The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 04/28/2026 Item # 9A (Resolution designating 1,446.59± acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA), to be known as the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA)4/28/2026 Item # 9.A ID# 2026-733 Executive Summary This item requires that all participants be sworn in and that Commission members provide ex-parte disclosures. A Resolution designating 1,446.59f acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA), to be known as the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA, which will allow development of a maximum of 4,502 residential dwelling units, of which a minimum of 10% will be multifamily dwelling units, a minimum of 10% will be single-family detached, and a minimum of 10% will be single-family attached or villa; a minimum and maximum of 238,606 square feet of commercial development in the Village Center Context Zone; a maximum of 100,000 square feet of indoor self storage use in the Village Center Context Zone; a minimum of 45,020 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses in the Village Center Context Zone; senior housing including assisted living facilities and continuing care retirement communities limited to 300 units in the SRA; 362 of the maximum 4,502 residential dwelling units in the Affordable Housing Context Zone; no commercial uses in the Neighborhood General Context Zone; and 8.50f acres of amenity area in the Neighborhood General Context Zone; all subject to a maximum pm peak hour trip cap; and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement for Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area and establishing that 11,703 stewardship credits are being utilized by the designation of the Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property, consisting of 1,446.59± acres, is located on the north side of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road, east and west of Corkscrew Road, in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, Township 46 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. [PL20240010212] (This is a companion to Item 9B) OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) review staffs findings and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) regarding the above -referenced petition and render a decision regarding the petition; and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District (RLSA) was developed to protect natural resource areas and agricultural lands. The RLSA encourages property owners to voluntarily protect environmentally valuable land as a public benefit. The mechanism to achieve the protection of environmentally valuable land is the designation of a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) in exchange for Stewardship Credits, which are used to entitle the Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA). The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA requires 11,703.40 credits to entitle 1,382.96f acres of development. Note: no credits are required for the 63.63f acres of public benefit use within the SRA.) The Natural Resource Index Assessment documents the existing conditions and Natural Resource Index (NRI) scores within the proposed SRA for the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. It should be noted that the NRI scores demonstrate that the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA meets the Suitability Criteria contained in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Please see the Environmental Review Section of the Staff Report for further information. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is one of ten SRAs that have either been submitted for or have received an SRA designation. The other nine SRAs are Hyde Park Village, Rivergrass Village, Bellmar Village, Brightshore Village, Collier Rod and Gun Club Village, Town of Big Cypress, Town of Ave Maria, and Horse Trails Village, which have received SRA designation. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is 1,446.59± acres and consists of three context zones required by the SRA Overlay regulations: 1,237.41f acre Neighborhood General, 169.55f acre mixed -use Village Center, and 39.63f acre Affordable Housing. Public benefit uses include the affordable housing site, a 24f acre public school site, and a 3.41f acre essential services site. The Village has access to Corkscrew Road and SR 82. The Village Center context zone is located at the southwest intersection of Corkscrew Road and SR 82. The Neighborhood General context zone is located to the north, east, and west of the Village Center context zone. A panther corridor contained within SSA 22 (approval pending) runs adjacent to a portion of the eastern boundary of the Village. The lake system, located along a portion of the SRA's eastern boundary, is part of the Village stormwater system and serves as a deterrent to wildlife. This SRA application for Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will include approximately: • 4,502 residential dwelling units with a density of 3.1 if dwelling units per acre; 4/28/2026 Item # 9.A ID# 2026-733 • 362 of the maximum 4,502 residential dwelling units in the Affordable Housing Context Zone; • senior housing, including assisted living facilities and continuing care retirement communities, limited to 300 units in the SRA; • 8.50t acres of amenity area in the Neighborhood General Context Zone; • no commercial uses in the Neighborhood General Context Zone; • a minimum and a maximum of 238,606 square feet of commercial development in the Village Center Context Zone; • a maximum of 100,000 square feet of indoor self -storage use in the Village Center Context Zone; and • a minimum of 45,020 square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses in the Village Center Context Zone. The Village will also have other uses such as an Amenity Center, Park Preserves, and Parks. The required minimum of 35% open space is 506.30f acres; 36% open space, or 516.60f acres, has been provided. For further information, please see Attachment A -Proposed SRA Resolution. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard Petition Number PL20240010212, Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA on March 19, 2026. The CCPC voted 4-0 to approve the petition, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. Stewardship Sending Area 22 must be approved prior to or concurrently with approval of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. 2. Affordable housing will include 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, and 3-bedroom units. This condition has been added to the SRA Resolution. Post CCPC, the applicant was approached about a Sheriff s substation in the SRA. To address the request, the condition of approval below has been added to the Resolution. After the substation site is identified, the Essential Service tract of the Affordable Housing Context zone will increase by 3 acres, bringing the tract to 6.41 acres. The Affordable Housing tract within the Affordable Housing Context Zone will remain at 36.22 acres after the reconfiguration. And the Neighborhood General Context zone will be reduced by 3 acres, resulting in a total of 1,234.41± acres. Condition of Approval: This approval is subject to the condition that Alico, Inc, its successors and assigns ("Alico"), will work with the Collier County Sheriffs Office to accommodate the Sheriffs request for a 3-acre Sheriffs substation within the SRA. The addition of the Sheriffs substation will require a future reconfiguration of the Master Plan in the SRA Document in Exhibit B of this Resolution as follows: Three (3) acres will be added to the Essential Services tract within the Affordable Housing Context Zone to accommodate a Sheriff substation bringing the Essential Services Tract total to 6.41 acres and the Affordable Housing Context Zone total to 42.63 acres; the Neighborhood General Context Zone will be reduced by 3 acres resulting in a total of 1,234.41t acres for the Neighborhood General Context zone. Once the location is finalized, Alico will submit a petition to Collier County for a minor SRA amendment with a revised Master Plan and Text change to the Neighborhood General Context Zone total acreage and the Affordable Housing Context Zone total acreage. Staff is authorized to administratively approve the acreage modifications and reconfiguration on the Master Plan and the Neighborhood General Context Zone total acreage and the Neighborhood General Context Zone total acreage modifications in the SRA Document as a minor SRA amendment in accordance with LDC Section 4.08.07.F.4.d. As required by Policy 4.18 of the Future Land Use Element within the Collier Growth Management Plan, the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA has demonstrated it will be fiscally neutral to the County at build -out, specifically for the provision of transportation, potable water, waste water, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, law enforcement, and schools. 4/28/2026 Item # 9.A ID# 2026-733 The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as needed to maintain the adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Other fees collected prior to the issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. FISCAL IMPACT: As required by Policy 4.18 of the Future Land Use Element within the Collier Growth Management Plan, the Horse Trials Village SRA has demonstrated it will be fiscally neutral to the County at build -out, specifically for the provision of transportation, potable water, waste water, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, law enforcement, and schools. The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as needed to maintain the adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Other fees collected prior to the issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed SRA and has found it consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. See Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Review. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This petition requests the creation of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. A Village is described in LDC Section 4.08.07.C.2 as: Villages are communities with a diversity of housing types and a mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be greater than 300 acres but not more than 1,500 acres, except that if any portion is designated ASCS, the maximum size shall be no more than 1,000 acres. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed -use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhood -scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Section 4.08.07.I.1. Villages are an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. The Village form of rural land development is permitted within the ACSC, subject to the limitations of Section 4.08.07 A.2. The burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposal is consistent with all of the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the County, should it consider denial, that such denial is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the amendment does not meet one or more of the listed criteria: Criteria for the creation of SRA 1. Consider: Compatibility with adjacent land uses. 2. Consider: An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development. 3. Consider: Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, transient housing, institutional, civic, and community service uses within an SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. 4. Consider: Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on land that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size of the land or parcel. 5. Consider: Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than 1.2 shall be 4/28/2026 Item # 9.A ID# 2026-733 retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state. 6. Consider: Open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, or Village. Gross acreage includes only that area of development within the SRA that requires the consumption of Stewardship Credits. 7. Consider: An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in LDC Section 4.08.07 I.5. An SRA may be contiguous to, or encompass a WRA. However, if all or part of the WRA provides stormwater quality treatment for an SRA, the pro rata acreage of the WRA that is used to meet the water quality treatment water volume shall be required to consume SRA credits and shall be included with the SRA acreage. 8. Consider: The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. 9. Consider: Conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. 10. Consider: Suitability criteria described in Items 2 through 8 above [LDC Section 4.08.07 A. 1.] and other standards of LDC Section 4.08.07. 11. Consider: SRA master plan compliance with all applicable policies of the RLSA District Regulations, and demonstration that incompatible land uses are directed away from FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and Conservation Lands. 12. Consider: Assurance that the applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement SRA uses. 13. Consider: Impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts. The Board must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons, and the oral testimony presented at the BCC hearing, as these items relate to these criteria. This item has been approved as to form and legality and requires a majority vote for Board approval. Should there be a dispute regarding any of the deviations from the Code requested by the applicant, a vote of 4 is required.-HFAC RECOMMENDATION(S): To approve Petition SRA-PL20240010212, Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. Stewardship Sending Area 22 must be approved prior to or concurrently with approval of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. 2. Affordable housing will include 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, and 3-bedroom units. PREPARED BY: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM, Planner III, Zoning Division ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report - Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA 2-25-26 2. Attachment A -Proposed Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Resolution-4-8-26 3. Attachment B-GMP Consistency Review Memorandum 4. Attachment C-Corkscrew Grove East Economic Assessment 2025.08.29 5. Attachment D-Public Facilities Impact Assessment Report (7-28-2025) 6. Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 1-5-26 7. Attachment F- Application Corkscrew Village East SRA 2-19-2026 8. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (Signed by Alico Inc) 9. Letters of Objection 3-19-26 10. Legal Ad - BCC 4_28_26 Corkscrew Grove East Village PL20240010212 -4) Collier County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION — ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: MARCH 19, 2026 SUBJECT: SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA), COMPANION ITEM TO SSA- PL202400010213, STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA (SSA) 22 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNERS/AGENTS: Applicant/ Property Owner: Alico, Inc. (f/k/a/ Alico Land Development Company) 10070 Daniels Interstate Court #200 Fort Myers, FL 33913 Agents: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, President, CEO and Jeremie Chastain, Planner III Hole Montes, a Bowman Company 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 SRA-PL20240010212. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 February 25, 2026 Page 1 of 28 Location Map LOCATIONSITE i a Petition Number: PL20240010212 Zoning Map Page 2 of 28 SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE - SRA LAND USE SUMMARY SYMBOL DESCRIPTION ACRES %OPEN OPEN SPACE SPACE (AC) NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL 999.99 1 30% 299,70 AMENITY 8.50 40% 3.40 ROAD RIGHT-CF-WAY 65.40 15% 9.91 R.O.W RESERVATION (CORKSCREW RD) 17.55 15°% 2.65 BUFFER LAKES 53.20 100% 63.20 DRAINAGE CANALS 32.13 100% 32,13 OPEN SPACE 15.83 100% 15.83 r EX. UTILITY EASEMENT (WITHIN SRA) 45.72 90% 41,15 NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL 1 1.237,41 AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTEXT ZONE AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1 36.22 1 20% 7.24 ESSENTIAL SERVICES 1 3.41 20% 0,68 AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL 1 39.63 VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE VILLAGE CENTER 145.55 30% 43.86 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (PUBLIC) 24.00 30% 7.20 VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL 169,55 SRA BOUNDARY TOTAL 1,446.59 36% $16,65 '. SSA 22(CORRIDOR) 1,29541 100% 129541 - - - SSA 23 (WRA) 388.87 100% 388.87 SSA BOUNVARY TOTAL 1,684.28 100% 1,584.25 OPEN SPACE TABLE e��'qC� AREA(ACJ % R RECUIRED 506.3 35% -+UT . C >rINEC� PROVIDED 516.E 36% LEGEND NO BUFFER REgUIREO CROSSING FPL EASEM ENT ♦ INTERNAL CONNECTION POTENTIAL FUTURE LOCATION CONNECTION EXTERNAL CONNECTION LOCATION _ _ _ _ OPTIONAL CONNECTION 20TYPE-D^ B&A7123• LOCATION BUFFER • - - - - * PROJECT ACCESS POINTS Ac ALONG SR 82 ALIGN WITH rZON1NC': A4 40-RLSAO) _ PROPOSED MEDIAN BREAKS IN FDOT IMPROVEMENT PLANS S-R.A.- BOUNDARY N.D. S.R.A. CROSS SECTION - - LOCATION IDENTIFIER _ _ + CONCEPTUAL NATURE -,- TRAILHEADS, BOARDWALKS, - OR OBSERVATION PIERS _ • _ LOCATIONS INN ` FOOT WATER Cl MANAGEMENTAREA 20'TV IS BUFFER HENDRYGOUNTY AG600, DAD^ (mww; A•AM-,'0.FI.5A0J 4 rr 25^TYPE"Dl U BUFFER WA.60UNDAR)+ + +Q + + + E+p + + 22x24SCALE: 1•=6W 11 x 17 SCALE1" = 12W 1'IAN4H RROC, RI+OR+++ +Ab.1+AC h�T O+S # +++++ srR N.G. + + + + + CC i FUPJR9UT141TY SITE + + + MOT017HIN TINE SEA-). + +++ 1u gRAO�J ti.11#L+Y +++ FOOT WATER +CITN+L + + + MANAGEMENT AREA ry DODWPRER++ lff TYPE "D" ` 1 * se A-H- A.H. MANAGEMENT + + I1PE•p.. Ra++�R++G BUFFER UIR TLE A ZONNGA-MHo-RL."40 A 4' RO SAS UJIT(8IT.� (ZONING: IN POTENTIAL GUARD H OUSE I ENTRY FEATURE M'C'j gRL1'/� A4PN0.RLSAOJ - vc_ z8ry�� 8 F�b^ sr4��aa J s V.C. 80 4 4 33A il23 - � H.G. RELOCATED CAW; ELEMENTARY Ryg4 SLOUGH CANAL SCHOOL CARSON LILY + + ROAD CROSSING EX BUDGE TO BE 1! N.G. CANAL + + + + UTILIZED AS INTERIM + + r POTENTIAL GUARDHOUSE ! - FIRE STATION / ENTRY FEATURE + + POTENTIAL N.G. GUARDHOUSE? i// Q N.G. + + + + ENTRV FEATURE sffss.�.: AMENITY{N.G.] Q $SA 02 + 1 (PAWHERr + AMENITY (N.G,1 + H.G. +COIkRIOt) + +� + + + ++ REWIRED + + 1TDJACENYTO'- + N.G. S.R.A. BOUNDARY r ++ _+ + ++ + + + ,++�+5#22 �. + 4S or + + POTENTIAL GUARDHOUSE! + _+ _- t -' + ' F + l ^ *„� m * + a "� + (y0pC fj1 ENTRY FEATUREfLp NO BUFFER - POTENTIAL REGIONAL TREATMENT MARSH REOUIREDTADJACENT LOCATIONS(OUTSIDE MASTER SWMS) A#22 - GENERAL NOTES: ' y 1_ MASTER PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL. INTERNAL ROADALIGNMENT' , LAKE SITING AND CONFIGURATION OF DEVELOPMENT C.R.E.W. AREAS ARE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION WITHIN THE RLSA GUIDELINES AT TIME OF f+ Qp � yL'pF. SDPANDAOR PPL PERMITTING. lzoN uc: A narrvJ 2. SEE MOBILITY PLAN FOR PATHWAYS. ADJACENT To SSA 422 'L 3. WIiA LAND USE IS WITHIN SSA 923 AND IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SRA BOUNDARY AREA. THE WRR AREA IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS. v DATE REY151oNS U.R.EVAnsENGINEERING,PA. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA DESIGNED BY: .IRE PRaecra: 01093 1 8-23-25 REVISED PER COUNTY &OWNER COMMENTS _IR CYFifVS REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS ENGINEERING A�.raAik«iuopeu"`� ^M'b; wrlw.awav,,,sexaNeeRlNccorn EXHIB17(A) SRA MASTER PLAN COLOR DRAWN BY: ENAl FILE DATE: Jl.n-25 2 IMI-251 SCALE'. 1^= 1200' SHEET: 1 or ID MASTER PLAN Page 3 of 28 SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 1,446.59+/- acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area zoning overlay district as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA), which will allow development of a maximum of 4,502 dwelling units, of which a minimum of 10% will be multi -family dwelling units, 10% will be single-family detached and 10% will be single-family attached or villa; a minimum and a maximum of 238,606 square feet of commercial development in the Village Center Context Zone; and a 100,000 square feet of indoor self storage use in the Village Center Context Zone; a minimum of 45,020 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses in the Village Center Context Zone; senior housing including assisted living facilities and continuing care retirement communities limited to 300 units in the SRA; 362 of the maximum 4,502 residential dwelling units in the Affordable Housing Context Zone; no commercial uses in the Neighborhood General Context Zone; and 8.50+/- acres of amenity area in the Neighborhood General Context Zone; all subject to a maximum pm peak hour trip cap; and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement for Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area and establishing that 11,703 stewardship credits are being utilized by the designation of the Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 1,446.59± acres, is located on the north side of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road, east and west of Corkscrew Road, in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, Township 46 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff Report.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District (RLSA) was developed to protect natural resource areas and agricultural lands. The RLSA encourages property owners to voluntarily protect environmentally valuable land as a public benefit. The mechanism to achieve the protection of environmentally valuable land is the designation of a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) in exchange for Stewardship Credits, which are used to entitle the Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA). The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA requires 11,703.40 credits to entitle 1,382.96± acres of development. (Note: no credits are required for the 63.63± acres of public benefit use within the SRA.) The Natural Resource Index Assessment documents the existing conditions and Natural Resource Index (NRI) scores within the proposed SRA for the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. It should be noted that the NRI scores demonstrate that the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA meets the Suitability Criteria contained in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Please see the Environmental Review Section of this Staff Report for further information. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is one of ten SRAs that have either been submitted for or have received an SRA designation. The other nine SRAs are Hyde Park Village, Rivergrass Village, Bellmar Village, Brightshore Village, Collier Rod and Gun Club Village, Town of Big Cypress, Town of Ave Maria, and Horse Trails Village, which have received SRA designation. SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 4 of 28 The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is 1,446.59± acres and consists of three context zones that are required per the SRA Overlay regulations: 1,237.41± acre Neighborhood General, 169.55± acre mixed -use Village Center, and 39.63± acre Affordable Housing. Public benefit uses include the affordable housing site, a 24± acre public school site, and a 3.41± acre essential services site. The Village has access to Corkscrew Road and SR 82. The Village Center context zone is located at the southwest intersection of Corkscrew Road and SR 82. The Neighborhood General context zone is located to the north, east, and west of the Village Center context zone. A panther corridor contained within SSA 22 (approval pending) runs adjacent to a portion of the eastern boundary of the Village. The lake system located along a portion of the eastern boundary of the SRA serves as part of the Village stormwater system and acts as a deterrent to wildlife. This SRA application for Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will include approximately: • 4,502 residential dwelling units with a density of 3.11± dwelling units per acre; • 362 of the maximum 4,502 residential dwelling units in the Affordable Housing Context Zone; • senior housing, including assisted living facilities and continuing care retirement communities, limited to 300 units in the SRA; • 8.50+/- acres of amenity area in the Neighborhood General Context Zone; • no commercial uses in the Neighborhood General Context Zone; • a minimum and a maximum of 238,606 square feet of commercial development in the Village Center Context Zone; • a maximum of 100,000 square feet of indoor self -storage use in the Village Center Context Zone; and • a minimum of 45,020 square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses in the Village Center Context Zone. The Village will also have other uses such as an Amenity Center, Park Preserves, and Parks. The required minimum of 35% open space is 506.30± acres, and 36% open space, or 516.60± acres, has been provided. For further information, please see Attachment A -Proposed SRA Resolution. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Undeveloped land and agricultural fields with a zoning designation of Agriculture - Mobile Home Overlay -Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO), and lake excavations (mining lands) within Hendry County. East: Undeveloped land and agricultural fields/public lands, Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW), with a zoning designation of Agriculture -Mobile Home Overlay (A -MHO) and Agriculture -Mobile Home Overlay -Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO) South: Undeveloped land and agricultural fields/public lands, Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW), with a zoning designation of Agriculture -Mobile Home Overlay (A -MHO) and Agriculture -Mobile Home Overlay -Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO) SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 5 of 28 West: Undeveloped land and agricultural fields with a zoning designation of Agriculture - Mobile Home Overlay -Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO) AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed SRA petition and has found it consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Please see Attachment B-GMP Consistency Review Memorandum. Transportation Element: In evaluating the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) dated December 23, 2025, for consistency using the 2024 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). The Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition and recommends the following: Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 6 of 28 countywide density or intensity ofpermissible 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 A UIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has a significant impact if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links, the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. " Staff finding: Staff evaluated the SRA Development Document and TIS Section 1 dated December 23, 2025, and found that the scenario presents an accurate trip generation calculation, reasonable trip distribution on the surrounding network, and reflects a reasonable development potential for the proposed SRA Village. The SRA document establishes a total trip cap commitment for a net external maximum of 4,065 PM, peak hour, two-way trips, according to the SRA Development Document, Section 9.3 Transportation A. Additionally, TIS Section 1-Road Segment Analysis indicates the project impacts the following County roadways: Roadway/ Link Location P.M. Peak Projected 2024 2024 AUIR DRAFT Link # Hour Peak PM Peak AUIR Remaining 2025 AUIR Direction Hr./Peak LOS Capacity Remaining Service Direction Capacity Volume/Pea Project k Direction Traffic (1) State Road CR 29A 900/South 649/South D 126 96 (2) 29/86.0 North to SR 82 State Road SR 82 to 800/South 133/South B 486 486 (2) 29/87.0 Hendry Co. Line State Road State Rd 29 to 1,800/South 1,244/South B (157) 763 (2) 82/88.0 Lee Co. Line 1 Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic isthe December 24, 2025, Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner. 2. Roadways are the Jurisdiction of FDOT. Consistent with the 5-year Capital Improvement Plan and Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element, these roadways are included in the current work programs to address increased network capacity. The Immokalee "Bypass" is also anticipated to improve the road network capacity in this area, specifically on these roadways. According to the mitigation report provided with this petition, the impact fees generated by the development will address the fair -share costs of the development's impacts on the network. Finally, the project -related operational improvements for all impacted intersections will be determined at the time of Plat and/or Site Development Plan and will be required to be constructed by the development. SRA-PL20240010212. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 7 of 28 Florida Statute 163.3180: Key points of applicability: • Must allow an applicant to enter into a binding agreement to pay or construct their proportionate fair share. Consistency and operational fair share mitigation attachments are consistent with this requirement. • Facilities determined to be deficient with existing, committed, and vested trips plus projected background traffic from any source other than the development shall be removed from the proportionate share calculation. • The improvement necessary to correct this type of deficiency is the funding responsibility of the maintaining entity. • Applicant must receive credit for the anticipated road impact fees. The consistency fair share attachment is consistent with this requirement. • The applicant calculated their proportionate share, and it does not exceed the impact fees anticipated to be collected. The consistency fair share attachment is consistent with this requirement. Based on this information, staff finds the application consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element. Policy 7.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: "Collier County shall apply the standards and criteria of the Access Management Policy as adopted by Resolution and as may be amended to ensure the protection of the arterial and collector system 's capacity and integrity. " Staff finding: Corkscrew Groves East Village SRA is proposing access points on State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road. Staff recommends approval of the proposed access points shown on the master plan for this petition; nothing in this development order will vest the developer with anything more than a right-in/right-out at these locations. Directional and full median openings may be contemplated at the time of the Site Development Plan or Plat and Plan, or when/if future expansion of the roadways occurs, and in the case of SR-82, require permitting by FDOT. Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: "The County shall require, wherever feasible, the interconnection of local streets between developments to facilitate convenient movement throughout the road network. The LDC shall identify the circumstances and conditions that would require the interconnection of neighboring developments and shall also develop standards and criteria for the safe interconnection of such local streets. " Staff finding: The Land Development Code requires the applicant to create an interconnected street system designed to disperse and reduce the length of automobile trips (4.08.07.J.3.a.iii). The proposed Corkscrew Groves East Village SRA's Master Plan shows an interconnection link road that will be open to the public. There are also connections provided within the development shown on the mobility plan. Staff Recommendation: The Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP and recommends approval of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (COME) and FLUE related to Environmental Planning: Environmental Planning staff have found this project to be consistent with the CCME & FLUE. Pursuant to the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element, preservation of listed SRA-PL20240010212. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 8 of 28 species habitat and other native areas in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area is addressed by the creation of the required Stewardship Sending Areas. SSA 11 and SSA 22 have been approved for the petitioner to obtain credits for the development of the SRA. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this SRA petition and the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based. The listed criteria are noted explicitly in the LDC and require staff evaluation and comment. The criteria shall be used as the basis for a recommendation of approval or denial by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to the Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC). Notwithstanding the above, staff reviewed the determinants for adequate findings to support the proposed SRA application as follows: Environmental Review: LDC Section 4.08.07.A. Ld requires that Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA) with lands greater than one acre and a Natural Resource Index (NRI) value greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state; there are no areas within the boundaries of the proposed SRA that yield an NRI score above 1.2. The majority of the land within the SRA boundary was cleared of native vegetation and converted to row crops and improved pastureland. Pursuant to the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element, the preservation of listed species habitat and other native areas in the Rural Lands Stewardship Receiving Area is addressed by the creation of the required Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA). SSA 11 has been approved, and SSA 22 is proposed for the petitioner to obtain credits for the development of the SRA. SSA 11 is approximately 3,699 acres and is located east of Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest. Proposed restoration in SSA 11 will primarily enhance the Cara Cara habitat as well as improve habitats for the Florida Sandhill Crane and the Florida panther. SSA 22 is approximately 1,295.4 acres and is located along the subject properties' east boundary. SSA 22 is a panther corridor and will be restored by improving existing citrus land with the reestablishment of native habitats. Additionally, the subject property is adjacent to Corkscrew Marsh (7,330 acres), which is located southeast of the property. Corkscrew Marsh is part of the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW), and in combination with the panther corridor proposed in SSA 22, provides a critical wildlife corridor for Florida panthers and other wildlife. Evaluation of Suitability Criteria in LDC section 4.08.07.A: • Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, transient housing, institutional, civic, and community service uses within an SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2 (LDC Section 4.08.07.A. Lb). There are no portions of the subject property having an NRI value greater than 1.2; therefore, residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, transient housing, institutional, civic, and community service uses will not be restricted on lands within the SRA. Conditional use essential services and government essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on land that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size of the land or parcel (LDC Section 4.08.07.A. I. c). There are no portions of subject property having an NRI value greater than 1.2; therefore, conditional use and essential governmental services are not restricted on lands within the SRA. SRA-PL20240010212. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 9 of 28 Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state (LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.d). There are no portions of the subject property having an NRI value greater than 1.2. An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in LDC Section 4.08.07.J.6. An SRA may be contiguous to, or encompass, a WRA (LDC Section 4.08.07.A. Lg). The project does not encroach into an FSA or HSA; it is adjacent to WRA lands (SSA #23) and provides the required buffers as indicated on the SRA Master Plan. SSA credits required for SRA Designation: Environmental Planning staff reviewed this petition in conjunction with GIS staff, who provided the following information regarding the generation of stewardship credits: The Stewardship credits for Corkscrew Grove Village SRA are generated from SSAs 11 and 22. SSA 11 is located on properties within and adjoining the Okaloacoochee Slough, a major flowway system connecting which connects to Big Cypress National Forest. SSA 22 is a property located to the east of the subject property, which is an established wildlife corridor. The credit calculation is based on the total acreage of the Corkscrew Grove East Village, which is 1,446.59 acres. Of the total acreage, 63.63 acres have been designated as a public benefit use area, which does not require the use of credits. The total acreage that requires credits is 1,382.96 acres. As SSA I I was approved prior to the RLSAO GMP Amendments approved on July 13, 2021, SSA I I will provide eight (8) credits per acre of land for a total of 8,504.80 Stewardship Credits. Additionally, the proposed SRA utilizes 3,198.60 Stewardship Credits from SSA 22, which are redeemed at ten (10) Stewardship Credits per acre of development. Of the six Natural Resources Index Factors on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet, only Land Use Land Cover (FLUCFCS) and Listed Species Habitat are prone to change over time. Minor changes have occurred from the baseline assessment, which stem from adjustments to FLUCFCS mapping and species information and refinement of the WRA. Site Description: The subject property consists of 1,446.59 acres of disturbed lands. The property is currently being used for agricultural activities, including row crops and improved pasture. The property includes widely scattered lands comprised of exotic vegetation, non -forested uplands, forested uplands, and forested wetlands. A FLUCFCS map detailing land use is contained in Exhibit 4 of the Natural Resource Index Assessment. Wetland mitigation for impacts to this area will be addressed through the South Florida Water Management District Environmental Resource Permitting process. Listed Species: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is bordered along the east property boundary by SSA 22, which is an established panther corridor and contains HSA and FSA areas. The listed species surveys were conducted for the subject property in 2023 and 2024. The surveys were conducted for wildlife species listed by the FWCC and the USFWS as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern, and plants listed by FDACS and USFWS as endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited. Eagles and their nests were also included as part of the wildlife surveys. SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 10 of 28 Surveys conducted indicate the following species have been present within the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA boundary: American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus), great egret (Casmerodius albus), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), Roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja) tri-colored heron (Egretta tricolor), Snowy egret (Egretta thula) wood stork (Mycteria americana), crested caracara (Caracara cheriway), Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) and Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). see Appendix E of the Listed Species Survey). The wildlife survey revealed that a wading bird rookery was documented in a reservoir located in the western central section of the project. The rookery contained nests for cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), and great egret (Casmerodius albus). The nests will be protected during construction activities. There is one protected plant listed in the LDC as "Less Rare Plants" that was identified within the project boundary: stiff -leafed wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata). Additionally, there were also five plant species listed on the "Rare Plants" list that may be found within the project site; they include cowhorn orchid (Cyrtopodium punctatum), Curtiss' milkweed (Asclepaias lindenii), and West Coast prickly apple (Harrisain gracilis). To deter large mammals from accessing the development areas, the proposed project has been designed to include the construction of buffer lakes and fences between the development areas and the native habitat areas (SSA 22 and Corkscrew Marsh). The location of buffer lakes and 10-foot chain -link fencing is illustrated in the Listed Species Management and Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan (Appendix B). Additionally, two road crossings will be installed to protect wildlife. The road crossings are located within the proposed SSA 23. Environmental Review recommends approval of this petition, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. Prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, all development must be in compliance with the Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan. Also, listed species management plans for the Florida panther and all other listed species must be provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS. 2. Stewardship Sending Area 22 must be approved prior to or concurrently with approval of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) District Review: CCPS review has been requested, staff has no comments. Stormwater Review: The existing site is served by a stormwater network of ditches and canals suited to the agricultural activities currently in operation. The proposed drainage system, or any change in land use or development, will require a modification of the existing South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Environmental Resource Permit (ERP). That process will ensure consistency with all applicable state stormwater standards. In addition, site development approval (SDP and/or Plat) will be required from Collier County to ensure that local development standards are maintained and that proposed stormwater system(s) are designed consistent with relevant LDC and County Ordinances for water quality and water quantity, during both the interim construction phase and final implementation. All associated costs with the design, permit, construction, and operation of the proposed stormwater improvements will be borne by the Owner. SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 11 of 28 Fire Review: Fire staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval. Affordable Housing Review: Housing Policy & Economic Development Division staff have provided the following comments: the Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) meets the requirements of Policy 4.7.5 of the GMP as follows: • At least 362 (8%) of the maximum 4,502 residential units will be affordable housing and made available for rent or for sale to households with incomes up to 100% of the area median income. • Per Policy, a minimum of 36.22 (2.5%) of the 1,446.99 acres will be set aside for the development of the affordable housing unit as shown on the master plan. • The affordable housing parcels shall be located adjacent to educational or commercial uses on land that has similar access to common open spaces, public facilities, and public transportation as market -rate parcels. • The affordable housing will be built by the developer, in whole or in part, or for acquisition, in whole or in part, by either Collier County, a Community Land Trust, a private developer, or any other affordable housing provider based upon the appraised value of $22,500/ acre, with a right of first refusal to Collier County. • All affordable units will remain affordable for a period of 30 years and are subject to compliance monitoring by the County. For reference, the 2025 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Income and Rent Limits are: 2025 Collier County Income and Rent limits for Affordable Housing In[ onne Limit by Nwnbef of People in Unit Rent LrM by Numbef of 6edroonn in Unit 2025 PerCEnt1g*A. f�Y/M wow. CA4MY Ntlme 1 2 4 1 2 3 Collier 3096 caw,-* Lc- S 23,880 S 27,270 $ 34,080 S 639 5 767 $ 8$6 County 50% Verylow $ 39,800 $ 45,450 S 56,8O0 S 1,065 $ 1,278 $ 1,476 &*dian 6O% Iva $ 47,760 S 54,540 $ 68,160 S 1,278 $ 1,534 S 1,772 Household Income $113,e0a 80% 100% tow Medan $ $ 63,680 79,600 S S S S 72,720 90,900 109,080 127,260 S S S $ 90,880 113,600 136,320 159,040 S S S S 1,705 2,131 2,557 2,993 S S S $ 2,046 2,557 3,069 3,580 S S $ $ 2,363 2,953 3,544 4,135 120% 140% Ma4r * S 95,520 $ 111,440 Gap 5:wce KV X25 M egan s O-0--FAO da Hckf Fewve Cap Yx c> Cw4"Lm[s The need for affordable housing units is great in Collier County, as the University of Florida Shimberg Center for Housing reports that there are currently 54,275 cost -burdened households in Collier County, with 26,756 of those spending more than 50% of their monthly income on housing expenses. Approval of this development will assist Collier County in addressing the continued need for affordable housing. Economic Assessment Review: Section 4.08.07 (L) of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) provides the requirements for the preparation and submittal of the Economic Assessment for a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA). The Economic Assessment, at a minimum, is required to demonstrate fiscal neutrality for the development, as a whole, for the following units of government: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 12 of 28 law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and school. In the event the Assessment identifies a negative fiscal impact of the project, several options are identified to address the funding shortfalls, including impositions of special assessments, use of community development districts (CDD), Municipal Service Benefit Units (MSBU), Municipal Service Taxing Units (MSTU), etc. DPFG conducted meetings with representatives from the various public facilities to capture information on both capital needs as well as operating impacts related to the proposed project. As part of this process, the need for new facility sites and other capital items, specifically related to the proposed project were also analyzed. An outside peer review (see Attachment E-Peer Review of Economic Assessment) was conducted by Jacobs to provide an independent evaluation of the report. The Jacobs report concluded that the DPFG's analysis is reasonable and confirms the project's fiscal neutrality, as defined. Jacobs further stated that "the analysis is professionally prepared and thorough in its treatment of revenues and expenses, is accurate in its determination that the Corkscrew Grove East Village development would meet the County's requirements for Fiscal Neutrality." Both the DPFG and Jacobs reports rely on impact fees and other fiscal information that is adopted by Collier County as the basis for many of the underlying assumptions. The model used by DPFG was provided to Jacobs for peer review and to Collier County for staff analysis. While the model is locked, all cell information is visible, including formulas, and the data sources are also presented for validation. DPFG has been available for discussions, questions, and/or concerns related to the model and its outputs. The following is a brief overview of the analysis by facility. The project impact fee revenue assumed for this assessment is based on the adopted rates at the time of application, and as previously stated, does not include any projections for impact fee increases or decreases. Any staff comments that affect the anticipated impact fee revenue are provided below; otherwise, the assumptions are considered acceptable for the proposed types of residential and commercial land uses and square footage, for the purpose of this analysis. The analysis concludes that adequate revenue will be generated by the proposed project, through millage, fees, and other applicable funding sources, to fund the attributable increase in operating costs, to the various facilities, generated by the development. The same approach used for the capital revenue, to note any comments or observations that may affect the anticipated revenue, is used for the information related to millage rates and other governmental revenue sources used for this analysis. Transportation — Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of fiscal neutrality for transportation (road) impacts to be reasonable. See the Transportation Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment D-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: The County imposes road impact fees on new developments to fund the construction of growth -related improvements. Consistent with impact fee statutory requirements, these fees place a fair share of the cost burden on new development for transportation -related expansions and improvements, which are necessitated by such development. DPFG treats road impacts from the perspective that the owner will pay road impact fees according to the number of units (residential) or square footage (non-residential) in the development plan and the corresponding fee schedule established by the County. Using DPFG's approach, Corkscrew Grove East SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 13 of 28 Village SRAA will generate approximately $35.8 million in Road Impact Fee revenues to the County, based on the development parameters and the current road impact fee rate table. This exceeds the $24.9 million proportionate fair -share estimate for the project. Law Enforcement — Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of law enforcement as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. The capital needs for law enforcement were established using the case study approach. The law enforcement impact fee is intended to recover the cost of capital construction and expansion of law enforcement -related facilities and assets. DPFG estimated impact fee revenue to be $2,904,000 and other capital revenues at $520,000, which amounts to total capital revenues of $3,424,000. With the indirect capital costs of $3,424,000, the estimated revenues equal the forecasted indirect capital costs. Therefore, the impact is neutral. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) — Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of emergency medical services as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. According to EMS management, Corkscrew Grove East Village SRAA will initially be served by the EMS facility located at the Immokalee Fire Control District's Headquarters Station 32. If the call volume necessitates it, an additional ambulance may be leased, and space rented for its operation at a proposed new fire station. DPFG projects total capital revenues of $710,000. EMS direct capital costs were estimated at $585,000, which is less than the combined projected impact fee of $693,000 and other capital revenues of $17,000, leaving about $125,000 for indirect/related capital costs. Therefore, the impact is neutral. Parks —Jacobs finds that parks are fiscally neutral. The County imposes separate impact fees for community and regional parks. The impact fee revenues of community parks were calculated to be $3,242,000 (plus other capital revenues of $52,000 for a total of $3,294,000), and regional parks were $9,246,000 (plus other capital revenues of $481,000 for a total of $9,727,000). The cost of the estimated acreage ($283,638 per acre) required to achieve the County LOS for community parks forms the basis for capital impacts, which DPFG estimated at $3,117,000, resulting in an estimated surplus of $177,000 for community parks. The cost of estimated acreage ($590,288 per acre) required to achieve the County LOS for regional parks forms the basis for capital impacts. While the adopted level of service for regional parks is 2.70 acres per 1,000 peak population, the adjusted achieved LOS of 1.82 acres was recommended by the County. The recommended LOS and cost per acre result in an estimated capital cost for regional parks of $590,288. The cost of the regional parks of $9,840,000 is more than the estimated impact fee and other capital revenues of $9,727,000 of the regional parks by $113,000. While there is a projected deficit of $113,000 for regional parks, the forecast surplus of $177,000 for community parks offsets this, resulting in a slightly positive $64,000 capital impact for regional and community parks. SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 14 of 28 DPFG's assumption that regional park acreage costs will reflect average costs is conservative compared to the relative cost of inland acreage. If inland acreage costs less, on average, than the blended County average, then capital fiscal surplus for parks would be higher than DPFG's calculations. Public Utilities (Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Water, and Solid Waste) — Fiscally Neutral. See Public Utilities Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment D-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: Potable Water and Wastewater The Corkscrew Groves East Village project is located within the Immokalee Water and Sewer District ("IWSD") utility service area. Hence, IWSD will be responsible for the provision of water and wastewater utility services to Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. To meet potential demands arising from this project, necessary capital infrastructure improvements to the water and wastewater systems are envisaged, in line with all regulatory requirements and standards. The project developer will be required to pay the applicable connection fees to IWSD. Irrigation Water "The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA project site has a long history of permitted agricultural withdrawals from the Lower Tamiami and Sandstone Aquifers that have not resulted in adverse impacts to natural environments." The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA project will result in converting approximately 1,447 acres of agricultural land into a residential development at build -out. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will apply to SFWMD for a water use permit to use onsite surface water and groundwater sources for irrigation. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will be responsible for all relevant costs for the permitting, construction, and maintenance of the irrigation system. Solid Waste The approved Collier County hauler contractor will be responsible for the collection of solid waste generated within Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. County -approved bear -resistant dumpsters and trash cans will be used for the project. The developer will cover the costs associated with the maintenance and operations of the dumpsters. Solid waste collected within Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will be disposed of at Okeechobee Landfill through Immokalee Transfer Station. The county maintains a disposal capacity agreement with Okeechobee Landfill with 930,000 tons of reserved capacity. Solid waste capital and operational costs are accounted for in the County's Solid Waste Fund, a self- supporting enterprise fund. Enterprise funds are inherently fiscally neutral because they are created for a specific purpose and intended to be self-supporting through user rates and fees. Again, enterprise funds were excluded from DPFG's analysis. Stormwater Management — Fiscally Neutral. See Attachment D-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: Stormwater Management "The proposed SRA encompasses three distinct areas: the property west of Corkscrew Road, the property north of SR 82, and the property east of Corkscrew Road and south of SR 82. The existing site has historically been used for agricultural row crops, primarily oranges and tomatoes. The site is SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 15 of 28 composed of an intricate network of agricultural infrastructure, including dikes, impoundment areas known as WRAs, perimeter ditches, and berms. These perimeter berms effectively prevent external surface water from flowing onto the site, ensuring that no stormwater flows from surrounding properties are accepted."' All associated costs with the design, permit, construction, and operation of the proposed stormwater improvements will be borne by the Owner. Immokalee Fire Control District — Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of the fire control district as fiscally positive to be reasonable. See Fire Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment D- Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: The current millage rate and the projected tax base of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA result in annual ad valorem revenues of $8,017,000. The annual operating expenses to serve Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA population, based on an average of the fire district's existing stations and population served, are $1,926,000. Thus, there is a projected operating fiscal surplus. The capital needs for the fire control district will be funded by impact fees. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will generate adequate capital revenues for the Immokalee Fire Control District, with matching levels of capital costs. In exchange for impact fee credits, and prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy, a 3.0-acre parcel shall be donated by the owner to the Immokalee Fire Control and Rescue District. The parcel shall be located within proximity to the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA development. A new station will be constructed and placed into operation if sufficient development occurs within the potential service area to ensure the funding of capital and operating costs of the new station is financially feasible. DPFG projects total capital revenues of $10,162,000 with an additional operating surplus of $2,159,000 to match the $12,321,000 capital cost for construction, vehicles, and equipment. Therefore, the impact is neutral. Collier County Public Schools — Fiscally Neutral. See Collier County Public Schools District Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment D-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: Based on projections of school enrollment by type, as well as the operating revenue and costs impacts, the calculations estimating the fiscal impacts on the County School District indicate that Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is fiscally neutral. DPFG estimates ad valorem local millage revenues at buildout of $6,987,000, with matching levels of operating expenditures. Revenues to pay for growth -related capital expenditures are derived from ad valorem taxes and impact fees on residential -only units, and a capital outlay millage of 1.1332 mills (subject to a cap of 1.50 mills). Hence, the residential development will have an impact on the determination of fiscal neutrality. In this case, the revenue from the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA development results in a net fiscal neutrality. SRA-PL20240010212. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 16 of 28 School Capital Revenues: School Impact Fee Revenue School District Capital Tax Revenue Total Schaal Capital Revenues Direct School Capital Expenditures $ 28,671, 000 $ - $ 28,671, 000 - 38,664,000 38, 664, 000 $ 28,671,000 38,664,000 $ 67,335,000 67,333.000 Net School Capital Expenditures - Other Facilities — Fiscally Neutral. The DPFG report also provided analysis related to Correctional Facilities. While this was not a required element of the Economic Assessment or the Public Facilities Impact Assessment, the same framework was used as that for the required facilities; the analysis is consistent with the impact fee methodology, and thus the determination of fiscal neutrality is reasonable. The correctional facilities impact fee is intended to recover the cost of capital construction for jail facilities (both land and building) and related equipment. Impact fees are charged based on residential units. The County's current LOS was used to calculate the capital costs of the correctional facilities. DPFG applied the impact fee study coefficients for population and employment to calculate functional population. Combined revenues from impact fees of $1,898,000 and other capital revenues of $104,000 amount to $2,002,000, with comparable capital outlays, resulting in a finding of fiscal neutrality. As stated above, the Economic Assessment provides a fiscal snapshot projected to build out. Based on these assumptions and making no predictions on changes, positive or negative, that may affect project revenue, the conclusion of fiscal neutrality is supported by the analysis. The analysis concludes that adequate funding will be generated by the project to fund the capital and operating needs of the specified public facilities. The fixture use of any type of debt as a funding mechanism is evaluated on a facility -by -facility basis, including the business case for such borrowing, and will also be reviewed for the appropriateness of such costs, as applicable, for inclusion into applicable impact fee studies. Finally, the specified public facilities do not have projected deficiencies as a result of the demand created by the proposed development. Therefore, overall, the intent of the fiscal neutrality requirement has been satisfied. Zoning Services Review: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Development Document sets forth the design standards for the Village. According to LDC Section 4.08.07C.2, "Villages are communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village... Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed -use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods..." As previously stated, the Village consists of three context zones: Neighborhood General, Affordable Housing, and Village Center. The Neighborhood General Context Zone is approximately 1,237.41t acres and allows for a maximum of 4,502 residential dwelling units. The residential dwelling units consist of single-family, multi -family residential dwelling units, and horizontal multi -family units. Horizontal multi -family units are single- SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 17 of 28 family units built within a single development tract. Senior/group housing, including but not limited to Adult Living Facilities (ALF), Independent Living Facilities (ILF), and Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC), not to exceed 300 units, is permissible. The Neighborhood General Context Zone also includes parks, amenity centers, and open space. The maximum zoned and actual building heights are 50 and 62 feet. The Village Center context zone, located at the northwest intersection of Corkscrew Road and SR 82, is approximately 169.55± acres and is mixed -use, allowing for a minimum of 40 multi -family dwellings, commercial, office, civic, governmental, and institutional uses. As previously stated, a minimum of 45,020 gross square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses, a minimum and a maximum of 238,606 gross square feet of neighborhood commercial and office uses, and an additional maximum of 100,000 square feet of indoor self -storage uses will be provided. The maximum zoned and actual building heights are 50 and 60 feet. The Affordable Housing Context Zone, located on the north side of SR 82, is approximately 39.63± acres and will provide for up to 362 residential dwelling units. The context zone is located across the street from the Village Center, which contains commercial uses. The maximum zoned and actual building heights are 50 and 62 feet. The Village will also have other uses such as an Amenity Center, Park Preserves, and Parks. The required minimum of 35% open space is 506.30± acres, and 36% open space, or 516.60± acres, has been provided. A panther corridor contained within SSA 22 runs adjacent to the north-eastern boundary of the Village. The lake system located along portions of the north and east boundaries of the SRA is part of the Village stormwater system and serves as a deterrent to wildlife. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is a compact, suburban -style development similar to many of the Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) located in the Urban Area of Collier County. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking 16 deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are directly extracted from SRA Document Section VII. Deviations. The petitioner's rationale and staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below. SRA Document Section 8.1. Neighborhood General Standards: Note: LDC Section 4.08.07.I.3.d.iii requires that Neighborhood General design standards in a Village be the same as those required in a Town for a Neighborhood General Context Zone. Therefore, the following deviations are requested from Section 4.08.07.I.2.d.iii. a) through i) based on how such standards apply to the Neighborhood Center in a Village. Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.2.d.iii.f)iv), "Non-residential uses," which states "the maximum square footage per [non-residential] use shall be 3,000 square feet and per location shall be 15,000 square feet," to instead allow [non-residential uses] the Amenity Center sites to be a maximum of 30,000 square feet each per location. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: SRA-PL20240010212. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 18 of 28 Community Centers will provide multiple amenities and uses for Village residents (and guests). This effectively reduces external trips. This also requires flexibility in size to be sufficient to meet market demand. Note: This LDC Provision (and thus this deviation request) is unique to the RLSA Overlay. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3248, F.S." Deviation # 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.d.iii.e)ii), which states that in the case of "Multi -Family residential," "side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet for the primary structure..." to instead allow for a side yard setback of 0 or 5 feet and a rear yard setback of 10 feet for zero lot line and townhome development, as set forth in Table 1: Neighborhood General - Required Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height and Table 3: Affordable Housing -Required Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The RLSA encourages a diversity of housing types. Allowing for Townhome and Villa -type development in the Neighborhood General Context Zone promotes such diversity. To build such units effectively and efficiently, they must be consistent with the design used in other similar developments where the market has responded favorably. There are many approved projects that allow for such setbacks for villas and townhomes. We have maintained the required minimum 10- foot side and 20 foot rear yard setbacks for traditional multi family products, and this deviation is limited to the Villa Townhome product. Note: This is a deviation that has routinely been granted for projects in the Urban area and other approved RLSA Villages when requested. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3248, F.S." Deviation # 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.2.d.iii.e)i), which establishes multi -family residential lots to be a maximum of 4 acres, to instead allow multi -family lots to be a maximum of 25 acres. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This deviation will allow for additional flexibility in the design of the different multi family housing options proposed within this village. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the SRA-PL20240010212. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 19 of 28 petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3248, F.S." Deviation # 4 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02 C., which limits fences or walls to a maximum height of six (6) feet in residential districts, to instead allow a twelve (12) foot wall/berm combination. The maximum height of the wall will be eight (8) feet. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The deviation will allow for additional visual screening and noise attenuation from adjacent properties and roadways. Approval of the deviation will promote the public health, safety, and welfare, and enhance the visual appeal of the proposed development and community park internally and to existing external uses. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3248, F.S." SRA Document Section 8.2. Village Center Standards: Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.L3.d.ii.p)ii) "General Parking Criteria," which states "The majority of parking spaces shall be provided off-street in the rear of buildings or along the side secondary streets. Parking is prohibited in front of buildings..." to instead allow parking in front of buildings in the Village Center, when such parking is in support of a shopping center, or when located on a lot with two or more street frontages, or when located on a lot fronting on Corkscrew Road or State Road 82. A Type `D' buffer per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The Village Center fronts on Corkscrew Road and State Road 82 and is separated by a 25 foot - wide Type D Buffer. To remain viable in the marketplace, the Village Center commercial uses need to be accessible to and convenient to motorists from Corkscrew Road or State Road 82. This may warrant parking in the front yard. However, with a 25 foot -wide Type D Buffer along Corkscrew Road and State Road 82, such parking will be adequately screened from view. Without direct access and exposure to and from these roadways, the commercial enterprises will not be viable in the marketplace. The request is to eliminate the restriction on the number of parking spaces that may be located within any yard. Notes: This LDCprovision (and thus this deviation request) is unique to the RLSA Overlay. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC SRA-PL20240010212. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 20 of 28 Section 4.08.07.I.7(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3248, F.S." Deviation # 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.L3.d.ii.q), which requires that the majority of parking be located in the rear of buildings and prohibits parking in the front of a building except on - street parking within the right-of-way to instead allow parking in the front, side, and rear yards, when such parking is in support of a shopping center, or when located on a lot with two or more street frontages, or when located on a lot fronting on Immokalee Road. A Type `D' buffer per LDC at the time of permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This deviation is requested to allow parking in front, side, or rear yards in the Village Center to provide maximum design flexibility for a relatively small number of commercial uses providing neighborhood goods and services. Also see Justification for Village Center Standards #1, above. Convenience and easy access are critical for achieving market viability for the nonresidential uses in the Village Center, particularly for the pass -by traffic, which is necessary for the viability of the commercial elements. Design flexibility is also necessary. Note: This LDC Provision (and thus this deviation request) is unique to the RLSA Overlay. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3248, F.S." Deviation # 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the amount of required parking in the Village Center "be demonstrated through a shared parking analysis submitted with an SRA designation application..." and be "determined utilizing the modal splits and parking demands for various uses recognized by ITE, ULI or other sources or studies..." to instead allow the parking demand analysis to be submitted at the time of initial Site Development Plan (SDP) or, at the discretion of the County Manager or designee, at the time of a subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment, in order to allow for a more comprehensive parking demand analysis based upon the mix of uses at the time of the initial SDP or subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: Requiring this parking demand analysis at the time of SRA application makes no sense, as the type and mix of uses in the Village Center are undetermined at the time of SRA application. This analysis should be conducted at the time of initial (or possibly subsequent) SDP for non-residential uses in the Village Center. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 21 of 28 techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3248, F.S." Deviation # 4 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.3.d.ii.g), which establishes a maximum block perimeter of 2,500 feet in the Village Center to instead allow for the Neighborhood General block perimeter provisions per LDC Section 4.08.07.12.d.iii.c): the maximum block perimeter shall be 3,500 feet, except that a larger block perimeter shall be allowed where an alley or pathway provides through access, or the block includes water bodies or public facilities. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The road network within the Village Center has been designed to accommodate the required separation of the limited access points to Corkscrew Road and State Road 82. The Village Center development tracts will contain connecting and entry driveways, sidewalks, and lakes to effectively break up the block length and provide through access. This design effectively meets the LDC intent to have smaller blocks. It recognizes that there are limited opportunities to accomplish this through additional roadway connections to these roadways and allows for alternatives that accomplish the LDC intent. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3248, F.S." Deviation # 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02 H. Lb. and c., which requires non-residential development to provide a wall within the right-of-way landscape buffer when located on property opposite a residentially zoned district, but fronting on a local street or roadway, to instead not require a wall. This deviation shall not apply to the rear of shopping centers and building areas where overhead doors are located and facing toward a residential district. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The Village SRA is required to include a mixed -use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. The Village Center will include the majority of the non-residential development, and requiring a wall between this area and the adjoining residential tracts will create a physical barrier where there should be seamless connectivity between the uses. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3248, F.S." SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 22 of 28 SRA Document Section 8.3. Transportation Standards: Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.071 Lb, "Figures 5, 6, and 7, Local Street Neighborhood General," which requires a 6-foot-wide planting area between the travel lane and the sidewalk, to instead allow for a 4-foot-wide planting area in the same location for local roads within the project in Neighborhood General. In such cases, either a root barrier or structural soil shall be utilized. If the option of structural soil is utilized, a minimum of 2 c.f. of structural soil per square foot of mature tree crown projection shall be provided. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This is a minimal reduction and is required to ensure the necessary (LDC required) 23 feet, measured from the back of the sidewalk to the garage, to allow room to park a vehicle on the driveway without parking over the sidewalk. Please see the Local Street Sections in the Master Concept Plan for additional details. The substantive deviations from the LDC cross-section for a local road in a village are that the planting area between the sidewalk and travel lane is 4 feet versus 6 feet. Note: This local street cross-section is unique to the RLSA - SRA Village. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3248, F.S." SRA Document Section 8.4. Si2n Standards: Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.a, "On -premises directional signs within residential districts," which requires on -premise directional signs to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface, or back of the curb, to instead allow a minimum setback of 5 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, limited to signs internal to the SRA only. This excludes signage along county -owned roadways. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This deviation will allow more flexibility for directional signage internal to the project. A unified design theme will be utilized for all signage throughout the community. All roads and drives will be privately owned and maintained. This deviation is typical of master planned residential developments in Collier County. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County (per Section 5.06.00 (Signs Regulations). Note that the deviation does not apply to such signs located along County Roads. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3248, F.S." SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 23 of 28 SRA Document Section 8.5. Landscape Standards: Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C., Buffer Requirements, "Types of buffers," Table 2.4 Information, Footnote (3) which requires "Buffer areas between commercial out parcels located within a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a shared buffer 15 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet", to instead allow a shared buffer 10 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 5 feet. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The combined 10 foot shared buffer will provide for sufficient separation and "breaking up " of parking areas within the Village Center. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County, and similar deviations have been granted. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3248, F.S." Deviation # 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 A., which requires landscape buffer strips to be shown and designated on the final plat within an easement, to instead allow the same required landscaping materials to be demonstrated on a planting plan, for staff review as part of the respective plans and plat application (PPL), with no requirement to provide a landscape buffer for any residential development adjacent to a lake regardless of location within the Village. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This deviation is intended to remove the required buffer easement for single-family residential development when adjacent to other single-family and multi family subdivisions located within the same neighborhood context zone and when they are separated by a lake. The LDC already allows for clustering of the buffer requirements in this circumstance. In addition, sufficient transition and buffering between single-family and multi family uses will be maintained as the multi family residential developments will still be required to provide a 15' Type B buffer to adjacent single- family uses. The deviation is only to eliminate the requirement to establish a buffer easement in this limited circumstance. All required planting will be provided and depicted on a planting plan for staff review as part of the subdivision plats and plans application, and again, only in the limited circumstances where single-family uses are adjacent to other single-family or multi family residential subdivisions or developments within the Neighborhood General Context Zone and when separated by a lake. Since the landscape plan will be part of the approved PPL, it will have an enforcement mechanism. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 24 of 28 techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3248, F.S." SRA Document Section 8.6 Other Deviations: Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G, "Parking Space Requirements," which requires 1 parking space per 100 square feet for recreation facilities (indoor) sports, exercise, fitness, aerobics, or health clubs to instead allow for parking for the Amenity Center sites to be calculated at 1 space per 200 square feet of indoor square footage, excluding kitchen or storage space. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The project will include a complete system of interconnected sidewalks and multi -use pathways that accommodate golf carts and bicycles, allowing residents to travel to the amenity center without a car. Additionally, the Amenity Center is restricted to use by only Village residents and guests and is not open to the general public. The 1 space per 100 square feet for these "community" amenity centers is excessive. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County, and similar deviations have been granted. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.1.7(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3248, F.S." Deviation # 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.10.A.2. — "Location Criteria," which requires that "LSPA [littoral shelf planting areas] shall be concentrated in one location of the lake(s), preferably adjacent to a preserve area," to instead allow for required littoral shelf planting areas to be aggregated in certain specific development lakes, including the development lake that runs along the western and northern perimeter of the SRA. It shall also be permitted to utilize Gator Slough and Cabbage Slough as part of all of the required LSPA. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: These areas will be designed to create, enhance, or restore wading bird/waterfowl habitats and foraging areas. They will be designed to recreate wetland function, maximize its habitat value, and minimize maintenance efforts. They will enhance the survivability of the littoral area plant species, as there is a lower survivability rate in littoral planting areas along larger lakes subject to more variable water levels and wind and wave action, which negatively affects these littoral planting areas. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Environmental staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that the concentration of littoral plantings in lakes and waters of the proposed project will meet the intent of the littoral planting requirement, which is to improve water quality and provide habitat for a variety of aquatic species and birds. Therefore, it is reasonable to allow for some flexibility in the design and locations of the required littoral planting areas. SRA-PL20240010212, CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 25 of 28 In compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3248, F.S." Deviation # 3 seeks relief from LDC section 5.04.04.B.5 — "Model Homes and Model Sales Centers", which permits a maximum of five (5) model homes, or a number corresponding to ten (10) percent of the total number of platted lots, whichever is less, per platted approved development prior to final plat approval. The requested deviation is to allow for a maximum of 30 model homes at any one time within the overall Village. With each building permit for a model home, the applicant shall provide documentation as to the current number of model homes in existence. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The Village allows for a maximum of 4,502 residential dwelling units, which will take a significant amount of time to get to completion and include multiple developers. The allowance of the maximum of 30 model homes will allow for the different styles associated with different developers and current trends or architectural styles that may change throughout this build -out stage. A similar deviation was approved in the Town of Big Cypress SRA, Willow Run RPUD, and the San Marino RPUD. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.I.7(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3248, F.S." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on September 24, 2024, at 5:30 p.m. at IFAS Extension, 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida. There were no attendees. A second NIM was held on September 24, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. at IFAS Extension, 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida. There were no attendees. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's office reviewed the staff report for Petition Number PL20240010212, Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA, on February 23, 2026. This petition requests the creation of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. A Village is described in LDC Section 4.08.07.C.2, in part as: Villages are communities with a diversity of housing types and a mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be greater than 300 acres but not more than 1,500 acres, except that if any portion is designated ASCS, the maximum size shall be no more than 1,000 acres. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed -use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle SRA-PL20240010212. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 26 of 28 circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhood -scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Section 4.08.0711. Villages are an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. The Village form of rural land development is permitted within the ACSC, subject to the limitations of Section 4.08.07 A.2. The burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposal is consistent with all of the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the County, should it consider denial, that such denial is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the amendment does not meet one or more of the listed criteria: Criteria for the creation of SRA 1. Consider: Compatibility with adjacent land uses. 2. Consider: An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development. 3. Consider: Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, transient housing, institutional, civic, and community service uses within an SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. 4. Consider: Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on land that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size of the land or parcel. 5. Consider: Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state. 6. Consider: Open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, or Village. Gross acreage includes only that area of development within the SRA that requires the consumption of Stewardship Credits. 7. Consider: An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in LDC Section 4.08.07 J.6. An SRA may be contiguous to, or encompass a WRA. However, if all or part of the WRA provides stormwater quality treatment for an SRA, the pro rata acreage of the WRA that is used to meet the water quality treatment water volume shall be required to consume SRA credits and shall be included with the SRA acreage. 8. Consider: The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. 9. Consider: Conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. 10. Consider: Suitability criteria described in Items 2 through 8 above [LDC Section 4.08.07 A.1.] and other standards of LDC Section 4.08.07. 11. Consider: SRA master plan compliance with all applicable policies of the RLSA District Regulations, and demonstration that incompatible land uses are directed away from FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and Conservation Lands. SRA-PL20240010212. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 27 of 28 12. Consider: Assurance that the applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement SRA uses. 13. Consider: Impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts. The CCPC, in making its recommendation, must rely upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, maps, studies, letters from interested persons, and the oral testimony presented at the CCPC hearing, as these items relate to these criteria. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend that the Collier County Planning Commission, acting as the local planning agency and the Environmental Advisory Council, forward Petition Number PL20240010212, Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following Condition of Approval: 1. Prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, all development must be in compliance with the Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan. Also, listed species management plans for the Florida panther and all other listed species must be provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS. 2. Stewardship Sending Area 22 must be approved prior to or concurrently with approval of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. Attachments Attachment A: Proposed SRA Resolution Attachment B: GMP Consistency Review Memorandum Attachment C: Economic Assessment Attachment D: Public Facilities Impact Assessment Attachment E: Peer Review of Economic Assessment Attachment F: Application SRA-PL20240010212. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA February 25, 2026 Page 28 of 28 RESOLUTION NO.2026- A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DESIGNATING 1,446.59 ACRES WITHIN THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT AS A STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA, TO BE KNOWN AS THE CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA, WHICH WILL ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A MAXIMUM OF 4,502 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, OF WHICH A MINIMUM OF 10% WILL BE MULTI -FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, A MINIMUM OF 10% WILL BE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, AND A MINIMUM OF 10% WILL BE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED OR VILLA; A MINIMUM AND A MAXIMUM OF 2389606 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE; A MAXIMUM OF 100,000 SQUARE FEET OF INDOOR SELF STORAGE IN THE VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE; A MINIMUM OF 45,020 SQUARE FEET OF CIVIC, GOVERNMENTAL AND INSTITUTIONAL USES IN THE VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE; SENIOR HOUSING INCLUDING ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES AND CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES LIMITED TO 300 UNITS IN THE SRA; 362 OF THE MAXIMUM 4,502 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTEXT ZONE; NO COMMERCIAL USES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE; AND 8.50 ACRES OF AMENITY AREA IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE; ALL SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM PM PEAK HOUR TRIP CAP; AND APPROVING THE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT FOR CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA AND ESTABLISHING THAT 11,703 STEWARDSHIP CREDITS ARE BEING UTILIZED BY THE DESIGNATION OF THE CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE INTERSECTION OF SR 82 AND CORKSCREW ROAD, AND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE INTERSECTION OF SR 82 AND CORKSCREW ROAD, BOTH EAST AND WEST OF CORKSCREW ROAD IN SECTIONS 3, 4, 5, 6, 79 8, 9 AND 10, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20240010212] [25-CPS-02617/2012947/1 ] 137 Corkscrew Grove East Village / PL20240010212 4/8/2026 Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, Alico, Inc. fka Alico Land Development Company ("Applicant") has applied for Stewardship Receiving Area designation pursuant to Section 4.08.07 of the Collier County Land Development Code ("LDC") for the Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area (herein referred to as "Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA"), which is one thousand four hundred forty-six and fifty -one -one hundredths (1,446.59) acres in size; and WHEREAS, Collier County staff and the Collier County Planning Commission have reviewed the SRA Designation Application ("Application"), along with all support documentation and information required by LDC Section 4.08.07, and determined that the application is consistent with the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District, and requirements of Section 4.08.07 of the LDC, specifically the suitability criteria of Section 4.08.07 of the LDC; and WHEREAS, Alico, Inc. has demonstrated its ownership of the necessary Stewardship Sending Area ("SSA") Stewardship Credits to be utilized by the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA by its approved SSA Credit and Easement Agreements; and WHEREAS, Applicant seeks to utilize 8,504.80 Stewardship Credits generated from the Board's designation of SSA 11 and 3,198.6 Stewardship Credits generated from the Board's designation of SSA 22, leaving some SSA 22 Stewardship Credits unused, to entitle designation of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: 1. The Board hereby approves and designates as the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA one thousand four hundred forty-six and fifty -nine -one hundredths (1,446.59) acres described in the legal description attached as Exhibit "A", subject to the requirements of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Development Document and the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Master Plan both attached hereto as Exhibit `B". 