLLIER BLVD GMPACOLLIER COUNTY215618460FUTURE LAND USE ANDADJACENT LANDS MAP2024.02.014Page 2883 of 3380 EXHIBIT “III” Proposed Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Text Amendments Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict (PL20230013845) Overview: The incorporation of the new subdistrict will require an amendment in four areas within the FLUE, as outlined below. These changes are based upon the FLUE version dated May 23, 2023, and does not reflect any subsequently approved subdistricts after this date. CHANGE 1: TABLE OF CONTENTS (page vi) Amend *FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES (pages vii-viii) *** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** * Airport Carlisle Mixed Use Subdistrict * Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay Map * Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Map CHANGE 2: Policy 1.5: (page 9-10) The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: A. URBAN - MIXED USE DISTRICT *** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** 29. Airport Carlisle Mixed Use Subdistrict 30. Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict CHANGE 3: Page 56, add the new subdistrict text following subdistrict 29, or as subsequently amended: 30. Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict consists of ± 9.49 acres and is located along Collier Boulevard, approximately 1,300 feet north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to allow multi- family rental residential development at a density of up to 10 units per acre and to provide affordable residential units to accommodate the workforce in Collier County, thereby advancing the intent of Goal 1 of the Housing Element. Development within the Subdistrict shall be subject to the following: a. Development shall be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Page 2884 of 3380 EXHIBIT “III” b. The development shall be limited to a maximum residential density of 10 dwelling units per acre for a total of 92 multi-family units. c. Twenty-eight (28) units (30% of the total approved) will be income and rent restricted as follows: 1. Fourteen (14) units will be rented to households whose incomes do not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County with corresponding rent limits as determined annually by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. 2. Fourteen (14) units will be rented to households whose incomes do not exceed one hundred percent (100%) of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County with corresponding rent limits as determined annually by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. 3. These twenty-eight (28) income and rent-restricted units will be subject to this requirement for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of certificate of occupancy of the first income and rent-restricted unit. 4. Preference to fifty percent (50%) of the income and rent-restricted units (14 units) shall be given to Essential Service Personnel (ESP) and military veterans. ESP means natural persons or families with at least one of whom is employed as police or fire personnel, a childcare worker, a teacher or other educational personnel, health care personnel, skilled building trades personnel, active duty military, or a government employee. Any time that a unit becomes vacant, assuming that less than 14 units are occupied by ESP or military veterans, the next available unit will be offered to ESP and military veterans. This commitment for ESP and military veterans shall remain in effect for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of certificate of occupancy of the first income and rent-restricted unit. 5. As part of Collier County’s annual monitoring for this PUD, the owner will provide to Collier County Community and Human Services Division (CHS) an annual report at least forty-five (45) days prior to the anniversary of the adoption of this PUD that provides the progress and monitoring of occupancy and income and rent-restricted units. The annual report will be provided in a format approved by CHS. The owner further agrees to on-site monitoring by the County. d. The Density Rating System is not applicable to this Subdistrict. CHANGE 4: “FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES” (page 163-164) *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** (LXXXV) Airport Carlisle Mixed Use Subdistrict Map (LXXXVI) Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Map Page 2885 of 3380 COLLIER BLVD(CR 951)ZONED: MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD)COLLIER BOULEVARD LORD'S WAYZONED: MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD)/DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)HACIENDA LAKESZONED: MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD)/DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)HACIENDA LAKESSUBJECT PROPERTY100' COLLIER COUNTYDRAINAGE CANAL120' PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY (C.R. 951)ZONED: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)NAPLES LAKES COUNTY CLUB NFeet0120240The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scalethe drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay.The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec.Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.Tel:www.stantec.comStantec Consulting Services Inc.1821 Victoria Avenue Suite 1Fort Myers, FL 33901-3436(239) 939-10202024.02.20 10:25:18 AM \\us0255-ppfss01\shared_projects\215618460\planning\drawing\planning_exhibits_maps\215618460 exhibit_1 Project No.Figure No.DateReference SheetTitleClient/ProjectNotesRevisionCOLLIER BLVD GMPACOLLIER COUNTY215618460SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTSAND EXISTING ZONING MAP2024.02.011Page 2886 of 3380 COLLIER BLVD(CR 951)SUBJECT PROPERTY100' COLLIER COUNTYDRAINAGE CANAL120' PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY (C.R. 951)NFeet0120240The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scalethe drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay.The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec.Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.Tel:www.stantec.comStantec Consulting Services Inc.1821 Victoria Avenue Suite 1Fort Myers, FL 33901-3436(239) 939-10202024.02.20 10:25:25 AM \\us0255-ppfss01\shared_projects\215618460\planning\drawing\planning_exhibits_maps\215618460 exhibit_2 Project No.Figure No.DateReference SheetTitleClient/ProjectNotesRevisionCOLLIER BLVD GMPACOLLIER COUNTY215618460COLLIER COUNTY AERIALLOCATION MAP2024.02.0121.AERIAL SHOWN WAS FLOWN DEC. 2022, AND PROVIDED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER.Page 2887 of 3380 COLLIER BLVD(CR 951)ZONED: MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD)COLLIER BOULEVARD LORD'S WAYZONED: MIXED USE PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENT (MPUD)/DEVELOPMENTOF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)HACIENDA LAKESZONED: MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD)/DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)HACIENDA LAKESSUBJECT PROPERTY(9.5 AC.)ZONED: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)NAPLES LAKES COUNTY CLUB EXISTING LAND USE: UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL (HACIENDA LAKES)EXISTING LAND USE: UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL (HACIENDA LAKES)EXISTING LAND USE: MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT300'300'ZONED: RURAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (A)FUTURE LAND USE (FLU):URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICTEXISTING LAND USE: GOLF COURSE (NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB)100' COLLIER COUNTYDRAINAGE CANAL120' PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY (C.R. 951)ZONED: MIXED USE PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENT (MPUD)/DEVELOPMENTOF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)HACIENDA LAKESEXISTING LAND USE:UNDEVELOPED COMMERCIALNFeet0120240The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scalethe drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay.The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec.Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.Tel:www.stantec.comStantec Consulting Services Inc.1821 Victoria Avenue Suite 1Fort Myers, FL 33901-3436(239) 939-10202024.02.20 10:25:28 AM \\us0255-ppfss01\shared_projects\215618460\planning\drawing\planning_exhibits_maps\215618460 exhibit_3 Project No.Figure No.DateReference SheetTitleClient/ProjectNotesRevisionCOLLIER BLVD GMPACOLLIER COUNTY215618460EXISTING LAND USE ANDZONING MAP2024.02.013SUMMARY TABLENORTHSOUTHEASTWESTMIXED USE PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENT (MPUD)/DEVELOPMENT OFREGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL(HACIENDA LAKES PUD)MIXED USE PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENT (MPUD)MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTMIXED USE PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENT (MPUD)/DEVELOPMENT OFREGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL(HACIENDA LAKES PUD)PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENT (PUD)100' COLLIER COUNTYDRAINAGE CANAL; PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY (C.R. 951);GOLF COURSE (NAPLESLAKES COUNTRY CLUB)ZONINGEXISTING LAND USEUNDEVELOPED COMMERCIAL(HACIENDA LAKES PUD)Page 2888 of 3380 8928 COLLIER BOULEVARD Environmental Assessment Report April 30, 2024 Prepared for: Bonita Flores, 1 LLC #1-35 Trillium Drive Kitchener, ON Canada N2E OH2 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc 1412 Jackson St, Suite 3 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Project Number: 215618460 Page 2889 of 3380 The conclusions in the Report titled 8928 Collier Boulevard are Stantec’s professional opinion, as of the time of the Report, and concerning the scope described in the Report. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the scope of work was conducted and do not take into account any subsequent changes. The Report relates solely to the specific project for which Stantec was retained and the stated purpose for which the Report was prepared. The Report is not to be used or relied on for any variation or extension of the project, or for any other project or purpose, and any unauthorized use or reliance is at the recipient’s own risk. Stantec has assumed all information received from Bonita Flores, 1 LLC (the “Client”) and third parties in the preparation of the Report to be correct. While Stantec has exercised a customary level of judgment or due diligence in the use of such information, Stantec assumes no responsibility for the consequences of any error or omission contained therein. This Report is intended solely for use by the Client in accordance with Stantec’s contract with the Client. While the Report may be provided by the Client to applicable authorities having jurisdiction and to other third parties in connection with the project, Stantec disclaims any legal duty based upon warranty, reliance or any other theory to any third party, and will not be liable to such third party for any damages or losses of any kind that may result. Prepared by: Signature Craig D Schmittler, CSE, PWS Printed Name Reviewed by: Signature ElOi Danielson Printed Name Approved by: Signature Sharon Ewe Printed Name nd that may result. Signature Signature Page 2890 of 3380 Click or tap here to enter text. Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction and Project Location .................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Site Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 1 2 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES & FLUCCS CODES ...................................................... 1 2.1 Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification ........................................................................ 1 2.2 FLUCCS Codes ............................................................................................................................. 2 3 SOILS ............................................................................................................................. 3 4 LISTED SPECIES........................................................................................................... 3 4.1 Protected Species ......................................................................................................................... 3 5 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS .................................................................................... 4 Table 1. FLUCCS Codes Within Project Area .............................................................................................. 2 Figure 1. Location Map ................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 2. FLUCCS Map ............................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3. Soils Map ..................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4. Listed Species Transect Map ...................................................................................................... 16 Page 2891 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard Environmental Assessment Report 1 1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction and Project Location Stantec was requested to perform an environmental inspection for listed species, potential wetlands, and critical habitat related to proposed development of the project property. The project is located at 8928 Collier Boulevard, Naples, Florida (Figure 1). The respective Parcel ID is 00418400302 in the Collier County Property Appraiser’s records. The property is undeveloped and is approximately 9.5 acres. There is a main canal of the Golden Gate Canal system along the western edge of the property, conservation lands to the immediate south, and cleared land that is currently being developed to the east and north. An active Florida Power & Light (FPL) easement crosses the eastern end of the property from north to south, isolating an area slightly more than an acre in size. A small Collier County utility building has been constructed on a filled pad near the southern property boundary on the west side of the FPL easement. 1.2 Site Conditions The subject parcel at 8928 Collier Boulevard is currently undeveloped and heavily infested by nuisance and exotic vegetation due to alterations of the historic hydroperiod coupled with a large wildfire several years ago. There are numerous mature slash pine, cabbage palms and cypress throughout the property. Several dense palmetto clumps are also present in higher elevations. However, the majority of the site can be described as historic wetlands that have been negatively affected by the close proximity of the main Golden Gate Canal and its drawdown effects to the surficial aquifer on site. The entire property is heavily invaded by melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenerva) and to a lesser extent Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia) as a result of the previous disturbances. The existing habitat on-site is of poor wildlife value due to the lack of herbaceous groundcover and the abundant undesirable species. The adjacent property to the north and east has been cleared and is currently being developed. CR 951 and the Golden Gate Canal lie to the west and a small conservation area associated with the previous development to the south lies immediately adjacent to the property on the southern boundary. 2 Vegetative Communities & FLUCCS Codes 2.1 Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification The existing habitat and land use categories for the property were verified on-site during the field inspection. The vegetation assemblages were identified using the Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS). The attached FLUCCS map (Figure 2. FLUCCS Mapdepicts the location of cover and vegetation within the property (Table 1). Most of the property is vegetated by Page 2892 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard Environmental Assessment Report 2 undesirable species within historic flatwoods and forested wetland habitats. The existing land use categories are listed below. 2.2 FLUCCS Codes FLUCCS Code 416 – H - E3: Pine Flatwoods, Graminoid groundcover, Hydric, Exotics 50-74%: The pine flatwoods habitats on site contain a mixture of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), cypress (Taxodium distichum), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) and melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) in the canopy. Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), gallberry (Ilex glabra), wax myrtle (Morella cerifera), saltbush (Baccharis halimifolia), downy rose myrtle (Rhodomyrtus tomentosa), Old World climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum), briars (Smilax sp.), and grape vines (Vitis sp.) make up the shrub and vines midstory. Ground cover include beggartick (Bidens alba), sand cordgrass (Spartina bakeri), cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), torpedo grass (Panicum repens), and carpetgrass (Axonopus sp.). This area gets inundated infrequently during the summer rainy season as indicated by algal mats, hydric rooting on the vegetation, and the absence of upland groundcover species. FLUCCS Code 740 E1: Disturbed Land, Exotics 0-24%: This map unit describes the eastern most portion of the property that lies east of the FPL easement and includes a small parcel along the southern property boundary and adjacent to the FPL easement where a small Collier County Utility facility has been constructed on an elevated fill pad. This area had previously been cleared and is sparsely revegetated with ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), Brazilian pepper, broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and other invasive colonizing grasses and forbs. There is a considerable amount of bare sand present due to high caprock throughout this area. There was no evidence of hydrologic indicators throughout this general area (no signs of standing water, algal mats, adventitious rooting, etc.). Table 1. FLUCCS Codes Within Project Area FLUCCS Code Description Acreage 416 – H – E3 Pine Flatwoods, Graminoid Groundcover, Hydric, Exotics 50-74% 7.75 740 – E1 Disturbed Land, Exotics 0-24% 1.75 Total Acreage 9.50 Page 2893 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard Environmental Assessment Report 3 3 Soils The property contains two (2) soil unit types. Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum (7.97 acres), which is a hydric soil type and has 0 to 2 percent slopes. Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum, Urban Complex (1.53 acres) which is an upland soil type and also has 0 to 2 percent slopes. Please see (Figure 3) for the soils map of the property. The hydric soil type throughout much of the site further verifies a significant portion of the property is jurisdictional wetland habitat. This hydric soil type is typically present when soils are saturated or slightly inundated during the summer rainy season. Caprock is usually within 12-15 inches of the surface, which results in poor drainage and contributes to standing water being present for lengthy periods. The urban complex soils are indicative of previously being cleared and filled or altered and no longer functioning as a wetland soil. This soil type is present where the county utility building and FPL transmission corridor have been developed on the eastern edge and southeastern corner of the property. 4 Listed Species 4.1 Protected Species A protected species survey was conducted by Stantec Senior Environmental Scientist Craig Schmittler, CSE, PWS, on December 28, 2023. Parallel meandering pedestrian transects were utilized to assure 100% coverage of the project area in accordance with the methodologies outlined by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) (Figure 4). The purpose of the survey was to inspect the property for the potential presence of listed species, regulated by FWC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), potentially inhabiting the project site. Any listed species (flora or fauna) present would require permitting or at a minimum best management practice (BMP) implementation during construction to assure no impacts were incurred by those listed species. Prior to conducting the protected species survey, a desktop review was conducted of public databases containing species occurrence records in and around the project area. The primary species of interest were the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi), and the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus). The immediately adjoining properties to the north and south have recently been cleared and are currently being developed. Page 2894 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard Environmental Assessment Report 4 The high caprock coupled with the high water table in the summer rainy season renders much of this property unsuitable for gopher tortoise burrows/habitat. There were no burrows, scat, or other signs of tortoise presence observed during this 100% survey of the property. There is the potential for indigo snakes due to favorable habitat occurring on site despite the absence of tortoises. BMPs for the protection of eastern indigo snakes will be implemented during construction to provide protection for this species, if present. No cavities or openings in the trees were observed that could potentially be used as roost/den sites for the Florida bonneted bat. In addition, the dense growth of melaleuca and Brazilian pepper further reduces the potential for use of this site by the bonneted bats. A single squirrel day bed/nest was observed on-site toward the western side of the property in a mature cypress tree. The potential for Big Cypress fox squirrels is only moderate due to the lack of suitable habitat on the properties abutting the north and east property boundaries (both sites have been recently cleared). However, natural habitat is present to the south and on-site, but is severely impacted by exotic species reducing the habitat values for this species. To summarize the possible listed species use of the property, the eastern indigo snake and Big Cypress fox squirrel are the only two (2) listed species that can be potentially present on site. Poor quality habitat or no habitat present reduces the potential for gopher tortoises, Florida bonneted bats, and burrowing owls to be present on the property. No signs of these species were observed so it is unlikely these species are present. BMP’s for the eastern indigo snake will be implemented during all clearing and construction activities to assure the safety of this species, if present. 5 Jurisdictional Wetlands A majority of the subject property can be considered jurisdictional wetland habitat pursuant to the definition under 62.340 F.A.C. The presence of algal matting, adventitious rooting, stain lines, and hydric vegetation throughout the site are indicative of hydric conditions present during the summer rainy season. The soils present also had stripping and organic bodies, which are commonly found in seasonally ponded wetlands. The historic conditions on site may be permanently altered and negatively affected as a result of the recent clearing and development of the property to the north and east of this site. Development of the property will require Environmental Resource Permitting through the South Florida Water Management District or Florida Department of Environmental Protection and depending upon the Waters of the Unitted States determination for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), may also require 404 permitting through the USACOE. The filled/disturbed portions of the site existing under the FPL easement and the county utility building may require permit modifications to develop. Mitigation for development related wetland impacts would be required at a local mitigation bank. Corkscrew Mitigation Bank and Panther Island are the only 2 banks available with credits available at this time. Wetland mitigation credits at those two banks are currently selling for $190,000 per credit. Page 2895 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard Environmental Assessment Report 8 Figure 1. Location Map Page 2896 of 3380 FLORIDASPORTSPARKRDCOLLIER BLVDStantec Consulting Services Inc.777 S. Harbour Island Blvd. Suite 600Tampa, FL 33602tel 813.223.9500fax 813.223.0009 Bonita Flores 1 LLCLocation M ap - Collier County, FloridaApril 2024 0 75 150 Feet ($$¯C:\Users\cberner\Documents\_Craig_Schmittler\215818460\fig1_location_map_20231221.mxd Revised: 2024-05-01 By: cbernerDisclaimer: Stan tec assumes no respon sibility for datasupplied in electronic format. The recipien t acceptsfull responsibility for verifyin g the accuracy andcompleteness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants andagents, from any and all claim s arising in any wayfrom the content or provision of the data. Parcel Boundary Prepared by:C.J.B. 05/01/24 Note s:1. Coo rdinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Florida East FIPS 0901 Feet2. S ourc e data: Collie r Co unty Property Appraiser3. Imagery: ESRI Basema p 2020 L E G E N D Page 2897 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard Environmental Assessment Report 11 Figure 2. FLUCCS Map Page 2898 of 3380 FLORIDA SPORTS PARK RDCOLLIER BLVD740 E1 - Dis turbedLand – Exotics0-24% - 1.75ac 416 H E4 - PineFlatwoods, GraminoidGroundcoverHydric – Exotics50-74% - 7.75a c Stantec Consulting Services Inc.777 S. Harbour Island Blvd. Suite 600Tampa, FL 33602tel 813.223.9500fax 813.223.0009 Bonita Flores 1 LLCFLUCCS Map - Collier County, FloridaApril 2024 0 75 150 Feet ($$¯C:\Users\cberner\Documents\_Craig_Schmittler\215818460\fig2_fluccs_map_20231221.mxd Revised: 2024-05-02 By: cbernerDisclaimer: Stan tec assumes no respon sibility for datasupplied in electronic format. The recipien t acceptsfull responsibility for verifyin g the accuracy andcompleteness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants andagents, from any and all claim s arising in any wayfrom the content or provision of the data. Parcel Boundary FLUCCS Boundary Prepared by:C.J.B. 05/02/24 Note s:1. Coo rdinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Florida East FIPS 0901 Feet2. S ourc e data: Collie r Co unty Property Appraiser, Stantec3. Imagery: ESRI Basema p 2020 L E G E N D Page 2899 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard Environmental Assessment Report 14 Figure 3. Soils Map Page 2900 of 3380 128 - Pineda FineSand, Lim es toneSubstratum-Urban LandComplex, 0 To 2 PercentSlopes - 0.05ac 128 - Pineda FineSand, LimestoneSubstratum-Urba n LandComplex, 0 To 2Percent Slopes - 1.48a c 14 - Pineda Fine Sa nd,Limestone Substra tum,0 To 2 PercentSlopes - 7.75ac 14 - Pineda Fine Sand,Limestone Substratum,0 To 2 PercentSlopes - 0.22ac FLORIDASPORTSPARKRDCOLLIER BLVDStantec Consulting Services Inc.777 S. Harbour Island Blvd. Suite 600Tampa, FL 33602tel 813.223.9500fax 813.223.0009 Bonita Flores 1 LLCNRCS Soils Map - C ollier County, FloridaApril 2024 0 75 150 Feet ($$¯C:\Users\cberner\Documents\_Craig_Schmittler\215818460\fig4_soils_map_20240209.mxd Revised: 2024-05-02 By: cbernerDisclaimer: Stan tec assumes no respon sibility for datasupplied in electronic format. The recipien t acceptsfull responsibility for verifyin g the accuracy andcompleteness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants andagents, from any and all claim s arising in any wayfrom the content or provision of the data. Parcel Boundary NRCS Soils Boundary Prepared by:C.J.B. 05/02/24 Note s:1. Coo rdinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Florida East FIPS 0901 Feet2. S ourc e data: NRCS, C ollier Coun ty Property Appra iser, Sta ntec3. Imagery: ESRI Basema p 2020 L E G E N D Page 2901 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard Environmental Assessment Report 16 Figure 4. Listed Species Transect Map Page 2902 of 3380 kj FLORIDA SPORTS PARK RDCOLLIER BLVDStantec Consulting Services Inc.777 S. Harbour Island Blvd. Suite 600Tampa, FL 33602tel 813.223.9500fax 813.223.0009 Bonita Flores 1 LLCListed Specie s M ap - Collier County, FloridaApril 2024 0 75 150 Feet ($$¯C:\Users\cberner\Documents\_Craig_Schmittler\215818460\fig3_listed_species_map_20231221.mxd Revised: 2024-05-01 By: cbernerDisclaimer: Stan tec assumes no respon sibility for datasupplied in electronic format. The recipien t acceptsfull responsibility for verifyin g the accuracy andcompleteness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants andagents, from any and all claim s arising in any wayfrom the content or provision of the data. Parcel Boundary kj Squirrel Nest – Unkno wnSpecies Gopher Torto ise Transect Florida P anther Focus Ar ea Florida Bonneted BatConsultation Area Prepared by:C.J.B. 05/01/24 Note s:1. Coo rdinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Florida East FIPS 0901 Feet2. S ourc e data: Collie r Co unty Property Appraiser, Stantec, F WC, US FW S3. Imagery: ESRI Basema p 2020 L E G E N D Page 2903 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard Rental Housing Market Study Naples, FL Bonita Flores 1 December 2023 Page 2904 of 3380 Key Findings 4 8928 Collier Boulevard Overview 9 Multifamily Market Supply 33 Multifamily Market Demand 40 Multifamily Market Trends 46 Economic & Demographic Overview 54 Appendix 62 Page 2905 of 3380 3 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Background/Objectives, Key Contacts & Limiting Conditions BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES Bonita Flores 1 (“Client”) is considering the development of an affordable housing community on a +/- 9.49-acre property located at 8928 Collier Boulevard in Naples, Florida (“Subject”) and is seeking a density of ten units per acre, resulting in 92 rental units, 30% of which will be allocated toward residents earning 120% of AMI. Approximately nine units (10% of apartments) will be reserved for households earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County; additionally, nine units will be reserved for households earning up to 100% of AMI and ten units will be reserved for households earning up to 120% AMI. To move forward with the project, Collier County will require a rezoning application and GMPA amendment. The Client seeks an economic assessment of the current supply and demand metrics in the market to provide support for the rezoning application. Our role at Zonda is to provide you with data, analysis, and conclusions for this effort. Client is responsible for representations about the development plans, marketing expectations and for disclosure of any significant information that might affect the ultimate realization of the projected results. There will usually be differences between projected and actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and the difference may be material. We have no responsibility to update our report for events and circumstances occurring after the date of our report. Payment of any and all of our fees and expenses is not in any way contingent upon any factor other than our providing services related to this report. LIMITING CONDITIONS The following key team members participated on this analysis: Tim Sullivan, Senior Managing Principal, oversees our Advisory practice. With over 40 years of experience, Mr. Sullivan is an expert in residential and mixed-use feasibility studies, strategic planning and product development, and regularly conducts market analyses around the United States and internationally. Susan Heffron, AICP, Vice President, managed the assignment. Ms. Heffron has over 20 years of real estate experience in the public and private sectors. She has worked in market research and analysis, entitlements, land use, and community planning, and process and program management for a wide variety of projects throughout the country, including serving as the Community Development and Code Enforcement Manager for the City of Concord, North Carolina, responsible for the coordination of the City’s affordable housing programs. Additional support was provided as needed. KEY CONTACTS Page 2906 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 4 Key Findings Page 2907 of 3380 5 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Area Median Income (AMI) Affordable Housing Ranges and Rent Limits Key Findings Based on HUD’s median family income of $104,300, the 2024 Income Limits by Persons in Family are shown below. The Client is proposing to amend the GMPA to allow for 92 market-rate apartment units with 30% of those units designated as affordable housing. The 30% will address households making up to 120% of the County Area Median Income (“AMI”); this results in approximately 28 units with income restrictions. Additional details on the proposed unit mix is on the following page. Source: Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse Based on AMI categories, the 2024 Rent Limits by Persons by Bedroom range from $548 to $3,630. Based on targeting households that make 120% of the County AMI, potential rents limits for these 28 units can range between $2,193 and $3,630. As proposed, one- and two-bedroom units at the Subject will fall within $1,566 to $2,817 threshold. AMI Category 0 Bedroom Limit ($)1 Bedroom Limit ($)2 Bedroom Limit ($)3 Bedroom Limit ($)4 Bedroom Limit ($) 30%$548 $587 $704 $813 $907 50%$913 $978 $1,173 $1,356 $1,512 60%$1,096 $1,174 $1,408 $1,627 $1,815 80%$1,462 $1,566 $1,878 $2,170 $2,420 120%$2,193 $2,349 $2,817 $3,255 $3,630 Florida Housing Rent Limits, 2024 AMI Category 1 Person Limit ($)2 Person Limit ($)3 Person Limit ($)4 Person Limit ($) 30%$21,930 $25,050 $28,170 $31,290 50%$36,550 $41,750 $46,950 $52,150 60%$43,860 $50,100 $56,340 $62,580 80%$58,480 $66,800 $75,120 $83,440 120%$87,720 $100,200 $112,680 $125,160 140%$102,340 $116,900 $131,460 $146,020 Collier County Housing Income Limits, 2024 Page 2908 of 3380 6 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 The Client is proposing to amend the GMPA to allow for 92 market -rate apartment units with 30% of those units designated as affordable housing. Approximately nine units (10% of apartments) will be reserved for households earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Collier County; additionally, nine units will be reserved for households earning up to 100% of AMI and ten units will be reserved for households earning up to 120% AMI. These units will be committed for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first unit. Income and rent limits may be adjusted annually based on combined income and rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the rent restricted units (14 units) will be rented to Essential Services Personnel (ESP). ESP means natural persons or families at least one of whom is employed as police or fire personnel, a childcare worker, a teacher or other education personnel, health care personnel or a public employee. Any time that a unit becomes vacant, assuming that less than 14 units are occupied by ESP, the next available unit will be offered to ESP. This commitment for ESP and military veterans shall remain in effect for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of certificate of occupancy of the first income and rent-restricted unit. Source: Client Subject Unit Mix Key Findings Unit Type Quantity Market Rate Unit Mix Beds Baths 1 Bed 10 16%1 1 2 Bed 54 84%2 1 Unit Type Quantity Affordable Unit Mix Beds Baths 1 Bed 16 57%1 1 2 Bed 12 43%2 1 Subject Unit Mix Market Rate Units - 64 Apartments Affordable Units - 28 Apartments Affordable Housing Represents 30% of Total Project Units Page 2909 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 7 Zonda’s research and analysis of the Subject’s Primary Market Area (PMA) as shown on the map on page 10 of this study indicate sufficient market demand for the development of 92 multifamily units at the Subject property as proposed. This is based on several factors, including: Zonda’s proprietary rental demand model for the PMA indicates increasing market demand over the next five years, averaging 921 NEW TO MARKET traditional rental units annually; this demand is in addition to the rental units that are currently built and available for rent within the marketplace. Although there are 1,260 units under construction today, it is improbable that there will be sufficient new construction to meet future needs based on these units being completed. Only 822 units are contemplated for future demand within the SRAs. (Pages 40-44) More specifically, there is an annual demand within the PMA of 908 units in 2024. Per RealPage data, there are approximately NO units on track for delivery in 2024, indicating a gap of 908 new units necessary to meet new rental demand today. In 2025, NEW rental demand is 920 units, yet currently there are only 866 on track for delivery, a gap of 54 NEW units. Combined, this represents a need for more than 962 NEW TO MARKET rental units over the next two years. (Pages 40-44) In 2026, when the Subject is expected to deliver units, new demand is forecasted to be 932 units within the PMA; however, there is only one project currently in construction that could potentially deliver units to the market. These projects represent 394 apartments, or only 42% of future demand in the Subject’s year of delivery. Projects, such as the Subject, will help to fulfill these unmet needs in the marketplace. (Pages 40-44) While there are three communities that were built over the past four years within the PMA, the average age across all properties is more than 14 years. These older communities lack updated interior features and finishes community amenities as well that are found in newer rental properties. The Subject will offer renters new construction with these modern finishes and community amenities, at an affordable price, in a convenient location; this supports the development of the Subject as proposed. (Pages 33-39) As proposed, rent for one- and two-bedroom units at the Subject will fall within $1,498 to $2,697 threshold. Most future rental demand in the PMA is for units priced between $1,700 to $2,575; however, through 2027, rental demand is forecasted to slightly increase for units that command between $1,200 and $1,700 as well as $2,250 to $3,425 in monthly rent. During this same time, demand for the lowest priced apartments are forecasted to decline slightly. As proposed, the Subject will fall within the price bands where demand is currently healthy and forecasted to grow over the next several years. (Pages 40-44) Summary of Key Findings Key Findings Page 2910 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 8 Additional key factors supporting the development of the community include: Even as apartments within the South Collier County Submarket are older, the area as a whole reported year over year annualized rent growth of 0.4% through the third quarter. For product built since 2000, monthly rent in South Collier averages $2,318 per month, a rent premium of about 3.7% over the average rent of $2,195 across the market. This premium highlights the strength and desirability of the South Collier submarket for multifamily development. (Pages 46-53) Within the PMA and SMA, household and population are expected in increase over the next five years. These increase are forecasted to result in significantly higher per capita income within the PMA, with declining numbers of households identified as “low income.” Over the same time period, median contracted rents within the Subject’s block group are expected to increase 12% to $1,962. (Pages 11 – 15) Even as apartments within the South Collier County Submarket are older, the area as a whole reported year over year annualized rent growth of 0.4% through the third quarter. For product built since 2000, monthly rent in South Collier averages $2,318 per month, a rent premium of about 3.7% over the average rent of $2,195 across the market. This premium highlights the strength and desirability of the South Collier submarket for multifamily development. (Page 51) The use of concessions in South Collier County Submarket have increased over the past four quarters from a record low of no concessions in the Submarket during the fourth quarter of 2022. Concessions now represent 5.8% of base rent, with approximately 12.9% of units offering concessions. Average concessions previously peaked at 8.4% of the base rent in the third quarter 2020 while percent of units offering concessions previously peaked at 65.2% in the second quarter of the same year. (Page 53) Employment is heavily concentrated in Heath Care, Accommodations and Food Services, Retail Trade, and Construction sectors; combined these sectors account for nearly 53% of all employment in the area. There are more than 5,100 individuals that commute from the larger region into the PMA for work indicating an opportunity for the Subject to attract renters who would prefer a shorter commute that increases quality of life which subsequently reduces the impacts of traffic on the greater Naples area. (Page 29) The Subject is located on Collier Boulevard, between Tamiami Trail and I-75. These transportation corridors, and nearby transit stops, allow for easy access to Naples, Bonita Springs, and Fort Myers. While a Publix is located with a mile of the site, abundant retailers, including several other grocery stores and pharmacies, numerous local retail establishments, and medical facilities and doctors' offices are located within five miles. Additionally, the Subject’s assigned elementary school is less than two miles south of the Subject, just off Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock; this will be convenient for parents of young children that commute. (Page 32) Within the PMA, much of the land surrounding the site is currently zoned as planned unit development, with six parcels to the south of the site also zoned as Agricultural. Adjacent to the southeast corner of the site is an existing multi-family development with a MPUD zoning designation. (Page 20) Summary of Key Findings Key Findings Page 2911 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 9 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Page 2912 of 3380 10 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 In assessing the multi-family market and recognizing the mobility of renters to seek out affordable, safe housing in proximity to areas of employment, Zonda analyzed market trends within Collier County (Secondary Market Area or SMA) as well as a three-mile radius surrounding the Subject (Primary Market Area or PMA); these boundaries are shown on the maps below. However, as it relates to market supply and future demand, Zonda specifically analyzed the three-mile radius surrounding the Subject (as shown on the map to the right below) in detail to fully understand the Subject’s position in the more localized economy. Source: ESRI, RealPage Multifamily Market Supply Area Boundaries 8928 Collier Boulevard Overview SubjectSubject Subject Subject Subject Collier County Three Mile Radius - PMA I-75 US41 Page 2913 of 3380 11 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Within the PMA and SMA, household and population are expected in increase over the next five years. These increase are forecasted to result in significantly higher per capita income within the PMA, with declining numbers of households identified as “low income.” Source: ESRI Multifamily Market Area Snapshot 8928 Collier Boulevard Overview Collier County Three Mile Radius - PMA Summary 2024 2029 Population 32,853 34,835 Households 16,432 18,054 Median Age 63.6 64.8 Average Household Size 1.97 1.91 Median Household Income $81,284 $92,166 Average Household Income $116,799 $134,847 Per Capita Income $58,769 $70,250 Households in Low Income 2,210 1,763 Households in Middle Income 11,074 12,038 Households in Upper Income 3,148 4,252 Three Mile Radius (PMA) Summary 2024 2029 Population 404,645 427,602 Households 172,735 186,978 Median Age 53.7 54.3 Average Household Size 2.31 2.26 Median Household Income $85,620 $101,783 Average Household Income $135,508 $157,374 Per Capita Income $57,867 $68,836 Households in Low Income Tier 24,572 19,898 Households in Middle Income Tier 104,092 108,787 Households in Upper Income Tier 44,071 58,293 Collier County (SMA) Page 2914 of 3380 12 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Population Growth within the PMA by 2029 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Over the next five years, the Subject’s block group is project to have the highest annualized population growth within the PMA. During this time, the block group is forecasted to increase in population by 5.79% annually, significantly higher than the annualized rate of 1.2% within the PMA. Source: ESRI Subject 5.79% Page 2915 of 3380 13 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Income Growth within the PMA by 2029 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview By 2029, the median household income within the Subject’s block group is expected to increase 6.2%, to more than $80,400, representing one of the highest income areas outside of the adjoining golf course communities. In 2023, the median household income was $75,722. This is, however, lower than the PMA as whole, where the median household income is projected to by $92,166 by 2029. Source: ESRI Subject $80,408 Page 2916 of 3380 14 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Renter Occupied Housing Units within the PMA by 2029 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Through 2029, there is limited renter occupied housing unit growth forecasted within much of the PMA. The Subject’s block group represents one of the largest areas for renter occupied units; these units are expected to increase from 566 housing units to 1,110 over the next five years. Source: ESRI Subject 1,110 Page 2917 of 3380 15 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Median Contracted Rent within the PMA by 2029 Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Over the next five years, the median contracted rent within the Subject’s block group is forecasted to increase almost 12%. In 2023, the median contracted rent in the area was $1,752 and is expected to increase to $1,962 by 2029. As proposed, one- and two- bedroom units at the Subject will fall within $1,498 to $2,697 threshold when delivered in 2026 for the 30% of units designated as affordable housing at the Subject. Source: ESRI Subject $1,962 Page 2918 of 3380 16 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 The Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict will include a single, 9.49-acre parcel. The site is located on Collier Boulevard, approximately 2.7 miles south of I-75 and less than five miles north of Tamiami Boulevard. The property is currently designated Agriculture per the County’s current zoning regulations and Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict per the County’s future land use designation. Source: GoogleEarth Subject Location Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Page 2919 of 3380 17 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 The Subject will include 92 one or two bedroom rental apartments. The buildings on the site will be located nearest to Collier Boulevard (“Area R” shaded in purple below) while the rear portion of the site will include a lake area, detention area, and preserve. All parking for renters are surface lots; as proposed there are no garage units included in parking calculations. The community will also include a leasing office, mailroom, clubhouse, and gym. Based on one year to complete the entitlement process and a year for permitting and construction, these apartments are forecasted to begin leasing in 2026. As traditional apartment communities typically lease between 15 and 20 units per month, Zonda forecasts that the community will be stabilized within five months of the start of leasing. Source: Client Subject Site Plan Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Page 2920 of 3380 18 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Surrounding land uses include a mix of residential, commercial, and vacant land as well as industrial land uses to the northeast. Commercial uses in the area include The Florida Sports Park-Reception Pavilion / Swamp Buggy Inc, several golf courses, and a Publix grocery store to the south. Adjoining PUDs and zoning classifications are compatible with the proposed land use at the Subject as they are generally residential in nature. There are multiple healthcare, educational, and governmental facilities with two miles of the Subject while the nearest transit stop is less than a mile south of the property. Source: Google Earth, Collier County, Client Subject Location Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Commercial Residential Public Works (Law Enforcement) Commercial Vacant Land Golf Course Healthcare Multi-family Residential Healthcare Healthcare Healthcare Healthcare Public Works (Education) Public Works (Education/Library)Public Works (Education) Childcare Page 2921 of 3380 19 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Zoning Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Zonda completed a visual audit of Collier County Zoning maps and GIS data to identify if there was opportunity for the development of the Subject in the area that would not require zoning modifications. Much of Collier County is zoned open space or agricultural in the lesser developed regions of the County, with planned unit development zoning in the heavily populated areas between the coast and Interstate 75. Residential zoning classifications, including ones that could support uses such as those proposed at the Subject, are scattered through much of the western portion of the County, along Tamiami Trail, and west of I-75, as shown on the map to the right. Source: Collier County’ https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/88286/636989656568300000Page 2922 of 3380 20 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Surrounding Zoning Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Zonda also completed a visual audit of Collier County Zoning within three miles of the Subject to identify if there was opportunity for the development of the Subject in the area that would not require zoning modifications. In the immediate vicinity of the Subject, much of the land surrounding the site is currently zoned as planned unit development, with six parcels to the south of the site also zoned as Agricultural. Adjacent to the southeast corner of the site is an existing multi-family development with a MPUD zoning designation. Source: Collier County; https://colliercountygmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=7112ae8012934a5ebbecf2b80e06bb93Page 2923 of 3380 21 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Per the Collier County Approved PUD List, dated January 2024, there are 203 active PUD developments in the County as well 177 PUDs that are classified as “Built Out.” Combined, these PUDs account for more than 42,763 total multifamily units. However, within these PUDs there are more than 56,800 multifamily units developed. Even with more units developed than contemplated within the PUDs, there remains a need for an average of 920 NEW multi-family units within the PMA for the Subject, based upon Zonda’s rental demand model. Source: Collier County Collier County Planned Unit Developments, Commercial and Industrial Zoning 58 Acre PUDZ & GMPA Overview PUD Status Total Multifamily Units Developed Multifamily Units Active 20,876 27,318 Built Out 21,887 29,560 Grand Total 42,763 56,878 Page 2924 of 3380 22 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, there are approximately 12,996 multi-family dwelling units allowed; of these 478 have been developed. Specific to “Affordable Housing,” there are 882 affordable units allowed, but to date, none have been developed. For additional details on these areas, please see appendix. Source: Collier County Collier County SRA Overlays 58 Acre PUDZ & GMPA Overview SRA Name Allowed/Developed MFDU Total DUs (Mix)Affordable Housing Ave Maria, Town of Allowed 2,150 11,000 Ave Maria, Town of Developed 478 4,141 Bellmar Village Allowed 2,200 2,750 Bellmar Village Developed Bellmar Village Min/Max Min 10%Max Total Combined Big Cypress, Town of Allowed 3,546 4,432 882 Big Cypress, Town of Developed Big Cypress, Town of Min/Max Min 10%Min 2,427 Min 882 Brightshore Village Allowed 1,600 2,000 Brightshore Village Developed Brightshore Village Min/Max Min 10%Max Total Combined Collier Rod & Gun Allowed -225 Collier Rod & Gun Developed Collier Rod & Gun Min/Max Hyde Park Village Allowed 1,000 1,800 Hyde Park Village Developed 75 Hyde Park Village Min/Max Min 300, Max Total Combined Rivergrass Village Allowed 2,500 2,500 Rivergrass Village Developed - Rivergrass Village Min/Max Min 250 Max Total Combined Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) Page 2925 of 3380 23 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 The future land use designations on the west side of Collier Boulevard are focused on urban based residential and mixed-use development; these extends approximately one mile on the east side of Collier Boulevard. Other land use designations in the area are primarily rural agricultural that include sending and receiving lands. Surrounding Land Uses Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Source: Collier County; https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/91411/637557210850130000 Urban Residential Subdistrict Receiving Lands Sending Lands Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict Page 2926 of 3380 24 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Parcel Inventory Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Source: Collier County Tax Assessor Database Comparably sized parcels in Collier County were analyzed to determine if there was an opportunity to accommodate the proposed uses at the Subject that would not require a rezoning or growth plan amendment. Based on Collier County’s Assessor Data, accessed on November 28, 2023, there are currently 12 parcels within the County meet the following requirements to accommodate the proposed project: •The parcel must be sized between 7.5 and 12.5 acres •The parcel must be vacant but developable (i.e., not internal roadways, common open space, roadways, etc.) •The parcel must currently have a compatible land use code per the assessor’s records •The parcel must have nearby access to significant transportation corridors and public transportation •The parcel must be located in close proximity to everyday conveniences such as dining, retail establishments, and daily services •The surrounding parcels should not be exclusively single family detached homes (i.e. there should be a mix of property types in the area A detailed list of these parcels