2. The Board hereby approves the Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C", requiring Applicant and Owners to transfer and assign eleven thousand seven hundred three and four -tenths (11,703.4) Stewardship Credits to Collier County. 3. The Board hereby approves the number of dwelling units, gross leaseable square footage of retail and office uses, and the other land uses described in the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Development Document and depicted on the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Master Plan. [25-CPS-02617/2012947/1 ] 137 Corkscrew Grove East Village / PL20240010212 4/8/2026 Page 2 of 3 4. This approval is subject to the condition that Alico, Inc, its successors and assigns ("Alico"), will work with the Collier County Sheriff's office to accommodate the Sheriff's request for a 3 acre Sheriff's substation within the SRA. The addition of the Sheriff's substation will require a future reconfiguration of the Master Plan in the SRA Document in Exhibit B of this Resolution as follows: Three (3) acres will be added to the Essential Services tract within the Affordable Housing Context Zone to accommodate a Sheriff substation bringing the Essential Services Tract total to 6.41 acres and the Affordable Housing Context Zone total to 42.63 acres; the Neighborhood General Context Zone will be reduced by 3 acres resulting in a total of 1234.41 acres for the Neighborhood General Context zone. Once the location is finalized, Alico will submit a petition to Collier County for a minor SRA amendment with a revised Master Plan and Text change to the Neighborhood General Context Zone total acreage and the Affordable Housing Context Zone total acreage. Staff is authorized to administratively approve the acreage modifications and reconfiguration on the Master Plan and the Neighborhood General Context Zone total acreage and the Neighborhood General Context Zone total acreage modifications in SRA Document as a minor SRA amendment in accordance with LDC Section 4.08.07.F.4.d. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED this motion, second, and favorable vote. ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney day of 2026, after BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Lo Dan Kowal, Chairman Attachments: Exhibit A — Legal Description Exhibit B — Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Development/Exhibits Exhibit C — Stewardship Credit Agreement [25-CPS-02617/2012947/1 ] 137 Corkscrew Grove East Village / PL20240010212 4/8/2026 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION BBLS SURVEYORS, INC. 9001 HIGHLAND WOOD BLVD., SUITE. 6, BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA, 34135 TELEPHONE: (239) 597-1315 LEGAL DESCRIPTION CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09 AND 10, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: AREA 1 COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 04; THENCE RUN S.88°49'18"W., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,508.39 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HERIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN S.01 ° 10'09"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 560.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.70°39'05"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 408.22 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 69° 12'45", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 56.79 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.36°02'42"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.40 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.01 °26' 19"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 188.82 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 70.71 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.43.33'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 78.54 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.88°33'41"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,025.38 FEET; THENCE RUN S.50°56'03"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 169.38 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37037'38", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 32.25 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.69°44'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 32.84 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.88°33'41"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 703.74 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74033'23", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 60.57 FEET, SHEET 1 OF 23 \\10.0.0.10\data\PROJECTS\2023\23.48 CORKSCREW GROVE\LEGAL AND SKETCH EAST VILLAGE BNDY\23.48 LEGAL DESC EAST VILLAGE.rtf AT A BEARING OF N.54009'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.06 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.16°52'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 136.11 FEET; TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74033'23", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 60.57 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.54009'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.06 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.8893'41"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 138.80 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10°54'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,723.47 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 82 (A 200 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY); THENCE RUN N.73057'58"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 3,951.29 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT "A" THENCE CONTINUE N.73°57'58"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,511.79 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 04, THE SAME BEING A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT "B"; THENCE RUN N.01 ° 10'09"W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,123.48 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE RUN S.89°34'35"E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,601.08 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 04; THENCE RUN N.88049'18"E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,195.39 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS OR 192.492 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. LESS AND EXCEPT COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "A", THENCE RUN N.16°02'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE N.16°02'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.91 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01 °02'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 132.64 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88°57'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 234.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01002'17"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 268.38 FEET; THENCE RUN N.73°57'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 264.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 1.264 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. AND AREA 2 COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "B", THENCE RUN S.18°37'53"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 82 (A 200 FOOT WIIDE SHEET 2 OF 23 \\10.0.0.10\data\PROJECTS\2023\23.48 CORKSCREW GROVE\LEGAL AND SKETCH EAST VILLAGE BNDY\23.48 LEGAL DESC EASTVILLAGE.rtf RIGHT OF WAY, THE SAME BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 818.89 FEET; THENCE RUN S.36017'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.80 FEET; THENCE RUN N.73°57'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 327.44 FEET; THENCE RUN N.78°05'08"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 96.93 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°02'23"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 322.02 FEET; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 218.62 FEET; THENCE RUN S.36°17'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 265.76 FEET; THENCE RUN S.53°42'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.36017'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 711.07 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 3,151.52 FEET; THENCE RUN S.16°02'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 464.76 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CORKSCREW ROAD (A 100 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY), THE SAME BEING A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT "C"; THENCE RUN S.20051'56"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,727.40 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,859.86 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37008'16", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 1,184.52 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.39°26'04"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,205.52 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.58000'12"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 6,667.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,914.79 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10.45' 18", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 546.33 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.52°37'33"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 547.14 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.47014'54"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 592.73 FEET; THENCE RUN N.42°45'06"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 182.77 FEET; THENCE RUN N.08°34'04"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 29.19 FEET; THENCE RUN N.07019'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.16 FEET; THENCE RUN N.04055'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.31 FEET; THENCE RUN N.05'01'49"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.88 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°02'16"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 44.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01 ° 10'03 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.95 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01 °29'48"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 47.71 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°18'30"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 59.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01001'00"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.59 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°26'27"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.34 FEET; THENCE RUN N.26036'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 21.65 FEET; THENCE RUN N.71°11'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 62.41 FEET; THENCE RUN N.78°16'23"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 59.85 FEET; THENCE RUN N.44°56'42"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 61.76 FEET; SHEET 3 OF 23 \\10.0.0.10\data\PROJECTS\2023\23.48 CORKSCREW GROVE\LEGAL AND SKETCH EAST VILLAGE BNDY\23.48 LEGAL DESC EAST VILLAGE.rtf THENCE RUN N.07058'50"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.06°48'04"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 79.45 FEET; THENCE RUN N.06°20'44"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 62.71 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°58'06"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 61.35 FEET; THENCE RUN N.10°07'23"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.54 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01 °52'44"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 256.40 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02054'16"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.49 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°25'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.25 FEET; THENCE RUN N.30°11'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 54.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.86°55'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 54.72 FEET; THENCE RUN S.85°44'03"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 23.63 FEET; THENCE RUN N.62°37'24"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 48.08 FEET; THENCE RUN N.29011' 17"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 23.53 FEET; THENCE RUN N.34°43'38"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 36.62 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02000'28"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.59 FEET; THENCE RUN N.04°15'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.83 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°00'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 64.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.03°51'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 47.63 FEET; THENCE RUN N.05047'57"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 48.46 FEET; THENCE RUN N.O 1.30'23 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 80.45 FEET; THENCE RUN N.O 1 °08'26"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 95.81 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°39'33"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.77 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°35'28"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.39 FEET; THENCE RUN N.03°07'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 46.18 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00003'06"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.03°24'00"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.90 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00004'14"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,048.74 FEET; THENCE RUN N.57°16'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 39.27 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°51'17W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 944.04 FEET; THENCE RUN S.43°19'43"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.74 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00010'26"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 620.35 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°37'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 59.32 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01007'47"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 176.53 FEET; THENCE RUN S.42°53'32"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.07 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89°03'28"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 191.01 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°36'21 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.23 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89° 19'21 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 133.04 FEET; THENCE RUN N.85050'05"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 99.43 FEET; THENCE RUN S.79025'26"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.39 FEET; THENCE RUN S.56044'28"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.38 FEET; THENCE RUN S.31001'07"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 37.43 FEET; THENCE RUN S.03°43'08"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 96.90 FEET; THENCE RUN S.06032'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 68.49 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00036'31 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.05 FEET; THENCE RUN S.04023'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 79.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.O1°11'30"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.74 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°48' 10"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 118.12 FEET; THENCE RUN S.03003'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 102.35 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01 030'01 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 119.09 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02020'04"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 75.13 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00029'22"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 94.37 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00042'05"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 92.14 FEET; THENCE RUN S.03036'37"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 117.42 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°50'03 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 106.32 FEET; SHEET 4 OF 23 \\10.0.0.10\data\PROJECTS\2023\23.48 CORKSCREW GROVE\LEGAL AND SKETCH EAST VILLAGE BNDY\23.48 LEGAL DESC EAST VILLAGE.rtf THENCE RUN S.00040'00"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 97.31 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°35'17"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 110.31 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°16'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 140.41 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°41'19"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 150.96 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°04'59"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.24 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°22'19"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.05 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00021'33"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 123.18 FEET; THENCE RUN S.08021'19"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 67.75 FEET; THENCE RUN S.45°16'07"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 68.75 FEET; THENCE RUN S.84° 15'47"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.96 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89057'40"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.30 FEET; THENCE RUN S.86°42'24"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 89.38 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89043'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 83.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88°47'49"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 103.44 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89°04'18"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 103.63 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89°39'41 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.75 FEET; THENCE RUN S.86°02'46"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 64.96 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89°35'11"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 68.29 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88055'43"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88023'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.30 FEET; THENCE RUN S.87°27'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 66.12 FEET; THENCE RUN N.74°04'04"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 74.55 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°09'55"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 119.52 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 78043'31", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 31.71 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.3901 F51"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 34.35 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 235.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 78°09'08", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 296.27 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39029'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 320.54 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.00°24'28"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,096.45 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,700.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 22°50'27", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 673.22 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.11 000'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 677.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23°34'42", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 122.59 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.10-38'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 123.46 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.01008'43"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 224.54 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33°55'13", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 408.39 FEET, AT A BEARING OF SHEET 5 OF 23 \\10.0.0.10\data\PROJECTS\2023\23.48 CORKSCREW GROVE\LEGAL AND SKETCH EAST VILLAGE BNDY\23.48 LEGAL DESC EAST VILLAGE.rtf N.15°48'54"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 414.42 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.32046'30"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 181.86 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°56'43", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 157.82 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39014'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 158.16 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 382.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°56'43", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 86.13 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39014'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 86.31 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.32°46'30"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 53.08 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34°32'04", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 237.46 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.50002'33"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 241.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 62°04'46", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 25.78 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.36016' 12"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 27.09 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.05013'48"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 426.62 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27°32'42", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 9.52 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.19°00'09"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 9.62 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.32046'30"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 444.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.37041'3I "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 223.51 FEET; THENCE RUN S.51 °54' 14"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 40.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 225.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39°39'16", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 152.97 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.71°43'53"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 156.07 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.88°26'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 358.52 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 925.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23°31'36", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 377.36 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.76040'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 380.03 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.64°54'54"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,604.44 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT "D", THE SAME BEING THE BEGINNING OF A SHEET 6 OF 23 \\10.0.0.10\data\PROJECTS\2023\23.48 CORKSCREW GROVE\LEGAL AND SKETCH EAST VILLAGE BNDY\23.48 LEGAL DESC EAST VILLAGE.rtf TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,074.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24°30'39", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 456.17 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.77°10'13"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 459.67 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.89°25'33"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,254.90 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 874.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25°35'52", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 387.46 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.77°46'3I"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 390.70 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND A POINT OF CURVE OF A NON -TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 137.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19°26'36", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 46.27 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.71 °32'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 46.49 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND A POINT OF CURVE OF A NON -TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 675.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20°37'20", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 241.82 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.09008'24"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 243.13 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.01 ° 10' 16"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 214.59 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 574.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30°33'45", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 302.83 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.14°06'37"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 306.45 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 425.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56°52'12", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 405.21 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.00°57'24"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 422.34 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 574.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43°30'44", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 425.89 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.05°43'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 436.29 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.16°02'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.84 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 944.869 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. LESS AND EXCEPT COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "D", THENCE RUN S.27°26'0I "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 402.44 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN SHEET 7 OF 23 \\10.0.0.10\data\PROJECTS\2023\23.48 CORKSCREW GROVE\LEGAL AND SKETCH EAST VILLAGE BNDY\23.48 LEGAL DESC EAST VILLAGE.rtf N.67°11'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.46 FEET; THENCE RUN N.85°21'28"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.15 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89'02' 13 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.07 FEET; THENCE RUN S.56°15'41"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.07°36'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 52.92 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00007'50"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°41'56"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.36 FEET; THENCE RUN S.12°47'36"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 42.53 FEET; THENCE RUN S.63°14'17"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 36.54 FEET; THENCE RUN S.65°58'21 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 78.96 FEET; THENCE RUN S.22°40'47"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 41.36 FEET; THENCE RUN S.04033'09"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01 °42'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.11 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02043' 11 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 51.59 FEET; THENCE RUN S.07040'03"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 31.35 FEET; THENCE RUN S.46°59'16"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 27.98 FEET; THENCE RUN S.75°58'12"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.61 FEET; THENCE RUN N.90000'00"E , FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.56 FEET; THENCE RUN N.54°40'20"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.65 FEET; THENCE RUN N.40°57'26"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 29.09 FEET; THENCE RUN N.08°36'07"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.19 FEET; THENCE RUN N.07°43'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 46.16 FEET; THENCE RUN N.16°05'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.36 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88050' 11 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.96 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89004' 13 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.32 FEET; THENCE RUN N.86°53' 19"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 90.52 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88°42'22"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.98 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°44'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.21 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88059'24"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 87.