is on the following page. Page 2927 of 3380 25 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Parcel Inventory Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Source: Collier County Tax Assessor Database Parcel ID Owner Base Zoning Future Land Use Address Land Use Code Total Acres 37067680009 Jeffrey Lee Smith Jr Agricultural/Estates Designation Estates Designation/Residential Estates Subdistrict 830 9th Street NW 0 9.45 41770040003 Hendrix House Inc Agricultural/Estates Designation Estates Designation/Residential Estates Subdistrict 42nd Avenue, West of Everglades Boulevard 0 9.8 32632360005 Four Square Land LLC Agricultural / Rural Designation Agricultural / Rural Designation / RF-Sending Woodland Estates, West of 30th Avenue 0 10 32632560009 Four Square Land LLC Agricultural / Rural Designation Agricultural / Rural Designation / RF-Sending Woodland Estates, West of 30th Avenue 0 10 00397240007 Gussler Investments LP Agricultural / Rural Designation Agricultural / Rural Designation / RF-Sending Benfield Road, South of Beck Boulevard 0 10 00741760007 Bohde, John A Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict Fiddlers Creek Parkway at Veneta Way 0 10 38056320007 Alan J Vincent Rev. Trust Agricultural/Estates Designation Estates Designation/Residential Estates Subdistrict End of 25th Aveunue SW 0 8.16 38056040002 Elizabeth Barclay Agricultural/Estates Designation Estates Designation/Residential Estates Subdistrict End of 31st Avenue SW 0 8.01 64700625501 Roberto Bollt MPUD Rural Settlement Area District 13986 Immokalee Road 0 12.23 41829400002 Vanderbilt Living LLC RPUD UR/Vanderbilt Beach Road Residential Subdistrict Cherry Wood Drive 0 7.91 52658000280 Jubliation Holdings PUD Urban Residential Subdistrict Carson Road at Curry Road 0 11.44 48900000120 Missark Naples 3 PUD Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict 1040 Borghese Lane 0 8.66 Page 2928 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 26 Source: ESRI Traffic Count Map Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview The Subject is located on Collier Boulevard, a major north-south transportation corridor between Immokalee Road in northern Collier County and Tamiami Trail in southern Collier County; the site is almost halfway between Interstate 75 and Tamiami Trail . Collier Boulevard, north of Tamiami Trail, averages more than 36,000 cars a day south of the Subject, increasing to 56,000 near the Interstate. From the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Tamiami Trail, average daily traffic counts increase from 29,000 vehicles per day to more than 45,000 at the edge of a five-mile radius. These traffic counts, coupled with the previously noted commuting patterns of residents in the area, further indicate an opportunity for the Subject to attract renters who would prefer a shorter commute to employment centers. Subject Page 2929 of 3380 27 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Employment by Census Tract and Drive-Time Map Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview The Subject is located is within 45 minutes of many of Southwest Florida’s top employment destinations. Much of developed Collier County is within 45 minutes of the Subject, while areas such as Cape Coral, Fort Myers, Bonita Springs, and Estero, in Lee County, are also within 45 minutes. Numerous healthcare employers including Lee Health Coconut Point, as well as most facilities in the NCH Healthcare System and Arthrex, are conveniently located within a reasonably commute of the Site. Both Florida Gulf Coast University and Southwest Florida International Airport are 45 minutes from the Subject. This location bodes well for the success of the project. Source: ESRI; Zonda, FGCU Regional Economic Research Institute Rank Company Employees 1 Lee Health 14,028 2 Lee County School District 11,003 3 Publix Super Market 9,768 4 Lee County Local Government 9,142 5 NCH Healthcare System 8,159 6 Walmart 7,286 7 Collier County School District 5,756 8 Collier County Local Government 5,173 9 Arthrex 4,087 10 Marriott International, Inc.3,620 11 Bayfront Health 2,801 12 Charlotte County Local Government 2,614 13 McDonald's 2,613 14 Home Depot 2,497 15 Charlotte County School District 2,152 16 Winn-Dixie 1,899 17 Hope Hospice 1,838 18 Chico's Fas Inc.1,552 19 Florida Gulf Coast University 1,519 20 Bloomin' Brands, Inc.1,395 Top Southwest Florida Employers 30 Minutes 15 Minutes 45 Minutes Fort Myers Marco Island Big Cypress National Preserve Naples Estero Bonita Springs Florida Panther National Wildlife Picayune Strand State Forest Cape Coral 15 Minute Drive Time 30 Minute Drive Time 45 Minute Drive Time Page 2930 of 3380 28 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Employment within the PMA Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Within the Subject’s block group, there are approximately 1,370 total employees. Higher concentrations of employment are located to the north of the Subject, along the northern side of I-75 and to the south of the Subject in the Lely Resort/The Classics Country Club at Lely Resort area. Immediately west of the Subject, on the opposite side of Collier Boulevard are two additional block groups with significant employment, driven in part by the Cedar Hammocks Golf and Country Club (approximately 150 employees), Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club (60 employees), Naples National Golf Club (28 employees), and the Naples Lakes Country Club (13 employees). Source: ESRI; Zonda, Data AxlePage 2931 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 29 Employment Concentration and Commute Patterns Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview In 2021, most residents (64.2%) within the PMA commuted less than 25 miles, predominately to the northwest to Naples, Bonita Springs, and Fort Myers. The color-concentrated areas on the map to the right indicate the highest proportion of commuter destinations for residents. Employment is heavily concentrated in Heath Care, Accommodations and Food Services, Retail Trade, and Construction sectors ; combined these sectors account for nearly 53% of all employment in the area. There are more than 5,100 individuals that commute into the area for work from within the region including Bonita Springs, Immokalee, Estero, and Fort Myers; this commuting pattern indicates an opportunity for the Subject to attract renters who would prefer a shorter commute that increases quality of life which subsequently reduces the impacts of traffic on the greater Naples area. These in-bound commuters are generally employed in similar sectors those in the PMA; other key sectors include Manufacturing, Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, and Administration & Support services. Source: Census Bureau Subject Page 2932 of 3380 30 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Wage and Rent Comparison by Industry Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Residents who live within the PMA are employed primarily in Heath Care, Accommodations and Food Services, Retail Trade, and Construction sectors while in-bound commuters (those who live in a different area but work within the PMA) are also employed in Manufacturing, Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, and Administration & Support services. The Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse reported that the 2022 average hourly wage for these segments range from $18 to $35, resulting in average annual wages that range from $37,633 to $72,688. A detailed list of occupations within these industries are provided on the next page. Based on AMI categories, the 2024 Rent Limits by Persons by Bedroom range from $548 to $3,630. Based on targeting households that make 120% of the County AMI, potential rents limits for these 28 units can range between $2,100 and $3,600. As proposed, one- and two-bedroom units at the Subject will fall within $1,566 to $2,817 threshold. Source: Census Bureau , Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse Industry 2022 Average Hourly Wage (2023 $) 2022 Average Annual Wage (2023 $) Maximum Affordable Rent (30% of Income) HUD 2BR Fair Market Rent % Income Needed for 2 BR FMR # of Workers in 2022 2023 3- Person Median Income Annual Wage as Percent of 3-Person AMI Accommodation And Food Services $18 $37,633 $941 $1,795 57%21,434 $89,900 42% Administrative And Waste Services $26 $54,145 $1,354 $1,795 40%10,978 $89,900 60% Arts, Entertainment, And Recreation $25 $52,221 $1,306 $1,795 41%8,256 $89,900 58% Construction $31 $64,609 $1,615 $1,795 33%19,092 $89,900 72% Health Care And Social Assistance $34 $70,912 $1,773 $1,795 30%22,274 $89,900 79% Manufacturing $35 $72,688 $1,817 $1,795 30%5,158 $89,900 81% Retail Trade $24 $49,642 $1,241 $1,795 43%22,015 $89,900 55% Page 2933 of 3380 31 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Wage and Rent Comparison by Occupation Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Source: Census Bureau , Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse Occupation 2022 Median Hourly Wage (2023 $) Maximum Affordable Rent (30% of Income) HUD 2BR Fair Market Rent % Income Needed for 2 BR FMR # of Workers in 2022 Annual Wage as a % AMI for a Family of 3 All Occupations $20.30 $1,056 $1,795 51%157,390 47% Bartenders $14.81 $770 $1,795 70%1,010 34% Carpenters $23.78 $1,236 $1,795 44%1,720 55% Cashiers $14.43 $750 $1,795 72%3,930 33% Child, Family, and School Social Workers $22.27 $1,158 $1,795 47%160 52% Childcare Workers $14.96 $778 $1,795 69%440 35% Construction Laborers $19.04 $990 $1,795 54%1,530 44% Cooks, Restaurant $18.10 $941 $1,795 57%3,090 42% Dental Assistants $25.18 $1,310 $1,795 41%420 58% Dishwashers $14.92 $776 $1,795 69%1,060 35% Electricians $25.29 $1,315 $1,795 41%830 59% Fast Food and Counter Workers $14.09 $733 $1,795 74%3,430 33% Food Preparation Workers $16.12 $838 $1,795 64%1,500 37% Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration Mechanics and Installers $24.77 $1,288 $1,795 42%760 57% Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers $22.58 $1,174 $1,795 46%1,170 52% Home Health and Personal Care Aides $15.31 $796 $1,795 68%1,420 35% Hotel, Motel, and Resort Desk Clerks $15.25 $793 $1,795 68%390 35% Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational Nurses $27.30 $1,420 $1,795 38%620 63% Light Truck Drivers $19.64 $1,021 $1,795 53%850 45% Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners $15.29 $795 $1,795 68%1,470 35% Medical Assistants $19.93 $1,036 $1,795 52%1,020 46% Mental Health and Substance Abuse Social Workers $24.66 $1,282 $1,795 42%90 57% Nursing Assistants $17.70 $920 $1,795 59%1,600 41% Office Clerks, General $19.63 $1,021 $1,795 53%3,520 45% Painters, Construction and Maintenance $19.56 $1,017 $1,795 53%1,150 45% Paramedics $41.51 $2,158 $1,795 25%150 96% Pharmacy Technicians $19.19 $998 $1,795 54%550 44% Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters $25.11 $1,306 $1,795 41%610 58% Receptionists and Information Clerks $17.82 $927 $1,795 58%1,450 41% Registered Nurses $40.60 $2,111 $1,795 26%2,700 94% Retail Salespersons $15.37 $799 $1,795 67%5,820 36% Roofers $23.67 $1,231 $1,795 44%570 55% Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive $20.34 $1,058 $1,795 51%1,580 47% Waiters and Waitresses $15.15 $788 $1,795 68%5,540 35%Page 2934 of 3380 32 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Regional Location Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Overview Source: Google Maps Lely ES The Subject is located on Collier Boulevard, between Tamiami Trail and I-75. These transportation corridors, and nearby transit stops, allow for easy access to Naples, Bonita Springs, and Fort Myers. While a Publix is located with a mile of the site, abundant retailers, including several other grocery stores and pharmacies, numerous local retail establishments, and medical facilities and doctors' offices are located within five miles. Additionally, the Subject’s assigned elementary school is less than two miles south of the Subject, just off Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock; this will be convenient for parents of young children that commute. Lely HS Page 2935 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 33 Multifamily Market Supply Page 2936 of 3380 34 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 As previously noted, in assessing the multi-family market and recognizing the mobility of renters to seek out affordable, safe housing in proximity to areas of employment, Zonda analyzed market trends within Collier County as well as the area within three miles of the Subject (PMA); these boundaries are shown on the maps below. However, as it relates to market supply and future demand, Zonda specifically analyzed the three-mile radius surrounding the Subject (as shown on the map to the right below) in detail to fully understand the Subject’s position in the more localized economy. Source: ESRI, MPF Multifamily Market Supply Area Boundaries Multifamily Market Supply Subject Subject Subject Collier County Three Mile Radius - PMA I-75 US41 Page 2937 of 3380 35 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Existing Rental Communities Multifamily Market Supply There are 11 conventional rental communities within three miles of the Subject that are either stabilized (a property that has achieved a level of occupancy that is considered sustainable over time) or are in lease-up (typically less than 96% occupied after completion of construction). Combined, these projects account for nearly 3,100 apartments units, with 242 of the units in lease up or under renovation. Properties range from Class A to Class D and include traditional garden style or wrap apartments. There are no purpose-built communities identified in the Submarket. Across all classes of apartments, the average occupancy is 94.41% though December 2023 (the most recent survey date). Effective rents range from $1,277 to $2,519 and averages $2,140 or $1.98 per square foot for an average 1,079 square foot unit. Advenir at Aventine and Milano Lakes are the two closest apartment communities to the Subject; both are market rate complexes. Milano Lakes, located adjacent to the Site, was built in 2018 and is 94% occupied. There are 296 units in the complex, with an average unit size of 1,190 square feet, and a net effective rent of $2,315. Advenir at Aventine, built in 2001, is located to the north of the Subject. The community has 350 units that are comparable to Milano Lakes (1,114 square feet) but with an average effective rent of $2,334. The complex is occupied at 92%. A detailed list of these projects is on the following page with a breakdown of future projects on subsequent pages. Source: MPF Subject Page 2938 of 3380 36 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Existing Rental Communities - Continued Multifamily Market Supply Residents who live within three miles of the Subject are employed primarily in Heath Care, Accommodations and Food Services, Retail Trade, and Construction sectors. Based upon a rent to income ratio of 30% and the average hourly wage for these industries (ranging from $18 to $34 an hour), maximum allowable rents range from $941 to $1,774 per month. Within three miles of the Subject (PMA), there is only one community that has an average effective rent within this range. This lower rents are primarily a function of the age of the communities (22 years old on average). While there are three communities that were built over the past four years, the average age across all properties is more than 14 years. These older communities lack updated interior features and finishes community amenities as well that are found in newer rental properties. The Subject will offer renters new construction with these modern finishes and community amenities, at an affordable price, in a convenient location; this supports the development of the Subject as proposed. Source: MPF Name Effective Rent Effective Rent/SF Occupancy Total Units Year Built Address Stories Property Status Property Style Legacy Naples $2,519 $2.15 94%304 2020 7557 Campania Way 4 Stabilized Garden Advenir at Aventine $2,334 $2.09 92%350 2001 9300 Marino Cir 3 Stabilized Garden Milano Lakes $2,315 $1.95 94%296 2018 3713 Milano Lakes Cir 4 Stabilized Garden Edge 75 $2,308 $2.27 92%320 2021 120 Bedzel Cir 4 Stabilized Garden Inspira $2,304 $2.18 91%304 2018 7425 Inspira Circle 4 Stabilized Garden Sierra Grande $2,196 $1.93 91%300 2014 6975 Sierra Club Cir 4 Stabilized Wrap Shadowwood $2,167 $1.79 100%96 1989 6475 Seawolf Ct 2 Stabilized Garden Briar Landings at the Enclave $1,950 $2.08 98%240 1991 1385 Wildwood Lakes Blvd 2 Stabilized Garden Aster At Lely Resort $1,886 $1.82 92%308 2014 8120 Acacia Street 3 Stabilized Garden Tuscan Isle $1,277 $1.43 100%298 2002 8650 Weir Dr 3 Stabilized Garden Altis Santa Barbara $2,282 $2.08 7%242 2024 4710 Altis Dr 5 Lease-Up Garden $2,140 $1.98 94.41%3,058 2010 Avg. Effective Rent Avg. Affective Rent per Square Foot Average Occupancy Across Stabilized Communities Total Units Within Three Miles Avg. Year Built Page 2939 of 3380 37 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Future Rental Communities - Planned and Under Construction Multifamily Market Supply Within the PMA, there are five rental projects under construction and not yet leasing. Communities are located along the same corridors as much of the existing apartment stock in the area. These future communities total 1,260 units, with projects that range in size from 82 to 394 units. Future projects in the submarket are primarily garden style, but also include a community that includes traditional garden apartments as well as townhome units built for rent. As highlighted later in this report, the average annual demand for new apartments in the area is more than 900 units over the next five years; this current pipeline is not sufficient to meet future demand, supporting the development of the Site as proposed. There are two projects under construction south of the Subject on Collier Boulevard. Hammock Park, located at the intersection of Collier Boulevard, topped out its second building in late November 2023, but once complete, will have 265 rental units. Fiori, located adjacent to Hammock Park to the north, will have 127 units once complete. While the community has an active website that is building a VIP list, leasing is not forecasted to begin until mid to late 2024. A detailed list of these projects in on the following page. Source: MPF Subject Page 2940 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 38 Future Rental Communities - Planned and Under Construction – Continued Multifamily Market Supply Source: MPF Name Total Units Year Built Address Stories Property Status Property Style EKOS on Santa Barbara 82 2025 4640 Santa Barbara Blvd 4 Under Construction Garden Azalea Park 394 2026 Collier Blvd & Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 4 Under Construction Garden,Townhome Marlowe Naples 216 2025 6050 Whitaker Rd 3 Under Construction Garden Fiori 303 2025 8552 Collier Blvd 4 Under Construction Garden Hammock Park 265 2025 Collier Blvd & Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 4 Under Construction Garden 1,260 Total Future Units Within Three Page 2941 of 3380 39 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Short Term Housing Supply Multifamily Market Supply There are more than 2,600 short term and Airbnb type rentals in Collier County that range from a mix of Studio units to larger six plus bedroom homes. Combined, these homes account for over $313 million in average annual revenue. Source: Rabbu, Collier County Rental Type Number of Rentals Market Share Average Annual Revenue Total Average Annual Revenue Studio 47 1.78%$53,998 $2,537,906 1 Bedroom 468 17.73%$62,533 $29,265,444 2 Bedrooms 770 29.18%$88,412 $68,077,240 3 Bedrooms 944 35.77%$129,665 $122,403,760 4 Bedrooms 333 12.62%$196,387 $65,396,871 5 Bedrooms 57 2.16%$310,424 $17,694,168 6+ Bedrooms 20 0.76%$384,225 $7,684,500 Total Rentals 2,639 $313,059,889 Rental Scenario Registration Required More than 3 times per calendar year for periods less than 30 days or 1 calendar month Yes 30 days or 1 calendar month, or more No 3 months to the same renter(s) No As of January 2022, Collier County requires that property owners register with the County if they provide short term leasing of any habitable space, including a room, apartment, living quarters, in any residential building, including but not limited to condominiums, single-family or multi-family homes. The intent of this policy is to collect current and accurate information regarding short-term vacation rental properties, encourage the appropriate management of these properties, and protect the general health, safety, and welfare of the residents and visitors to Collier County. Details on this policy are below: Page 2942 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 40 Multifamily MarketDemand Page 2943 of 3380 41 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 As previously noted, in assessing the multi-family market and recognizing the mobility of renters to seek out affordable, safe housing in proximity to areas of employment, Zonda analyzed market trends within Collier County as well as the threee mile radius surrounding the Subject; these boundaries are shown on the maps below. However, as it relates to market supply and future demand, Zonda specifically analyzed the three-mile radius surrounding the Subject (as shown on the map to the right below) in detail to fully understand the Subject’s position in the more localized economy. Source: ESRI, MPF Multifamily Market Supply Area Boundaries Multifamily Market Demand Subject Subject Collier County Three Mile Radius - PMA I-75 US41 Page 2944 of 3380 42 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Demand Modeling Multifamily Market Demand Zonda’s proprietary rental demand model for the PMA indicates increasing market demand over the next five years, averaging 921 NEW TO MARKET traditional rental units annually; this demand is in addition to the rental units that are currently built and available for rent within the marketplace. Although there are 1,260 units under construction today, it is improbable that there will be sufficient new construction to meet future needs based on the current pipeline. More specifically, there is an annual demand within the Submarket of 901 units in 2024. Per RealPage data, there are approximately NO units on track for delivery in 2024, indicating a gap of 908 new units necessary to meet new rental demand today. In 2025, NEW rental demand is 920 units, yet currently there are only 866 on track for delivery, a gap of 54 NEW units. In 2026, when the Subject is expected to deliver units, new demand is forecasted to be 932 units; however, there is only one project currently in construction that could potentially deliver units to the market. These projects represent 394 apartments, or only 42% of future demand in the Subject’s year of delivery. Projects, such as the Subject, will help to fulfill these unmet needs in the marketplace. In Collier County, approved PUDs have built 56,878 units (of the 42,763 units planned) while an in the SRAs there are 822 units accounted for but not yet built. RENTAL DEMAND MODEL FLOW CHART: Three Mile Radius Demand Drivers Rental Demand Rental Demand by Individual Catagories Estimated Number Total of Households Rental (2027)Filters / Ratios Demand Minus ( - )Total By Price Buy vs. Rent Annual (Adjusted by By Age By Life Stage Current Number Demand Market) of Households (2022)2023 -901 $1,200 to $1,700 Under25 Young Families Buy New vs. Resale 2024 -908 $1,700 to $2,575 25 to34 Growing Families Equals ( = )2025 -920 $2,575 to $3,425 35 to44 Mature Families 2026 -932 $3,425 to $5,125 45 to54 Couples <45 Annual New Household Income 2027 -940 $5,125 to $6,825 55 to64 Singles Household by Avg -921 $6,825 or Greater 65 to74 Empty Nester Grow th Age of Householder Total -4,603 75 &Greater Retirees Implied Home Sources Price from * Economy.com Income Levels * Esri * Zonda Adjusted Housing Expenditures * US Census Zonda Adjustments as a Percentage of Income Source: ESRI, US Census, Zonda, RealPagePage 2945 of 3380 43 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 ▬ Five-Year Average Demand by Rent Range ▬Demand ▬ Demand by Age and Income (Absolute Numbers) ▬▬ Demand by LifeStage (Absolute Numbers) ▬ Annual Household Income Range HH by Income % of Total HH Rent Range Affordability* 2023 to 2027 % of Annual Demand Under 25 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 & Greater Young Families Growing Families Mature Families Couples <45 Singles Empty Nester Retirees Income $25,000 - $34,999 3,543 7.1%$850 to $1,200 11 1.2%0 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Income $35,000 - $49,999 4,751 9.5%$1,200 to $1,700 128 13.8%5 14 14 12 17 24 42 11 8 8 9 12 14 66 Income $50,000 - $74,999 8,373 16.7%$1,700 to $2,575 426 46.3%14 49 50 51 63 94 105 39 33 31 29 40 54 200 Income $75,000 - $99,999 6,270 12.5%$2,575 to $3,425 205 22.3%4 22 28 27 32 46 46 19 17 16 14 19 27 92 Income $100,000 - $149,999 8,478 16.9%$3,425 to $5,125 137 14.9%2 14 20 21 24 31 25 13 13 13 9 13 21 56 Income $150,000 - $199,999 4,629 9.2%$5,125 to $6,825 11 1.2%0 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 Income $200,000 +8,843 17.6%$6,825 or Greater 1 0.2%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Average Demand ($25K+)44,887 89.6%$850 +-921 100.0%25 101 114 114 140 201 224 84 73 69 62 86 119 426 Zonda’s demand model forecasts demand for an average of 921 NEW rental units per year within three miles of the Subject (PMA), exclusive of units that are already built. The Client is proposing to amend the GMPA to allow for 92 market-rate apartment units with 30% of those units designated as affordable housing. The 30% will address households making up to 120% of the County Area Median Income (“AMI”); this results in approximately 28 units with income restrictions. As proposed, one- and two-bedroom units at the Subject will fall within $1,498 to $2,697 threshold. The largest demand for apartments in the Submarket are forecasted to come from households earning between $50,000 and $100,000 or monthly rents that range between $1,700 and $3,245; combined, these price bands are expected to account for more than 630 units, or 68.5% of NEW demand. Demand Modeling Multifamily Market Demand Source: ESRI, US Census, Zonda, RealPagePage 2946 of 3380 44 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Hypothetical Rental Demand by Price Point $850 to $1,200 $1,200 to $1,700 $1,700 to $2,575 $2,575 to $3,425 $3,425 to $5,125 $5,125 to $6,825 $6,825+ Demand Modeling Multifamily Market Demand As proposed, rent for one- and two-bedroom units at the Subject will fall within $1,498 to $2,697 threshold. Most future rental demand in the PMA is for units priced between $1,700 to $2,575; however, through 2027, rental demand is forecasted to slightly increase for units that command between $1,200 and $1,700 as well as $2,250 to $3,425 in monthly rent. During this same time, demand for the lowest priced apartments are forecasted to decline slightly. As proposed, the Subject will fall within the price bands where demand is currently healthy and forecasted to grow over the next several years. Source: ESRI, US Census, Zonda, RealPage Page 2947 of 3380 45 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Demand Modeling Multifamily Market Demand The greatest proportion of the projected rental demand over the next five years with the PMA will come from Empty Nesters and Retirees, followed by Families, which aligns with the demographic trends of the area. Based on Zonda’s research in the market, current renters in the competitive set are likely to be a mixed renter profile including singles, couples without children, and retirees. 