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.78053'49"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.14°20'06"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 66.40 FEET; THENCE RUN S.09'01'51 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 88.55 FEET; THENCE RUN S.09°13'56"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 87.61 FEET; THENCE RUN S.I0'53'56"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.09°47'32"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.54 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10°54'31 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.26 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10045'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 97.85 FEET; THENCE RUN S.08°50'14"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.26 FEET; THENCE RUN S.08024'23"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.35 FEET; THENCE RUN S.07°28'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 94.54 FEET; THENCE RUN S. 109 1'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.35009'18"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 54.16 FEET; THENCE RUN S.49°38'14"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 76.97 FEET; THENCE RUN S.51°40'50"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.73 FEET; THENCE RUN N.87°43'38"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 43.73 FEET; THENCE RUN S.7 P3 1'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 51.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.74°48'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.47044'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 27.22 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00044'I3"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 458.91 FEET; THENCE RUN N.50003'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.18 FEET; THENCE RUN N.52035'34"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 42.36 FEET; THENCE RUN N.52°39'27"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 44.34 FEET; THENCE RUN N.66017'41 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 33.93 FEET; THENCE RUN N.58°16'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 44.24 FEET; SHEET 8 OF 23 \\10.0.0.10\data\PROJECTS\2023\23.48 CORKSCREW GROVE\LEGAL AND SKETCH EAST VILLAGE BNDY\23.48 LEGAL DESC EAST VILLAGE.rtf THENCE RUN N.53046'50"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 103.66 FEET; THENCE RUN N.50° 19'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.52 FEET; THENCE RUN N.59°46'44"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 108.92 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°21'52"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 31.84 FEET; THENCE RUN S.27°44'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 40.05 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°57'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 386.62 FEET; THENCE RUN S.04058'47"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 38.88 FEET; THENCE RUN S.05°56'08"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 31.43 FEET; THENCE RUN S.03°27'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 74.52 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°15'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.04 FEET; THENCE RUN S.06°11'40"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 36.66 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°43'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 350.98 FEET; THENCE RUN S.04021'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 39.53 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°17'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 39.85 FEET; THENCE CONTINUE S.02017'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 28.25 FEET; THENCE RUN S.37°27'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 43.13 FEET; THENCE RUN S.46°11'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 38.49 FEET; THENCE RUN S.52030'51 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 41.39 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89°50'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 37.75 FEET; THENCE RUN N.69029'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 144.19 FEET; THENCE RUN N.73°51'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.95 FEET; THENCE RUN N.17°36'03"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 19.58 FEET; THENCE RUN N.15055' 16"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 469.33 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°54'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 638.37 FEET; THENCE RUN N.10°40'40"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 25.37 FEET; THENCE RUN N.65016'14"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 51.24 FEET; THENCE RUN N.80053' 11 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 377.64 FEET; THENCE RUN N.41 °38'01 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 16.60 FEET; THENCE RUN N.13°21' 12"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 35.89 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00016'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 80.83 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°57'36"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.74 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°54' 14"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.42 FEET; THENCE RUN N.04025'23"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00013'35"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.99 FEET; THENCE RUN N.14°04'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.90 FEET; THENCE RUN N.80°17'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.79°24'32"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.53 FEET; THENCE RUN N.33°59'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.02 FEET; THENCE RUN N.46053'13"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.26 FEET; TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 22.115 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. AND AREA 3 COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "C", THENCE RUN S.87040'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 105.48 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD (A 200 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY) AND THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CORKSCREW ROAD (A 100 FOOT WIDE WIGHT OF WAY), THE SAME BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN SHEET 9 OF 23 \\10.0.0.10\data\PROJECTS\2023\23.48 CORKSCREW GROVE\LEGAL AND SKETCH EAST VILLAGE BNDY\23.48 LEGAL DESC EASTVILLAGE.rtf DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID STATE ROAD 82, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,786.39 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00035'44"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 364.23 FEET; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 134.39 FEET; THENCE RUN N.31°00'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 52.82 FEET; THENCE RUN S.58°59'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.31°00'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.58°59'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.31 000'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 278.43 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE RUN S.73057'58"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 106.67 FEET; THENCE RUN S.16°02'01 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 10.84 FEET; THENCE RUN S.31 °00'01 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 361.08 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 497.96 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02°24'27", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 20.92 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.29°47'47"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 20.92 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN, S.73°57'58"E., A DISTANCE OF 1,267.66 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°00'47"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,149.10 FEET; THENCE RUN S.18°00'34"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 269.47 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,725.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 57000'46", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 1,646.54 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.46030'57"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,716.48 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.75'01'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 885.99 FEET; THENCE RUN S.06°02'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 300.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.14°52'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.55 FEET; THENCE RUN N.75007'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 3,889.60 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID CORKSCREW ROAD; THENCE RUN N.58°00'12"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,619.31 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,959.86 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37°08'16", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 1,248.21 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39026'04"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,270.34 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.20°51'56"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,760.94 FEET; TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PAREL CONTAINS 332.608 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SHEET 10 OF 23 \\10.0.0.10\data\PROJECTS\2023\23.48 CORKSCREW GROVE\LEGAL AND SKETCH EAST VILLAGE BNDY\23.48 LEGAL DESC EAST VI LLAG E.rtf THE TOTAL AREA OF PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN IS 1,446.590 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 03, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING A BEARING OF S.89°29'58"E. THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. ease Nu Digitally signed by Stephen Berry cmb\ Stephen DN: c=US, ou=LS 5296, o=BBLS 5296 " Surveyors, inc., cn=Stephen Be r r Berry, email=sberry@bblsinc.net Y Date: 2025.01.27 14:16:19-05'00' 01 /2 / /2025 STEPHEN E. BERRY, ( ) STATE OF FLORIDA PLS #5296 STATEOF BBLS SURVEYORS,o' INC., (LB #8033) �I�,,�'a/a. S OReDA ca�; SEE ATTACHED SKETCH (SHEETS 12 THROUGH 23) SHEET 11 OF 23 \\10.0.0.10\data\PROJECTS\2023\23.48 CORKSCREW GROVE\LEGAL AND SKETCH EAST VILLAGE BNDY\23.48 LEGAL DESC EAST VILLAGE.rtf 36� 311 01 106 01076 12 07 III N N W W (.J CD z z : � Q Q ER COUNTY I 06 105 250' RIGHt OF SECTION 0� WAY AGREEUE44 O.R. 175, PAGE 2 12 07 13 18 G SECTION 18 SECTION P.O.B. AREA 1 SEE SHEET 13 32 33 33 34 TOWNSHIP 45S 34 35 05 0403 TOWNSHIP 46S 03 02 P.O.B. SECTION 03 AREA 2 SEE SHEET 14 SECTION 05 It 03 02 10 11 SECTION 10 80' RIGHT OF \ WAY AGREEMENT \ 0. R. 402, \ PAGE 29 �P 08 09 p 17 16 18 17 SECTION 16 SECTION 17 � —I— )9 10 16 15 SECTION 15 10 11 15114 w J i r w x N w Y N 14 13 W O 0 E w s 0 SCALE: 1" = 3000' c� 3 w 0' 1500' 3000' 15 NOTES: o 1.) BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 04 TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH RANGE 28 N LEGEND L� SHEET INDEX U EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS BEING N S88'49'18"W. � P.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT NOT TO SCALE P.O.B.12 POINT OF BEGINNING ® INDICATES SHEET NUMBER 2.) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK RESERVATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. & PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREON 3.) DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET 1,446.590 ACRES t AND DECIMALS THEREOF. 0 4.) SEE SHEETS 21 THROUGH 23 FOR LINE AND 6 CURVE TABLES o THIS IS NOT A SURVEY SHEET 12 OF 23 7-1 a SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION BBLS SURVEYORS, INC. Q EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY 9001 HIGHLAND WOODS BLVD, o s r A PORTION OF SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, SUITE 6, BONITA SPRINGS, w M J � o w a N z m =i N .. W, a 09, AND 10 TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 FLORIDA 34135 (239) 597-1315 a_ � Q EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Q o 0 T 4. NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER 2601.08' fk4 133 1195.39' l'�57, 8„ A (S' 51. 2 XC T I 20 73'57;68" ,HEOUNTY FL ID A G 88°49' W 2 1' ' 1 7 r't` T P OTM IST N, NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER V REA 1 G BASIS) 9'18"W 33 348.39 04 03 N16°52'57"E 136.11' 408.22' S50°56'03"E S88'33'41"E ,r169.38' E kREA 3 \ \ N °0 20" \ \ 8 .6 ' \ \ 6° W_ 250' RIGHT OF \ 3 0. WAY ---- AGREEMENT \ \ \ O.R. 175, \ \ PAGE 27 \ \ 09 10 09 10 I P.O.C. AREA 1 NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST NORTH LINE OF QUARTER SECTION 04 THE NORTHWEST QUARTER 34 34 03 03 S88°33'41 "E 138.80' SL y RAW OVE 5 S�3. 10S�S8'E 6.6), o� N58'59'58"W 15.00' N3100'02"E 3 30.00' • !o S73'57'58"E S58'59'58"E 0 134.39'DETAIL15.00' c/) 04 03 NOT TO SCALE 04 03 SECTION 03 X 03 103m N73°57'58"W — — 03 1 03; lDETq/t .67' AgO�f6 s °02'01 "W N W 5' 4" 10.84 0 4 3' S31 °00'01 "W N 61.08' Z 7 °5 8" 6 13 .39' � W S7 57' 8" N 67 6' o of m � w o � a s S1 00' 4" W 6 .47 j 03 W in in N 0 o c� 3 ag5 g9' o 80' RIGHT OF a S14°52'39"W WAY N 100.55' AGREEMENT N O.R. 402, \ \ PAGE 29 10 \ 10 10 10 11 1 w � a o 0 0 6 THIS IS NOT A SURVEY SHEET 13 OF 23 N SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION BBLS SURVEYORS, INC. o m Q Lo EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY 9001 HIGHLAND WOODS BLVD, o r � A PORTION OF SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, SUITE 6 BONITA SPRINGS, J 11 & m 3 w w� 09 AND 10, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 FLORIDA 34135 (239) 597-1315 0 a � w Q EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA v) Q o o NORTH LINE OF — THE NORTHWEST QUARTER S89'34'35"E 2601.08'- 32 32 32 33 LEGEND 05 05 WEST LINE OF 05 STATE ROAD 82 THE NORTHWEST P.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT (200' RIGHT OF WAY) QUARTER P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING N01°10'09"W O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1123.48' �l R/W RIGHT OF WAY BRG I BEARING I N S1g3js3 W NOTES: SECTION 05 W 4 4 E P.O.B. 1' 1.) BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE NORTH LINE Q 0 AREA 2 OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 04, TOWNSHIP S (SEE SHEET 20) 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS BEING S88'49'18"W. SCALE: 1" = 1000' N16°02'02"E 69.84' 2.) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 0l 500 1000' C23 v 3.) DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND POINT "D" N01°1O'16"W DECIMALS THEREOF. P.O.C. 214.59' LESS & SEE SHEETS 4.) SEE SHEETS 21 THROUGH 23 FOR LINE AND CURVE 05 05 EXCEPT 18 & 19 TABLES — 055 N89°25'33"E 19 12 4.9 C 0 21 E .B 5� 5 SS N6k t� EX P L96 16 18E E S 0) Cl�, L97 08 S '2 01 LESS & 40 .44' EXCEPT LESS & \ 8 RI T F EXCEPT \ \ co A 3: \ R M T \ \ 0 A 2 ao L9 C12 L91— S88 r/647'� °5117WNOT A PART rL48 z P T W W 2 CO W c W Z J 2 U 3 SECTION 09 0 co Ln °' E T O ON H I NOT A O8 O9 _ z PART 08 09 0 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 17 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 15 THIS IS NOT A SURVEY SHEET 14 OF 23 7-1 a m r a Q o cqEAST 5Kt i UN I V AC:C:VMrANT LtCaAL UCSC:F'llr I IVN VILLAGE BOUNDARY ggLS SURVEYORS, INC. 9001 HIGHLAND WOODS BLVD, SUITE 6, BONITA SPRINGS, A PORTION OF SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, J 11 & m 3 w w� 09 AND 10, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 FLORIDA 34135 (239) 597-1315 0 a o w (n Q EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA UI Q O 0 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 16 (DD N J 4 O r W Q O E J S w SCALE: 1" = 200' 0' 100' 200' W r W I � W J w l 1� J L77 L76 U Q NOT A PART DETAIL 3 SCALE: 1 "=200' MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 13 3 z m I I cl U 08 09 08 09 w I I S58'OO'12"W I 6667.70' Y SEE DETAIL 3 ON THIS SHEET S47°14'54�'W Z INa L J 592.73' Ja w P.O.B. O.R. R/W DOoo J W E CORKSCREW ROAD 0 — (100' RIGHT OF WAY) ' S c m w SCALE: 1" = 1000' g 0' 500' 1000' a w S U Y z POINT OF COMMENCEMENT a POINT OF BEGINNING w OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK i RIGHT OF WAY o 3 NOTES: 1.) BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 04, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS BEING S88'49'18"W. QO 2.) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, PO i:� RESERVATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. pF q�- 3.) DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF. 4.) SEE SHEETS 21 THROUGH 23 FOR LINE AND CURVE TABLES o 0 0 SHEET 15 OF 23 U 0 a THIS IS NOT A SURVEY MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 14 L183 L51 �01 °0° o 0 0 �o � z J L57 L55 L56 00 Ln J Q% J 0 J J LEGEND P.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING o O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 0 R/W RIGHT OF WAY > m J w o0' U) THIS IS NOT A SURVEY c) a_ U) Q 3 N J r� J 0 M J L29 L27 L26 DETAIL 4 J SCALE: 1 "=200' L MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 15 8 L25 /-L24 N O D W E Q 0 S SCALE: 1" = 200' 0' 100' 200' z19:11*� 1.) BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 04, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS BEING S88'49'18"W. 2.) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 3.) DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF. 4.) SEE SHEETS 21 THROUGH 23 FOR LINE AND CURVE TABLES 3 0 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 14 y 3 0 r 0 z N m w W O 4 E > � 0 w S w Y SCALE: 1" = 200' 0 z a 0' 100' 200' a ri N } 0 z 0] w (7 Q LEGEND w P.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING Y O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 0 R/W RIGHT OF WAY a J Q NOTES: 1.) BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE 3 NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 04, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS o BEING S88'49'18"W. co 2.) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO M EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS o OF RECORD. i 3.) DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET w AND DECIMALS THEREOF. 4.) SEE SHEETS 21 THROUGH AND CURVE TABLES a a 23 FOR LINE a i 0 0 0 0 SHEET 17 OF 20 THIS IS NOT A SURVEY POINT "D" P.O.C. LESS & EXCEPT S27'26'019g L9 L100 402. 4' 1�L N ^� P.O.B. ^ LESS & L179 L180v EXCEPT o J co _ d J 0 J r r J L106 LESS & EXCEPT a L171 J / 377.64' N80°53'11 "W NOTES N65° '14"W 51.24' 1.) BEARINGS SHOWN HERE REFER TO THE N10°40'40"W NORTH LINE OF THE NOR EAST QUARTER OF SECTION 04, TOWNS P 46 SOUTH, RAN 25.37' 28 EAST, COLLIER C NTY, FLORIDA AS BEING S88°49'18"W. 2.) THIS PROPE TY IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS OR STRICTIONS OF RECORD. 3: 3.) DIMENSIONS SHOWN H EON ARE IN FEET M AND DECIMALS THEREOF 06 r� o co 4.) SEE SHEETS 21 HROUGH 23 FOR E Z AND CURVE TABLES N W 4 4 E LEGEND P.O.C. OINT OF /BOOK S P.O.B. POINT OF SCALE: 1" 00' O.R. OFFICIAL RR/W RIGHT OF0' 100' 200' y0)o L121 L122 tL120 0)L112 L118L113L714 L115 L154 L116 L155 <7s3 �7� L124 L125 L126 L127 J N J 0 M J M J N LESS & '') <�s EXCEPT J 7 M L150 4749 N M L148 <�Q) 00 N L14 N00. 4'13'W 458.91' MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 19 J L136 0 SHEET 18 OF 23 THIS IS NOT A SURVEY N � 4 W Q � E S SCALE: 1" =200' 0' 100' 200' p— �tIr L156 w TCHLINE SEE SHEET 18 i� co O � 0 z L145`A44 r r� J LESS & EXCEPT co J �0) v NO �1 �K L142 -L143 NOTES: 80' RIGHT LESS SSPT 1.) BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE OF WAY z EXCEE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AGREEMENT OF SECTION 04, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE O.R. 402, 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS PAGE 29 L161 BEING S88'49'18"W. \ \ L162 2. THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO ) \ EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS \ L163 OF RECORD. L170 \ \ C7g \ \ L164 3.) DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET \ 9 AND DECIMALS THEREOF. 250' RIGHT OF \ \�76g L163— WAY \ L166 \ 4. SEE SHEETS 21 THROUGH 23 FOR LINE AGREEMENT \ AND CURVE TABLES O.R. 175, \ \ PAGE 27 \ \ LEGEND P.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK R/W RIGHT OF WAY 3 �I 0 SHEET 19 OF 23 THIS IS NOT A SURVEY N 60.91' N1�302 0f/, L517 l/ . 234.50' ESS AND EXCEPT -P.O.B. LESS AND EXCEPT LN�3. �S8„W POINT "A" 39 12s' N� LESSP N C EXCEPT Sr Y R/W �1Nf i200R'� RpgO 82 SC Y R/ op - ON,, wA y) D AIL 1 SCALE: 1 "=200' 01EolII*� 1.) BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 04, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS BEING S88.49'18"W. 2.) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 3.) DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF. 4.) SEE SHEETS 21 THROUGH 23 FOR LINE AND CURVE TABLES THIS IS NOT A SURVEY S18°37'53"W II 200.21'�I P.O.B. AREA 2 (SEE SHEET 14) 0' 100' 200' N� y POINT ' B" P.O.C. AREA 2 (SEE SHEET 14) sL y Riw �1Nf i (200'4 c ROAD 82 f 8 8 8g, 8'05'0g„W 96.93, NIO O N O M 2162' 35jS8�f S53°42'5 'E .Do' X� 1 r-e%r-dlr% N,35j58 W 32� 44 NOT A PART DETAIL 1 SCALE: 1 "=200' r'.V.(:. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK R/W RIGHT OF WAY 1 S36°17'02"W 85.80' AREA 2 o m m m a Q Q o SKt I f.;N I V Af.A;UMr'ANT Lt=UAL Utm;mir' I IUN EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY ggLS SURVEYORS, INC. 9001 HIGHLAND WOODS BLVD, SUITE 6, BONITA SPRINGS, A PORTION OF SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, J ' & 3 w w w `d 09 AND 10, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 FLORIDA 34135 (239) 597-1315 Q U a d ¢ It J(n H Q EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA UI Qlo IL- Line Table Line # Direction Length L1 N42'45'06"W 182.77 L2 N08'34'04"E 29.19 L3 NOT19'41"E 73.16 L4 N04'55'22"W 49.31 L5 N05'01'49"W 55.88 L6 N00'02'16"W 44.00 L7 N01'10'03"E 63.95 L8 N01'29'48"W 47.71 L9 NO2'18'30"W 59.29 L10 N01'01'00"E 49.59 L11 N01'26'27"W 45.34 L12 N26'36'32"W 21.65 L13 N71 *11'20"W 62.41 L14 N78'16'23"W 59.85 L15 N44'56'42"W 61.76 L16 N07'58'50"W 71.72 L17 N06'48'04"W 79.45 L18 N06'20'44"E 62.71 L19 NO2'58'06"W 61.35 L20 N10'07'23"W 57.54 L21 N01'52'44"E 256.40 L22 NO2'54'16"E 84.49 L23 NO2'25'45"E 69.25 L24 N30'11'45"W 54.29 L25 N86'55'39"W 54.72 L26 S85'44'03"W 23.63 L27 N62'37'24"W 48.08 L28 N29'11'17"W 23.53 L29 N34'43'38"W 36.62 L30 NO2'00'28"W 63.59 L31 N04'15'45"W 56.83 L32 NO2'00'20"W 64.72 L33 NO3'51'27"E 47.63 L34 N05'47'57"W 48.46 L35 N01'30'23"E 80.45 Line Table Line # Direction Length L36 N01'08'26"W 95.81 L37 N00'39'33"W 58.77 L38 N01'35'28"W 73.39 L39 NO3'07'02"E 46.18 L40 N00'03'06"W 63.29 L41 NO3'24'00"W 55.90 L42 N57'16'37"W 39.27 L43 S43'19'43"W 56.74 L44 S00'10'26"E 620.35 L45 S00'37'20"W 59.32 L46 S01'07'47"E 176.53 L47 S42'53'32"E 45.07 L48 N89'03'28"E 191.01 L49 S88'36'21 "E 71.23 L50 S89'19'21"E 133.04 L51 S79'25'26"E 56.39 L52 S56'44'28"E 57.38 L53 S31'01'07"E 37.43 L54 S03'43'08"E 96.90 L55 S06'32'57"E 68.49 L56 S00'36'31 "E 81.05 L57 SO4'23'21 "W 79.50 L58 S01'11'30"W 100.74 L59 S02'48'10"E 118.12 L60 S03'03'32"W 102.35 L61 S01'30'01 "E 119.09 L62 S02'20'04"E 75.13 L63 S00'29'22"E 94.37 L64 S00'42'05"W 92.14 L65 S03'36'37"E 117.42 L66 S00'50'03"W 106.32 L67 S00'40'00"E 97.31 L68 S00'35'17"E 110.31 L69 S00'16'58"W 140.41 L70 S00'41'19"E 150.96 Line Table Line # Direction Length L71 S01'04'59"W 85.24 L72 S02'22'19"E 85.05 L73 S00'21'33"E 123.18 L74 S08'21'19"W 67.75 L75 S45'16'07"W 68.75 L76 S84'15'47"W 73.96 L77 S89'57'40"W 81.30 L78 S86'42'24"W 89.38 L79 N89'43'02"W 83.72 L80 N88'47'49"W 103.44 L81 S89'04'18"W 103.63 L82 S89'39'41"W 71.75 L83 S86'02'46"W 64.96 L84 S89'35'11"W 68.29 L85 S88'55'43"W 84.29 L86 N88'23'45"W 70.30 L87 S87'27'37"W 66.12 L88 N74'04'04"W 74.55 L89 N00'09'55"E 119.52 L90 N01'08'43"W 224.54 L91 N32'46'30"E 181.86 L92 N32'46'30"E 53.08 L93 N05'13'48"E 426.62 L94 N32'46'30"E 444.29 L95 N37'41'31 "E 223.51 L96 S51'54'14"E 40.72 L97 N88'26'29"E 358.52 L98 N67'11'52"E 55.46 L99 N85'21'28"E 49.15 L100 N89'02'13"E 58.07 L101 S56'15'41 "E 45.77 L102 S07'36'38"E 52.92 L103 S00'07'50"E 85.50 L104 S01'41'56"E 73.36 L105 S12'47'36"E 42.53 THIS IS NOT A SURVEY SHEET 21 OF 23 a SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION BBLS SURVEYORS, INC. Q EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY 9001 HIGHLAND WOODS BLVD, A PORTION OF SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, m o SUITE 6, BONITA SPRINGS, w m o w ai z w 09, AND 10 TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 FLORIDA 34135 (239) 597-1315 0 a f J(n Q EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA fN Q 0 o Line Table Line # Direction Length L106 S63'14'17"E 36.54 L107 S65'58'21 "E 78.96 L108 S22'40'47"E 41.36 L109 SO4'33'09"E 81.77 L110 S01'42'39"W 70.11 L111 S02'43'11 "E 51.59 L112 S07'40'03"E 31.35 L113 S46'59'16"E 27.98 L114 S75'58'12"E 65.61 L115 N90'00'00"E 69.56 L116 N54'40'20"E 30.65 L117 N40'57'26"E 29.09 L118 N08'36'07"E 69.19 L119 N07'43'29"E 46.16 L120 N16'05'02"E 45.36 L121 S88'50'11 "E 57.96 L122 N89'04'13"E 57.32 L123 N86'53'19"E 90.52 L124 N88'42'22"E 65.98 L125 S88'44'52"E 65.21 L126 N88'59'24"E 87.77 Ll27 S78'53'49"E 56.56 Ll28 S14'20'06"E 66.40 L129 S09'01'51 "E 88.55 L130 S09'13'56"E 87.61 L131 S10'53'56"E 57.56 L132 S09'47'32"E 65.54 L133 S10'54'31 "E 84.26 L134 S10'45'45"E 97.85 L135 S08'50'14"E 71.26 L136 S08'24'23"E 58.35 L137 S07'28'27"E 94.54 L138 S1011'32"W 58.77 L139 S35'09'18"W 54.16 Line Table Line # Direction Length L140 S49'38'14"W 76.97 L141 S51'40'50"W 56.73 L142 N87'43'38"W 43.73 L143 S71'31'58"W 51.56 L144 S74'48'32"W 45.29 L145 N47'44'22"W 27.22 L146 N50'03'22"W 55.18 L147 N52'35'34"W 42.36 L148 N52'39'27"W 44.34 L149 N66'17'41 "W 33.93 L150 N58'16'54"W 44.24 L151 N53'46'50"W 103.66 L152 N50'19'54"W 45.52 L153 N59'46'44"W 108.92 L154 S88'21'52"W 31.84 L155 S27'44'21 "W 40.05 L156 SO4'58'47"E 38.88 L157 S05'56'08"E 31.43 L158 S03'27'27"E 74.52 L159 S02'15'32"W 71.04 L160 S06'11'40"W 36.66 L161 SO4'21'32"W 39.53 L162 S02'17'57"E 39.85 L163 S02'17'57"E 28.25 L164 S37'27'37"W 4113 L165 S46'11'45"W 38.49 L166 S52'30'51 "W 41.39 L167 N89'50'21 "W 37.75 L168 N69'29'22"W 144.19 L169 N73'51'39"W 84.95 L170 N17'36'03"W 19.58 Ll71 N41'38'01"W 16.60 L172 N13'21'12"W 35.89 L173 N00'16'22"W 80.83 L174 N00'57'36"W 70.74 Line Table Line # Direction Length L175 NO2'54'14"E 63.42 L176 N04'25'23"E 49.72 L177 N00'13'35"W 60.99 L178 N14'04'29"E 81.90 L179 N80'17'27"E 65.29 L180 N79'24'32"E 65.53 Ll81 N33'59'45"E 70.02 L182 N46'53'13"E 56.26 L183 N85'50'05"E 99.43 of0 THIS IS NOT A SURVEY SHEET 22 OF 23 SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION BBLS SURVEYORS, INC. Q Lo EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY 9001 HIGHLAND WOODS BLVD, Q } m A PORTION OF SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, SUITE 6, BONITA SPRINGS, w� J Z� ' m ow m zw 3 w F 09, AND 10 TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 FLORIDA 34135 (239) 597-1315 u a a Q EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Q o o 3 0 0 Z m w a J i r a w S w Y 0 Z a a c� w J m a N } 0 m w 5 V) w U r Y N O J CD w i 0 3 w N Y O V m a N M N O N fn H U w O K a a r a 0 0 THIS IS NOT A SURVEY d d d SHEET 23 OF 23 SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION BBLS SURVEYORS, INC. Q EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY 9001 HIGHLAND WOODS BLVD, Q Ld m A PORTION OF SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, SUITE 6, BONITA SPRINGS, w\ pw ' m m zw 09, AND 10 TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 J Z 3 w w FLORIDA 34135 (239) 597-1315 a- < V) Q EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Q o 0 Curve Table Curve # Radius Length Delta Chord Chord Brg C1 50.00 60.40 69'12'45" 56.79 S36'02'42"W C2 50.00 78.54 90°00'00" 70.71 S43'33'41 "E C3 50.00 32.84 37°37'38" 32.25 S69'44'52"E C4 50.00 65.06 74'33'23" 60.57 N54'09'38"E C5 50.00 65.06 74'33'23" 60.57 N54'09'38"E C6 1859.86 1205.52 37°08'16" 1184.52 S39°26'04"W C7 25.00 34.35 78'43'31" 31.71 N39'11'51"W C8 235.00 320.54 78'09'08" 296.27 N39'29'02"W C9 1700.00 677.70 22°50'27" 673.22 N11'00'45"E C10 300.00 123.46 23°34'42" 122.59 N10'38'38"E C11 700.00 414.42 33'55'13" 408.39 N15'48'54"E C12 700.00 158.16 12'56'43" 157.82 N39'14'52"E C13 382.00 86.31 12°56'43" 86.13 N39'14'52"E C14 400.00 241.10 34°32'04" 237.46 N50'02'33"E C15 25.00 27.09 62'04'46" 25.78 N36'16'12"E C16 20.00 9.62 27'32'42" 9.52 N19'00'09"E C17 225.50 156.07 39°39'16" 152.97 S71'43'53"E C18 925.50 380.03 23'31'36" 377.36 N76'40'41 "E CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT Alico Incorporated 10070 Daniels Interstate Court Suite 200 Fort Myers, FL 33913 The Corkscrew Grove East Professional Consulting Team includes: JR Evans — Engineering Coleman Yovanovich & Koester — Legal Counsel Development Planning & Financing Group (DPFG) — Fiscal Analysis Bowman Consulting — Planning and Permitting Passarella & Assoc., Inc. (PAI) — Environmental Permitting Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, Inc. — Transportation EX B to Res. Page 1 of 112 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page L OVERVIEW/VILLAGE DESIGN 3 II. SRA STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE/SUITABLITY CRITERIA 3 III. REQUIRED PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFERS 5 IV. MINIMUM REQUIRED AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 5 DENSITY AND INTENSITY V. CONTEXT ZONES 5 5.1 Neighborhood General 5 5.2 Village Center 8 5.3 Affordable Housing 12 VI. EXCAVATIONS 14 VII. GOLF CARTS/LOW-SPEED VEHICLES 14 VIII. DEVIATIONS 14 8.1 Neighborhood General Standards 14 8.2 Village Center Standards 15 8.3 Transportation Standards 15 8.4 Signs Standards 16 8.5 Landscape Standards 16 8.6 Other Deviations 16 IX. OWNER COMMITMENTS 17 9.1 Planning 17 9.2 Environmental 18 9.3 Transportation 19 9.4 Parks and Recreation 19 9.5 Landscaping 19 9.6 Affordable Housing 19 9.7 School 20 9.8 Fire and Emergency Medical Services 21 Page 2 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations. egnyte. com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b 1 e7- dl2elafd7lftl/WOPIServiceld_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserld_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 2 of 112 EXHIBITS Exhibit A — Sheet 1: Exhibit A — Sheet 2: Exhibit A — Sheet 3: Exhibit A — Sheet 4: Exhibit A — Sheet 5: Exhibit A — Sheet 6: Exhibit A — Sheet 7: Exhibit A — Sheet 8: Exhibit A — Sheet 9: Exhibit A — Sheet 10: Exhibit B —Sheets 1-11: Exhibit B — Sheets 12-23: Exhibit C — Sheet 1 Exhibit D —Sheets 1-10 Exhibit E — Sheet 1-42 SRA Master Plan (Color) SRA Master Plan (Black & White) SRA Master Plan Internal Mobility Plan SRA Master Plan with Deviations SRA Master Plan Deviation Descriptions SRA Street Cross Sections (1) SRA Street Cross Sections (2) SRA Street Cross Sections (3) SRA Street Cross Sections (4) SRA Street Cross Sections (5) Legal Description Sketch to Accompany Legal Description Location Map Covenant of Unified Control Natural Resource Index Assessment Page 3 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations. egnyte. com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b 1 e7- dl2elafd7lftl/WOPIServiceld_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserld_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 3 of 112 I. OVERVIEWNILLAGE DESIGN AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT The Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA or Village) is located in northern Collier County in portions of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, Township 46 South, and Range 28 East. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA ("Village") contains a total of 1,446.59t acres. A portion of the Village is located on the north side of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road. The remainder of the Village is located south of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road, east and west of Corkscrew Road. Lands north of the Village within Collier County are zoned A -Agricultural and within the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA). Lands to the north within Hendry County are zoned PUD (mining). Lands to the south are zoned A — Agricultural and designated Public Lands. Lands to the east are zoned A - Agricultural and within the RLSA, with a portion designated Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA). Lands to the east are also identified as a Panther Corridor. Lands to the west are within the RLSA, with a portion designated Water Retention Area (WRA). In accordance with the RLSA Overlay definition, the Village is primarily a residential community which includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 4,502 dwelling units, which includes 362 affordable housing units. The Village includes 145.58± acres of a mixed -use Village Center providing for the required neighborhood -scaled retail, office, civic, and community uses. H. SRA STATEMENT OF SUITABILITY CRITERIA PER LDC SECTION 4.08.07, PARAGRAPHS A, B, and C AND RLSA OVERLAY ATTACHMENT C 1. The SRA contains 1,446.59f acres. 2. The SRA does not include any lands designated Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA) or Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA) 3. There is a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) surrounded by the SRA that includes 81.56 acres of Water Retention Area (WRA). This WRA will not provide stormwater quality treatment for the SRA. 4. The SRA does not include any lands with a Natural Resource Index (NRI) greater than 1.2. 5. The SRA does not include any lands within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) Overlay. 6. The required minimum Open Space (35%) is 506.30 acres. The SRA master plan provides for 516.60f acres of Open Space (36%). 7. The SRA is designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and a multi -use pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods with connecting multi -use pathways. 8. The SRA provides a total of 63.63± acres of public benefit use in the form of a dedicated affordable housing site, a public -school site, and a fire station site. 9. The SRA contains three Context Zones: Neighborhood General, Affordable Housing, and Village Center. 10. Within the Village Center Context Zone, the SRA shall provide the following: a minimum and maximum of 238,606 gross square feet of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, a maximum of 100,000 gross square feet of indoor self -storage, and a minimum of 45,020 gross square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses, all subject to a trip cap. The required neighborhood goods and services, civic, governmental, and institutional square footage is based on all units including the affordable units. Page 4 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations. egnyte. com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b 1 e7- dl2elafd7lftl/WOPIServiceld_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserld_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 4 of 112 11. The SRA allows for up to 4,502 dwelling units (3.11 dwelling units per acre), which include 362 affordable housing units. 12. In compliance with the requirement to provide a diversity of housing types within a Village, a minimum of 10% of units shall be multi -family, based upon the Land Development Code (LDC) definition of Multifamily Dwelling (a group of 3 or more dwelling units within a single building) or Horizontal Multifamily as hereinafter defined, a minimum of 10% of the units shall be single family detached, and a minimum of 10% of the units shall be single family attached or villas. 13. The SRA provides approximately 24.33f acres of parks, park preserves, wetland park preserves, and a Neighborhood General Amenity Center. This exceeds the SRA requirement of providing 1 % of the SRA gross acreage (14.47 acres) for recreation and parks for neighborhoods. 14. The SRA has direct access to Corkscrew Road, which is classified as major collector road and State Road 82 which is classified as a principal arterial road. 15. The SRA is consistent with the standards set forth in the GMP RLSA Overlay Attachment C, applicable to Villages. 16. The Village will be served by the Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District created by Chapter 2025- 237, Laws of Florida. 17. The total acreage requiring stewardship credits is 1,382.96 acres (total SRA acreage excluding 63.63 acres of public benefit use). This is calculated as follows: Total SRA Acreage 1,446.59 Acres Public Benefit Use Acreage' - 63.63 Acres Total 1,382.96 Acres 'Public benefit uses include 36.22 acres for affordable housing, 24 acres for a public -school site, and 3.41 acres for afire station site (essential services tract as depicted on the SRA Master Plan). 18. Eight (8) Credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created from an SSA submitted for review or approved prior to July 13, 2021. The SRA utilizes 8,504.80 Stewardship Credits from SSA 11 created prior to July 13, 2021, which entitles 1,063.10 acres of the SRA. 19. Ten (10) Credits per acre shall be required for each acre of land included in an SRA, where such Credits were created from an SSA submitted for review or approved after July 13, 2021. The SRA utilizes 3,198.60 Stewardship Credits from SSA 22 created after July 13, 2021, which entitles 319.86 acres of the SRA. 20. The proposed schedule of development within the Village SRA, is as follows: a. Anticipated timeframe for receipt of required jurisdictional agency permits (or permit modifications) and date of commencement of residential development: two years from approval of this SRA. b. Anticipated sequence of residential development: An average of 250 units per year commencing after receipt of federal, state, and local permits. c. Anticipated timeframe for commencement of minimum required neighborhood retail and office uses: 10 years from date of approval of this SRA. d. Anticipated project completion date: fourteen (14) years from date of approval of this SRA or upon approval of any required jurisdictional permits, whichever occurs last. Page 5 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations. egnyte. com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b 1 e7- dl2elafd7lftl/WOPIServiceld_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserld_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 5 of 112 III. REQUIRED PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFERS Table 1: Village Perimeter Landscape Buffer Requirements Adjacent to Corkscrew Road Minimum 25' wide Type "D" Buffer per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4.1 and State Road 82 All other Perimeter Landscape Buffers Adjacent to Preserve or SSA No Buffer Required (except as required by the South Florida Water Management District Adjacent to A — Agriculture Minimum 10' wide Type "A" buffer per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.1. 1 The required 25' wide Type D perimeter buffer along Corkscrew Road and State Road 82 may include a 10' wide underground utility easement adjacent to the respective roadway. The 10' wide underground utility easement shall be sodded, and all required buffer plantings shall then be located outside of the underground utility easement within remaining 15' of the 25' wide perimeter buffer. 2 Minimum 300 foot Open Space buffer is required between the SRA and any adjoining HSA or FSA IV. MINIMUM REQUIRED AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND INTENSITY The maximum total number of dwelling units in the Village shall not exceed 4,502 dwelling units. The minimum and maximum allowed amount of neighborhood goods and services to be developed within the Village is 238,606 gross square feet. A minimum of 45,020 gross square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses are required. The required neighborhood goods and services, civic, governmental, and institutional square footage is based on all units including the affordable units. A maximum of 100,000 gross square feet of indoor self -storage is also permitted and shall not count towards the required minimum of 238,606 gross square feet of neighborhood goods and services. The overall intensity and density for the Village is limited by a Trip Cap maximum of 4,092 two-way, adjusted (net external), average weekday pm peak hour total trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. V. CONTEXT ZONES The Village contains three distinct Context Zones: Neighborhood General, Village Center, and Affordable Housing. 5.1 Neighborhood General Context Zone The Neighborhood General Context Zone includes approximately 1,237.41± acres of land. The Neighborhood General zone is predominately residential with a mix of single and multi -family housing. The Neighborhood General Context Zone also includes parks, amenity centers and open space. The interconnected street pattern is maintained throughout the Neighborhood General designation to facilitate traffic movement. Sidewalks, a multi -use pathway, and a walkable streetscape support the pedestrian - oriented environment. Page 6 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations. egnyte. com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b 1 e7- dl2elafd7lftl/WOPIServiceld_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserld_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 6 of 112 5.1.1 Allowable Uses and Structures 5.1.1. A. Permitted Uses and Structures: I. Single -Family dwelling units. 11. Multi -family dwelling units. Multi -family dwelling units shall include 3 or more dwelling units within a single building as well as Horizontal Multifamily. Horizontal Multifamily is defined as single-family housing units built within a single development tract. Similar to typical multifamily, a Horizontal Multifamily project includes common infrastructure, parking, amenities, stormwater management system, and open space. Unlike traditional multifamily buildings, the units are standalone buildings, without other units above or below. Horizontal multifamily projects may include attached villas (two units with a common wall). Horizontal multifamily developments are not required to be platted and shall be reviewed through the Site Development Process (LDC Section 10.02.03). As is the case with typical multifamily, setbacks are applied from the development tract boundaries. III. Senior/Group Housing, including but not limited to Assisted Living Facilities (ALF), Independent Living Facilities (ILF), and Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC), not to exceed 300 units in this SRA, subject to Florida statutes and the applicable provisions of LDC Section 5.05.04 - Group Housing, located within '/2mile of the Village Center, as depicted on the SRA Master Plan. IV. Neighborhood General- Amenity center, as identified on the SRA Master Plan, for residents and guests, which may include clubhouses, fitness facilities, and typical recreational uses, including swimming pools, tennis courts, pickle ball courts, dog parks, and similar facilities. IV. Utility facilities for water/wastewater, subject to the applicable standards set forth in Section 5.05.12 of the LDC. V. Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses permissible within the Rural Agricultural District (A) subject to the applicable development standards established in LDC Section 4.02.00 for the Rural Agricultural District (A) until such time as an SDP or Subdivision Plat is approved for a particular parcel. 5.1.1. B. Accessory Uses and Structures: Typical accessory uses and structures incidental to residential development including, walls, fences, gazebos, swimming pools, screen enclosures, utility buildings (subject to the applicable standards set forth in Section 5.05.12 of the LDC), chickee huts, air conditioning units, satellite antennas, docks and similar uses and structures, and appurtenances required by Collier County, which may include structures, to serve the development, excluding water and wastewater treatment plants. II. Model homes, sales centers and other temporary uses are permitted throughout Neighborhood General as provided for in LDC Section 5.04.00, and in this SRA Document. Page 7 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations. egnyte. com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b 1 e7- dl2elafd7lftl/WOPIServiceld_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserld_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 7 of 112 III. Neighborhood recreation areas may include clubhouses, swimming pools, tennis courts, pickle ball courts, and similar neighborhood recreation facilities. IV. Passive parks, limited to landscaped or natural areas and may include hardscape pathways or seating areas, benches, fire pits, shade structures such as gazebos or pavilions, docks, or piers. Page 8 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations. egnyte. com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b 1 e7- dl2elafd7lftl/WOPIServiceld_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserld_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 8 of 112 5.1.2. Neighborhood General Development and Design Standards 5.1.2.A. Required Minimum Yards & Maximum Building Heights', to: SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY MULTI -FAMILY CLUBHOUSES/REC- REATION AND FITNESS FACILTIES DEVELOPMENT SINGLE ZERO LOT ALF, ILF, CCRC PER 5.1.1. A. (IV); STANDARDS SINGLE FAMILY HORIZONTAL LINE & & OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD FAMILY ATTACHED MULTI- TOWNHOMES MULTI- RECREATION DETACHED & TWO- B FAMILY FAMILY6 AREAS PER FAMILY 5.1.1.B.(III) and (IV) PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MIN. LOT AREA 4,600 S.F. / 2,800 S.F. / 10,000 S.F. / 2,500 20,000 S.F./LOT N/A UNIT UNIT LOT S.F./UNIT MIN. LOT 37.5' 30' 100, 207UNIT 100, N/A WIDTH MIN. FLOOR 1,200 SF 11200 S.F./ 700 S.F./ UNIT 1,200 550 S.F./UNIT? N/A AREA UNIT S.F./UNIT 0.45 (only applies FLOOR AREA N/A N/A N/A N/A to ALF, ILF, N/A RATIO CCRC MIN. FRONT YARD2 15' 20' 20" 20' 20' 20' MIN. SIDE YARD3 5' 0 OR 5' 5' 0 or 5' 10, 10, MIN. REAR 10, 10, 20'9 10, 20' 10, YARD MIN. LAKE SETBACK4 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' MIN. DISTANCE 15' OR'/z SUM of BETWEEN 10, 10, 10, 10, BH for Structures 10, STRUCTURES Exceeding 35' BH MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - 35' 35' 35' 35' 3.5 Stories NTE 50' 3.5 Stories NTE 50' ZONED MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - 42' 42' 42' 42' 62' 62' ACTUAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MIN. FRONT SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS YARD MIN. SIDE YARD SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS 10, MIN. REAR 5' 5' 5'9 5 5' 5' YARD MIN. LAKE SETBACK4 10' 10' S' S' S' S' MAX. HEIGHT ZONED & SPS SPS 42' SPS 42' SPS ACTUAL Table 1: Neighborhood General - Required Minimum Yards Maximum Building Height S.P.S. = same as for principal structure; NTE = not to exceed; S.F. = square feet; BH = building height; N/A = not applicable Footnotes: 1. Setbacks from preserves, as shown on master plan, shall be as set forth in LDC Section 3.05.07.H.3. 2. Front yards shall be measured as follows: — If the parcel has frontage on two streets (corner lot), the frontage providing vehicular access to the unit shall be considered the front yard. The setback along the other frontage shall be a minimum of 10'. — In no case shall the setback be less than 23 feet from the edge of an adjacent sidewalk, except in the case of side -loaded garages where the garage is designed in such a way that a vehicle can be parked in the driveway without conflicting with, or encroaching upon, the adjacent sidewalk. 3. 5' minimum side setbacks for single-family attached, two-family, must be accompanied by another 5' minimum side setback on adjoining lot to achieve minimum 10' separation. 4. Lake setback is measured from lake maintenance easement. The required 20' lake maintenance easement shall be provided in a separate platted tract for single-family, two-family and townhome developments submitted as a PPL. Properties that abut a lake maintenance easement or open space tract may reduce the setback for accessory structures to 0'. 5. Zero Lot Line and Townhome Development means 3 or more attached units, typically one or 2 stories in height. Page 9 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations. epyte. com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b 1 e7- dl2elafd7lftl/WOPIServiceld_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserld_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 9 of 112 6. Other Multi -family means 2 or more units in one building other than Zero Lot Line or Townhome Development, typically more than 2 stories in height. 7. Minimum floor area is not applicable to ALF, ELF, or CCRC units. 8. Horizontal Multifamily is defined as single-family housing units built within a single development tract. Similar to typical multifamily, a Horizontal Multifamily project includes common infrastructure, parking, amenities, stormwater management system, and open space. Unlike traditional multifamily buildings, the units are standalone buildings, without other units above or below. Horizontal multifamily projects may include attached villas (two units with a common wall). Horizontal multifamily developments are not required to be platted and shall be reviewed through the Site Development Process (LDC Section 10.02.03). As is the case with typical multifamily, setbacks are applied from the development tract boundaries. 9. Measured from the development tract boundary. 10. Standards included within this Table do not constitute an approved deviation if in conflict with required utility separations. 5.2 Village Center Context Zone The Village Center Context Zone includes 169.557L acres of land. The Village Center shall be the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. The Village Center is mixed use in nature, requiring a minimum of 40 multi -family dwelling units, a minimum and maximum of 238,606 gross square feet of neighborhood goods and services, and a minimum of 45,020 gross square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses. An additional maximum of 100,000 gross square feet of indoor self -storage is also permitted within the Village Center and shall not count towards the required minimum of 238,606 gross square feet of neighborhood goods and services. 5.2.1. Allowable Uses and Structures 5.2.1.A. Permitted Uses Multi -Family Dwelling Units. Multi -family dwelling units shall include 3 or more dwelling units within a single building as well as Horizontal Multifamily communities. IL Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses permissible within the Rural Agricultural District (A) subject to the applicable development standards established in LDC Section 4.02.00 for the Rural Agricultural District (A) until such time as an SDP or Subdivision Plat is approved for development within that area of the SRA. III. The following neighborhood -scale goods and service uses, and civic, governmental, and institutional uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section, are permitted by right, or as accessory uses within the Village Center. 1) Accounting and Bookkeeping services (8721). 2) Amusements and recreation services (7999 indoor only). 3) Apparel and accessory stores (5611 — 5699). 4) Auto and home supply stores (5531). 5) Banks, credit unions and trusts (6011 — 6091). 6) Barber shops (7241, except for barber schools). 7) Beauty shops (7231, except for beauty schools). 8) Carwashes (7542) provided that carwashes abutting residential zoning districts shall be subject to LDC section 5.05.11. 9) Child day care services (8351). 10) Churches. 11) Civic, social and fraternal associations (8641). 12) Commercial art and graphic design (7336). Page 10 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations. egnyte. com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b 1 e7- dl2elafd7lftl/WOPIServiceld_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserld_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 10 of 112 13) Commercial photography (7335). 14) Computer and computer software stores (5734). 15) Dry cleaning plants (7216, nonindustrial dry cleaning only). 16) Drug stores (5912). 17) Eating places (5812 only). All establishments engaged in the retail sale of alcoholic beverages for on -premise consumption are subject to locational requirements of LDC section 5.05.01. 18) Engineering, Architectural and Surveying Services (8711-8713) 19) Essential services, subject to LDC Section 2.01.03. 20) Federal and federally sponsored credit agencies (6111). 21) Food stores (groups 5411 — 5461, and 5499, except egg dealers and poultry dealers). 22) Garment pressing, and agents for laundries and drycleaners (7212). 23) Gasoline service stations (5541, subject to LDC Section 5.05.05). 24) General merchandise stores (5331 — 5399, except catalog showrooms). 25) Group care facilities (category I and 11, except for homeless shelters); care units, except for homeless shelters; nursing homes; assisted living facilities pursuant to applicable Florida Statutes; and continuing care retirement communities pursuant to applicable Florida Statutes; all subject to Section 5.05.04 of the LDC. 26) Hardware stores (5251). 27) Health services, offices and clinics (8011 - 8049). 28) Home furniture and furnishings stores (5712-5719). 29) Home health care and services (8082). 30) Household appliance stores (5722). 31) Insurance carriers, agents and brokers (6311 - 6399, 6411). 32) Landscape architects, consulting and planning (0781). 33) Laundries and drycleaning, coin operated — self service (7215) 34) Legal services (8111). 35) Libraries (8231). 36) Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents (6162). 37) Museums and art galleries (8412). 38) Musical instrument stores (5736). 39) Paint stores (5231). 40) Passenger Car Rental (7514) 41) Personal services, miscellaneous (7299 - babysitting bureaus, clothing rental, costume rental, dating service, debt counseling, depilatory salons, diet workshops, dress suit rental, electrolysis (hair removal), and genealogical investigation service only). 42) Photographic studios, portrait (7221). 43) Physical fitness facilities (7991; 7911, except discotheques). 44) Public administration (groups 9111-9199, 9229, 9311, 9411-9451, 9511-9532, 9611-9661). 45) Public Safety Facilities and other governmental services including, but not limited to, fire, emergency management and law enforcement facilities, and public libraries (8231, 9221, 9222, 9224, ). 46) Real Estate (6531 - 6552). 47) Repair services - miscellaneous (7629-7631, 7699 - bicycle repair, binocular repair, camera repair, key duplicating, lawnmower repair, leather goods repair, locksmith shop, picture framing, and pocketbook repair only). 48) Retail Nurseries, Lawn and Garden Supply Stores (5261). 49) Retail services - miscellaneous (5921 - 5963 except pawnshops and building materials, 5992- 5995, and 5999 — architectural supplies, art dealers, artificial flowers, artists' supply and Page 11 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations. egnyte. com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b 1 e7- dl2elafd7lftl/WOPIServiceld_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserld_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 11 of 112 material stores, cosmetic stores, gem stones, hearing aids, pet food stores, pet shops, ready- made picture frames, religious goods stores (other than books), and trophy shops only). 50) Elementary and Secondary Schools, Colleges, Universities, Professional Schools and Technical Institutes, public or private (8211, 8221-8222) 51) Security/commodity brokers (6211 and 6282). 52) Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors (7251). 53) Tax return preparation services (7291). 54) Travel agencies (4724, no other transportation services). 55) United State Postal Service (4311, except major distribution center). 56) Warehousing (4225, air conditioned and mini- and self -storage warehousing only). 57) Veterinary services (0742, excluding outdoor kenneling). 58) Any other use which is comparable and compatible in nature with foregoing list of permitted uses, is considered to be a neighborhood scale commercial, office, or civic, governmental, or institutional uses, as determined by the Hearing Examiner or BZA, pursuant to the applicable procedures set forth in LDC Section 10.02.06 K. 5.2.1.B. Accessory Uses I. Typical accessory uses and structures incidental to residential development including, walls, fences, gazebos, swimming pools, screen enclosures, utility buildings (subject to the applicable standards set forth in Section 5.05.12 of the LDC), chickee huts, air conditioning units, satellite antennas, docks and similar uses and structures, and appurtenances required by Collier County, which may include structures, to serve the development, excluding water and wastewater treatment plants.. II. Neighborhood recreation areas for residential or mixed -use development may include clubhouses, swimming pools, tennis courts, pickle ball courts, and similar neighborhood recreation facilities. III. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the permitted neighborhood -scale commercial and office uses, and civic, governmental, and institutional uses above. IV. Parking structures detached or attached, not to exceed 35 feet in Actual height. V. Passive parks, limited to landscaped or natural areas and may include hardscape pathways or seating areas, benches, fire pits, shade structures such as gazebos or pavilions, docks, or piers. Page 12 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations. egnyte. com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b 1 e7- dl2elafd7lftl/WOPIServiceld_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserld_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 12 of 112 5.2.2. Village Center Development and Design Standards 5.2.2.A. Required Minimum Yards (Setbacks) and Maximum Building Heights': ALF, ILF, CCRC & NON - SINGLE HORIZONTAL DEVELOPMENT MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FAMILY MULTI- STANDARDS ONLY AND MIXED -USE DETACHED FAMILY9 BUILDINGS BUILDINGS' PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES 4,600 10,000 S.F. / UNIT MIN. LOT AREA S.F./UNIT 20,000 S.F. 10,000 S.F. MIN. LOT WIDTH 37.5' 100, 100, 100, 1,200 S.F. 700 S.F. / UNIT 800 S.F. for MIN. FLOOR AREA 550 S.F. Per Units Commercial Units 550 S.F. for Residential Units MIN. SETBACK FROM 20' 20' CORKSCREW ROAD, STATE 20' 20' ROAD 29, AND ENTRANCE ROADS2 FRONT YARDS3,6, 15,10 0' or 20' 0' or 20' 0' or 20' MINIMUM SETBACK FROM A 0' 0' 0'7 20' RESIDENTIAL ONLY TRACT MINIMUM SETBACK FROM A 15' 15' NONRESIDENTIAL TRACT 15' S ' MIN. LAKE SETBACK' 20' 20' 20' 20' MIN. PRESERVE SETBACK 25' 25' 25' 25' 10, 10, 15 Feet or'h Sum of 15 Feet or'/z Sum of MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN BH, whichever is BH, whichever is STRUCTURES greater greater MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - 35' 35' 4 Stories NTE 50' 4 Stories NTE 50' ZONED MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - 42' 42' 60' 60' ACTUAL MAX FAR N/A N/A 0.45 (only applies to See footnote 1. ALF, ILF, and CCRC ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MIN. FRONT YARD (ALL) SPS SPS SPS SPS MIN. SETBACK FROM A SPS SPS SPS SPS RESIDENTIAL TRACT MIN. SETBACK FROM A NON- 5 SPS SPS SPS RESIDENTIAL TRACT MIN. LAKE SETBACK' 10, 20' 20' 20' MIN. PRESERVE SETBACK 10, 10, 10, 10, MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN SPS 10' 10' 10' STRUCTURES MAX. HEIGHT — ZONED & SPS SPS 35' 35' ACTUAL Table 2: Village Center - Required Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height S.P.S. = same as for principal structure; NTE = not to exceed; S.F. = square feet; BH = building height; N/A = not applicable; ALF = assisted living facility; ILF = independent living facility; CCRC = continuing care retirement community Footnotes: 1. Retail and office uses are subject to a maximum FAR of 0.5. Civic, governmental and institutional uses are subject to a maximum FAR of 0.6. 