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Hypothetical Rental Demand by Year and LifeStage Young Families Growing Families Mature Families Couples <45 Singles Empty Nester Retirees Source: ESRI, US Census, Zonda, RealPagePage 2948 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 46 Multifamily Market Trends Page 2949 of 3380 47 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 In assessing the multi-family market and recognizing the mobility of renters to seek out affordable, safe housing in proximity to areas of employment, Zonda analyzed market trends within Collier County as well as the three-mile radius surrounding the Subject. The analysis of both market areas allow for a comparison of market conditions at a macro level, tying Zonda’s assessment of the property to county- wide economic and demographic data, to micro-level market conditions to determine a comprehensive understanding of the Subject’s position in the overall market. For overreaching market trends, data is not available at the PMA level; as a result, Zonda specifically analyzed the South Collier County Submarket (shown on the map to the left below) in detail to better understand historical market dynamics. Source: ESRI, RealPage Multifamily Market Area Boundaries Multifamily Market Trends Subject Subject Subject Subject South Collier County Three Mile Radius - PMA Page 2950 of 3380 48 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Absorption / Supply – Naples MSA Multifamily Apartment Trends Apartment demand significantly outpaced supply in the Naples MSA through the beginning of 2022, but supply over the last six quarters significantly outpaced demand. Occupancy was strong in 2021 as well, peaking near 99% before dropping to 93.3% in the third quarter of 2022. Recently, occupancy declined as demand continued to slow. Going forward, RealPage expects occupancy rates to decline again through mid-2024 and bottom at 92% before gaining ground and stabilizing above 95% in early 2025. RealPage expects demand to return to reasonable levels in 2024 despite a decline in 2023. 90% 91% 92% 93% 94% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100% -500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 2019 Q32019 Q42020 Q12020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q32021 Q42022 Q12022 Q22022 Q32022 Q42023 Q12023 Q22023 Q3OccupancySupply / DemandNaples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Supply Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Demand Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Occupancy Supply / Demand - Four Years of Quarterly History 2019 Q4 2020 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2021 Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2022 Q1 2022 Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2023 Q1 2023 Q2 2023 Q3 Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Supply 776 778 560 385 296 320 562 865 954 915 906 832 874 930 964 837 Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Demand 298 557 -40 434 335 397 1,601 1,993 1,987 1,559 610 -168 -1 170 429 200 Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Occupancy 94.5%95.3%93.5%93.9%94.7%95.6%97.1%98.3%98.8%98.4%96.7%95.1%96.0%96.0%95.1%93.3% Source: RealPagePage 2951 of 3380 49 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Absorption / Supply – South Collier County Submarket Multifamily Apartment Trends Within the South Collier County Submarket, trends are similar with supply outpacing demand over the last six quarters. However, like in the larger MSA, occupancy continues to decline, dropping to 93.0% in the third quarter 2022, the lowest occupancy rate since late 2020. Although occupancy has declined, demand has increased over the past six months, up nearly 565 units since historic low in the fourth quarter of 2024. 90% 91% 92% 93% 94% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% -1,000 -500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2019 Q32019 Q42020 Q12020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q32021 Q42022 Q12022 Q22022 Q32022 Q42023 Q12023 Q22023 Q3OccupancySupply / DemandSouth Collier County Supply South Collier County Demand South Collier County Occupancy Supply / Demand - Four Years of Quarterly History 2019 Q4 2020 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2021 Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2022 Q1 2022 Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2023 Q1 2023 Q2 2023 Q3 South Collier County Supply 548 617 468 362 296 320 454 649 664 544 410 210 100 150 300 287 South Collier County Demand 282 527 168 284 214 349 988 1,342 1,426 974 243 -376 -506 -325 36 59 South Collier County Occupancy 93.7%94.5%92.9%93.3%93.2%94.8%96.5%97.9%98.3%97.6%95.6%94.3%94.5%94.7%94.1%93.0% Source: RealPagePage 2952 of 3380 50 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Occupancy – South Collier County Submarket Multifamily Apartment Trends Occupancy levels reached over 98% in 2021 and early 2022 in South Collier County but have since declined to 93% during the third quarter 2023. However, even as occupancy has declined, it is only slightly lower than the average for the market; given the overall size of the Submarket, the size of the project, and the affordability component, the area can support more affordable residential supply. Historically, total occupancy in the market has been closely aligned with the occupancy for product built after 2000, as much of the product in the submarket was constructed over the past decade. It is likely that this trend will continue for the foreseeable future. Occupancy - Four Years of Quarterly History 2019 Q4 2020 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2021 Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2022 Q1 2022 Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2023 Q1 2023 Q2 2023 Q3 South Collier County 93.7%94.5%92.9%93.3%93.2%94.8%96.5%97.9%98.3%97.6%95.6%94.3%94.5%94.7%94.1%93.0% 2000+ Product 93.7%94.7%92.9%95.1%94.1%94.3%95.4%97.2%98.3%97.2%94.5%93.1%95.1%94.8%94.0%92.4% 89.0% 90.0% 91.0% 92.0% 93.0% 94.0% 95.0% 96.0% 97.0% 98.0% 99.0%2019 Q32019 Q42020 Q12020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q32021 Q42022 Q12022 Q22022 Q32022 Q42023 Q12023 Q22023 Q3OccupancySouth Collier County South Collier County (2000+ Product) Source: RealPagePage 2953 of 3380 51 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Rent Growth – South Collier County Submarket Multifamily Apartment Trends The South Collier County Submarket experienced 3.2% quarter over quarter rent decline in the third quarter of 2023, after six quarters of no to slow growth. Annualized rents peaked at nearly 47% year over year growth during the first quarter of 2022 and have steeply declined since that time. However, the Submarket did report year over year annualized growth of 0.4% through the third quarter. Rent Change - Four Years of Quarterly History 2019 Q4 2020 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2021 Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2022 Q1 2022 Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2023 Q1 2023 Q2 2023 Q3 South Collier County Quarterly % Rent Change -0.1%-2.1%-2.7%1.6%2.8%4.5%9.4%14.1%16.5%2.5%-0.1%-0.7%3.3%4.8%-4.5%-3.2% South Collier County Annual % Rent Change -1.9%-2.9%-5.8%-5.0%-3.3%3.8%19.1%29.3%43.9%46.9%35.4%18.3%5.1%7.4%2.5%0.4% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%2019 Q32019 Q42020 Q12020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q32021 Q42022 Q12022 Q22022 Q32022 Q42023 Q12023 Q22023 Q3Rent ChangeSouth Collier County Quarterly % Rent Change South Collier County Annual % Rent Change Source: RealPagePage 2954 of 3380 52 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Pipeline – Under Construction – South Collier County Submarket Multifamily Apartment Trends The number of units under construction in the South Collier County submarket has declined slightly to 1,200 units after peaking with 1,452 units in the fourth quarter 2022. Over the past year, construction in South Collier County has ranged between 59.6% and 61.7% of the larger Naples MSA, with a four-year average of 62.2%. Through the end of the third quarter 2023, the 1,200 units under construction in the submarket representing 57.6% of all units under construction in the MSA. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 2019 Q32019 Q42020 Q12020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q32021 Q42022 Q12022 Q22022 Q32022 Q42023 Q12023 Q22023 Q3South Collier County as a % of Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FLUnits Under ConstructionSouth Collier County as a % of Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL South Collier County Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Units Under Construction - Four Years of Quarterly History 2019 Q4 2020 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2021 Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2022 Q1 2022 Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2023 Q1 2023 Q2 2023 Q3 South Collier County 416 864 864 784 764 644 810 535 670 1,259 1,259 1,184 1,462 1,412 1,262 1,200 South Collier County as a % of Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL 58.9%74.9%74.9%73.0%52.5%39.3%40.9%33.5%40.4%49.5%46.5%49.4%59.6%61.0%61.7%57.6% Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL 706 1,154 1,154 1,074 1,454 1,638 1,982 1,599 1,660 2,541 2,708 2,399 2,451 2,314 2,047 2,082 Source: RealPagePage 2955 of 3380 53 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Concessions – South Collier County Submarket Multifamily Apartment Trends The use of concessions in South Collier County Submarket have increased over the past four quarters from a record low of no concessions in the Submarket during the fourth quarter of 2022. Concessions now represent 5.8% of base rent, with approximately 12.9% of units offering concessions. Average concessions previously peaked at 8.4% of the base rent in the third quarter 2020 while percent of units offering concessions previously peaked at 65.2% in the second quarter of the same year. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9%2019 Q32019 Q42020 Q12020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q32021 Q42022 Q12022 Q22022 Q32022 Q42023 Q12023 Q22023 Q3% of Units Offering ConcessionsAverage ConcessionSouth Collier County Average Concession South Collier County % Units Offering Concession Concessions - Four Years of Quarterly History 2019 Q4 2020 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2021 Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2022 Q1 2022 Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2023 Q1 2023 Q2 2023 Q3 South Collier County Average Concession 2.7%7.7%5.3%8.4%4.4%5.2%6.2%4.1%3.0%1.6%1.8%0.8%0.0%1.6%2.1%5.8% South Collier County % Units Offering Concession 47.5%35.9%65.2%47.0%51.3%38.6%18.0%11.0%7.2%9.2%10.0%8.7%0.0%1.9%7.3%12.9% Source: RealPagePage 2956 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 54 Economic & Demographic Overview Page 2957 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 55 Age Comparison Economic & Demographic Overview Retirees make up the largest population segment in Collier County, followed by children and pre-retirees between 55 to 64; all other age cohorts each represent approximately 10% of the local population. Between 2023 and 2028, retirees, followed by individuals aged 35- to 44-years old, are forecasted to experience the greatest increases in the County, increasing 7.6% and 7.0% respectively. The growth in younger populations highlight the need for rental properties that meet the needs to these two diverse segments, while being sensitive to affordability concerns. Source: ESRI Paste Chart Long Here Paste Chart Long Here 14.4%9.3%10.1%10.2%10.3%13.7%32.0%0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Less than 15 (Children) 15 to 24 (Children/ Students) 25 to 34 (Renters/ 1st Time) 35 to 44 (1st Time) 45 to 54 (Move-Up) 55 to 64 (Move-Up/ Down) 65 Plus (Move-Down/ Lifestyle) Population by Age (2023) Collier County 1.9%0.1%-2.8%7.0%-0.6%-6.0%7.6%-8.0% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% Less than 15 (Children) 15 to 24 (Children/ Students) 25 to 34 (Renters/ 1st Time) 35 to 44 (1st Time) 45 to 54 (Move-Up) 55 to 64 (Move-Up/ Down) 65 Plus (Move-Down/ Lifestyle) Change in Population by Age (2023 to 2028) Collier County Page 2958 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 56 Housing Economic & Demographic Overview In 2023, there were approximately 240,000 total housing units in Collier County, of which nearly 168,000 are occupied. Based on a total population of 387,209, there are an average of 2.37 persons per household. There are 1.66 persons per total dwelling units in the County. While the total population in Collier County is projected to grow 4.4% by 2027, both persons by household and persons per total dwelling unit are forecasted to decline by 0.1% and 0.8% respectively. According to the American Community Survey, approximately 84% of all vacant housing units are for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use; of these more than 8,000 units are second homes. Less than 5% of vacant homes are units that are available for rent. Source: ESRI, US Census – American Community Survey Paste Chart Long Here 2.37 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Collier County Persons Per Household (2023) 1.66 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Collier County Persons Per Total Dwelling Unit (2023) 125,766 31,971 71,972 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 Owner Occupied Units Renter Occupied Units Vacant Housing Units Housings Units (2023) Page 2959 of 3380 57 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Income and Net Worth Economic & Demographic Overview The highest median household income and net worth in Southwest Florida is in Collier County; the County also represents one of the most affluent areas in the entire state of Florida. The median household income in Collier County in 2023 was approximately $13,000 more than the state of Florida. It is also $12,000 more than neighboring Lee County and $3,000 more than Monroe County. The older demographic, combined with higher earning potential workers as well as residents’ accumulated wealth, resulted in a median net worth in the County that was $138,000 more than Monroe County as well as Florida as a whole and approximately $90,000 more than Lee County. Over the next five years, income is projected to increase for all households earning more than $75,000, with the most notable increases in households earning between $150,000 and $199,999. Paste Chart Short Here Paste Chart Short Here Paste Chart Long Here $78K $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 Collier County HH. Income (2023) $293K $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 Collier County Net Worth (2022) -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% Less than $15,000 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or Greater Change in Household Income (2023 to 2028) Collier County Source: ESRIPage 2960 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 58 Annual Employment Growth vs. Unemployment – Collier County Economic & Demographic Overview Following the COVID-19 pandemic, employment in Collier County been robust, with back-to-back years of record job growth; the County added more than 17,000 jobs in two years. After unemployment spiked in 2020 at 7.4%, rapid job recovery resulted in the area’s unemployment rate normalizing below 4%. Slowing job growth is expected to continue through 2027, with the area’s unemployment rate remaining below 4%. Even as a destination for retirees, employment growth and a stable, low unemployment rate are generally good indicators of the overall strength of the economy in Collier County. 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% 11.0% 12.0% 13.0% 14.0% -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027F Unemployment RateAnnual Non-Farm Employment GrowthPrior Year Change Unemployment RateSource: Moody's Analytics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Collier, FL County - Moody's Analytics Five-Year Forecast Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027F Non-Farm Employment 123,142 129,725 135,942 142,508 145,483 150,825 155,408 148,317 156,367 165,375 166,538 169,685 171,946 174,197 176,319 Prior Year Change 4,600 6,583 6,217 6,567 2,975 5,342 4,583 (7,092)8,050 9,008 1,163 3,147 2,260 2,252 2,122 Annual % Change 3.9%5.3%4.8%4.8%2.1%3.7%3.0%-4.6%5.4%5.8%0.7%1.9%1.3%1.3%1.2% Unemployment Rate 7.4%6.2%5.3%4.7%4.2%3.6%3.2%7.4%3.7%2.8%2.7%3.5%3.9%3.9%3.9% Page 2961 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 59 L12M Job Growth by Sector – Collier County Economic & Demographic Overview Job growth in Collier County over the last 12 months was led by Education & Health Services; during that same time, Leisure & Hospitality and Trade, Transportation and Utilities, as well as the three high earning employment segments, Financial Activities, Information, and Professional & Business services lost more than 820 positions combined. Even with these losses, related in part to the lingering impacts of Hurricane Ian, the Leisure & Hospitality sector remains the second largest sector in Collier County, driven by the numerous restaurants, resorts, golf courses, and tourist destinations in the area. -153 -62 -398 145 873 118 -149 209 5 -61 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Financial Activities Information Professional & Business Services Construction & Mining Education & Health Services Government Leisure & Hospitality Manufacturing Other Services Trade, Transp. and UtilitiesAnnual Non-Farm Employment GrowthSource: Moody's Analytics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Category Financial Activities Information Professional & Business Services Construction & Mining Education & Health Services Government Leisure & Hospitality Manufacturing Other Services Trade, Transp. and Utilities Current Month (Oct-2023)10,025 1,292 20,466 19,067 26,275 13,977 28,714 5,705 9,443 31,108 Current Month (Oct-2022)10,178 1,355 20,864 18,922 25,403 13,859 28,863 5,496 9,438 31,169 12-Month Change -153 -62 -398 145 873 118 -149 209 5 -61 Page 2962 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 60 Following near historic permit activity in 2021, total building permits in Collier County declined in 2022 and are forecasted to decline again in 2023 to below historic average. Construction activity in Collier County is forecasted to rebound, with an average 6,200 permits issued per year between 2024 and 2027. Historically, there have been more single-family detached building permits issued compared to multifamily building permits (67% compared to 33%) with projections indicating a slight shift toward single family construction through 2027 (72% single family permits versus 28% multifamily permits). Residential Permit Issuances – Collier County Economic & Demographic Overview 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027FResidential Building PermitsSFD Building Permits MF Building Permits Historical AverageSource: Moody's Analytics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Collier, FL County - Moody's Analytics Five-Year Forecast Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027F Total Building Permits 2,678 3,610 4,060 3,829 4,194 4,386 3,991 4,473 6,766 5,517 3,922 5,603 6,309 6,587 6,318 Annual % Change 66.1%34.8%12.5%-5.7%9.5%4.6%-9.0%12.1%51.3%-18.5%-28.9%42.8%12.6%4.4%-4.1% SFD Building Permits 1,760 2,477 3,078 2,892 2,930 3,253 3,300 3,256 4,380 3,519 3,066 3,560 4,281 4,779 4,822 Annual % Change 35.8%40.7%24.3%-6.0%1.3%11.0%1.4%-1.3%34.5%-19.7%-12.9%16.1%20.3%11.6%0.9% MF Building Permits 918 1,133 982 937 1,264 1,133 691 1,217 2,386 1,998 856 2,043 2,028 1,808 1,496 Annual % Change 190.5%23.4%-13.3%-4.6%34.9%-10.4%-39.0%76.1%96.1%-16.3%-57.1%138.5%-0.7%-10.9%-17.2% Page 2963 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 61 Home affordability in Collier County declined significantly in 2022 due to rising prices and rising interest rates; it is projected to fall again in 2023 to near record low affordability. Moody’s forecasts the Affordability Index to rise slowly through 2027. Should it continue as forecasted, this trend will represent one of the longest periods of unaffordability in the area. Affordability – Collier County Economic & Demographic Overview 77 72 58 48 54 90 151 137 137 140 114 93 90 93 92 90 107 103 86 56 47 49 55 59 61 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027FAffordability IndexSource: Moody's Analytics; National Association of Realtors (NAR) Collier, FL County - Moody's Analytics Five-Year Forecast Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027F Affordability Index 114.4 93.5 89.9 93.0 92.3 90.2 107.0 103.2 86.1 56.0 47.1 48.8 54.8 58.9 61.1 Page 2964 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 62 Appendix Page 2965 of 3380 63 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Apartment Rental Availability Appendix https://www.colliercountyhousing.com/wp -content/uploads/Jan-2024-Apartment-Survey-020724-1355.pdfPage 2966 of 3380 64 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Apartment Rental Availability Appendix https://www.colliercountyhousing.com/wp -content/uploads/Jan-2024-Apartment-Survey-020724-1355.pdfPage 2967 of 3380 65 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Apartment Rental Availability Appendix https://www.colliercountyhousing.com/wp -content/uploads/Jan-2024-Apartment-Survey-020724-1355.pdfPage 2968 of 3380 66 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Apartment Rental Availability Appendix https://www.colliercountyhousing.com/wp -content/uploads/Jan-2024-Apartment-Survey-020724-1355.pdfPage 2969 of 3380 67 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Apartment Rental Availability Appendix https://www.colliercountyhousing.com/wp -content/uploads/Jan-2024-Apartment-Survey-020724-1355.pdfPage 2970 of 3380 68 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Approved PUDs Appendix Collier County Planning NAME AKA STATUS Ord. #(EX) (SRA) Resol. #Date App'd Est. Buildout RES. MF TOTAL RES. MF DEV. ADDIE'S CORNER BUILT OUT 11-08 4/12/2011 2022 250 250 ALLURA BUILT OUT 19-22 9/24/2019 2024 304 304 AMERISITE CB ACTIVE 22-25 6/28/2022 7/19/1905 303 ANTILLES ACTIVE 18-02 2/13/2018 2023 212 96 APRIL CIRCLE**CLOSED OUT 89-76 11/14/1989 1994 120 120 ARBOR LAKE CLUB**CLOSED OUT 90-37 5/15/1990 1995 246 168 ARBOR TRACE**Hawks Nest CLOSED OUT 89-91 12/19/1989 1994 219 211 ARROWHEAD ACTIVE 08-36 3/22/2005 2010 809 332 ASCEND NAPLES ACTIVE 23-50 10/24/2023 2028 208 AUDUBON COUNTRY CLUB ACTIVE 96-69 6/25/1991 2006 300 36 AVALON OF NAPLES BUILT OUT 15-31 5/12/2015 2020 160 152 BAY FOREST**BUILT OUT 03-24 5/27/2003 2006 697 632 BEAR CREEK**CLOSED OUT 92-20 4/14/1992 1997 120 120 BERKSHIRE LAKES (DRI-82-1)BUILT OUT 15-66 1/13/1998 2003 2,944 2,904 BLUE CORAL APARTMENTS ACTIVE 21-32 9/28/2021 2026 234 BOSLEY BUILT OUT 04-32 5/25/2004 2006 303 276 BOTANICAL PLACE CLOSED OUT 03-38 7/29/2003 2006 218 218 BOYNE SOUTH ACTIVE 04-60 9/21/2004 2010 34 BRIARWOOD ACTIVE 95-33 4/25/1995 2005 525 455 BRITTANY BAY**San Savino CLOSED OUT 00-77 11/28/2000 2005 478 472 CARILLON BUILT OUT 91-111 12/17/1991 2001 180 56 CAY LAGOON**CLOSED OUT 92-37 08-318 5/26/1992 2003 32 32 CHESHIRE ARMS APTS.**CLOSED OUT 84-53 08-318 8/14/1984 1993 60 60 CAMDEN LANDING Cirrus Pointe ACTIVE 21-13 3/9/2021 7/18/1905 127 CITRUS GARDENS**Lakeside CLOSED OUT 89-25 08-318 4/25/1989 1991 252 252 COCOHATCHEE BAY ACTIVE 00-88 05-397 12/12/2000 2028 600 480 COCONILLA BUILT OUT 05-15 3/22/2005 2008 80 80 COLLEGE PARK**CLOSED OUT 96-59 10/8/1996 2001 210 210 COLLEGEWOOD**BUILT OUT 95-65 11/14/1995 1998 106 Page 2971 of 3380 69 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Approved PUDs Appendix Collier County Planning NAME AKA STATUS Ord. #(EX) (SRA) Resol. #Date App'd Est. Buildout RES. MF TOTAL RES. MF DEV. COLLIER BLVD LORD'S WAY First Assembly Ministries Ed & Rehab Campus ACTIVE 22-23 7/22/2008 2027 690 296 COUNTY BARN ROAD BUILT OUT 17-31 6/27/2017 7/14/1905 268 max COURTHOUSE SHADOWS/COLLIER**Collier ACTIVE 16-45 1/28/1992 2021 300 CREEKSIDE COMMERCE CENTER North Naples Submarkt ACTIVE 16-32 10/24/2006 2026 300 CRESCENT LAKE ESTATES **CLOSED OUT 86-26 6/17/1986 1994 100 100 CREWS ROAD ACTIVE 22-03 1/25/2022 2027 60 CRICKET LAKE**CLOSED OUT 80-28 3/11/1980 1989 188 188 CROWN POINTE**BUILT OUT 89-31 3/28/1991 2002 127 86 CYPRESS GLEN**CLOSED OUT 87-18 7/30/2002 2004 208 208 CYPRESS GREEN APTS.**Willowbrook CLOSED OUT 87-3 2/6/1987 1992 42 42 CYPRESS WOODS G & C CLUB BUILT OUT 97-36 8/26/1997 2003 658 656 DAVENPORT BUILT OUT 87-75 10/6/1987 1990 44 DAVID A. GALLMAN ESTATE**BUILT OUT 96-9 3/12/1996 2000 260 248 DONOVAN CENTER BUILT OUT 97-73 11/25/1997 2007 140 140 DUNES, THE BUILT OUT 00-74 11/14/2000 2008 640 635 EBOLI**CLOSED OUT 97-23 5/27/1997 2007 80 80 ENBROOK ACTIVE 20-06 1/14/2020 7/17/1905 526 120 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER ACTIVE 11-30 9/13/2011 2026 12 FALLING WATERS BUILT OUT 03-50 9/23/2003 2006 799 786 FALLING WATERS BEACH RESORT**Woodfield Lakes BUILT OUT 01-68 11/27/2001 2003 451 430 FOXFIRE (DRI)**Bridal Path at Foxfire BUILT OUT 93-31 6/8/1993 1993 704 704 GARDEN LAKE APARTMENTS**CLOSED OUT 89-09 2/14/1989 1991 66 66 GARDEN WALK VILLAGE ACTIVE 96-4 2/13/1996 2003 204 GOLDEN GATE COMMERCE PARK G.G. Health Park ACTIVE 00-41 07-242 3/14/2000 2028 264 264 GOLDEN GATE GOLF COURSE ACTIVE 22-13 4/26/2022 2028 215 GOLDEN GATE VILLAS**Meadowwood Club CLOSED OUT 84-40 6/5/1984 1990 288 288 GREEN BLVD.