2. Tracts abutting the minimum required 25'wide landscape buffer (located in a separate platted tract adjacent to Corkscrew Road and State Road 82) shall provide a front yard setback, measured from the abutting landscape buffer tract. Tracts abutting the project entrance road shall provide a front yard setback measured from the 10-foot landscape buffer tract adjacent to the entry road. 3. Except as described in footnote 2 above, front yards for parcels abutting a street or internal driveway shall be measured from the right-of-way line. Page 13 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations. egnyte. com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b 1 e7- dl2elafd7lftl/WOPIServiceld_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserld_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 13 of 112 4. The required 20' lake maintenance easement shall be provided in a separate platted tract. Properties that abut a lake maintenance easement or open space tract may reduce the setback for accessory structures to 0'. 5. The minimum floor area is not applicable to ALF, ILF, or CCRC units. 6. Canopies or awnings may encroach into the adjacent non -county owned ROW as necessary to cover pathways, sidewalks, and outdoor dining areas. 7. A minimum 15 foot setback is required for ALF, ILF, and CCRC uses. 8. Standards included within this Table do not constitute an approved deviation if in conflict with required utility separations. 9. Horizontal Multifamily is defined as single-family housing units built within a single development tract. Similar to typical multifamily, a Horizontal Multifamily project includes common infrastructure, parking, amenities, stormwater management system, and open space. Unlike traditional multifamily buildings, the units are standalone buildings, without other units above or below. Horizontal multifamily projects may include attached villas (two units with a common wall). Horizontal multifamily developments are not required to be platted and shall be reviewed through the Site Development Process (LDC Section 10.02.03). As is the case with typical multifamily, setbacks are applied from the development tract boundaries. 10. For single-family detached, front yards shall be measured as follows: — If the parcel has frontage on two streets (corner lot), the frontage providing vehicular access to the unit shall be considered the front yard. The setback along the other frontage shall be a minimum of 10'. — In no case shall the setback be less than 23 feet from the edge of an adjacent sidewalk, except in the case of side -loaded garages where the garage is designed in such a way that a vehicle can be parked in the driveway without conflicting with, or encroaching upon, the adjacent sidewalk. S.P.S. = same as for principal structure; NTE = not to exceed; S.F. = square feet; BH = building height; N/A = not applicable Page 14 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations. egnyte. com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b 1 e7- dl2elafd7lftl/WOPIServiceld_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserld_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 14 of 112 5.3 Affordable Housing Context Zone The Affordable Housing Context Zone includes 39.63± acres of land as identified on the SRA Master Plan and consists of a 36.22t acre affordable housing tract and a 3.41f acre essential services tract. The Affordable Housing context zone shall be located adjacent to educational or commercial uses on land that has similar access to common open spaces, public facilities and public transportation, as well as market rate parcels. The Affordable Housing context zone shall provide the SRA with up to 362 residential dwelling units subject to the restrictions in section 9.6. 5.3.1. Affordable Housing Context Zone Uses and Structures 5.3.1.A. Permitted Uses L Multi -Family Dwelling Units. Multi -family dwelling units shall include 3 or more dwelling units within a single building as well as horizontal multifamily communities. II. Single -Family Dwelling Units. III. Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses permissible within the Rural Agricultural District (A) subject to the applicable development standards established in LDC Section 4.02.00 for the Rural Agricultural District (A) until such time as an SDP or Subdivision Plat is approved for a particular parcel. 5.3.1.B. Accessory Uses Typical accessory uses and structures incidental to single-family or multi -family residential development including, walls, fences, gazebos, swimming pools, screen enclosures, chickee huts, air conditioning units, satellite antennas, similar uses and structures, and appurtenances required by Collier County, which may include structures, to serve the development, excluding water and wastewater treatment plants. II. Neighborhood recreation areas for residential development may include clubhouses, swimming pools, tennis courts, pickle ball courts, and similar neighborhood recreation facilities. III. Passive parks, limited to landscaped or natural areas and may include hardscape pathways or seating areas, benches, fire pits, shade structures such as gazebos or pavilions, docks, or piers. IV. Parking structures detached or attached, not to exceed 35 feet in Actual height. Page 15 of 26 https://us-partner-integrations. egnyte. com/msoffice/wopi/files/7b77a751-6765-470c-b 1 e7- dl2elafd7lftl/WOPIServiceld_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserld_205.bowman.egnyte.com/Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (2-19- 2026).docx EX B to Res. Page 15 of 112 5.3.2. Affordable Housing Development and Design Standards 5.3.2.A. Required Minimum Yards (Setbacks) and Maximum Building Heightsl'lo: SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY MULTI -FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD RECREATION DEVELOPMENT SINGLE ZERO LOT AREAS PER STANDARDS SINGLE FAMILY HORIZONTAL LINE & ALF, ILF, CCRC 5.3.1.B.(II) and (HI) & FAMILY ATTACHED MULTI - TOWNHOME ESSENTIAL DETACHED & TWO- FAMILY $ MULTI-FAMILY6 SERVICES FAMILY PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MIN. LOT AREA 4,600 S.F. / 2,800 S.F. / 10,000 S.F. / 2,500 20,000 S.F./LOT N/A UNIT UNIT UNIT S.F./UNIT MIN. LOT 40' 30' 100, 207UNIT 100, N/A WIDTH MIN. FLOOR 750 S.F. 700 S.F./ UNIT 850 S.F./ UNIT 750 550 S.F./UNIT7 N/A AREA S.F./UNIT 0.45 (only applies FLOOR AREA N/A N/A N/A N/A to ALF, ILF, N/A RATIO CCRC MIN. FRONT YARD2 15' 20' 20" 20' 20' 20' MIN. SIDE YARD3 5' 0 OR 5' 5' 0 or 5' 10, 10, MIN. REAR 10, 10, 20" 10, 20' 10, YARD MIN. LAKE SETBACK4 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' MIN. DISTANCE 15' OR'/z SUM of BETWEEN 10, 10, 10, 10, BH for Structures 10, STRUCTURES Exceeding 35' BH MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - 35' 35' 35' 35' 3.5 Stories NTE 50' 3.5 Stories NTE 50'11 ZONED MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - 42' 42' 42' 42' 62' 62,11 ACTUAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MIN. FRONT SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS YARD MIN. SIDE YARD SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS 10, MIN. REAR 5' 5' 5'9 5 5' 5' YARD MIN. LAKE SETBACK4 10' 10' S' S' S' S' MAX. HEIGHT ZONED & SPS SPS 42' SPS 42' SPS ACTUAL Table 3: Affordable Housing - Required Minimum Yards Maximum Building Height S.P.S. = same as for principal structure; NTE = not to exceed; S.F. = square feet; BH = building height; N/A = not applicable Footnotes: 1. Setbacks from preserves, as shown on master plan, shall be as set forth in LDC Section 3.05.07.H.3. 2. Front yards shall be measured as follows: — If the parcel has frontage on two streets (corner lot), the frontage providing vehicular access to the unit shall be considered the front yard. The setback along the other frontage shall be a minimum of 10'. — In no case shall the setback be less than 23 feet from the edge of an adjacent sidewalk, except in the case of side -loaded garages where the garage is designed in such a way that a vehicle can be parked in the driveway without conflicting with, or encroaching upon, the adjacent sidewalk. 3. 5' minimum side setbacks for single-family attached, two-family, must be accompanied by another 5' minimum side setback on adjoining lot to achieve minimum 10' separation. 4. Lake setback is measured from lake maintenance easement. The required 20' lake maintenance easement shall be provided in a separate platted tract for single-family, two-family and townhome developments submitted as a PPL. Properties that abut a lake maintenance easement or open space tract may reduce the setback for accessory structures to 0'. 5. Zero Lot Line and Townhome Development means 3 or more attached units, typically one or 2 stories in height. Page 16 of 26 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Post CCPC SRA Doc (3-20-2026)\Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (3-20- 2026).docx EX B of Res Page of 112 6. Other Multi -family means 2 or more units in one building other than Zero Lot Line or Townhome Development, typically more than 2 stories in height. 7. Minimum floor area is not applicable to ALF, ELF, or CCRC units. 8. Horizontal Multifamily is defined as single-family housing units built within a single development tract. Similar to typical multifamily, a Horizontal Multifamily project includes common infrastructure, parking, amenities, stormwater management system, and open space. Unlike traditional multifamily buildings, the units are standalone buildings, without other units above or below. Horizontal multifamily projects may include attached villas (two units with a common wall). Horizontal multifamily developments are not required to be platted and shall be reviewed through the Site Development Process (LDC Section 10.02.03). As is the case with typical multifamily, setbacks are applied from the development tract boundaries. 9. Measured from the development tract boundary. 10. Standards included within this Table do not constitute an approved deviation if in conflict with required utility separations. 11. The maximum height for essential services uses shall be 35' zoned, 42' actual. VI. DEVLOPMENT STANDARDS FOR STRUCTURES WHEN LOCATED WITHIN OPEN SPACE, DRAINAGE CANALS, BUFFER LAKES, AND UTILITY EASEMENTS Appurtenances required by Collier County which may include structures to serve the development, such as utility pump stations, lift stations, and similar structures, are permitted in these areas. Additionally, educational and informational signage, kiosks, and shade structures such as chickee huts, are permitted within open space area and drainage canals, and along buffer lake areas, which are located within the SRA. All such structures shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from any Tract or SRA boundary and a minimum of 15 feet from any residential lot and shall not exceed 12 feet in height. VI. EXCAVATIONS All excavations within the Corkscrew Grove East Village shall be permitted as development excavations. Within the boundary of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA and related SSAs, fill material may be hauled from one construction site to another. Fill may be placed up to the edge of, but not within, all conservation easements, preserves, and Water Retention Areas (WRAs). VII. GOLF CARTS/LOW-SPEED VEHICLES Subject to Section 316.212, FS., the use of golf carts/low-speed vehicles shall be permitted within the SRA. Up to thirty percent (30%) of required off-street parking for amenity centers and for parking provided for access to trails may be comprised of golf cart/low-speed vehicle parking spaces. The Owner may submit an alternative to the design requirements for off-street parking spaces set forth in LDC Section 4.05.00, for golf cart/low-speed vehicle parking subject to review and approval of County staff. VIIL DEVIATIONS 8.1 Neighborhood General Standards (which apply per LDC Section 4.08.07.1.3.d.iii) 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.2.d.iii.f)iv), "Non-residential uses," which states "the maximum square footage per [non-residential] use shall be 3,000 square feet and per location shall be 15,000 square feet," to instead allow [non-residential uses] the Amenity Center sites to be a maximum of 30,000 square feet per location. 2) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.2.d.iii.e)ii), which states that in the case of "Multi - Family residential," "side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet for the primary structure..." to instead allow for a side yard setback of 0 or 5 feet and a rear yard setback of 10 feet for zero lot line and townhome development, as set forth in Table 1: Neighborhood General - Required Page 17 of 26 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Post CCPC SRA Doc (3-20-2026)\Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (3-20- 2026).docx EX B of Res Page of 112 Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height and Table 3: Affordable Housing - Required Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height 3) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.2.d.iii.e)i), which establishes multi -family residential lots to be a maximum of 4 acres, to instead allow multi -family lots to be a maximum of 25-acres. 4) A deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02 C., which limits fences or walls to a maximum height of six (6) feet in residential districts to instead allow a twelve (12) foot wall/berm combination. The maximum height of the wall will be eight (8) feet. 8.2 Village Center Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.3.d.ii.p)ii) "General Parking Criteria," which states "The majority of parking spaces shall be provided off-street in the rear of buildings or along the side secondary streets. Parking is prohibited in front of buildings..." to instead allow parking in front of buildings in the Village Center, when such parking is in support of a shopping center, or when located on a lot with two or more street frontages, or when located on a lot fronting on Corkscrew Road or State Road 82. A Type `D' buffer per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road. 2) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the majority of parking be located in the rear of buildings and prohibits parking in the front of building except on -street parking within the right-of-way to instead allow parking in the front, side, and rear yards, when such parking is in support of a shopping center, or when located on a lot with two or more street frontages, or when located on a lot fronting on Corkscrew Road or State Road 82. A Type `D' buffer per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road. 3) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the amount of required parking in the Village Center "be demonstrated through a shared parking analysis submitted with an SRA designation application..." and be "determined utilizing the modal splits and parking demands for various uses recognized by ITE, ULI or other sources or studies..." to instead allow the parking demand analysis to be submitted at the time of initial Site Development Plan (SDP) or, at the discretion of the County Manager or designee, at the time of a subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment, in order to allow for a more comprehensive parking demand analysis based upon the mix of uses at the time of the initial SDP or subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment. 4) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.3.d.ii.g), which establishes a maximum block perimeter of 2,500 feet in the Village Center to instead allow for the Neighborhood General block perimeter provisions per LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.c): the maximum block perimeter shall be 3,500 feet, except that a larger block perimeter shall be allowed where an alley or pathway provides through access, or the block includes water bodies or public facilities. 5) A deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02 H.l.b. and c., which requires non-residential development to provide a wall within the right-of-way landscape buffer when located on property opposite a residentially zoned district but fronting on a local street or Page 18 of 26 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Post CCPC SRA Doc (3-20-2026)\Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (3-20- 2026).docx EX B of Res Page of 112 roadway to instead not require a wall shopping centers and building areas towards a residential district. 8.3 Transportation Standards . This deviation shall not apply to the rear of where overhead doors are located and facing 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.I.1.b, "Figures 5, 6, and 7, Local Street Neighborhood General," which requires a 6-foot-wide planting area between the travel lane and the sidewalk, to instead allow for a 4-foot-wide planting area in the same location for local roads within the project in Neighborhood General. In such cases, either a root barrier or structural soil shall be utilized. If the option of structural soil is utilized, a minimum of 2 cubic feet of structural soil per square feet of mature tree crown projection shall be provided. 8.4 Sign Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.a, "On -premises directional signs within residential districts," which requires on -premise directional signs to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, to instead allow a minimum setback of 5 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, limited to signs internal to the SRA only. This excludes signage along County owned roadways. 8.5 Landscape Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C., Buffer Requirements, "Types of buffers," Table 2.4 , Footnote (3) which requires "Buffer areas between commercial outparcels located within a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a shared buffer 15 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet", to instead allow a shared buffer 10 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 5 feet. 2) A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02 A., which requires landscape buffer strips to be shown and designated on the final plat within an easement, to instead allow the same required landscaping materials to be demonstrated on a planting plan, for staff review as part of the respective plans and plat application (PPL), with no requirement to provide a landscape buffer for any residential development adjacent to a lake regardless of location within the Village. 8.6 Other Deviations 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.G, "Parking Space Requirements," which requires 1 parking space per 100 square feet for recreation facilities (indoor) sports, exercise, fitness, aerobics, or health clubs to instead allow for parking for the Amenity Center sites to be calculated at 1 space per 200 square feet of indoor square footage, excluding kitchen or storage space. 2) A deviation from LDC Section 3.05.10.A.2. — "Location Criteria," which requires that "LSPA [littoral shelf planting areas] shall be concentrated in one location of the lake(s), preferably adjacent to a preserve area," to instead allow for required littoral shelf planting areas to be aggregated in certain specific development lakes, including the development Page 19 of 26 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Post CCPC SRA Doc (3-20-2026)\Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (3-20- 2026).docx EX B of Res Page of 112 lake that runs along the eastern perimeter of the SRA. It shall also be permitted to utilize Gator Slough and Cabbage Slough as part of all the required LSPA. 3) A deviation from LDC section 5.04.04.B.5. — "Model Homes and Model Sales Centers", which permits a maximum of five (5) model homes, or a number corresponding to ten (10) percent of the total number of platted lots, whichever is less, per platted approved development prior to final plat approval. The requested deviation is to allow for a maximum of 30 model homes at any one time within the overall Village irrespective to the number of platted lots. With each building permit for a model home, the applicant shall provide documentation as to the current number of model homes in existence. IX. OWNER COMMITMENTS 9.1 Planning A. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for monitoring of the SRA, as may be required by Collier County, and until no longer required by Collier County. The monitoring and report shall follow the same procedures and requirements set forth in LDC Section 10.02.021, PUD Monitoring Report requirements. This entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all commitments set forth in the SRA Document and in a separate Owner Agreement. At the time of this SRA approval, the Managing Entity is Alico Incorporated. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document, to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As the Owner sells off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to the County that includes, if applicable, an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the SRA Document by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity will not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the County determines that the SRA Document commitments have been fulfilled, the Managing Entity shall no longer be responsible for the monitoring of this SRA. B. Issuance of a development permit by a County does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. C. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. D. Owner shall provide an annual SRA monitoring report, in a form similar to a PUD monitoring report, identifying the number of residential units constructed by type within the SRA, and amount of retail, office, civic, government, and institution square footage constructed within the SRA. The Report shall also address whether or not or to what degree the Owner Commitments contained herein have been satisfied. Page 20 of 26 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Post CCPC SRA Doc (3-20-2026)\Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (3-20- 2026).docx EX B of Res Page of 112 E. The Owner of any group housing, including a retirement community, its successors or assigns, shall provide the following services and be subject to the following operational standards for the units in the group housing, including, but not limited to, independent living units, assisted living units, or skilled nursing units: Operational Characteristics for Senior Housing_: Senior housing may be composed of one or more types of care/housing facilities. These care/housing types are limited to independent living, assisted living, and skilled nursing units, each of which can have varying operational characteristics. The following characteristics of senior housing care units distinguish them from residential land uses, and all of the characteristics must be provided for and maintained to be considered a senior housing care unit: 1.) The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older; 2.) There shall be on -site dining facilities to the residents, with food service being on - site, or catered; 3.) Group transportation services shall be provided for the residents for the purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services shall be coordinated for the residents' needs, including but not limited to medical office visits; 4.) There shall be an onsite manager/activities coordinator to assist residents who shall be responsible for planning and coordinating stimulating activities for the residents; 5.) An on -site wellness facility shall provide exercise and general fitness opportunities for the residents; 6.) Each unit shall be equipped with devices provided to notify emergency service providers in the event of a medical or other emergency; 7.) Independent living units shall be designed so that a resident is able to age in place. For example, kitchens may be easily retrofitted by lowering the sink to accommodate a wheelchair bound resident or bathrooms may be retrofitted by adding grab bars. 8.) Group housing for seniors shall be constructed to have a core area to shelter residents and staff on site in the event of a hurricane. The core area will be constructed to meet the Public Shelter Design Criteria that are required for new public schools and public community colleges and universities ("State Requirements for Educational Facilities, 2014") and shall be capable of ventilation or air conditioning provided by back-up generator for a period of no less than 96 hours. 9.2 Environmental A. The Owner shall adhere to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Black Bear Management Plan, as applicable. The informational brochure created by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and titled "A Guide to Living in Bear County" will be distributed to future homeowners and construction/maintenance personnel. Residents will be provided with information on how to secure their garbage containers to discourage bears from foraging in trash receptacles and the project will utilize County - approved bear -proof dumpsters/trash cans for all residential and non-residential uses, with the ocations to be determined at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP) approval. All costs, including maintenance, of bear -proof containers will be borne by the Owner. Page 21 of 26 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Post CCPC SRA Doc (3-20-2026)\Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (3-20- 2026).docx EX B of Res Page of 112 B. Prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, a listed species management plan must be provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS, as applicable, for management of the Florida Panther (Puma concolor coryi) and other listed species. C. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA shall utilize County -approved bearproof trash cans for both residential and commercial (including non-residential) development. All costs, including maintenance, of bear -proof containers will be borne by the Owner. D. Light fixtures shall be dark sky compliant (flat panel, full cut-off fixtures -backlight, up light and glare (BUG) rating where U=o). E. All residents will be provided and required to acknowledge by signature a notice of prescriptive burns that will occur within the adjacent Stewardship Sending Area(s) or any public or private conservation lands. The Owner/Developer is responsible for compliance for the initial sale of residential properties. 9.3 Transportation A. Intensity of uses under any development scenario for the SRA is limited to a maximum of 4,092 two-way, adjusted (net external), average weekday pm peak hour total trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. The limitation does not apply to the 362 affordable housing units or to the neighborhood goods and services, civic, governmental, or institutional square footage required to serve the affordable housing units. B. No more than 2,500 dwelling units will be issued certificates of occupancy until a minimum of 30,000 sq. ft. of the neighborhood retail and office uses and a minimum of 20 multi- family dwelling units have been developed in the Village Center and issued certificate(s) of occupancy. C. The Owner shall convey the additional right-of-way labeled "50'Corkscrew Rd ROW Reservation" along Corkscrew Road on Exhibit A, Master Plan. The conveyance will be to Collier County in fee simple, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, by warranty deed within sixty (60) days of the County's written request. At the time of conveyance, the Owner shall receive Road Impact Fee Credits or cash equal to the market value of the land as determined on the day before approval of this SRA. The market value shall be determined by a mutually agreed upon accredited appraiser or, failing such an agreement, shall be the average of two appraisals prepared by mutually agreed upon accredited appraisers. Appraisal costs shall be shared equally by the Owner and the County. Should the development be designed to accommodate the stormwater from the future Corkscrew Road widening within the SRA lake system, the owner will convey the SRA lake system to Collier County by a Drainage Easement with no responsibility for maintenance. In exchange, Owner shall receive Road Impact Fee Credits or cash equal to the market value of the easement area necessary to accommodate such improvements as determined the day before approval of this SRA as determined the day before approval of this SRA. The market value shall be determined by a mutually agreed upon accredited appraiser or, failing such an agreement, shall be the average of two appraisals prepared by mutually agreed upon accredited appraisers. Appraisal costs shall be shared equally by the Owner and the County. Page 22 of 26 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Post CCPC SRA Doc (3-20-2026)\Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (3-20- 2026).docx EX B of Res Page of 112 9.4 Parks and Recreation A. The Owner shall provide and maintain one (1) children's playground, for use of residents only, that conforms to appropriate ASTM standards, which shall be a minimum of 2,500 square feet in size. The location of this playground shall be identified at the time of subdivision plat or SDP, as the case may be, for the development phase or area within which the playground is to be included. 9.5 Landscaping A. Street trees will be provided throughout the Village. Within the Village Center Context Zone, street trees shall be spaced forty feet (40') on center and within the Neighborhood General Context Zone, street trees shall be spaces sixty feet (60') on center. Street trees shall have a minimum average mature canopy spread of twenty feet (20') or alternatively, for species with an average mature spread less than twenty feet (20'), street trees shall be spaced a distance equal to twice the average mature spread. Along residential local streets, the required street trees may be located within platted lots. 9.6 Affordable Housing A. The Owner has agreed to provide the following which satisfies the affordable housing requirements for the Corkscrew Grove East Village: 1.) Two adjacent affordable housing parcels totaling a minimum of 36.22 acres and entitling a minimum of 362 dwelling units will be set aside for development by the Owner, in the Affordable Housing Context Zone of the SRA, or for acquisition, in whole or in part, by either Collier County, a Community Land Trust, a private developer or any other affordable housing provider based upon the appraised value of $22,500/ acre, with a right of first refusal to Collier County. The Affordable Housing parcels will be considered as a Public Benefit Use and do not require Stewardship Credits but shall be included in the calculation of total SRA acreage. The Affordable Housing units shall be excluded from the trip cap for the SRA in which they are located. The affordable housing sites will be offered for sale to Collier County in writing before they are offered to other entities. 