**CLOSED OUT 85-23 08-318 6/4/1985 2002 912 912 GREEN HERON (DRI-83-1)Sapphire Lakes BUILT OUT 95-30 4/18/1995 2005 1,188 1,152 GREEN TREE CENTER**CLOSED OUT 81-58 10/20/1981 2001 86 86 H.D. DEVELOPMENT Vita Tuscana BUILT OUT 11-13 11/15/2005 2006 33 Page 2972 of 3380 70 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Approved PUDs Appendix Collier County Planning NAME AKA STATUS Ord. #(EX) (SRA) Resol. #Date App'd Est. Buildout RES. MF TOTAL RES. MF DEV. HACIENDA LAKES (DRI-11-05)ACTIVE 11-41 10/25/2011 6/8/2033 1,232 24 HAMMOCK PARK Hammock ParkCommerce Centre ACTIVE 07-30 11/28/2000 2/27/2017 265 HAVEN AT NORTH NAPLES ACTIVE 23-28 5/23/2023 2028 336 HERON LAKES Forest Park CLOSED OUT 90-79 10/23/1990 2010 352 66 HUNTINGTON WOODS **Amer. Lutheran Ch.CLOSED OUT 86-2 08-318 1/21/1986 1995 26 26 I-75/ALLIGATOR ALLEY**Cali Industries ACTIVE 07-26 2/13/2007 2023 425 320 IBIS COVE CLOSED OUT 99-21 3/9/1999 2004 288 288 IMMOKALEE FAIR HOUSING ALLIANCE INC ACTIVE 20-23 9/8/2020 2015 128 IMMOKALEE SENIOR HOUSING ACTIVE 04/29 5/11/2004 5/11/2012 119 30 IMPERIAL LAKES ACTIVE 82-81 9/14/1982 n/a 430 IMPERIAL WEST**BUILT OUT 87-58 7/28/1987 2002 489 481 KELLER ENTRY LEVEL**CLOSED OUT 80-35 08-318 4/8/1980 2002 200 200 KEYSTONE PLACE**Arbor Walk CLOSED OUT 87-72 9/22/1987 1993 406 404 KING'S LAKE (DRI)**BUILT OUT 84-12 2/7/1984 1992 860 840 LELY BAREFOOT BEACH CONDO**CLOSED OUT 87-52 08-318 7/21/1987 2000 50 50 LELY COUNTRY CLUB (DRI-76-1)**BUILT OUT 86-86 12/9/1986 1998 847 576 LELY PALMS OF NAPLES**BUILT OUT 97-5 1/28/1997 1997 296 242 LEMURIA CLOSED OUT 03-68 12/16/2003 2006 72 72 LITTLE HICKORY BAY**CLOSED OUT 79-65 9/11/1979 1993 109 107 LIVINGSTON VILLAGE Marbella Lakes BUILT OUT 03-23 5/13/2003 2006 293 208 LOCH RIDGE (PUD-86-6(1))Kingswood Garden BUILT OUT 04-14 3/9/2004 2007 64 64 MAGNOLIA POND ACTIVE 10-06 04-284 6/9/1998 2/23/2020 106 MARC.SHRS/FIDLR'S CRK(DRI-84-1)ACTIVE 00-84 12/12/2000 12/13/2028 Includes SF 3,048 MARCO SHORES COUNTRY CLUB ACTIVE 16-37 9/13/1994 2004 1,580 1,162 MEADOW BROOK ESTATES**BUILT OUT 91-5 1/22/1991 2005 306 268 MERCATO ACTIVE 06-32 11/15/2005 2010 175 137 MERIDIAN VILLAGE ACTIVE 13-47 6/6/2006 2025 31 MICELI ACTIVE 92-62 9/1/1992 2003 17 MINI TRIANGLE ACTIVE 18-25 5/8/2018 2027 491 MIRALIA ACTIVE 96-12 3/26/1996 2006 210 205 Page 2973 of 3380 71 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Approved PUDs Appendix Collier County Planning NAME AKA STATUS Ord. #(EX) (SRA) Resol. #Date App'd Est. Buildout RES. MF TOTAL RES. MF DEV. MONTEREY**Woodbridge BUILT OUT 90-28 4/10/1990 2010 775 312 NAPLES BATH & TENNIS CLUB**BUILT OUT 81-61 10/20/1981 1991 423 423 NEW HOPE MINISTRIES Neapolitan Park ACTIVE 16-41 1/29/2008 2021 304 304 NORTH PORT BAY ACTIVE 00-05 05-79 6/13/2000 2007 248 116 NORTHSHORE LAKE VILLAS**CLOSED OUT 96-77 11/26/1996 2001 54 54 ONE NAPLES ACTIVE 21-09 3/1/2021 2026 140 OSPREYS LANDING**Pelican Lake CLOSED OUT 09-243 10/27/1992 1997 176 176 PAVILION LAKE**Pavilion Club CLOSED OUT 87-41 5/26/1987 1995 156 156 PELICAN BAY (DRI-77-1)No build out date forresidential sect per DCA ACTIVE 04-59 9/21/2004 12/31/2024 5,686 4,346 PINE RIDGE COMMONS ACTIVE 99-94 12/14/1999 2004 325 290 PINEBROOK LAKE**Pinebrook Lake Apt CLOSED OUT 80-56 7/29/1980 1990 160 160 R. ROBERTS ESTATE ACTIVE 14-01 1/21/1992 1/28/2024 79 79 RCMA IMMOKALEE ACTIVE 21-38 10/26/2021 7/18/1905 160 REGAL ACRES ACTIVE 05-36 6/28/2005 2023 300 184 REGENT PARK **CLOSED OUT 85-45 8/20/1985 1996 345 345 RELATED GROUP **CLOSED OUT 96-24 5/28/1996 1998 276 276 RETREAT**Bentley Village BUILT OUT 97-71 11/18/1997 2002 740 728 RIVER REACH**BUILT OUT 85-71 12/10/1985 1995 669 669 RIVERBEND**Sold to St. of Florida CLOSED OUT 81-28 08-318 8/11/1981 1994 78 ROYAL WOODS G&C CLUB**BUILT OUT 96-72 11/26/1996 1994 654 655 RUSSELL SQUARE ACTIVE 18-51 10/23/2018 2023 230 152 SADDLEBROOK VILLAGE BUILT OUT 98-16 3/10/1998 2003 438 438 SALVATION ARMY ACTIVE 01-65 11/27/2001 2004 20 10 SANDERS PINES**CLOSED OUT 88-5 1/12/1988 1993 41 41 SANTA BARBARA WHITAKER Waterford Estates ACTIVE 22-40 10/25/2022 2027 216 SAXON MANOR ISLES**BUILT OUT 94-21 4/5/1994 1999 250 250 SHADOW WOOD Wing South Airpark ACTIVE 08-43 7/13/1982 2028 558 194 SHERWOOD PARK**CLOSED OUT 80-38 4/8/1980 2005 336 336 SHOPPES AT SANTA BARBARA ACTIVE 98-22 3/24/1998 2026 242 SOUTHAMPTON (PUD87-48(1))**Stonebridge CLOSED OUT 92-24 4/28/1992 2003 562 562 Page 2974 of 3380 72 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County Approved PUDs Appendix Collier County Planning NAME AKA STATUS Ord. #(EX) (SRA) Resol. #Date App'd Est. Buildout RES. MF TOTAL RES. MF DEV. SOUTHPOINTE YACHT CLUB**BUILT OUT 88-82 10/25/1988 1993 96 64 SPRINGWOOD**Southern Properties BUILT OUT 82-69 8/10/1982 1995 96 71 SUMMER GLEN APARTMENTS**CLOSED OUT 91-7 1/22/1991 1992 46 46 SUMMERWIND **Woodside Apts.CLOSED OUT 85-79 3/1/1988 1993 368 368 SUMMERWOOD **Timberlake CLOSED OUT 99-61 9/14/1999 1993 60 60 SUNSHINE VILLAGE CLOSED OUT 93-92 12/21/1993 2003 18 THREE HUN.AC.GOODLETTE RD ACTIVE 96-80 12/10/1996 2003 900 890 TIMBERWOOD**Oxford Village CLOSED OUT 88-21 2/23/1988 1995 116 116 TREE TOPS**BUILT OUT 80-91 9/9/1980 1990 180 180 VANDERBILT VILLAS**BUILT OUT 88-27 3/1/1988 2003 54 54 VINEYARDS (DRI-84-2)(DOA-06-01)BUILT OUT 95-62 2/28/2006 5/6/2017 3,491 2,865 WATERGLADES**Villages of Emer.Bay CLOSED OUT 82-51 7/13/1982 1993 235 216 WHIPPOORWILL PINES CLOSED OUT 00-17 3/14/2000 2005 180 180 WHISTLER'S COVE**CLOSED OUT 97-1 1/7/1997 2002 240 240 WHITTENBERG **Victoria Landings CLOSED OUT 96-44 7/23/1996 1998 123 123 WIGGINS BAY**CLOSED OUT 82-121 12/28/1982 2003 587 693 WIGGINS LAKE**BUILT OUT 87-94 11/17/1987 2007 230 204 WILDERNESS C.C.**(PUD-76-35(2))BUILT OUT 99-74 10/26/1999 2004 300 300 WILDWOOD ESTATES CLOSED OUT 81-27 8/11/1981 2006 710 652 WILLOUGHBY GARDENS**Mirage CLOSED OUT 81-67 11/10/1981 1986 90 88 WINTER PARK NORTH**CLOSED OUT 85-77 12/19/1985 1995 96 96 WINTER PARK**CLOSED OUT 83-32 12/9/1986 1990 600 600 Page 2975 of 3380 73 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County SRA Appendix Collier County Planning SRA Name Allowed/Developed MFDU Total DUs (Mix) Affordable Housing Hotel Units Retail/Service SqFt Ave Maria, Town of Allowed 2,150 11,000 300 1,078,943 Ave Maria, Town of Developed 478 4,141 -235,222 Bellmar Village Allowed 2,200 2,750 -- Bellmar Village Developed Bellmar Village Min/Max Min 10%Max Total Combined Big Cypress, Town of Allowed 3,546 4,432 882 -comm'l # Big Cypress, Town of Developed Big Cypress, Town of Min/Max Min 10%Min 2,427 Min 882 Brightshore Village Allowed 1,600 2,000 Comm'l # Brightshore Village Developed Brightshore Village Min/Max Min 10%Max Total Combined Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Allowed -225 Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Developed Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Min/Max Hyde Park Village Allowed 1,000 1,800 -- Hyde Park Village Developed 75 Hyde Park Village Min/Max Min 300, Max 1,000 Max Total Combined Rivergrass Village Allowed 2,500 2,500 -- Rivergrass Village Developed - Rivergrass Village Min/Max Min 250 Max Total Combined Allowed Totals 12,996 24,707 882 300 1,078,943 Developed Totals 478 4,216 --235,222 NOTE: Some Totals may not equal the sum of the components due to the Minimums and Maximums required or allowed. ALF/CCRC = Assisted Living Facility/Continuing Care Comp Planning = K = thousand SqFt = Square Feet Max = Maximum CRD = Compact Rural Development SFDU = Single Family Dwelling Unit BCC = Board of County FAR = Floor Area Ratio MFDU = Multi-Family Dwelling Unit TAZ = Traffic Analysis Zone Comm'l = Commercial Abbreviations: SRA = Stewardship Receiving Area Res. # = Resolution Number Min = Minimum 3,738 -- Min 62.5K, Max 100K 21,089 1,475 1,108,440 2,250 300 100,000 75 Max 1,500 FAR for Comm'l sqft Min 2,250, max 5,000 1,500 -45,000 225 5,000 Min 10% SF, 10% attached Max 300 Min 106K, max 120K Min 10% SF, 10% attached Min 753,440 1,800 300 120,000 3,989 300 753,440 Min 10% SF, 10% attached Min 68,750, Max 85K 3,663 -- 2,475 300 85,000 Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) SFDU ALF/CCRC Units Commercial SqFt 8,850 275 - Page 2976 of 3380 74 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County SRA Appendix Collier County Planning SRA Name Allowed/Developed Office SqFt Medical SqFt Civic SqFt Industrial/ Warehouse SqFt Warehouse SqFt Recreational Building SqFt Commercial SqFt University Students Oratory SqFt Course Holes Ave Maria, Town of Allowed --184,000 711,000 40,400 --6,000 63 Ave Maria, Town of Developed --22,319 420,353 40,400 --1,900 18 Bellmar Village Allowed --27,500 ------- Bellmar Village Developed Bellmar Village Min/Max Min 27,500 Big Cypress, Town of Allowed comm'l #-86,000 650,000 ----- Big Cypress, Town of Developed Big Cypress, Town of Min/Max Min 66,480 Brightshore Village Allowed Comm'l #-20,000 -100,000 ---- Brightshore Village Developed Brightshore Village Min/Max Min 20K Max 100K Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Allowed Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Developed Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Min/Max Hyde Park Village Allowed --18,000 -15,000 30,000 --- Hyde Park Village Developed Hyde Park Village Min/Max Min 18,000 Rivergrass Village Allowed --25,000 ------18 Rivergrass Village Developed Rivergrass Village Min/Max min 25,000 Allowed Totals --360,500 1,361,000 140,400 15,000 30,000 6,000 -81 Developed Totals --22,319 420,353 40,400 --1,900 -18 Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) Page 2977 of 3380 75 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Collier County SRA Appendix Collier County Planning SRA Name Allowed/Developed Res. # BCC Approval Date Estimated Build Out Year Total Acres 2000 TAZ (Comp Planning) Ave Maria, Town of Allowed 05-123 6/14/2005 2027 5,026.94 387, 387.2, 389.1 Ave Maria, Town of Developed Bellmar Village Allowed 21-120 6/8/2021 2033 999.74 386.3, 386.4 Bellmar Village Developed Bellmar Village Min/Max Big Cypress, Town of Allowed 23-127 6/27/2023 2043 1,544.46 386.3, 386.4 Big Cypress, Town of Developed Big Cypress, Town of Min/Max Brightshore Village Allowed 22-209 12/13/2022 2034 681.50 392 Brightshore Village Developed Brightshore Village Min/Max Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Allowed 23-183 10/10/2023 2028 259.60 386.1 Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Developed Collier Rod & Gun Club CRD Min/Max Hyde Park Village Allowed 20-102 6/9/2020 2030 642.52 390.1 Hyde Park Village Developed Hyde Park Village Min/Max Rivergrass Village Allowed 20-24 1/28/2020 2032 997.53 390.2, 386.3, 386.4 Rivergrass Village Developed Rivergrass Village Min/Max Allowed Totals 10,152.29 Developed Totals Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) Page 2978 of 3380 76 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Rental Demand Model - 2023 Appendix Source: Zonda 2023 HYPOTHETICAL DEMAND ANALYSIS FOR APARTMENT RENTAL HOUSING (THREE MILE RADIUS) Demand Generated by Household Growth Total Demand Generated Income Ranges Income Ranges Footnotes $200,000 or Greater $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $150,000 to $200,000 $25,000 to $35,000 $200,000 or Greater $150,000 to $200,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $35,000 to $50,000 % of Households that Rent in an Apartment Building 7/ 01142259121Annual Demand from New HH Growth 5.0%50.0%65.0%75.0%90.0%40.0%20.0% 45Annual Renter Household Growth 20.0%30.0%50.0%75.0%90.0%50.0%15.0%% of Households that Rent a New Home 4/ 15744397359 107Annual Income Qualified Household Growth 6.4%6.4%19.5%22.8%30.9%41.4%42.1%% of Households Renting a Home 3/ 230115225173238143 0 Primary New Apartment Unit Demand Annual Projected New Household Growth 1/1,390 16.6%8.3%16.2%12.5%17.1%10.3% 1 12 59 22 14 1 21 8 5 0 0 7.7%Income Qualified Ratio 2/Secondary/Corporate Rental Demand35% Second Home / Corporate Housing Demand Total Apartment Rental Demand Primary / Secondary / Corporate21680301910 0 4 1/ Estimated annual household growth for the area (Per Economy.com). 2/ Percentage of households in the study area earning the income range indicated for each column (Per ESRI). 3/ Zonda extrapolation of the average rent vs own rate by income in the market from American Community Survey 4/ Based on Zonda extrapolation of renting a newly constructed home versus an existing in the study area. 5/ Projected total existing households in the study area (Per Economy.com). 6/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for the average turnover of renter households in the MSA. 7/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for those who rent that would consider an apartment community vs a single-family Page 2979 of 3380 77 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Rental Demand Model - 2024 Appendix Source: Zonda 2024 HYPOTHETICAL DEMAND ANALYSIS FOR APARTMENT RENTAL HOUSING (THREE MILE RADIUS) Demand Generated by Household Growth Total Demand Generated Income Ranges Income Ranges Footnotes 1 0Annual Demand from New HH Growth 1 11 58 22 14 30.0%20.0% % of Households that Rent in an Apartment Building 7/20.0%40.0%90.0%75.0%65.0%50.0%5.0% % of Households that Rent a New Home 4/15.0%50.0%90.0%75.0%50.0% 0 Total Apartment Rental Demand Primary / Secondary / Corporate Annual Renter Household Growth 43 56 71 39 44 8 15 2 15 78 30 19 219.5%6.4%6.4% 0 4226119234 % of Households Renting a Home 3/42.1%41.4%30.9%22.8% 0 Second Home / Corporate Housing Demand20850Annual Income Qualified Household Growth 101 135 231 171 0 Primary New Apartment Unit Demand Income Qualified Ratio 2/7.4%9.9%16.9%12.5%16.6%8.7%17.1%35%Secondary/Corporate Rental Demand $150,000 to $200,000 $200,000 or Greater Annual Projected New Household Growth 1/1,366 1 11 58 22 14 1 $200,000 or Greater $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $150,000 to $200,000 $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 1/ Estimated annual household growth for the area (Per Economy.com). 2/ Percentage of households in the study area earning the income range indicated for each column (Per ESRI). 3/ Zonda extrapolation of the average rent vs own rate by income in the market from American Community Survey 4/ Based on Zonda extrapolation of renting a newly constructed home versus an existing in the study area. 5/ Projected total existing households in the study area (Per Economy.com). 6/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for the average turnover of renter households in the MSA. 7/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for those who rent that would consider an apartment community vs a single-family Page 2980 of 3380 78 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Rental Demand Model - 2025 Appendix Source: Zonda 2025 HYPOTHETICAL DEMAND ANALYSIS FOR APARTMENT RENTAL HOUSING (THREE MILE RADIUS) Demand Generated by Household Growth Total Demand Generated Income Ranges Income Ranges Footnotes 1 0Annual Demand from New HH Growth 1 11 58 22 15 30.0%20.0% % of Households that Rent in an Apartment Building 7/20.0%40.0%90.0%75.0%65.0%50.0%5.0% % of Households that Rent a New Home 4/15.0%50.0%90.0%75.0%50.0% 0 Total Apartment Rental Demand Primary / Secondary / Corporate Annual Renter Household Growth 42 55 72 40 46 8 16 2 15 79 30 20 219.5%6.4%6.4% 0 4235128245 % of Households Renting a Home 3/42.1%41.4%30.9%22.8% 0 Second Home / Corporate Housing Demand20850Annual Income Qualified Household Growth 99 132 233 174 0 Primary New Apartment Unit Demand Income Qualified Ratio 2/7.1%9.5%16.7%12.5%16.9%9.2%17.6%35%Secondary/Corporate Rental Demand $150,000 to $200,000 $200,000 or Greater Annual Projected New Household Growth 1/1,392 1 11 58 22 15 1 $200,000 or Greater $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $150,000 to $200,000 $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 1/ Estimated annual household growth for the area (Per Economy.com). 2/ Percentage of households in the study area earning the income range indicated for each column (Per ESRI). 3/ Zonda extrapolation of the average rent vs own rate by income in the market from American Community Survey 4/ Based on Zonda extrapolation of renting a newly constructed home versus an existing in the study area. 5/ Projected total existing households in the study area (Per Economy.com). 6/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for the average turnover of renter households in the MSA. 7/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for those who rent that would consider an apartment community vs a single-family Page 2981 of 3380 79 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Rental Demand Model - 2026 Appendix Source: Zonda 2026 HYPOTHETICAL DEMAND ANALYSIS FOR APARTMENT RENTAL HOUSING (THREE MILE RADIUS) Demand Generated by Household Growth Total Demand Generated Income Ranges Income Ranges Footnotes 1 0Annual Demand from New HH Growth 1 11 59 23 16 30.0%20.0% % of Households that Rent in an Apartment Building 7/20.0%40.0%90.0%75.0%65.0%50.0%5.0% % of Households that Rent a New Home 4/15.0%50.0%90.0%75.0%50.0% 0 Total Apartment Rental Demand Primary / Secondary / Corporate Annual Renter Household Growth 40 54 72 40 48 9 16 2 14 79 31 21 219.5%6.4%6.4% 0 4245137257 % of Households Renting a Home 3/42.1%41.4%30.9%22.8% 0 Second Home / Corporate Housing Demand21850Annual Income Qualified Household Growth 96 129 235 178 0 Primary New Apartment Unit Demand Income Qualified Ratio 2/6.8%9.1%16.5%12.5%17.3%9.7%18.2%35%Secondary/Corporate Rental Demand $150,000 to $200,000 $200,000 or Greater Annual Projected New Household Growth 1/1,417 1 11 59 23 16 1 $200,000 or Greater $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $150,000 to $200,000 $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 1/ Estimated annual household growth for the area (Per Economy.com). 2/ Percentage of households in the study area earning the income range indicated for each column (Per ESRI). 3/ Zonda extrapolation of the average rent vs own rate by income in the market from American Community Survey 4/ Based on Zonda extrapolation of renting a newly constructed home versus an existing in the study area. 5/ Projected total existing households in the study area (Per Economy.com). 6/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for the average turnover of renter households in the MSA. 7/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for those who rent that would consider an apartment community vs a single-family Page 2982 of 3380 80 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Rental Demand Model - 2027 Appendix Source: Zonda 2027 HYPOTHETICAL DEMAND ANALYSIS FOR APARTMENT RENTAL HOUSING (THREE MILE RADIUS) Demand Generated by Household Growth Total Demand Generated Income Ranges Income Ranges Footnotes 1 0Annual Demand from New HH Growth 1 10 58 23 16 30.0%20.0% % of Households that Rent in an Apartment Building 7/20.0%40.0%90.0%75.0%65.0%50.0%5.0% % of Households that Rent a New Home 4/15.0%50.0%90.0%75.0%50.0% 0 Total Apartment Rental Demand Primary / Secondary / Corporate Annual Renter Household Growth 39 52 72 41 49 9 17 2 14 79 31 21 219.5%6.4%6.4% 0 4251145266 % of Households Renting a Home 3/42.1%41.4%30.9%22.8% 0 Second Home / Corporate Housing Demand20860Annual Income Qualified Household Growth 92 125 233 179 0 Primary New Apartment Unit Demand Income Qualified Ratio 2/6.5%8.8%16.4%12.6%17.6%10.2%18.7%35%Secondary/Corporate Rental Demand $150,000 to $200,000 $200,000 or Greater Annual Projected New Household Growth 1/1,422 1 10 58 23 16 1 $200,000 or Greater $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $150,000 to $200,000 $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 1/ Estimated annual household growth for the area (Per Economy.com). 2/ Percentage of households in the study area earning the income range indicated for each column (Per ESRI). 3/ Zonda extrapolation of the average rent vs own rate by income in the market from American Community Survey 4/ Based on Zonda extrapolation of renting a newly constructed home versus an existing in the study area. 5/ Projected total existing households in the study area (Per Economy.com). 6/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for the average turnover of renter households in the MSA. 7/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for those who rent that would consider an apartment community vs a single-family Page 2983 of 3380 81 8928 Collier Boulevard – Bonita Flores 1 Rental Demand Model – Five Year Average Appendix Source: Zonda AVERAGE HYPOTHETICAL DEMAND ANALYSIS FROM 2023 THRU 2027 FOR APARTMENT RENTAL HOUSING (THREE MILE RADIUS) Demand Generated by Household Growth Total Demand Generated Income Ranges Income Ranges Footnotes 1 0Annual Demand from New HH Growth 1 11 58 22 15 30.0%20.0% % of Households that Rent in an Apartment Building 7/20.0%40.0%90.0%75.0%65.0%50.0%5.0% % of Households that Rent a New Home 4/15.0%50.0%90.0%75.0%50.0% 0 Total Apartment Rental Demand Primary / Secondary / Corporate Annual Renter Household Growth 42 55 72 40 46 8 16 2 15 79 30 20 219.5%6.4%6.4% 0 4236129246 % of Households Renting a Home 3/42.1%41.4%30.9%22.8% 0 Second Home / Corporate Housing Demand20850Annual Income Qualified Household Growth 99 133 234 175 0 Primary New Apartment Unit Demand Income Qualified Ratio 2/7.1%9.5%16.7%12.5%16.9%9.2%17.6%35%Secondary/Corporate Rental Demand $150,000 to $200,000 $200,000 or Greater Annual Projected New Household Growth 1/1,397 1 11 58 22 15 1 $200,000 or Greater $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 $150,000 to $200,000 $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to $150,000 1/ Estimated annual household growth for the area (Per Economy.com). 2/ Percentage of households in the study area earning the income range indicated for each column (Per ESRI). 3/ Zonda extrapolation of the average rent vs own rate by income in the market from American Community Survey 4/ Based on Zonda extrapolation of renting a newly constructed home versus an existing in the study area. 5/ Projected total existing households in the study area (Per Economy.com). 6/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for the average turnover of renter households in the MSA. 7/ Zonda extrapolation of the American Community Survey data for those who rent that would consider an apartment community vs a single-family Page 2984 of 3380 Thank you! Zonda 3200 Bristol Street, Suite 640 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (877) 966-3210 Page 2985 of 3380 Ta Page 2986 of 3380 Page 2987 of 3380 2024-2029 2024-2029 Summary 2024 2029 Change Annual Rate Population 32,853 34,835 1,982 1.18% Households 16,432 18,054 1,622 1.90% Median Age 63.6 64.8 1.2 0.37% Average Household Size 1.97 1.91 -0.06 -0.62% Number Percent Number Percent Household Income Base 16,432 100%18,054 100% 889 5.4%774 4.3% 590 3.6%431 2.4% 956 5.8%731 4.0% 1,557 9.5%1,275 7.1% 3,364 20.5%3,524 19.5% 2,718 16.5%3,066 17.0% 3,007 18.3%3,711 20.6% 1,532 9.3%2,191 12.1% 1,819 11.1%2,352 13.0% $81,284 $92,166 $116,799 $134,847 $58,769 $70,250 Number Percent Number Percent 7.7 6.4 2.5 2.3 3.1 2.8 11.2 10.7 2.8 3.0 2,210 13.4%1,763 9.8% 11,074 67.4%12,038 66.7% 3,148 19.2%4,252 23.6% <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 340 1,305 1,336 1,493 2,558 4,219 5,181 <$15,000 35 44 56 65 116 196 378 $15,000-$24,999 28 38 33 31 74 127 259 $25,000-$34,999 36 101 74 69 108 198 370 $35,000-$49,999 60 144 112 118 193 372 558 $50,000-$74,999 80 337 303 304 464 762 1,114 $75,000-$99,999 58 253 226 237 400 740 805 $100,000-$149,999 32 223 292 353 542 787 778 $150,000-$199,999 8 79 112 143 292 512 385 $200,000+4 86 130 172 370 523 535 Households in Low Income Tier Households in Middle Income Tier Households in Upper Income Tier 2024 Households by Income and Age of Householder P90-P50 Ratio P50-P10 Ratio 80-20 Share Ratio 90-40 Share Ratio Per Capita Income 2024 2029 Households by Income P90-P10 Ratio $100,000-$149,999 $150,000-$199,999 $200,000+ Median Household Income Average Household Income $15,000-$24,999 $25,000-$34,999 $35,000-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 $75,000-$99,999 Longitude: -81.68671 2024 2029 Income Inequality Measures <$15,000 Household Income Profile Naples Afforable 8930-8960 Collier Blvd, Naples, Florida, 34114 Rings: 3 mile radii Latitude: 26.12171 Page 2988 of 3380 Median HH Income $52,338 $73,731 $83,217 $90,066 $94,083 $88,403 $72,199 Average HH Income $63,170 $98,029 $113,315 $122,631 $133,552 $126,505 $108,089 <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 100%100%100%100%100%100%100% <$15,000 10.3%3.4%4.2%4.4%4.5%4.6%7.3% $15,000-$24,999 8.2%2.9%2.5%2.1%2.9%3.0%5.0% $25,000-$34,999 10.6%7.7%5.5%4.6%4.2%4.7%7.1% $35,000-$49,999 17.6%11.0%8.4%7.9%7.5%8.8%10.8% $50,000-$74,999 23.5%25.8%22.7%20.4%18.1%18.1%21.5% $75,000-$99,999 17.1%19.4%16.9%15.9%15.6%17.5%15.5% $100,000-$149,999 9.4%17.1%21.9%23.6%21.2%18.7%15.0% $150,000-$199,999 2.4%6.1%8.4%9.6%11.4%12.1%7.4% $200,000+1.2%6.6%9.7%11.5%14.5%12.4%10.3% <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 351 1,382 1,479 1,610 2,509 4,461 6,262 <$15,000 33 33 43 50 77 158 380 $15,000-$24,999 19 23 20 18 44 90 216 $25,000-$34,999 27 72 48 44 70 142 327 $35,000-$49,999 46 118 86 89 128 278 530 $50,000-$74,999 91 341 330 306 430 766 1,260 $75,000-$99,999 73 289 261 256 387 771 1,029 $100,000-$149,999 44 273 362 425 584 918 1,105 $150,000-$199,999 13 117 162 201 373 700 625 $200,000+5 115 168 219 416 639 790 Median HH Income $61,010 $81,964 $94,150 $102,927 $106,829 $100,904 $83,327 Average HH Income $74,104 $114,922 $130,187 $141,296 $153,219 $145,169 $127,376 <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 100%100%100%100%100%100%100% <$15,000 9.4%2.4%2.9%3.1%3.1%3.5%6.1% $15,000-$24,999 5.4%1.7%1.4%1.1%1.8%2.0%3.4% $25,000-$34,999 7.7%5.2%3.2%2.7%2.8%3.2%5.2% $35,000-$49,999 13.1%8.5%5.8%5.5%5.1%6.2%8.5% $50,000-$74,999 25.9%24.7%22.3%19.0%17.1%17.2%20.1% $75,000-$99,999 20.8%20.9%17.6%15.9%15.4%17.3%16.4% $100,000-$149,999 12.5%19.8%24.5%26.4%23.3%20.6%17.6% $150,000-$199,999 3.7%8.5%11.0%12.5%14.9%15.7%10.0% $200,000+1.4%8.3%11.4%13.6%16.6%14.3%12.6% 2029 Households by Income and Age of Householder Percent Distribution Data Note: 2024 household income represents an estimate of annual income as of July 1, 2024 and 2029 household income represents an estimate of annual income as of July 1, 2029. Source: Esri forecasts for 2024 and 2029. ©2024 Esri Percent Distribution Page 2989 of 3380 2024-2029 2024-2029 Summary 2024 2029 Change Annual Rate Population 32,853 34,835 1,982 1.18% Households 16,432 18,054 1,622 1.90% Median Age 63.6 64.8 1.2 0.37% Average Household Size 1.97 1.91 -0.06 -0.62% Number Percent Number Percent Household Income Base 16,432 100%18,054 100% 889 5.4%774 4.3% 590 3.6%431 2.4% 956 5.8%731 4.0% 1,557 9.5%1,275 7.1% 3,364 20.5%3,524 19.5% 2,718 16.5%3,066 17.0% 3,007 18.3%3,711 20.6% 1,532 9.3%2,191 12.1% 1,819 11.1%2,352 13.0% $81,284 $92,166 $116,799 $134,847 $58,769 $70,250 Number Percent Number Percent 7.7 6.4 2.5 2.3 3.1 2.8 11.2 10.7 2.8 3.0 2,210 13.4%1,763 9.8% 11,074 67.4%12,038 66.7% 3,148 19.2%4,252 23.6% <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 340 1,305 1,336 1,493 2,558 4,219 5,181 <$15,000 35 44 56 65 116 196 378 $15,000-$24,999 28 38 33 31 74 127 259 $25,000-$34,999 36 101 74 69 108 198 370 $35,000-$49,999 60 144 112 118 193 372 558 $50,000-$74,999 80 337 303 304 464 762 1,114 $75,000-$99,999 58 253 226 237 400 740 805 $100,000-$149,999 32 223 292 353 542 787 778 $150,000-$199,999 8 79 112 143 292 512 385 $200,000+4 86 130 172 370 523 535 Households in Low Income Tier Households in Middle Income Tier Households in Upper Income Tier 2024 Households by Income and Age of Householder P90-P50 Ratio P50-P10 Ratio 80-20 Share Ratio 90-40 Share Ratio Per Capita Income 2024 2029 Households by Income P90-P10 Ratio $100,000-$149,999 $150,000-$199,999 $200,000+ Median Household Income Average Household Income $15,000-$24,999 $25,000-$34,999 $35,000-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 $75,000-$99,999 Longitude: -81.68671 2024 2029 Income Inequality Measures <$15,000 Household Income Profile Naples Afforable 8930-8960 Collier Blvd, Naples, Florida, 34114 Rings: 3 mile radii Latitude: 26.12171 Page 2990 of 3380 Median HH Income $52,338 $73,731 $83,217 $90,066 $94,083 $88,403 $72,199 Average HH Income $63,170 $98,029 $113,315 $122,631 $133,552 $126,505 $108,089 <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 100%100%100%100%100%100%100% <$15,000 10.3%3.4%4.2%4.4%4.5%4.6%7.3% $15,000-$24,999 8.2%2.9%2.5%2.1%2.9%3.0%5.0% $25,000-$34,999 10.6%7.7%5.5%4.6%4.2%4.7%7.1% $35,000-$49,999 17.6%11.0%8.4%7.9%7.5%8.8%10.8% $50,000-$74,999 23.5%25.8%22.7%20.4%18.1%18.1%21.5% $75,000-$99,999 17.1%19.4%16.9%15.9%15.6%17.5%15.5% $100,000-$149,999 9.4%17.1%21.9%23.6%21.2%18.7%15.0% $150,000-$199,999 2.4%6.1%8.4%9.6%11.4%12.1%7.4% $200,000+1.2%6.6%9.7%11.5%14.5%12.4%10.3% <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 351 1,382 1,479 1,610 2,509 4,461 6,262 <$15,000 33 33 43 50 77 158 380 $15,000-$24,999 19 23 20 18 44 90 216 $25,000-$34,999 27 72 48 44 70 142 327 $35,000-$49,999 46 118 86 89 128 278 530 $50,000-$74,999 91 341 330 306 430 766 1,260 $75,000-$99,999 73 289 261 256 387 771 1,029 $100,000-$149,999 44 273 362 425 584 918 1,105 $150,000-$199,999 13 117 162 201 373 700 625 $200,000+5 115 168 219 416 639 790 Median HH Income $61,010 $81,964 $94,150 $102,927 $106,829 $100,904 $83,327 Average HH Income $74,104 $114,922 $130,187 $141,296 $153,219 $145,169 $127,376 <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 100%100%100%100%100%100%100% <$15,000 9.4%2.4%2.9%3.1%3.1%3.5%6.1% $15,000-$24,999 5.4%1.7%1.4%1.1%1.8%2.0%3.4% $25,000-$34,999 7.7%5.2%3.2%2.7%2.8%3.2%5.2% $35,000-$49,999 13.1%8.5%5.8%5.5%5.1%6.2%8.5% $50,000-$74,999 25.9%24.7%22.3%19.0%17.1%17.2%20.1% $75,000-$99,999 20.8%20.9%17.6%15.9%15.4%17.3%16.4% $100,000-$149,999 12.5%19.8%24.5%26.4%23.3%20.6%17.6% $150,000-$199,999 3.7%8.5%11.0%12.5%14.9%15.7%10.0% $200,000+1.4%8.3%11.4%13.6%16.6%14.3%12.6% 2029 Households by Income and Age of Householder Percent Distribution Data Note: 2024 household income represents an estimate of annual income as of July 1, 2024 and 2029 household income represents an estimate of annual income as of July 1, 2029. Source: Esri forecasts for 2024 and 2029. ©2024 Esri Percent Distribution Page 2991 of 3380 SRA Name Allowed/Developed MFDU Total DUs (Mix)AffordableHousingHotelUnitsRetail/ServiceSqFtOffice SqFtMedicalSqFtCivic SqFtIndustrial/Warehouse WarehouseSqFtRecreationalBuilding SqFtCommercialSqFtUniversityStudentsOratorySqFtCourseHolesRes. #BCC ApprovalEstimated BuildTotal Acres2000 TAZ (CompAve Maria, Town ofAllowed 2,150 11,000 300 1,078,943 - - 184,000 711,000 40,400 - - 6,000 63 05-123 6/14/2005 2027 5,026.94 387, 387.2, Ave Maria, Town ofDeveloped 478 4,141 - 235,222 - - 22,319 420,353 40,400 - - 1,900 18Bellmar VillageAllowed 2,200 2,750 - - - - 27,500 - - - - - - - 21-120 6/8/2021 2033 999.74 386.3, 386.4Bellmar VillageDevelopedBellmar VillageMin/Max Min 10% Max Total CombinedMin Big Cypress, Town ofAllowed 3,546 4,432 882 - comm'l # comm'l # - 86,000 650,000 - - - - - 23-127 6/27/2023 2043 1,544.46 386.3, 386.4Big Cypress, Town ofDevelopedBig Cypress, Town ofMin/Max Min 10% Min 2,427 Min 882 Min Brightshore VillageAllowed 1,600 2,000 Comm'l # Comm'l # - 20,000 - 100,000 - - - - 22-209 12/13/2022 2034 681.50 392Brightshore VillageDevelopedBrightshore VillageMin/Max Min 10% Max Total CombinedMin 20K Max 100KCollier Rod & Gun Allowed - 22523-183 10/10/2023 2028 259.60 386.1Collier Rod & Gun DevelopedCollier Rod & Gun Min/MaxHyde Park VillageAllowed 1,000 1,800 - - - - 18,000 - 15,000 30,000 - - - 20-102 6/9/2020 2030 642.52 390.1Hyde Park VillageDeveloped 75Hyde Park VillageMin/Max Min 300, Max Total CombinedMin Rivergrass VillageAllowed 2,500 2,500 - - - - 25,000 - - - - - - 18 20-24 1/28/2020 2032 997.53 390.2, Rivergrass VillageDeveloped -Rivergrass VillageMin/Max Min 250 Max Total Combinedmin Allowed Totals 12,996 24,707 882 300 1,078,943 - - 360,500 1,361,000 140,400 15,000 30,000 6,000 - 81 10,152.29Developed Totals 478 4,216 - - 235,222 - - 22,319 420,353 40,400 - - 1,900 - 18NOTE: Some Totals may not equal the sum of the components due to the Minimums and Maximums required or allowed.Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs)SFDUALF/CCRC UnitsCommercial SqFt8,850 275 -3,663 - -2,475 300 85,000Min 10% SF, Min 68,750, Max 3,989 300 753,440Min 10% SF, Min 753,4401,800 300 120,000Min 10% SF, Max 300 Min 106K, max 2255,000Min 2,250, max 1,500 - 45,00075Max 1,500 FAR for Comm'l 2,250 300 100,000Min 62.5K, Max 21,089 1,475 1,108,4403,738 - -Abbreviations:SRA = Stewardship Receiving Area Res. # = Resolution Number Min = MinimumSFDU = Single Family Dwelling Unit BCC = Board of County Commissioners FAR = Floor Area RatioMFDU = Multi-Family Dwelling Unit TAZ = Traffic Analysis Zone Comm'l = CommercialALF/CCRC = Assisted Living Facility/Continuing Care Comp Planning = Comprehensive Planning K = thousandSqFt = Square Feet Max = Maximum CRD = Compact Rural DevelopmentPage 2992 of 3380 Parcel ID Owner Base Zoning Future Land Use Address Land Use Code Total Acres 37067680009 Jeffrey Lee Smith Jr Agricultural/Estates Designation Estates Designation/Residential Estates Subdistrict 830 9th Street NW 0 9.45 41770040003 Hendrix House Inc Agricultural/Estates Designation Estates Designation/Residential Estates Subdistrict 42nd Avenue, West of Everglades Boulevard 0 9.8 32632360005 Four Square Land LLC Agricultural / Rural Designation Agricultural / Rural Designation / RF-Sending Woodland Estates, West of 30th Avenue 0 10 32632560009 Four Square Land LLC Agricultural / Rural Designation Agricultural / Rural Designation / RF-Sending Woodland Estates, West of 30th Avenue 0 10 00397240007 Gussler Investments LP Agricultural / Rural Designation Agricultural / Rural Designation / RF-Sending Benfield Road, South of Beck Boulevard 0 10 00741760007 Bohde, John A Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict Fiddlers Creek Parkway at Veneta Way 0 10 38056320007 Alan J Vincent Rev. Trust Agricultural/Estates Designation Estates Designation/Residential Estates Subdistrict End of 25th Aveunue SW 0 8.16 38056040002 Elizabeth Barclay Agricultural/Estates Designation Estates Designation/Residential Estates Subdistrict End of 31st Avenue SW 0 8.01 64700625501 Roberto Bollt MPUD Rural Settlement Area District 13986 Immokalee Road 0 12.23 41829400002 Vanderbilt Living LLC RPUD UR/Vanderbilt Beach Road Residential Subdistrict Cherry Wood Drive 0 7.91 52658000280 Jubliation Holdings PUD Urban Residential Subdistrict Carson Road at Curry Road 0 11.44 48900000120 Missark Naples 3 PUD Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict 1040 Borghese Lane 0 8.66 Page 2993 of 3380 EXHIBIT “IX” Public FaciliƟes Level of Service Standard (LOSS) Analysis Bonita Flores ResidenƟal Inﬁll Subdistrict (PL20230013845) Revised April 29, 2024 The proposed growth management plan amendment acknowledges a new subdistrict which would result in an increase in residenƟal density. The subject property of 9.5+/‐ acres would allow for a maximum of 92 residenƟal dwelling units. The following analysis reviews the project impacts on the level of service (LOS) for the public faciliƟes necessary to support the project and acknowledges consistency with the Capital Improvement Element ObjecƟve 1 and Policies. Capital Improvement Element ObjecƟve 1: (PUBLIC FACILITY LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS) IdenƟfy and deﬁne types of public faciliƟes, establish standards for levels of service for each such public facility, and determine what quanƟty of addiƟonal public faciliƟes is needed in order to achieve and maintain the standards. The following public faciliƟes analysis evaluates the project impacts on potable water, wastewater, drainage, parks, schools, roadways, ﬁre/EMS/sheriff, and solid waste. The source for the LOS informaƟon is the Collier County 2023 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), unless otherwise noted. POTABLE WATER The property is located within the Collier County Water Sewer District (CCWSD) regional potable water service area. Adopted Level of Service Standard = 130 gpd/person/day for Collier County UƟliƟes Proposed Project Demand for residenƟal mulƟ‐family: 92 dwelling units x 2.5people/DU x 130 gpd/person = 29,900 gpd Peak: 29,900 gpd x 1.3 = 38,870 gpd The proposed project results in a total potable water demand of 38,870 gpd. There are no exisƟng or anƟcipated capacity issues. The project will not have any signiﬁcant impact on the potable water system and therefore there is no LOS issue created by the proposed project. Data Source: Collier County 2023 AUIR WASTEWATER The property is located within the South Collier Water ReclamaƟon Facility (SCWRF) Service Area. The adopted level of service standard is based on residenƟal populaƟon generaƟng 90 gallons per capita day (gpcd). Proposed Project Demand for residenƟal mulƟ‐family: 92 dwelling units x 2.5 people/DU x 90 gpd/person = 20,700 gpd Peak: 20,700 gpd x 1.24 = 25,668 gpd Page 2994 of 3380 2 The proposed project results in a total sanitary sewer demand of 25,668 gpd. There are no exisƟng or anƟcipated capacity issues. The project will not have any signiﬁcant impact on the wastewater system and therefore there is no LOS issue created by the proposed project. Data Source: Collier County 2023 AUIR DRAINAGE The County has adopted a LOS standard for private developments which requires development to occur consistent with water quanƟty and quality standards established in Ordinances 74‐50, 90‐10, 2001‐2 and LDC Ordinance 2004‐41, as may be amended. The Bonita Flores ResidenƟal Inﬁll Subdistrict project will be designed to Collier County and SFWMD standards and will have no adverse impacts to stormwater management (drainage) level of service. PARKS: COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL The Collier County parks level of service standards are set at 1.2 acres per 1,000/populaƟon for community parks and 2.7 acres per 1,000/populaƟon for regional parks. According to the Collier County AUIR, the community park inventory as of 9/30/2023 is 553.09 acres and on 9/30/2028 is expected to be 559.47 acres, represenƟng a 6.38‐acre deﬁcit. Furthermore, the regional park facility inventory as of 9/30/2023 is 1,561.71 acres and is expected to be 1,388.65 acres on 9/30/2028, represenƟng a 173.06‐acre surplus. The increased residenƟal units will be responsible for paying park impact fees. No adverse impacts to community or regional parks result from this new project. Data Source: Collier County 2023 AUIR SCHOOLS Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) level of service is based on uƟlizaƟon of school faciliƟes which is a factor of enrollment to capacity. The level of service district‐wide is 95% of the permanent Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity for elementary and middle schools and 100% for high schools. The project is located within E3 concurrency service area (CSA) for elementary, M2 CSA for middle, and H2 for high school. The subject site with within the E3, Southwest Area North for elementary schools; the M2, Southwest Area for middle schools; and the H2, Southwest Area for high schools. The E3 CSA includes two elementary schools, Avalon and Lely. They have a combined FISH capacity of 1,305 students, a 2022/2023 peak enrollment of 844 students, and a projected 2027/2028 enrollment of 847 students (65% capacity). Enrollment at Lely is being monitored; the enrollment forecast may include a boundary adjustment. The M2 and H2 CSAs include Lely and Naples High Schools, and East Naples, Gulfview, and Manatee Middle Schools. The high schools have a combined FISH capacity of 3,916 students, a 2022/2023 peak enrolment of 3,238 students, and a projected 2027/2028 enrollment of 3,110 students (79% capacity). The middle schools have a combined FISH capacity of 3,014 students, a 2022/2023 peak enrollment of 2,180 students, and a projected 2027/2028 enrollment of 1,899 (63% capacity). There is available capacity in the public schools nearby to accommodate the growth due to this project and there are no adverse impacts to schools because of this project. AddiƟonally, the increased residenƟal units will pay school impact fees. Page 2995 of 3380 3 Data Source: Collier County Public Schools Capital Improvement Plan, FY 24‐43 ROADWAYS Please refer to the Tra ffic Impact Statement for the project’s projected impacts on the adjacent roadways and trip generaƟon rates. The project will not create any negaƟve impact on the level of service for Collier Boulevard. FIRE, EMS, SHERIFF The proposed project lies within the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District. The Greater Naples Fire Rescue StaƟon #25, along with Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Medic #25, is co‐located approximately 1 mile from the property. EMS level of service standard is 1 unit/16,400 populaƟon which reﬂects an 8‐minute response Ɵme. No signiﬁcant impacts will be made to Fire Control and EMS level of service as a result of the proposed residenƟal project. Impact fees for ﬁre and EMS will be collected prior to cerƟﬁcate of occupancy to ensure the project contributes its fair share of the cost of the capital improvements necessary to support this project. The Fire Control and EMS locaƟon intended to serve the project is: Greater Naples Fire Rescue ‐ StaƟon #25 3675 Hacienda Lakes Boulevard Naples, FL 34114 The proposed project is located within District 3 of the Collier County Sheriff's Office (CCSO) patrol. The project is located approximately 2 miles from Sheriff ’s Office faciliƟes which includes a police substaƟon, administraƟon office, and the Emergency CommunicaƟons Center (911). The CCSO facility closest to the subject property is: Collier County Sheriff's Office ‐ District 3 8075 Lely Cultural Pkwy Naples, FL 34113 Data Source: Collier County 2023 AUIR SOLID WASTE The proposed project is located within the District 1 Solid Waste CollecƟon Service Area. According to the Collier County 2023 AUIR, currently there is an exisƟng landﬁll capacity of 12,665,407 tons, and a ten‐year remaining landﬁll capacity of 3,088,013 tons. The esƟmated Ɵmeframe remaining for landﬁll capacity is 37 years. The proposed project will increase the populaƟon by approximately 230 people at buildout. Using a ton’s per capita disposal rate of 0.67 (esƟmated rate at buildout per the 2023 AUIR), a populaƟon increase of 230 people will generate an addiƟonal 154.1 tons per year. There is adequate capacity to accommodate the addiƟonal solid waste disposal generated by the proposed project. Data Source: Collier County 2023 AUIR Page 2996 of 3380 COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'SOFFICE - DISTRICT 3LELY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLPHYSICIANS REGIONALLELY HIGH SCHOOLPARKSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLCALUSA PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOLGREATER NAPLES FIRERESCUE - STATION #75GREATER NAPLES FIRERESCUE - STATION #72GREATER NAPLES FIRERESCUE - STATION #21COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'SOFFICE - PROCUREMENT1 MILE2 MILESSUBJECT PROPERTYCOLLIER COUNTY EMS 25NFeet030006000The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scalethe drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay.The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec.Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.Tel:www.stantec.comStantec Consulting Services Inc.1821 Victoria Avenue Suite 1Fort Myers, FL 33901-3436(239) 939-10202024.02.20 10:26:42 AM \\us0255-ppfss01\shared_projects\215618460\planning\drawing\planning_exhibits_maps\215618460 exhibit_6b Project No.Figure No.DateReference SheetTitleClient/ProjectNotesRevisionCOLLIER BLVD GMPACOLLIER COUNTY215618460PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIESMAP2024.02.016B1.AERIAL SHOWN WAS FLOWN DEC. 2022, AND PROVIDED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER.PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIES NOTES1.POLICE PROTECTION IS PROVIDE BY COLLIER COUNTYSHERIFF'S OFFICE2.FIRE PROTECTION IS PROVIDED BY GREATER NAPLESFIRE RESCUE DISTRICT.3.THERE ARE NO WELL FIELDS WITHIN OR IN CLOSEPROXIMITY TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY4.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN THECOUNTY'S COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA.PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIES LEGEND-SCHOOL-HOSPITAL-SHERIFF / FIRE DEPARTMENT / EMSPage 2997 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard GMPA & Rezoning Traffic Impact Statement 215618460 Prepared for: Bonita Flores I, LLC 35 Trillium Dr, Unit #1 Kitchener, Ontario N2E 0H2 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Incorporated 3510 Kraft Road, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105 May 2024 Design with community in mind Page 2998 of 3380 Professional Engineer’s Certification I certify that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. Additionally, I hereby certify that I am a Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Florida practicing with Stantec Consulting Services Inc. and that I have supervised the preparation of and approve the evaluations, findings, opinions, conclusions, and technical advice hereby reported for: PROJECT: 8928 Collier Boulevard GMPA & Rezoning Traffic Impact Statement 215618460 LOCATION: Naples, Florida This document titled 8928 Collier Boulevard GMPA & Rezoning – Phase 1 Traffic Impact Statement was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. for the account of Bonita Flores I, LLC. The material in it reflects Stantec’s best judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibilities of such third parties. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. Prepared by: Page 2999 of 3380 1 | Page PURPOSE Stantec has been tasked by Bonita Flores I, LLC to pursue a Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) and Rezoning of the property to permit the development of 92-unit, four-story multifamily residential dwelling units (known in this report as “the Project”). The following traffic analysis submitted in support of this GMPA is intended satisfy the applicable requirements for a Small Scale Traffic Impact Statement as prescribed in Resolution No. 2006-299 from the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, which is based on the number of two-way peak hour trips that would be generated by the proposed development (<50 during each peak hour). The purpose of this Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) is to document the impact of the Project on the adjacent roadway network and site access point. STUDY AREA & SITE DESCRIPTION The Project parcel (Property ID #00418400302, 8928 Collier Boulevard, Naples, FL 34114) is approximately 9.49 acres in size and is currently within the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district as shown on the Collier County Zoning Map. A rezoning is being proposed as part of this Project to develop the property beyond agricultural uses. The subject site is located on the northbound side of Collier Boulevard (Figure 1 ), with the Hacienda Lakes Parkway located to the south and A Better Way located to the north. The project site is generally located 2.7 miles south of the Interstate 75 interchange (Exit 101), in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. A right-in/right-out access driveway (traffic coming from the south and heading to the north) is proposed to serve the Project on Collier Boulevard. Left-turn egress traffic and left-turn ingress traffic will use the unsignalized thru-cut median openings at intersections with Club Estates Drive (quarter-mile north of the site) and Hacienda Lakes Parkway (quarter-mile south of the site), respectively, to make U-turn movements. The site plan for this development, as of the release of this TIS, is shown on Figure 2. As shown on Figure 2, a 315’ right-turn bay with 50’ taper is provided for site ingress traffic, which is in conformance with the FDOT Design Manual, the 55 mph design speed, and other right turn bays designed on this segment of Collier Boulevard. The proposed development consists of multi-family structures that are four-stories tall, not to exceed 52’ as zoned and not to exceed 56’ actual. Accordingly, for the purposes of trip generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code 221 was selected to best represent the proposed site. It should be noted that development such as this one that are primarily engaged in the operation of apartments are included in SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) code 6513. FIGURE 1: Project Location Map Collier Blvd PROJECT LOCATION Page 3000 of 3380 2 | Page FIGURE 2: Site Plan Right-in/Right-out Access to/from Collier Boulevard NOT TO SCALE 315’ Turning Bay w/ 50’ Taper for Right-Turn Ingress Page 3001 of 3380 3 | Page TRIP GENERATION To evaluate the traffic being generated by the Project, a trip generation analysis was prepared based on the 11th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual and the development plan of 92 dwelling units of mid- rise housing (Land Use Code 221). Two-way AM and PM peak hour trips to be generated by the Project are 29 and 36, respectively. Trip generation graphs and other backup from the ITE TripGen Web-Based App supporting trip generation calculations shown below in Table 2 are provided in Appendix A. ITE Land Use (Code) Units Unit of Measure Weekday 24-Hr Trips Time Period Peak Hour Trips Enter Rate Exit Rate Enter Trips Exit Trips Multifamily Housing, Mid-Rise (221) 92 Dwelling Units 392 AM Pk Hr 29 23% 77% 7 22 PM Pk Hr 36 61% 39% 22 14 TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT The traffic generated by the Project was assigned to Collier Boulevard using the knowledge of the area and engineering judgement as shown in Table 3 (PM peak hour to analyze worst-case), with trips split 50- 50 coming from/going to the north and south. The resulting trip generation based on this distribution is shown in Figure 3. Roadway Link Collier County Link No. Roadway Link Location Distribution of Project Traffic Enter Exit Collier Blvd. 34.0 Davis Blvd. (SR 84) to Project 50% 11 7 Collier Blvd. 34.0 Project to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 50% 11 7 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Average background traffic growth rates are estimated for the segment of Collier Boulevard in the vicinity of the Project using the Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance of a minimum 2% growth rate, or the most recent volume for the applicable link from the Annual Update and Inventory Report (2023 AUIR) plus the trip bank volume for that same link. The higher of the two determinations is to be used in the Roadway Link Level of Service analysis. Table 4 illustrates the application of projected growth rates versus trip bank addition to generate the projected background (without Project) peak hour peak direction traffic volume for the build-out year of 2026. As shown in Table 4, the trip bank provides a more conservative analysis to be used for the Roadway Link Level of Service Analysis: 2,770 vph. Figures from the AUIR for the roadway link adjacent to the project site are highlighted in Appendix B. Roadway Link Link No. 2023 AUIR Peak Hour, Peak Direction Background Volume (trips/hr) Trip Bank 2026 (2023 Plus Trip Bank) AUIR Peak Hour, Peak Direction Trip Bank Projection (trips/hr) Traffic Growth Rate 2026 AUIR Peak Hour (2023 Plus Growth Rate), Peak Direction Growth Rate Projection (trips/hr) Collier Blvd. 34.0 2,120 650 2,770 2% 2,250 TABLE 2: Trip Generation Analysis TABLE 3: Project Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour TABLE 4: Background Traffic on Collier Blvd Page 3002 of 3380 4 | Page FIGURE 3: AM and PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution Page 3003 of 3380 5 | Page ROADWAY LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS The Collier County Transportation Planning staff developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project, which are evaluated to determine the project impacts to the roadway network for the buildout year of 2026. Staff guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage site-generated volume demand exceeds 2% when compared to both the capacity for the link accessing the site (or 3% if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard). Table 5 summarizes the Roadway Link Level of Service Analysis, depicting if this Project is projected to have a significant and adverse impact. Roadway Link Link No. Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume (trips/hr) Roadway Link, Peak Direction, Peak Hour Project Volume 2026 Peak Direction, Peak Hour Volume Demand with Project % Volume Capacity Impacted by Project Minimum LOS Exceeded without Project? Minimum LOS Exceeded with Project? Significant Impact? Collier Blvd. 34.0 3,000 (NB) 22 (NB) 2,792 0.7% No No No TURNING BAY SUFFICIENCY FOR SITE ACCESS As previously stated, a 300’ turning bay is being provided for right-turn ingress traffic, which is sufficient to accommodate the maximum projected peak hour ingress volume flow of 22 vehicles per hour, which translates to approximately less than one vehicle every two minutes. Furthermore, left-turn egress traffic and left-turn ingress traffic will use the 360’ left/U-turn bay at Club Estates Drive (quarter-mile north of the site) and the 480’ left/U-turn bay at Hacienda Lakes Parkway (quarter-mile south of the site), respectively, to make U-turn movements. The maximum projected peak hour volume of site vehicles making these U-turn movements is 11 vehicles per hour, which translates to approximately less than one vehicle every five minutes. Therefore, proposed site traffic is not anticipated to have a significant impact on operations at either left/U-turn bay north and south of the site. CONCLUSIONS The Project is estimated to generate 392 two-way trips during a 24-hour average weekday period, 36 of which are expected to occur during the PM peak hour, with 22 entering the site and 14 exiting the site. As demonstrated in the Roadway Link Level of Service Analysis, this Project would not have a significant and adverse impact on the adjacent roadway network and, therefore, would not require any major traffic mitigation measures. TABLE 5: Roadway Link LOS Analysis Page 3004 of 3380 APPENDIX A ITE TripGen Web-Based App Calculations Page 3005 of 3380 273 Land Use: 221 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Description Mid-rise multifamily housing includes apartments and condominiums located in a building that has between four and 10 floors of living space. Access to individual dwelling units is through an outside building entrance, a lobby, elevator, and a set of hallways. Multifamily housing (low-rise) (Land Use 220), multifamily housing (high-rise) (Land Use 222), off- campus student apartment (mid-rise) (Land Use 226), and mid-rise residential with ground-floor commercial (Land Use 231) are related land uses. Land Use Subcategory Data are presented for two subcategories for this land use: (1) not close to rail transit and (2) close to rail transit. A site is considered close to rail transit if the walking distance between the residential site entrance and the closest rail transit station entrance is ½ mile or less. Additional Data For the six sites for which both the number of residents and the number of occupied dwelling units were available, there were an average of 2.5 residents per occupied dwelling unit. For the five sites for which the numbers of both total dwelling units and occupied dwelling units were available, an average of 96 percent of the total dwelling units were occupied. The technical appendices provide supporting information on time-of-day distributions for this land use. The appendices can be accessed through either the ITETripGen web app or the trip generation resource page on the ITE website (https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/trip- and-parking-generation/). It is expected that the number of bedrooms and number of residents are likely correlated to the trips generated by a residential site. To assist in future analysis, trip generation studies of all multifamily housing should attempt to obtain information on occupancy rate and on the mix of residential unit sizes (i.e., number of units by number of bedrooms at the site complex). The sites were surveyed in the 1990s, the 2000s, the 2010s, and the 2020s in Alberta (CAN), California, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ontario (CAN), Oregon, Utah, and Virginia. Source Numbers 168, 188, 204, 305, 306, 321, 818, 857, 862, 866, 901, 904, 910, 949, 951, 959, 963, 964, 966, 967, 969, 970, 1004, 1014, 1022, 1023, 1025, 1031, 1032, 1035, 1047, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1071, 1076 General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 000–399) Page 3006 of 3380 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit (221) Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Dwelling Units On a:Weekday Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies:11 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units:201 Directional Distribution:50% entering, 50% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 4.54 3.76 - 5.40 0.51 Data Plot and Equation T = Trip EndsX = Number of Dwelling Units Study Site Average RateFitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 4.77(X) - 46.46 R²= 0.93 Trip Gen Manual,11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 100 200 300 4000 500 1,000 1,500 92 418 392 Page 3007 of 3380 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit (221) Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Dwelling Units On a:Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies:30 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units:173 Directional Distribution:23% entering, 77% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.37 0.15 - 0.53 0.09 Data Plot and Equation T = Trip EndsX = Number of Dwelling Units Study Site Average RateFitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.44(X) - 11.61 R²= 0.91 Trip Gen Manual,11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 100 200 300 400 5000 100 200 300 92 34 29 Page 3008 of 3380 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit (221) Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Dwelling Units On a:Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies:31 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units:169 Directional Distribution:61% entering, 39% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.39 0.19 - 0.57 0.08 Data Plot and Equation T = Trip EndsX = Number of Dwelling Units Study Site Average RateFitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.39(X) + 0.34 R²= 0.91 Trip Gen Manual,11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 100 200 300 400 5000 50 100 150 200 92 36 36 Page 3009 of 3380 APPENDIX B Collier AUIR Roadway Link Information Excerpt Page 3010 of 3380 Attachment "F"57 58 61 63 64 65 66Collier County Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) Based on Adopted LOS, Trip Bank and Traffic CountsPeak20232022 Net Percent2023 2023TrafficHour 1Peak Peak Change Change2023 Counts + 2023w/TB CountsTrip BankPeak Dir Hour Hour In Volume In VolumeTotal Counts + Trip Bank Counts +LYear YearTCMA orExist Cnt. Peak Service Peak Dir Peak Dir From From Trip Trip Bank Remaining Trip Bank O Expected ExpectedID# CIE# TCEA Road#LinkFromToRoad Sta. Std*Dir Volume Volume Volume 2022 2022 Bank Volume CapacityV/C S Deficient Deficient1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # 12 13 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 281.0 NW-TCMA CR31 Airport RoadImmokalee RoadVanderbilt Beach Road 4D 554 D N 2,200 1120 1480 -360-32.14%16 1136 1064 51.6% B2.1 55 NW-TCMA CR31 Airport RoadVanderbilt Beach Road Orange Blossom Drive 6D 599 E N 3,000 2190 2250 -60-2.74%35 2225 775 74.2% C2.2 55 NW-TCMA CR31 Airport RoadOrange Blossom Drive Pine Ridge Road6D 503 E N 3,000 2270 2160 110 4.85% 53 2323 677 77.4% D3.0 39CR31 Airport RoadPine Ridge RoadGolden Gate Parkway 6D 502 E N 3,000 2150 2180 -30-1.40%14 2164 836 72.1% C4.0CR31 Airport RoadGolden Gate Parkway Radio Road6D 533 E N 2,800 2090 2210 -120-5.74%0 2090 710 74.6% C5.0 3CR31 Airport RoadRadio RoadDavis Boulevard6D553 E N 2,800 2080 20800 0.00% 0 2080 720 74.3% C6.0 3 TCEA CR31 Airport RoadDavis BoulevardUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) 6D 552 E S 2,700 1470 1550 -80-5.44%90 1560 1140 57.8% C7.0TCEA(pt)Bayshore DriveUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) Thomasson Drive4D 521 D S 1,800 730 7300 0.00% 183 913 887 50.7% B8.0 31CR 865 Bonita Beach Road West of Vanderbilt Drive Hickory Boulevard4D 653 D E 1,900 1000 1100 -100-10.00%0 1000 900 52.6% B9.0Carson RoadLake Trafford Road Immokalee Drive2U 610 D N 600 290 2900 0.00% 40 330 270 55.0% B10.0 33County Barn Road Davis BoulevardRattlesnake Hammock Road 2U 519 D S 900 380 370 10 2.63% 86 466 434 51.8% B11.0CR29 CR 29US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Everglades City2U 582A D S 1,000 180 1800 0.00% 10 190 810 19.0% B12.0TCEA SR84 Davis BoulevardUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) Airport Road6D 558 E E 2,700 1420 1410 10 0.70% 55 1475 1225 54.6% C13.0 48SR84 Davis BoulevardAirport RoadLakewood Boulevard 4D 559 D E 2,000 1460 1470 -10-0.68%0 1460 540 73.0% C14.0 49 EC-TCMA SR84 Davis BoulevardLakewood Boulevard County Barn Road4D 658 D E 2,000 1660 1630 30 1.81% 56 1716 284 85.8% D203115.0 83 EC-TCMA SR84 Davis BoulevardCounty Barn RoadSanta Barbara Boulevard 4D 538 D E 2,200 1500 1410 90 6.00% 138 1638 562 74.5% C16.1 83 EC-TCMA SR84 Davis BoulevardSanta Barbara Boulevard Radio Road6D 560 E E 3,300 860 840 20 2.33% 155 1015 2285 30.8% B16.2 83 EC-TCMA SR84 Davis BoulevardRadio RoadCollier Boulevard6D 601 E W 3,300 1220 1250 -30-2.46%245 1465 1835 44.4% B17.0 62CR876 Golden Gate Boulevard Collier BoulevardWilson Boulevard4D 531D E 2,300 2030 1960 70 3.45% 17 2047 253 89.0% D202918.0CR886 Golden Gate Parkway US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Goodlette-Frank Road 6D 530 E E 2,700 1790 1630 160 8.94% 0 1790 910 66.3% C19.0 5CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Goodlette-Frank Road Airport Road6D 507 E E 3,550 3010 2770 240 7.97% 0 3010 540 84.8% D203220.1 74CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Airport RoadLivingston Road6D 508 E E 3,550 3240 3140 100 3.09% 19 3259 291 91.8% D 2027 202620.2 74 EC-TCMA CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Livingston RoadI-756D 691 E E 3,550 3370 3340 30 0.89% 0 3370 180 94.9% D 2026 202621.0 74 EC-TCMA CR886 Golden Gate Parkway I-75Santa Barbara Boulevard 6D 509 E E 3,300 2270 2020 250 11.01% 10 2280 1020 69.1% C22.0 EC-TCMA CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Santa Barbara Boulevard Collier Boulevard4D 605 D * E 1,980 15201450 70 4.61% 53 1573 407 79.4% D23.0 19 NW-TCMA CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Immokalee RoadVanderbilt Beach Road 2U 594 D N 1,000 700 720 -20-2.86%5 705 295 70.5% C24.1 65 NW-TCMA CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Orange Blossom Drive 4D 595 E N 2,400 1410 1390 20 1.42% 75 1485 915 61.9% C24.2 65 NW-TCMA CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Orange Blossom Drive Pine Ridge Road6D 581 E N 2,400 1630 1620 10 0.61% 3 1633 767 68.0% C25.0 88CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Pine Ridge RoadGolden Gate Parkway 6D 505 E N 3,000 1880 1860 20 1.06% 1 1881 1119 62.7% C26.0CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Golden Gate Parkway US 41 (Tamiami Trail) 6D 504 E S 2,700 2760 2660 100 3.62% 4 2764(64)102.4% F Existing Existing27.0 87 EC-TCMAGreen Boulevard Santa Barbara Boulevard Collier Boulevard2U 642 D E 900 750 680 70 9.33% 0 750 150 83.3% D203329.0NW-TCMAGulfshore Drive111th AvenueVanderbilt Beach Road 2U 583a D N 800 220 2200 0.00% 0 220 580 27.5% B30.1 37CR951 Collier Boulevard Immokalee RoadVanderbilt Beach Road 6D 655 E N 3,000 1870 1810 60 3.21% 386 2256 744 75.2% D30.2 37CR951 Collier Boulevard Vanderbilt Beach Road Golden Gate Boulevard 6D 584 E S 3,000 1580 1490 90 5.70% 93 1673 1327 55.8% C31.1 85CR951 Collier Boulevard Golden Gate Boulevard Pine Ridge Road6D 536 E N 3,000 2530 2590 -60-2.37%107 2637 363 87.9% D203031.2 85 EC-TCMA CR951 Collier Boulevard Pine Ridge RoadGreen Boulevard6D 536 E N 3,000 2530 2590 -60-2.37%91 2621 379 87.4% D203132.1 76 EC-TCMA CR951 Collier Boulevard Green BoulevardGolden Gate Pwky4D 525 D N 2,300 1470 1410 60 4.08% 27 1497 803 65.1% C32.2 76 EC-TCMA CR951 Collier Boulevard Golden Gate PwkyGolden Gate Main Canal 4D607 D N 2,300 19801780 200 10.10% 234 2214 86 96.3% D202532.3 76 EC-TCMA CR951 Collier Boulevard Golden Gate Main Canal I-758D 607 E N 3,600 1980 1780 200 10.10% 387 2367 1233 65.8% C33.0 61 EC-TCMA SR951 Collier Boulevard I-75Davis Boulevard8D 573 E N 3,600 3020 3170 -150-4.97%293 3313 287 92.0% D202834.0 86CR951 Collier Boulevard Davis BoulevardRattlesnake Hammock Road 6D 602 E N 3,000 2120 2270 -150-7.08%650 2770 230 92.3% D202935.0 86CR951 Collier Boulevard Rattlesnake Hammock Road US 41 (Tamiami Trail)6D603 E N 3,200 2250 2230 20 0.89% 434 2684 516 83.9% D36.1 12SR951 Collier Boulevard US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Wal-Mart Driveway6D557 E N 2,500 2310 2420 -110-4.76%173 2483 17 99.3% E 2027 202436.2SR951 Collier Boulevard Wal-Mart Driveway Manatee Road4D 557 D N 2,000 2310 2420 -110-4.76%140 2450(450)122.5% F Existing Existing37.0 12SR951 Collier Boulevard Manatee RoadMainsail Drive4D 627 D N 2,200 1830 1810 20 1.09% 161 1991 209 90.5% D202938.0 51SR951 Collier Boulevard Mainsail DriveMarco Island Bridge4D 627 D N 2,200 1830 1810 20 1.09% 50 1880 320 85.5% D203239.0 64 NW-TCMA CR846 111th Avenue N. Gulfshore DriveVanderbilt Drive2U 585 D E 700 330 390 -60-18.18%0 330 370 47.1% B40.0 1 NW-TCMA CR846 111th Avenue N. Vanderbilt DriveUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) 2U 613 D E 900 610 700 -90-14.75%0 610 290 67.8% C41.1 6 NW-TCMA CR846 Immokalee Road US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Goodlette-Frank Road 6D 566 E E 3,100 1990 2070 -80-4.02%25 2015 1085 65.0% CMinDRAFT - MASTER Attachment F-2023 (072823)34.086CR951Collier BoulevardDavis BoulevardRattlesnake Hammock Road6D602EN3,00021202270-150-7.08%650277023092.3%D2029Page 3011 of 3380 The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scalethe drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay.The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec.Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.Tel:www.stantec.comStantec Consulting Services Inc.1821 Victoria Avenue Suite 1Fort Myers, FL 33901-3436(239) 939-10202024.02.20 10:25:39 AM \\us0255-ppfss01\shared_projects\215618460\planning\drawing\planning_exhibits_maps\215618460 exhibit_5 Project No.Figure No.DateReference SheetTitleClient/ProjectNotesRevisionCOLLIER BLVD GMPACOLLIER COUNTY215618460FLOOD ZONE MAP2024.02.015SUBJECT PROPERTYNPage 3012 of 3380 Page 3013 of 3380 Page 3014 of 3380 CATANA CONSTRUCTION INC Minutes of the July 12, 2024 Meeting of the Board of Directors Meeting Location: Naples, FL Present: Peter Catana Absent: N/A 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Peter Catana, President. 2.Roll Call and Quorum The secretary called the roll, and a quorum was present. 3.Approval of Minutes The minutes of the previous meeting held on March 14, 2022 were reviewed and approved as presented. 4.Purpose of the Meeting The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and authorize an individual to purchase and sell property on behalf of the company, as well as to take out loans. 5.Presentation and Discussion Peter Catana, President, presented the proposal to authorize Michael Crijan to purchase and sell property on behalf of the company and to take out loans. The presentation included details such as the scope of authority, financial limits, and any specific conditions. The board discussed the proposal, asking questions and seeking clarification on various aspects. 6.Resolution and Authorization Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was resolved: "Be it resolved that Michael Crijan is hereby authorized to purchase, sell, and mortgage real property on behalf of the corporation, subject to the following conditions: None. The Board of Directors empowers Michael Crijan to sign all necessary documents, contracts, and agreements related to the purchase, sale, and financing of real property, including but not limited to deeds, contracts of sale, loan agreements, promissory notes, Docusign Envelope ID: F6C84422-0C40-49E3-AB4A-26B562445DBA Page 3015 of 3380 and other related documents. The financial limit for each loan transaction shall not exceed five million dollars ($5,000,000)." 7.Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Peter Catana, President, July 12, 2024. Approved: Peter Catana Docusign Envelope ID: F6C84422-0C40-49E3-AB4A-26B562445DBA Page 3016 of 3380 BONITA FLORES I, LLC Minutes of the July 17, 2024 Meeting of the Board of Directors Meeting Location: Naples, FL Present: Peter Catana Absent: N/A 1.Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Peter Catana, President. 2.Roll Call and Quorum The secretary called the roll, and a quorum was present. 3.Purpose of the Meeting The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and authorize an individual to purchase and sell property on behalf of the company, as well as to take out loans. 4.Presentation and Discussion Peter Catana, President, presented the proposal to authorize Michael Crijan to purchase and sell property on behalf of the company and to take out loans. The presentation included details such as the scope of authority, financial limits, and any specific conditions. The board discussed the proposal, asking questions and seeking clarification on various aspects. 5.Resolution and Authorization Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was resolved: "Be it resolved that Michael Crijan is hereby authorized to purchase, sell, and mortgage real property on behalf of the corporation, subject to the following conditions: None. The Board of Directors empowers Michael Crijan to sign all necessary documents, contracts, and agreements related to the purchase, sale, and financing of real property, including but not limited to deeds, contracts of sale, loan agreements, promissory notes, Docusign Envelope ID: 69181631-D751-4321-A544-6DBADE204E0C Page 3017 of 3380 and other related documents. The financial limit for each loan transaction shall not exceed five million dollars ($5,000,000)." 6.Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Peter Catana a/k/a Petru Catana , President, July 17, 2024. Approved: Peter Catana a/k/a Petru Catana Docusign Envelope ID: 69181631-D751-4321-A544-6DBADE204E0C Page 3018 of 3380 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a.If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest: Name and Address % of Ownership b.If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address % of Ownership c.If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Name and Address % of Ownership Page 3019 of 3380 d.If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners: Name and Address % of Ownership e.If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners: Name and Address % of Ownership Date of Contract: ___________ f.If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: Name and Address g.Date subject property acquired _______________ Leased: Term of lease ____________ years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Page 3020 of 3380 Date of option: _________________________ Date option terminates: __________________, or Anticipated closing date: ________________ AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest-holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition’s final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. ____________________________________________ ____________ Agent/Owner Signature Date ____________________________________________ Agent/Owner Name (please print) *The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Community Development Department | GMD Portal: https://cvportal.colliercountyfl.gov/cityviewweb Questions? Email: GMDclientservices@colliercountyfl.gov Page 3021 of 3380 3899 MANNIX DR. SUITE 405 NAPLES, FL 34114 Current Principal Place of Business: Current Mailing Address: 3899 MANNIX DR. SUITE 405 NAPLES, FL 34114 US Entity Name: CATANA CONSTRUCTION INC. DOCUMENT# P21000005312 FEI Number: 36-4986225 Certificate of Status Desired: Name and Address of Current Registered Agent: CRIJAN, MICHAEL 3899 MANNIX DR. SUITE 405 NAPLES, FL 34114 US The above named entity submits this statement for the purpose of changing its registered office or registered agent, or both, in the State of Florida. SIGNATURE: Electronic Signature of Registered Agent Date Officer/Director Detail : I hereby certify that the information indicated on this report or supplemental report is true and accurate and that my electronic signature shall have the same legal effect as if made under oath; that I am an officer or director of the corporation or the receiver or trustee empowered to execute this report as required by Chapter 607, Florida Statutes; and that my name appears above, or on an attachment with all other like empowered. SIGNATURE: Electronic Signature of Signing Officer/Director Detail Date MICHAEL CRIJAN FILED Apr 15, 2024 Secretary of State 7864339629CC MICHAEL CRIJAN D 04/15/2024 2024 FLORIDA PROFIT CORPORATION ANNUAL REPORT No 04/15/2024 Title DPST Name CATANA, PETER Address 3899 MANNIX DR. SUITE 405 City-State-Zip:NAPLES FL 34114 Title VP Name CATANA, JESSICA Address 3899 MANNIX DR. SUITE 405 City-State-Zip:NAPLES FL 34114 Title D Name CRIJAN, MICHAEL Address 3899 MANNIX DR. SUITE 405 City-State-Zip:NAPLES FL 34114 Page 3022 of 3380 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a.If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest: Name and Address % of Ownership b.If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address % of Ownership c.If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Name and Address % of Ownership Page 3023 of 3380 d.If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners: Name and Address % of Ownership e.If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners: Name and Address % of Ownership Date of Contract: ___________ f.If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: Name and Address g.Date subject property acquired _______________ Leased: Term of lease ____________ years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Page 3024 of 3380 Date of option: _________________________ Date option terminates: __________________, or Anticipated closing date: ________________ AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest-holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition’s final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. ____________________________________________ ____________ Agent/Owner Signature Date ____________________________________________ Agent/Owner Name (please print) *The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Community Development Department | GMD Portal: https://cvportal.colliercountyfl.gov/cityviewweb Questions? Email: GMDclientservices@colliercountyfl.gov Page 3025 of 3380 3899 MANNIX DR SUITE 405 NAPLES, FL 34114 Current Principal Place of Business: Current Mailing Address: 3899 MANNIX DR. SUITE 405 NAPLES, FL 34114 US Entity Name: BONITA FLORES I, LLC DOCUMENT# L13000030368 FEI Number: 90-0944849 Certificate of Status Desired: Name and Address of Current Registered Agent: CATANA CONSTRUCTION INC 3899 MANNIX DR SUITE 405 NAPLES, FL 34114 US The above named entity submits this statement for the purpose of changing its registered office or registered agent, or both, in the State of Florida. SIGNATURE: Electronic Signature of Registered Agent Date Authorized Person(s) Detail : I hereby certify that the information indicated on this report or supplemental report is true and accurate and that my electronic signature shall have the same legal effect as if made under oath; that I am a managing member or manager of the limited liability company or the receiver or trustee empowered to execute this report as required by Chapter 605, Florida Statutes; and that my name appears above, or on an attachment with all other like empowered. SIGNATURE: Electronic Signature of Signing Authorized Person(s) Detail Date MICHAEL CRIJAN FILED Apr 24, 2024 Secretary of State 5439884490CC PETER CATANA MGRM 04/24/2024 2024 FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ANNUAL REPORT No 04/24/2024 Title MGRM Name CATANA, PETER Address 3899 MANNIX DR SUITE 405 City-State-Zip:NAPLES FL 34114 Title DIRECTOR Name CRIJAN, MICHAEL Address 3899 MANNIX DR SUITE 405 City-State-Zip:NAPLES FL 34114 Page 3026 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard Growth Management Plan Amendment (PL20230013845) & Rezone Request (PL20230018397) Neighborhood Information Meeting: May 19, 2025 5:30P-6:25P Summary In compliance with Collier County’s LDC Administrative Procedures Manual, Chapter 3, Section H, Rezoning – Standard and Chapter 8, Section B, Neighborhood Information Meeting, a Neighborhood Information Meeting for the residents within 500 feet of 8928 Collier Boulevard was held on Monday, May 19, 2025 at 5:30p.m. at the Collier County South Regional Library, Room A, 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway, Naples, FL 34113 as well as virtually at http://bit.ly/3GsrTPh. The newspaper advertisement affidavit, mailed notice letter, and list of mailing labels for all properties within 500’ is provided in Exhibit A. The sign-in sheet is attached as Exhibit B and demonstrates a total of 3 participants attended the meeting in- person, including the 2 members of Collier County staff and the client, and 1 other attended virtually. The meeting began at approximately 5:38 pm and concluded at approximately 6:25 pm. It was explained that the intent of this neighborhood meeting was to focus on the two requests for the subject property, a growth management plan amendment and a zoning amendment. A presentation was given by the consultants from Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. outlining the Growth Management Plan Amendment request to amend the Future Land Use from Adopted designation Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to a Proposed designation Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict. Additionally, the zoning amendment was also outlined and seeks approval from Rural Agricultural (A) to Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) on the property at 8928 Collier Boulevard, Naples, FL 34114. The presentation provided an overview of the current future land use and zoning. The proposed development and preliminary master concept plan were shared within a presentation, attached as Exhibit C. The proposed project design discussed includes 92 multi-family residential units. It was mentioned that the details of the project may be refined through the amendment process. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is required after the initial staff review and comment period on the application have been completed and at least 15 days before the first public hearing is held, whether it is the Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner, the BCC, or the BZA. After the consultant’s presentation was finished, questions, comments and concerns were shared by attendees in the room and virtually. The following summarizes comments and questions shared. Question/Comment 1: If vehicular interconnection to Hacienda isn't done, would pedestrian/trail access still be considered?  Response: Pedestrian access already exists along Collier Blvd. We would have same challenges with pedestrian as we would vehicular access, if we can get a vehicle connection then pedestrian connection would be similar. When Hacienda Lakes was approved they didn’t have the interconnection proposed, we are proposing it and therefore it is this project’s burden. However, Hacienda Lakes would have to amend their zoning to allow the connection. Collier Blvd trail does provide bike/ped connection just outside the two communities. Page 3027 of 3380 2 Question/Comment 2: Could you clarify water treatment.  Response: Stormwater management is required onsite, and everything goes through the South Florida Water Management Permitting. Question/Comment 3: Will all the natural trees be removed or will they be left in the 15’ buffer?  Response: The project is not at that point yet because there is a challenge with grading. The project will do their best to maintain the pre-existing trees. Typically, the existing tree preservation is completed during the site development plan and the detailed engineering plans along with the final grading plans. Question/Comment 4: Kingston street residents (Seven Shores) feel they will lose privacy. They were under the impression by their builder that the subject property to the south was a preserve permanently.  Response: That was not an accurate statement by the builder of Seven Shores (Kingston Street) as this property (subject property) to the south is privately owned and is not a preserve. This project has been in pursuit since September 2023. Page 3028 of 3380 Page 3029 of 3380 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 3510 Kraft Road Suite 200, Naples, FL 34105 \\us0255-ppfss01\shared_projects\215618460\planning\NIM 20250519\CollierBLVD_MailNotice.docx April 30, 2025 Re: NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING 8928 Collier Boulevard Growth Management Plan Amendment (PL20230013845) & 8928 Collier Boulevard PUDZ Rezone (PL20230018397) Dear Property Owner: In compliance with Collier County Land Development Code please be advised that Bonita Flores has filed two applications with Collier County. A Growth Management Plan Amendment from Adopted Future Land Use Designation Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to a Proposed Future Land Use Designation of Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict. The Rezone application is seeking approval of a rezone from Rural Agricultural (A) to Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the 9.49+\- acre subject property located east of Collier Boulevard, south of Brighton Boulevard, and north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway. The rezone is seeking to allow for the development of 92 multi-family residential dwelling units, with 28 of those units being designated for Affordable Housing, and of those 14 will be for essential service personnel such as active duty military, military veterans, police or file personnel, child-care workers, teachers and other education personnel, health care personnel, skilled building trades personnel, or government employees. The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) is to provide the public with notice of an impending zoning application and to foster communication between the applicant and the public. The expectation is that all attendees will conduct themselves in such a manner that their presence will not interfere with the orderly progress of the meeting. This will provide you an opportunity to hear a presentation about this application and ask questions. The NIM will be held on Monday, May 19, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. at the Collier County South Regional Library, Room A, 8065 Lely Cultural Pkwy, Naples, Florida, 34113 or you may attend virtually at: http://bit.ly/3GsrTPh Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact me directly at (239) 225-4805, or Josh.Philpott@stantec.com. Sincerely, Josh Philpott, AICP Principal, Planning Page 3030 of 3380 1 NAME1 NAME2 NAME3 NAME4 NAME5 NAME6 LEGAL1 LEGAL2 LEGAL3 LEGAL4 FOLIO ADDRESSTYPE 3713 MILANO LAKES FL OWNER LLC % REVANTAGE PROPERTY TAX PO BOX A3878 CHICAGO, IL 60690---0 14 50 26 THAT PORTION OF S1/2 OF NW1/4 AS DESC IN OR 5957 PG 2583 00418400700 U 3805 TLW LLC 7742 ALICO RD FT MYERS, FL 33912---0 14 50 26 W1/2 OF S1/2 OF NW 1/4, W1/2 OF E1/2 OF S1/2 OF NW1/4, W1/2 OF E1/2 OF E1/2 OF S1/2 OF NW1/4 AND AS DESC IN 00416560008 U ANDERSON, SANDRA LEE 4600 WINGED FOOT WAY #103 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-103 53269005220 U BEDNAR FAMILY TRUST 327 FRAZER DRIVE N W NORTH CANTON, OH 44720---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-102 53269005369 U BEINHAUER FAMILY R/L TRUST 22 BEECHNUT DR SOUTH BARRINGTON, IL 60010---9512 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-201 53269005107 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT L1 48590010342 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT L2 48590010368 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 4 48590010782 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 5 48590010805 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 6 48590010821 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 7 48590010847 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 8 48590010863 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 13 48590010960 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 14 48590010986 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 15 48590011008 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 16 48590011024 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 20 48590011105 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 163 48590013967 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 164 48590013983 U BHEG SEVEN SHORES LLC 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 SEVEN SHORES PHASE 1 TRACT OS6A 73250001022 U BONITA FLORES I LLC 2675 HORSESHOE DR #404 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 14 50 26 S1/2 OF S1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 LESS W 100FT R/W 00418400302 U BRIGHTON LAND LLC 7742 ALICO RD FORT MYERS, FL 33912---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT FD-2 48590010148 U CAMP, WILLIAM D & ANN M 20 MONROE AVE DALLAS, PA 18612---1512 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-104 53269005563 U CARLSON, CORY 8959 KINGSTON ST NAPLES, FL 34114---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 3 48590010766 U COCKSEDGE, PAUL LESLIE WHITE 4600 WINGED FOOT WAY #204 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-204 53269005327 U COLGIN, JOHN & CINDY 8933 OCEANA WAY NAPLES, FL 34114---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 12 48590010944 U COLLIER CNTY TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE S NAPLES, FL 34104---0 15 50 26 COMM NE CNR SEC 15,W 100FT TO W R/W LI 951 TO POB, S 892.87FT, W 4870.63FT TO W LI SEC 15, N 882.49FT, E 00418560006 U CRAIG, WAYNE J 4610 WINGED FOOT WAY NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-104 53269005084 U D'ANGELO, DAVID 4600 WINGED FOOT WAY #203 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-203 53269005301 U DENISE LEE NYMAN-FINKE TRUST 502 KEEPATAW DRIVE LEMONT, IL 60439---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-202 53269005602 U DOUGLAS P BROWN JR TRUST LEIGH H BROWN TRUST 4600 WINGED FOOT WAY #202 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-202 53269005288 U EPSTEIN, HOWARD B & JENNIFER A RANDALL P=& ALICE M ANDREOZZI 5547 MEADOWGLEN DR CLARENCE CENTER, NY 14032---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-201 53269005424 U GAGLIOSTRO, NICHOLAS & SARAH 8951 KINGSTON ST NAPLES, FL 34114---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 1 48590010724 U GRAHAM, ROBERT M & ELIZABETH B 20 JACKSON POND RD DEDHAM, MA 02026---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-204 53269005482 U HACIENDA NORTH APARTMENTS LLC 7742 ALICO RD FORT MYERS, FL 33912---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT FD-1 48590010041 U JANE LEE BETTS REV TRUST 4630 WINGED FOOT CT APT 201 NAPLES, FL 34112---8418 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-201 53269005589 U KRINSKY, DANN SHARON A GEHRMANN 4630 WINGED FOOT CT #204 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-204 53269005644 U LIPANI, CARL & LISA 14 COUNTRY CLUB LN MIDDLETON, MA 01949---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-102 53269005042 U MANCHAK, ROBERT & MICHELLE 4600 WINGED FOOT WAY #104 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-104 53269005246 U MEILINGER, GREGORY PAUL DEIDRE ARLENE MEILINGER 1091 SALDTON DR AKRON, OH 44333---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-202 53269005440 U MROZOWSKI, JOHN C & JULIE F 4935 MANCHESTER COURT ROCHESTER HILLS, MI 48306---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-102 53269005204 U NAPLES LAKES CC LLC PO BOX 153 WALES, WI 53183---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-103 53269005385 U NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 4784 NAPLES LAKES BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112---0 NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB LANDSCAPE BUFFER TRACT LESS OR 3214 PG 461(RW RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD)62030000380 U NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC 4784 NAPLES LAKES BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112---0 NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB MF-1, LESS LAKE ARROWHEAD 1A CONDO AS DESC IN OR 2731 PG 1205, LESS LAKE ARROWHEAD 1B 62030000403 U NAPLES LKS COUNTRY CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 4784 NAPLES LAKES BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112---0 NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LESS NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB UNIT 2 LESS OR 3214 PG 461 RW RATTLESNAKE 62030000283 U NEWTON, VERONICA C 39 E 29TH ST., #4E NEW YORK, NY 10016---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 11 48590010928 U OHANA PROPERTY GROUP LLC 4710 GOLF TER EDINA, MN 55424---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-203 53269005149 U ONEILL, THOMAS J & SUZANNE M 181 MAILANDS ROAD FAIRFIELD, CT 06824---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-203 53269005628 U PANSCH REVOCABLE TRUST 4610 WINGED FOOT WAY #103 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-103 53269005068 U PAUL W HARTUNG III REV TRUST 5844 ISLAND DRIVE NW CANTON, OH 44718---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-101 53269005343 U PUCILLO, SUSAN ADAMS FREDERICK JOSEPH PUCILLO JR 4630 WINGED FOOT CT #103 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-103 53269005547 U REYES, TONY WILLIAM PATRICIA MARIE REYES W186S9656 PARKER DR MUSKEGO, WI 53150---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-102 53269005521 U ROBERTSON, MALCOLM JUDITH C ROBERTSON 42 ELM STREET FALMOUTH, MA 02540---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-104 53269005408 U RONALD K REUM REVOC TRUST 4600 WINGED FT WAY#201 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-201 53269005262 U SEVEN SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 12689 NEW BRITTANY BLVD #3W FT MYERS, FL 33907---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT OS2 48590010423 U SEVEN SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 12689 NEW BRITTANY BLVD #3W FT MYERS, FL 33907---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT OS4 48590010465 U SEVEN SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 12689 NEW BRITTANY BLVD #3W FT MYERS, FL 33907---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT OS5 48590010481 U SEVEN SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 12689 NEW BRITTANY BLVD #3W FT MYERS, FL 33907---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT OS11 48590010601 U SEVEN SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 12689 NEW BRITTANY BLVD #3W FT MYERS, FL 33907---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT OS12 48590010627 U SEVEN SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 12689 NEW BRITTANY BLVD #3W FT MYERS, FL 33907---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT OS13 48590010643 U SEVEN SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 12689 NEW BRITTANY BLVD #3W FT MYERS, FL 33907---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT R1 48590010685 U SPELLMAN FAMILY TRUST 4630 WINGED FOOT CT #101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 10-101 53269005505 U SUSAN D MADIGAN TRUST 6 HAMILTON CIR SHREWSBURY, MA 01545---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-204 53269005165 U TOLL SE LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR SUITE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 17 48590011040 U TOLL SE LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR SUITE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 18 48590011066 U TOLL SE LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR SUITE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 19 48590011082 U TOLL SE LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR SUITE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 101 48590012722 U TOLL SE LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR SUITE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 102 48590012748 U TOLL SE LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR SUITE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 103 48590012764 U TOLL SE LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR SUITE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 104 48590012780 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP CO INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR STE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 161 48590013925 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP CO INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR STE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 162 48590013941 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY 1140 VIRGINIA DR FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT R1A 48590010708 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR STE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 9 48590010889 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR STE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 10 48590010902 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR STE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 21 48590011121 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR STE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 99 48590012683 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR STE 204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 100 48590012706 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR #204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 TRACT A 48590010025 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR #204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 2 48590010740 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR #204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 22 48590011147 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR #204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 23 48590011163 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR #204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 24 48590011189 U Notice: This data belongs to the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (CCPA). Therefore, the recipient agrees not to represent this data to anyone as other than CCPA provided data. The recipient may not transfer this data to others without consent from the CCPA. Petition: PL20230018397 (8928 Collier BLVD (PUDZ) | Buffer: 500' | Date: 3/31/2025 | Site Location: 418400302 POList_500.xls Page 3031 of 3380 2 NAME1 NAME2 NAME3 NAME4 NAME5 NAME6 LEGAL1 LEGAL2 LEGAL3 LEGAL4 FOLIO ADDRESSTYPE Notice: This data belongs to the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (CCPA). Therefore, the recipient agrees not to represent this data to anyone as other than CCPA provided data. The recipient may not transfer this data to others without consent from the CCPA. Petition: PL20230018397 (8928 Collier BLVD (PUDZ) | Buffer: 500' | Date: 3/31/2025 | Site Location: 418400302 TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR #204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 25 48590011202 U TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 24201 WALDEN CENTER DR #204 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 HACIENDA NORTH PH 1 LOT 26 48590011228 U TULLY, TIMOTHY J & MARIANNE T 17746 CRESTVIEW DR ORLAND PARK, IL 60467---0 LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 9-203 53269005466 U HALLER, RICHARD P & VERA 1101-4955 RIVERSIDE DR E WINDSOR N8Y5A3 CANADA LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 8-101 53269005181 F MENGELE, HANS-PETER & ILONA LYDTINSTRASSE 2 BADEN BADEN D 76530 GERMANY LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-202 53269005123 F PAQUETTE, PAMELA WILLIAM ANDREW KING 118 JOHN WATT WAY #1 THORNBURY N0H 2P0 CANADA LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 7-101 53269005026 F LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CON DOMINIUM LAKE ARROWHEAD 1-D A CONDOMINIUM hrd_parcel_id: 53269005000 62030000445 POList_500.xls Page 3032 of 3380 Name Phone Number Email Street Address City, State, Zip How did you hear about this meeting?Notes Type of Attendee Nancy Gundlach Collier County Staff In-person Michael Crijan Client In-person Jessica Constantinescu 239-252-4329 Jessica.Constantinescu@colliercountyfl.gov County Website Collier County Staff In-person Sarah Gagliostro 8951 Kingston street Resident: lives on then other side of the north wall Virtual Neighborhood Information Meeting: Collier Blvd PL20230018397 (PUDZ) and PL20230013845 (GMPA) The information on this sheet is to contact you regarding this project in the future. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses, phone numbers and certain home addresses are public records once received by a government agency. If you do not want your e-mail address, phone number or home address released upon a public records request, you can refrain from including information on this sheet. May 19, 2025 @ 5:30p.m. Page 3033 of 3380 8928 Collier Boulevard Growth Management Plan Amendment (PL20230013845) & Rezone (PL20230018397) Neighborhood Information Meeting May 19, 2025 Page 3034 of 3380 Agenda 1.Introductions 2.Workshop Procedures 3.Project History 4.Details of GMPA Request 5.Details of Rezoning Request 6.Status & Upcoming Meetings 7.Q&A 8.Wrap Up 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 Page 3035 of 3380 Introductions Stantec Representatives Josh Philpott, AICP – Principal, Community Development Joel Blikstad, PE – Senior Project Manager, Community Development Applicant Representatives Michael Crijan, Property Owner Representative Justin Narine, Catana Construction Collier County Representative Nancy Gundlach, AICP – Senior Planner, Zoning Services Department Jessica Constantinescu – Planner, Comprehensive Planning Department 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 Page 3036 of 3380 Workshop Procedures MEETING FORMAT: •PRESENTATION •IN PERSON Q&A •VIRTUAL CHAT Q&A •PHONE ATTENDEE Q&A 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 SUBMIT QUESTIONS IN THE CHAT BOX TO BE ANSWERED AFTER THE PRESENTATION Page 3037 of 3380 Project History Pre-Application meeting for Growth Management Plan (GMP) & Rezone (PUDZ) applications with Collier County staff - September 6, 2023 GMP application submitted - March 6, 2024 Comments from County on GMP received - April 15, 2024 PUDZ application submitted - June, 26, 2024 Revised GMP application submitted - July 29, 2024 Comments from County on GMP received - Sept 3, 2024 Comments from County on PUDZ received - November 1, 2024 Revised PUDZ application submitted to County - February 14, 2025 Neighborhood Information Meeting for GMP & PUDZ - May 19, 2025 (tonight) 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 Page 3038 of 3380 Site Location 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 Where: 8928 Collier Boulevard Acres: 9.49 acres South of: Brighton Boulevard by 600 feet North of: Hacienda Lakes Parkway by 1300 feet Milano Lakes Placid Village Seven Shores Arrowhead Village Sapphire Cove Juliana Village Collier BlvdHacienda Lakes Azalea Park Subject PropertyNaples Lakes Country Club Page 3039 of 3380 GMPA Request 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 To: Bonita Flores Residential Infill SubdistrictFrom: Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict Milano Lakes Seven Shores Collier BlvdHacienda Lakes Azalea Park Hacienda Lakes PkwyCollier BlvdUrban Residential Fringe Subdistrict Collier Boulevard Lord's Way Mixed Use Subdistrict Urban Residential Subdistrict Conservation Designation Subject Property Subject Property Page 3040 of 3380 GMPA Request From: Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict To: Bonita Flores Residential Infill Subdistrict Request: 92 residential Multi-family units (Approx. 10 units per acre) 30% (28 units) will be Workforce Housing: •9 units < 80% AMI •9 units < 100% AMI •10 units <120% AMI 50% (14 units) of Workforce housing units shall be reserved or Essential Service Personnel • Police, Fire, EMS, Health Care, Teachers, Military, Government employees. Workforce Housing is a 30 year commitment 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 Collier BlvdSubject Property Page 3041 of 3380 GMPA Request 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 Collier County (Metro) Percentage Category Income Limit by Number of Persons in Unit Rent Limit by Number of Bedrooms in Unit 1 2 4 1 2 3 2025 Collier County Median Household Income $113,600 60%$47,760 $54,540 $68,160 $1,278 $1,534 $1,772 80%$63,680 $72,720 $90,880 $1,705 $2,046 $2,363 100%$79,600 $90,900 $113,600 $2,131 $2,557 $2,953 120%$95,520 $109,080 $122,760 $2,557 $3,069 $3,544 140%$111,440 $127,260 $159,040 $2,983 $3,580 $4,135 Source: Florida Housing Finance Corporation, based upon figures provided by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) https://www.floridahousing.org/docs/default-source/developers-and-property-managers/compliance/limits/rent- limits/2025_rent_limits/florida-housing-rental-programs---2025-income-and-rent-limits--eff--4-1-2025-.pdf?sfvrsn=602ecf7b_4 Page 3042 of 3380 Rezone Request 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 Rezone: From: Rural Agricultural (A) To: Residential PUD Purpose: To allow Multi-family development of 10 du/acre, totaling 92 units Community Benefit: 28 units are designated for Affordable Housing, 14 of which for military veterans, or essential services personnel Page 3043 of 3380 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 •Access: Collier Blvd •Optional: Interconnect to Hacienda Lakes •Buffers: •North & East: 15’ Type B Buffer •South: 10’ Type A •West: 15’ Type D Buffer •Building Setbacks •North: 15’ min. •South 25’ min. •West 30’ min. •Height: 4 Stories •Open Space •Required: 60% / 5.69 ac •Provided: 61% / 5.79 ac •Preservation •Required: 15% / 1.22 ac •Provided: 15% / 1.22 ac Property Development Regulations Page 3044 of 3380 Conceptual Site Plan 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 Page 3045 of 3380 Comments from County on GMP received - Sept 3, 2024 Comments from County on PUD received - November 1, 2024 Revised PUD application submitted to County - February 14, 2025 Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) - May 19, 2025 (tonight) GMP Application sufficient (only missing NIM info) Rezone Application Sufficient - TBD Collier County Planning Commission Public Hearing – TBD Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing - TBD Status & Upcoming Meetings 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 Page 3046 of 3380 IN PERSON QUESTIONS? 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 Page 3047 of 3380 Virtual Participation Questions MEETING FORMAT: •PRESENTATION •IN PERSON Q&A •VIRTUAL CHAT Q&A •PHONE ATTENDEE Q&A 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 SUBMIT QUESTIONS IN THE CHAT BOX TO BE ANSWERED AFTER THE PRESENTATION Page 3048 of 3380 Phone Attendee Questions MEETING FORMAT: •PRESENTATION •IN PERSON Q&A •VIRTUAL CHAT Q&A •PHONE ATTENDEE Q&A 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 SUBMIT QUESTIONS IN THE CHAT BOX TO BE ANSWERED AFTER THE PRESENTATION Page 3049 of 3380 Contact Info For more information or if you have additional questions, contact: Josh.Philpott@stantec.com 239-225-4805 8928 Collier Blvd Rezone & GMPA, NIM May 19, 2025 Page 3050 of 3380 Page 3051 of 3380 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE S Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) at 9:00 A.M. on October 28, 2025, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, third floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY FROM URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT, URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT TO URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT, BONITA FLORES RESIDENTIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR 92 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 1,300 FEET NORTH OF HACIENDA LAKES PARKWAY IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 9.49± ACRES. [PL20230013845] AND AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS 8928 COLLIER BOULEVARD RPUD TO ALLOW FOR 92 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY 1,300 FEET NORTH OF HACIENDA LAKES PARKWAY IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 9.49± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20230018397] Page 3052 of 3380 Copies of the proposed Ordinances are on file with the Clerk to the Board and is available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County Manager prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to three (3) minutes on any item. The selection of any individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted ten (10) minutes to speak on an item. Written materials int ended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. All materials used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. As part of an ongoing initiative to encourage public involvement, the public will have the opportunity to provide public comments remotely, as well as in person, during this proceeding. Individuals who would like to participate remotely should register through the link provided within the specific event/meeting entry on the Calendar of Events on the County website at www.collier.gov/Calendar-Events-directory after the agenda is posted on the County website. Registration should be done in advance of the public meeting, or any deadline specified within the public meeting notice. Individuals who register will receive an email in advance of the public hearing detailing how they can participate remotely in this meeting. Remote participation is provided as a court esy and is at the user’s risk. The County is not responsible for technical issues. For additional information about the meeting, please call Geoffrey Willig at 252-8369 or email to Geoffrey.Willig@collier.gov. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two (2) days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Page 3053 of 3380 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BURT L. SAUNDERS, CHAIRMAN CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER Page 3054 of 3380 10/28/2025 Item # 17.C ID# 2025-1151 Executive Summary *** This has been continued from the May 13, 2025, BCC Meeting *** Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending the Collier County Land Development Code to implement the Immokalee Area Master Plan Element of the Growth Management Plan, to change the Immokalee Urban Overlay District to the Immokalee Urban Area Overlay District (IUAOD) Zoning District, revise, rename, and add subdistricts, and establish uses, boundaries, and design standards. [PL2024004278] (First of two hearings) OBJECTIVE: To conduct the first of two hearings on a Land Development Code (LDC) amendment to implement the Immokalee Area Master Plan Element of the Growth Management Plan, to change the Immokalee Urban Overlay District to the Immokalee Urban Area Overlay District (IUAOD) Zoning District, revise, rename, and add subdistricts, and establish uses, boundaries, and design standards. CONSIDERATIONS: The Immokalee Area Planning Commission (IAPC) was formed in 1965, and Immokalee was governed under separate zoning regulations until 1982. The LDC would be amended later that year to define the Immokalee Area Planning District. In 1991, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopted provisions for the Immokalee Central Business District, which provided written and graphical boundaries for the district. In 1997, the Board adopted another ordinance for the Immokalee area, establishing the State Road 29 Commercial Overlay District (SR29COD) and the Jefferson Avenue Commercial Overlay District (JACOD). These overlay districts were superseded the following year when the Immokalee Overlay District (Ordinance 1998-63) was established, which redesignated the SR29COD and the JACOD as subdistricts of the overlay. Ordinance 1998-63 also established three additional subdistricts: • Farm Market Overlay Sub-District • Agribusiness Overlay Sub-District, and the • Immokalee Central Business Sub-District. The Immokalee Overlay District was amended in 2000 with the addition of the Main Street Overlay Subdistrict. The Non-Conforming Mobile Home Park Overlay Subdistrict was established in 2002. Exhibit A provides a list of LDC amendments specific to Immokalee from 1982 to the present. When the County adopted the Growth Management Plan (GMP) in 1989, it recognized a need for a separate Sector Plan for the Immokalee Community. In addressing this need, the County adopted the Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP) as part of its batch amendments in connection with Ordinance 1991-15. The IAMP is in addition to and supplements the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. The major purposes of the IAMP were to create better coordination between land use and transportation planning, stimulate the redevelopment and/or renewal of blighted areas, and eliminate land uses that were inconsistent with the community's character. The IAMP was amended 14 times between its initial adoption and 2019, when substantial changes were made in connection with Ordinance 2019-47. The most recent amendment to the IAMP occurred in 2023, which added the Transit-Oriented Development Subdistrict. In 2000, the Board created a Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to focus on the rehabilitation, conservation, or redevelopment of two distinct geographic areas in the County, one of which is the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Area. Later that year, the Board adopted the Community Redevelopment Plan (Resolution 2000-181) for a 30-year timeframe. The Community Redevelopment Plan was amended in 2019 and 2022, extending the term of the Immokalee Redevelopment Area to 2052. The amendment in 2022 outlined five goals for future redevelopment efforts for Immokalee based on community input: • Celebrating Culture • Economic Development • Housing • Infrastructure and • Implementation/Administration. Page 3055 of 3380