2.) If developed by the Owner or an entity other than Collier County acquires an affordable housing site, the entity is subject to the following: a) Rental units. All units will be rented to households whose incomes are up to and including 100% of the AMI for Collier County and the corresponding rent limits. These units will be committed for a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first unit. Income and rent limits may be adjusted annually based on combined income and rent limit table published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or as otherwise provided by Collier County. b) For sale units. All units will be sold to households whose initial certified incomes are up to and including 100% of the AMI for Collier County. These units will be committed for a period of 30 years from the date of the issuance Page 23 of 26 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Post CCPC SRA Doc (3-20-2026)\Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (3-20- 2026).docx EX B of Res Page of 112 of the certificate of occupancy and sold to households that qualify for the designated income thresholds. Households shall occupy the property as their primary residence as evidenced by maintenance of homestead exemption. Prior to sale of any of the units, the Owner or an entity other than Collier County will record a restrictive covenant in the public records of Collier County identifying the affordable units and the income threshold pertaining to each unit. The covenant will state that each unit will be initially sold and subsequently sold to qualifying households for a period of 30 years of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for each unit. It will also state that at least 30 days prior to the sale of any unit, the County's Community and Human Services Division will be notified in writing and provided documents for income verification and certification on forms acceptable to Collier County. The closing on the sale may occur after the County confirms that the household qualifies for the designated income thresholds. c) The Owner or an entity other than Collier County will provide an annual monitoring report to County which includes, the progress and monitoring of occupancy of the income restricted units, including rent data for rented units, and homestead data for owner -occupied units, in a format approved by Collier County Community and Human Services Division. Owner agrees to annual on -site monitoring by the County. B. Affordable housing will include 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, and 3 bedroom units. 9.7 School A. The Owner shall reserve a school site, shown on the SRA Master Plan, for the District School Board of Collier County, Florida (District). Upon Approval of the SRA, and all required permits from the South Florida Water Management District or any federal or state regulatory authorities, and the expiration of appeal periods, the Owner will provide written notice to the District and the District shall have up to two years to provide written Notice of its intent to purchase the parcel. After providing Notice, the District shall close on the parcel or parcels within 6 months of providing Notice to the Owner. In accordance with Florida Statutes Section 1013.14(1)(b), the District will obtain two (2) appraisals for the school site from independent state certified appraisers, to establish the value of the school site. The appraisal date shall be the day prior to the Approval of the SRA. The average appraised value of the two appraisals, not to exceed $22,500/acre, shall constitute the amount of credit available to the Owner as a prepayment of Educational Impact Fees upon conveyance of the school site to the District. With respect to the conveyance of real property, by the Owner to the District, the conveyance of the school site to the District fully mitigates for the development's impact to the elementary, middle and high schools needed to serve the Corkscrew Grove East SRA. Corkscrew Grove East's surface water management system will be designed and permitted to treat the stormwater generated by the school site. ERP permits for Corkscrew Grove East Village from the South Florida Water Management District and the Army Corp of Engineers will include the school site using an assumed impervious coverage of 70%. If SFWMD or other agency requires pretreatment for any parking lot area, the pretreatment Page 24 of 26 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Post CCPC SRA Doc (3-20-2026)\Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (3-20- 2026).docx EX B of Res Page of 112 will be included in the school's design and shall not be a reimbursable cost from the Owner. If the Owner is successful in including the school site within its permits for Corkscrew Grove East Village, the District shall reimburse the Owner for any wetlands or Panther (or other species) mitigation required by such permits, upon actual payment and completion of the mitigation and Owner's written request to District, which reimbursement shall be calculated by Owner on a proportionate share basis of the acreage of school site to the total acreage of the Corkscrew Grove East Village project. The water management reimbursement shall be calculated on a prorated basis using the following formula: Total Water Management Area x (School Site Area / Total Development Area). The reimbursement amount shall be added to the value of the real property conveyed to the District and shall become part of the Educational Impact Fee credit issued to the Owner. The school site shall be used only for a public elementary school and not for any other purpose, which restrictions shall be deed restrictions attached to and incorporated in the conveyance deed. The District shall be responsible for the construction of all access improvements into the school site. The school site will connect to two access points on Corkscrew Road. 9.8 Fire and Emergency Medical Services A. The Owner shall convey to the Fire District real property in the Affordable Housing Context Zone for a 3.41-acre site for a fire station in exchange for fire impact fee credits and/or cash. With respect to the conveyance of real property, by the Owner to the Fire District, the conveyance of the Fire Site to the Fire District fully mitigates for the development's impact to the fire facilities needed to serve Corkscrew Grove East SRA. B. Corkscrew Grove East's surface water management system will be designed and permitted to treat the stormwater generated by the fire station site. ERP permits for Corkscrew Grove East Village from the South Florida Water Management District and the Army Corp of Engineers will include the fire station site using an assumed impervious coverage of 70%. If SFWMD or other agency requires pretreatment for any parking lot area, the pretreatment will be included in the site's design and shall not be a reimbursable cost to the Owner. If the Owner is successful in including the fire station site within its permits for Corkscrew Grove East Village, the Fire District shall reimburse the Owner for any Panther (or other species) mitigation required by such permits, upon actual payment and completion of the mitigation and Owners' written request to Fire District, which reimbursement shall be calculated by Owners' on a proportionate share basis of the acreage of fire station site to the total acreage of the Corkscrew Grove East Village project, using the formula Total Water Management Area X (Fire District Site/Total Development Area). The reimbursement amount shall be added to the value of the real property conveyed to the Fire District and shall become part of the Fire Impact Fee credit issued to the Owner. C. The fire station site shall be used only for a fire station/EMS station and not for any other purpose, which restrictions shall be deed restrictions attached to and incorporated in the conveyance deed. The fire station site shall have direct and permanent access (in accordance with County Standards) to State Road 82. The Fire District shall be responsible for the construction of all access improvements into the fire station site. Page 25 of 26 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Post CCPC SRA Doc (3-20-2026)\Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (3-20- 2026).docx EX B of Res Page of 112 9.9 Utilities A. The developer can use well and septic for the installation of site related work. All development requiring a certificate of occupancy must be connected to central water and sewer facilities to be provided by Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) or the developer, if IWSD is unable to provide service. Page 26 of 26 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Post CCPC SRA Doc (3-20-2026)\Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Document (PL-20240010212) (3-20- 2026).docx EX B of Res Page of 112 m N V CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE - SRA LAND USE SUMMARY SYMBOL DESCRIPTION ACRES % OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE (AC) NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL 998.99 30% 299.70 AMENITY 8.50 40% 3.40 ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 65.40 15% 9.81 R.O.W RESERVATION (CORKSCREW RD) 17.65 15% 2.65 BUFFER LAKES 53.20 100% 53.20 DRAINAGE CANALS 32.13 100% 32.13 OPEN SPACE 15.83 100% 15.83 EX. UTILITY EASEMENT (WITHIN SRA) 90% 41.15 NEIGHBORHOOD45.72 GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL 1,237.41 AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTEXT ZONE AFFORDABLE HOUSING 36.22 20% 7.24 ESSENTIAL SERVICES 3.41 20% 0.68 AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL 39.63 VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE VILLAGE CENTER 145.55 30% 43.66 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (PUBLIC) 24.00 30% 7.20 VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL 169.55 SRA BOUNDARY TOTAL 1,446.591 36% 516.65 '.' SSA22 (CORRIDOR) 1,295.41 100% 1,295.41 . - - SSA 23 (WRA) 388.87 100% 388.87 SSA BOUNDARY TOTAL 1,684.28 100% 1,684.28 OPEN SPACE TABLE �o ryA c0 NN U TIRON AREA (AC) ova REQUIRED 506.3 35% PROVIDED 516.6 36% LEGEND NO BUFFER REQUIRED CROSSING FPL EASEMENT � INTERNAL CONNECTION POTENTIAL FUTURE LOCATION CONNECTION EXTERNAL CONNECTION °O LOCATION / _ _ _ _ OPTIONAL CONNECTION oo� LOCATION 20'rYPE°D° SSA#23` - - - - BUFFER * PROJECT ACCESS POINTS AG ALONG SR 82 ALIGN WITH (ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO) _ PROPOSED MEDIAN BREAKS _ IN FDOT IMPROVEMENT PLANS S.R.A. BOUNDARY N.G. S.R.A. CROSS SECTION - LOCATION IDENTIFIER I _ a CONCEPTUAL NATURE I - TRAILHEADS, BOARDWALKS, - - OR OBSERVATION PIERS LOCATIONS NO BUFFER REQUIRED - ADJACENT TO SSA #22 # DATE I REVISIONS 1 6-23-25 REVISED PER COUNTY & OWNER COMMENTS 2 9-01-251 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS N AG 0 600' 1200' (ZONING: 22 x 34 SCALE: 1" = 600' A-MHO-RLSAO) 11 x 17 SCALE: 1" = 1200' STATER � ice.,... FDOT WATER Q MANAGEMENT AREA 25' TYPE "D" UBUFFER 1/2 N.G. R. p V l FDOT WATER - MANAGEMENT AREA 10' TYPE "D" BUFFER AG (ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO) POTENTIAL GUARDHOUSE / ENTRY FEATURE 7 SSA #23 N.G. ROAD CROSSING N.G. 1/2 AMENITY (N.G.) N.G. JR"�NS E N 4fZLN G V.C. % RELOCATED CABBAG� SLOUGH CANAL EX BLDGS TO BE vz 3/4 7 UTILIZED AS INTERIM FIRE STATION POTENTIAL N.G. GUARDHOUSE/ ENTRY FEATURE 20' TYPE "D" BUFFER HENDRY COUNTY j+ 'S.R. . BOUNDARY + + + + + + + + SA �22 + + + +N �UFFER RE U D+ ((N H R+C RRI O+R + k JA6*T+O SSA 22 + + S E TIAL + + + + SSE V+C S+ FUTUR&UTILITY SITE + + + + + (NOTJNITHIN THE S.-R.A.)+ + a`� '� RQ�'RFS ScRFIti N ro v.c. zsFR��Ti �o ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 7 N.G. S.R.A. + BOUNDARY POTENTIAL GUARDHOUSE / OPT ENTRY FEATURE 53 0� i POTENTIAL REGIONAL TREATMENT MARSH GOR��00 R LOCATIONS (OUTSIDE MASTER SWMS) O� 00� 9O� O J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A. 9961 INTERSTATE COMMERCE DR, STE. 230 FT MYERS, FLORIDA 33913 PHONE: (239) 405-9148 FAX:(239)288-2537 W W W.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM +CA)R�O+N�U+LLY+ + --_.' + CANAL + + DOT WATER+ + A.H. A.H. ' + MANAGEMENT + 20 T +AREA + + + YPE „D^ BUFFER + + + + + FUTURE+ ' AG + U71LITY SI (ZONING: + +(NOT WITj v A-MHO-RLSAO) 4 T1HE S-R.A 2S, + + FFR ST9TFR0 �0 82 /2 uj �Lj�IVACWgT�R J Sp, a ESN + RpwRF FR�FwRo N m �gREA + CARSON ULLY + + + + N.G. CANAL + + POTENTIAL GUARDHOUSE/ + + ENTRY FEATURE + + O1/2 N.G. + + + + + 1/2 AMENITY (N.G.) N.G. + + �+ + + + + + NO BUFFER + + REQUIRED ADJACENT TO SSA #22 + + + 1/z S8A #2�+ PANTHER' +COkRI O Bl' FFE + + REQUIRED + +- ADJAbEN1`TO Jolf gn + - + SSA #22rLL + +�k + + +~' A m 'vQi + + + + + ++ P T+++ GENERAL NOTES: 1. MASTER PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL. INTERNAL ROAD ALIGNMENTS, LAKE SITING AND CONFIGURATION OF DEVELOPMENT AREAS ARE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION WITHIN THE RLSA GUIDELINES AT TIME OF C.R.E.W. SDP AND/OR PPL PERMITTING. (ZONING: A -MHO) 2. SEE MOBILITY PLAN FOR PATHWAYS. 3. WRA LAND USE IS WITHIN SSA #23 AND IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SRA BOUNDARY AREA. THE WRA AREA IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA DESIGNED BY: JRE PROJECT#: 01093 EXHIBIT (A) DRAWN BY: EKA FILE DATE: Jun-25 SRA MASTER PLAN COLOR SCALE: V' = 1200' SHEET: 1 of 10 sv CD m N co CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE - SRA LAND USE SUMMARY SYMBOL DESCRIPTION ACRES % OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE (AC) NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE ------ _- NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL 998.99 30% 299.70 �--L'--LLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLL AMENITY 8.50 40% 3.40 ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 65.40 15% 9.81 R.O.W RESERVATION (CORKSCREW RD) 17.65 15% 2.65 BUFFER LAKES 53.20 100% 53.20 00°O°°°0°°°O°°°°°0°O°°° ° DRAINAGE CANALS 32.13 100% 32.13 OPEN SPACE 15.83 100% 15.83 EX. UTILITY EASEMENT (WITHIN SRA) 45.72 90% 41.15 NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL 1,237.41 AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTEXT ZONE AFFORDABLE HOUSING 36.22 20% 7.24 ESSENTIAL SERVICES 3.41 20% 0.68 AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL 39.63 VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE VILLAGE CENTER 145.55 30% 43.66 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (PUBLIC) 24.00 30% 7.20 VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL 169.55 SRA BOUNDARY TOTAL 1,446.59 36% 516.65 SSA 22 (CORRIDOR) 1,295.41 100% 1,295.41 SSA 23 (WRA) 388.87 100% 388.87 SSA BOUNDARY TOTAL 1,684.28 100% 1,684.28 OPEN SPACE TABLE coNNECTIIN --- - AREA (AC) % REQUIRED 506.3 35% LEGEND � INTERNAL CONNECTION LOCATION EXTERNAL CONNECTION LOCATION OPTIONAL CONNECTION LOCATION * PROJECT ACCESS POINTS ALONG SR 82 ALIGN WITH PROPOSED MEDIAN BREAKS IN FDOT IMPROVEMENT PLANS S.R.A. CROSS SECTION LOCATION IDENTIFIER CONCEPTUAL NATURE TRAILHEADS, BOARDWALKS, OR OBSERVATION PIERS LOCATIONS FDOT WATER 20' TYPE "D" MANAGEMENT AREA BUFFER HENDRY COUNTY / / NMMMMMMI v� IVAN vwus _-�vi4i4•t{{4'{:�4,'t{444'{,�44�{fit ;��•• t7sy 1 D . � I� NO BUFFER REQUIRED a4<{�'-{i44'��y{.it{i'�•li{{{{ {.� {{44{{4. .. 1 _ _ 1 �'V ! �� r+�44{{{{{4�,t44{{' {{44•'',{~{i{ice � � CROSSING--- YX1k < iiy't{444{{44{i{4{{•�44} 4.. <///I - - ! „ ,::� flS. MY►V � •IiJJ 4i4i4{44{{{{{4{4444{+,� 4{44+. I//:`' � - .M♦ M�ii�► "►�M�� j �{i{�4,t14i{{4{{4{44,t{44,� `�9//�^ `�i�/ - ■ � _ w • .r11r11wC.�/!� W bMti �'-i{4{�ii�y{�4{{i{{{�{44{';4:�.{�'44{�{� � CC •.'i POTENTIAL FUTUREIWM Mai 1 { {4{44{44{�,t4{{4�{4�{{4{,{{'4{ .. 1y •, ��+A i `.�11�I 1w� 4 {�4{{44{444{44 4'�'�4i i '• CONNECTION � � � i�� 4e{+�{�44�i{44{{44{44� ' '• •. I t 'ti4 ER AG L I� f �"� � � / 4't4'4{4't� 4{4'-0•y�,l{44{{{44i444a4. .. 1 �■! �{'i{4::3:{i:4�i44{44{4{4,{'.4i+i3,!•::'•.. � Mk RY.'i tw�M1��1 1'\ ww .w.. ,w .,�• , • BOUNDARY .,,�.. ►ire 1 ��,,`. I • . • • 1 w 1 ,N' 1 K 0 • V f" • o • NO BUFFER REQUIRED • ADJACENT TO N AG 0 600' 1200' (ZONING: 22 x 34 SCALE: 1" = 600' A-MHO-RLSAO) 11 x 17 SCALE: 1" = 1200' `STATFRO FDOT WATER - MANAGEMENT AREA 10' TYPE "D" BUFFER AG (ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO) POTENTIAL GUARDHOUSE/ ENTRY FEATURE 7 w 00 °°° + + + - N.G.----__-- F SSA 02 + + S. __-_ _ _ °o +CORRIDbR) + + + +_ NO BUFFER + +_- __+- I +--- - -- + REQUIRED ADJACENT - I I � -- TO SSA#22 GENERAL NOTES: 1. MASTER PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL. INTERNAL ROAD ALIGNMENTS, LAKE SITING AND CONFIGURATION OF DEVELOPMENT AREAS ARE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION WITHIN THE RLSA GUIDELINES AT TIME OF SDP AND/OR PPL PERMITTING. 2. SEE MOBILITY PLAN FOR PATHWAYS. 3. WRA LAND USE IS WITHIN SSA #23 AND IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SRA BOUNDARY AREA. THE WRA AREA IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS. # DATE I REVISIONS J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA 1 6-23-25 REVISED PER COUNTY & OWNER COMMENTS J R S 9961 INTERSTATE COMMERCE FT MYERS, FLORRIDAIDA3391 STE. 230 3 2 9-01-25 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS EN G PHONE: (239) 405-9148 EXHIBIT (A) FAX: (239) 288-2537 WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM SRA MASTER PLAN BLACK & WHITE DESIGNED BY: JRE PROJECT #: 01093 DRAWN BY: EKA FILE DATE: Jun-25 SCALE: 1" = 1200' SHEET: 2 of 10 INTERNAL MOBILITY PLAN NOTES THE SRA SHALL ADHERE TO THE INTERNAL MASTER MOBILITY PLAN AND SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: 1. A 5-FOOT SIDEWALK ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROADWAY. WHERE THE LDC REQUIRES BIKE LANES, AT THE DEVELOPER'S DISCRETION, A MINIMUM 10 FOOT PATHWAY MAY BE PROVIDED ON ONE SIDE, IN LIEU OF BIKE LANES. 2. LOCAL STREETS (LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL AREAS) WILL INCLUDE A MINIMUM 5 FOOT SIDEWALK ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROADWAY EXCEPT FOR CUL-DE-SACS AND SINGLE -LOADED RESIDENTIAL STREETS. 3. AT TIME OF SDP, OR PPL (AS APPLICABLE), CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE VARIOUS MODES OF TRANSPORTATION WILL BE IDENTIFIED TO ENSURE INTERCONNECTIVITY WITH THE SRA AND TO EXTERNAL TRANSPORTATION LINKS. 4. GOLF CARTS WILL BE ALLOWED ON 10 FOOT MULTI -USE PATHS AND INTERNAL RESIDENTIAULOCAL STREETS. 5. ALL ROADS, INCLUDING STEWARDSHIP DISTRICT PUBLIC ROADS, ARE TO BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED. 6. THE FACT THAT FUTURE EXPANSION / IMPROVEMENTS TO CORKSCREW ROAD WILL INCLUDE SIDEWALKS WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THAT ROAD IMPACT FEES COLLECTED FOR THIS PROJECT CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS, PAYMENT IN LIEU SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT'S FRONTAGE ALONG CORKSCREW ROAD. ROW RESERVATIONS FOR FUTURE CORKSCREW ROAD EXPANSION / IMPROVEMENTS ARE BEING PROVIDED WITHIN THE SRA AS PART OF THIS PROJECT. TRANSFER STATION / PARK & RIDE NOTES 1. A TRANSFER STATION OR PARK -AND -RIDE FACILITY SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE FDOT WATER Q MANAGEMENT AREA AG � (ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO) _ U _ N.G. STAT�cR 2�2n\ U FDOT WATER MANAGEMENT AREA TO COMPLY WITH RLSAO POLICY 4.7.2. THE SPECIFIC LOCATION OF THIS FACILITY WILL BE DETERMINED AND SHOWN AG / PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE FIRST NON-RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP) WITHIN ANY OF THE VILLAGE (ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO) CENTER PODS. S.R.A. BOUNDARY 0 r o d` SA #23 1 V.C. RELOCATED CABBAGE SLOUGH CANAL V.C. 00 N.G. 0° POTENTIAL PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER CABBAGE 00000 SLOUGH CANAL N.G. y / 00 00 / 000 0000 I SSA #23 (N.G. °0° \ I /AG I (ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO) I (N.G. / I �RopO S.R.A. BOUNDARY N.G. GOB l9oo Ro. i I � N I C.R.E. W. ( (ZONING: A -MHO) I 0 600' 1200' 22 x 34 SCALE: 1" = 600' / 11 x 17 SCALE: 1" = 1200' DATE REVISIONS 6-23-25 REVISED PER COUNTY & OWNER COMMENTS 9-01-25 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS HENDRY COUNTY S.R.A. BOUNDARY SSA #22 ESSENTIAL (PANTHER CORRIDOR) SERVICES N.G. A.H. A.H. 0 AG 0° 00 (ZONING: o° I A-MHO-RLSAO) a° 00 0 00 V.C. �o S7- o MgNq �M� O1D82 /2pp.RO o N ARFq J 00 ELEMENTARY o0 SCHOOL ATOR L UGH CANAL (N.G. AMElgFFY J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA J R E VA N S 9961 INTERSTATE COMMERCE STE. 230 FT MYERS, FLORIDA 3391913 ENGINEERING PHONE: (239) 405-9148 EXHIBIT (A) FAX: (239) 288-2537 WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM SRA MOBILITY PLAN SSA #22 (PANTHER CORRIDOR) o ol 00 00 ,— HSA LEGEND — — — SRA BOUNDARY 5' SIDEWALK 6' SIDEWALK 10' MULTI -USE PATHWAY 5' SIDEWALK* 10' MULTI -USE PATHWAY* CONCEPTUAL NATURE TRAILHEADS, ♦ BOARDWALKS, OR OBSERVATION PIERS LOCATIONS *SIDEWALK AND MULTI -USE PATHS TO BE INSTALLED AS PART OF FDOT'S STATE ROAD 82 EXPANSION IMPROVEMENTS. DESIGNED BY: JRE PROJECT #: 01093 DRAWN BY: EKA FILE DATE: Jun-25 SCALE: 1" = 1200' SHEET: 3 of 10 N CD m w 0 N 0 600' 1200' 22 x 34 SCALE: 1" = 600' 11 x 17 SCALE: 1" = 1200' LEGEND A.H. - AFFORDABLE HOUSING N.G. - NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL V.C. - VILLAGE CENTER #.# DENOTES DEVIATION LOCATION AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUFFER LAKES DRAINAGE CANALS ESSENTIAL SERVICES NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL (AMENITY) NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL OPEN SPACE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY SCHOOL SITE EX. UTILITY EASEMENT (ELECTRIC) himVILLAGE CENTER 22 (PANTHER ®SSA CORRIDOR) SSA 23 (WRA) SRA BOUNDARY AG (ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO) 0 AG 0 (ZONING.• A-MHO-RLSAO) AG (ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO) C.R.E. W. (ZONING: A -MHO) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +STAL + + + + + + + + + + + �E � + + E C + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + SSA 4?2 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3.2 8.6.1 A.H. + + + + + + + + + + 8.6.2 841 + + + + + + + + + 8.4.2 + + + + + + + + 8.5.2 AG + + + + + + + 8.6.1 + + + + + s 62 (ZONING: + + + + + A-MHO-RLSAO) + + + + STgT + + + + + + + + ++++S+SA#�2+++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + -+_ +\+ + + 741 + + + + + # I DATE REVISIONS J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA DESIGNED BY: JRE PROJECT #: 01093 1 6-23-25 REVISED PER COUNTY & OWNER COMMENTS J R EVAN S 9961 INTERSTATE COMMERCE STE. 230 FT MYERS, FLORRIDAIDA33913 DRAWN BY: EKA FILE DATE: Jun-25 ENGINEERING PHONE: (239) 405-9148 EXHIBIT (A) FAX: (239) 288-2537 WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM SRA MASTER PLAN WITH DEVIATIONS SCALE: 1" = 1200' SHEET: 4 of 10 m m w DEVIATIONS: 8.1 NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL STANDARDS 1. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 4.08.07.1.2.d.iii.f)iv), "NON-RESIDENTIAL USES," WHICH STATES "THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE PER [NON-RESIDENTIAL] USE SHALL BE 3,000 SQUARE FEET AND PER LOCATION SHALL BE 15,000 SQUARE FEET," TO INSTEAD ALLOW [NON-RESIDENTIAL USES] THE AMENITY CENTER SITES TO BE A MAXIMUM OF 30,000 SQUARE FEET PER LOCATION. 2. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 44.08.07.1.2.d.iii.e)ii), WHICH STATES THAT IN THE CASE OF "MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL," "SIDE YARD SETBACKS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET AND REAR YARD SETBACKS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET FOR THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE..." TO INSTEAD ALLOW FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 0 OR 5 FEET AND A REAR YARD SETBACK OF 10 FEET FOR ZERO LOT LINE AND TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT, AS SET FORTH IN TABLE 1: NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL - REQUIRED MINIMUM YARDS AND MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT AND TABLE 3: AFFORDABLE HOUSING - REQUIRED MINIMUM YARDS AND MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 3. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 4.08.07.1.2.d.iii.e)i), WHICH ESTABLISHES MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS TO BE A MAXIMUM OF 4 ACRES, TO INSTEAD ALLOW MULTI -FAMILY LOTS TO BE A MAXIMUM OF 25-ACRES. 4. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 5.03.02 C., WHICH LIMITS FENCES OR WALLS TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF SIX (6) FEET IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO INSTEAD ALLOW A TWELVE (12) FOOT WALL/BERM COMBINATION. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE WALL WILL BE EIGHT (8) FEET. 8.2 VILLAGE CENTER STANDARDS 1. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 4.08.07.1.3.d.ii.p)ii) "GENERAL PARKING CRITERIA," WHICH STATES "THE MAJORITY OF PARKING SPACES SHALL BE PROVIDED OFF-STREET IN THE REAR OF BUILDINGS OR ALONG THE SIDE SECONDARY STREETS. PARKING IS PROHIBITED IN FRONT OF BUILDINGS..." TO INSTEAD ALLOW PARKING IN FRONT OF BUILDINGS IN THE VILLAGE CENTER, WHEN SUCH PARKING IS IN SUPPORT OF A SHOPPING CENTER, OR WHEN LOCATED ON A LOT WITH TWO OR MORE STREET FRONTAGES, OR WHEN LOCATED ON A LOT FRONTING ON CORKSCREW ROAD OR STATE ROAD 82. A TYPE 'D' BUFFER PER LDC AT TIME OF PERMITTING WILL BE REQUIRED WHEN PARKING IS ADJACENT TO OR ABUTTING A ROAD. 2. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 4.08.07.1.3.d.ii.q), WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE MAJORITY OF PARKING BE LOCATED IN THE REAR OF BUILDINGS AND PROHIBITS PARKING IN THE FRONT OF BUILDING EXCEPT ON -STREET PARKING WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO INSTEAD ALLOW PARKING IN THE FRONT, SIDE, AND REAR YARDS, WHEN SUCH PARKING IS IN SUPPORT OF A SHOPPING CENTER, OR WHEN LOCATED ON A LOT WITH TWO OR MORE STREET FRONTAGES, OR WHEN LOCATED ON A LOT FRONTING ON CORKSCREW ROAD OR STATE ROAD 82. A TYPE 'D' BUFFER PER LDC AT TIME OF PERMITTING WILL BE REQUIRED WHEN PARKING IS ADJACENT TO OR ABUTTING A ROAD. 3. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 4.08.07.1.3.d.ii.q), WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE AMOUNT OF REQUIRED PARKING IN THE VILLAGE CENTER "BE DEMONSTRATED THROUGH A SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS SUBMITTED WITH AN SRA DESIGNATION APPLICATION..." AND BE "DETERMINED UTILIZING THE MODAL SPLITS AND PARKING DEMANDS FOR VARIOUS USES RECOGNIZED BY ITE, ULI OR OTHER SOURCES OR STUDIES..." TO INSTEAD ALLOW THE PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS TO BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF INITIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP) OR, AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COUNTY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE, AT THE TIME OF A SUBSEQUENT SDP OR SDP AMENDMENT, IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR A MORE COMPREHENSIVE PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS BASED UPON THE MIX OF USES AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL SDP OR SUBSEQUENT SDP OR SDP AMENDMENT. 4. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 4.08.07.1.3.d.ii.g), WHICH ESTABLISHES A MAXIMUM BLOCK PERIMETER OF 2,500 FEET IN THE VILLAGE CENTER TO INSTEAD ALLOW FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL BLOCK PERIMETER PROVISIONS PER LDC SECTION 4.08.07.J.2.D.III.C): THE MAXIMUM BLOCK PERIMETER SHALL BE 3,500 FEET, EXCEPT THAT A LARGER BLOCK PERIMETER SHALL BE ALLOWED WHERE AN ALLEY OR PATHWAY PROVIDES THROUGH ACCESS, OR THE BLOCK INCLUDES WATER BODIES OR PUBLIC FACILITIES. 5. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 5.03.02 H.1.b AND c., WHICH REQUIRES NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE A WALL WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDSCAPE BUFFER WHEN LOCATED ON PROPERTY OPPOSITE A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED DISTRICT BUT FRONTING ON A LOCAL STREET OR ROADWAY TO INSTEAD NOT REQUIRE A WALL. THIS DEVIATION SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE REAR OF SHOPPING CENTERS AND BUILDING AREAS WHERE OVERHEAD DOORS ARE LOCATED AND FACING TOWARDS A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. 8.3 TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS 1. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 4.08.07.1.1.b, "FIGURES 5, 6, AND 7, LOCAL STREET NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL," WHICH REQUIRES A 6-FOOT-WIDE PLANTING AREA BETWEEN THE TRAVEL LANE AND THE SIDEWALK, TO INSTEAD ALLOW FOR A 4-FOOT-WIDE PLANTING AREA IN THE SAME LOCATION FOR LOCAL ROADS WITHIN THE PROJECT IN NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL. IN SUCH CASES, EITHER A ROOT BARRIER OR STRUCTURAL SOIL SHALL BE UTILIZED. IF THE OPTION OF STRUCTURAL SOIL IS UTILIZED, A MINIMUM OF 2 CUBIC FEET OF STRUCTURAL SOIL PER SQUARE FEET OF MATURE TREE CROWN PROJECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED. 8.4 SIGN STANDARDS 8.5 LANDSCAPE STANDARDS 1. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02.C., BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, "TYPES OF BUFFERS," TABLE 2.4 INFORMATION, FOOTNOTE (3) WHICH REQUIRES "BUFFER AREAS BETWEEN COMMERCIAL OUTPARCELS LOCATED WITHIN A SHOPPING CENTER, BUSINESS PARK, OR SIMILAR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT MAY HAVE A SHARED BUFFER 15 FEET WIDE WITH EACH ABUTTING PROPERTY CONTRIBUTING 7.5 FEET", TO INSTEAD ALLOW A SHARED BUFFER 10 FEET WIDE WITH EACH ABUTTING PROPERTY CONTRIBUTING 5 FEET. 2. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02 A., WHICH REQUIRES LANDSCAPE BUFFER STRIPS TO BE SHOWN AND DESIGNATED ON THE FINAL PLAT WITHIN AN EASEMENT, TO INSTEAD ALLOW THE SAME REQUIRED LANDSCAPING MATERIALS TO BE DEMONSTRATED ON A PLANTING PLAN, FOR STAFF REVIEW AS PART OF THE RESPECTIVE PLANS AND PLAT APPLICATION (PPL), WITH NO REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER FOR ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO A LAKE REGARDLESS OF LOCATION WITHIN THE VILLAGE. 8.6 OTHER DEVIATIONS 1. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 4.05.04.G, "PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS," WHICH REQUIRES 1 PARKING SPACE PER 100 SQUARE FEET FOR RECREATION FACILITIES (INDOOR) SPORTS, EXERCISE, FITNESS, AEROBICS, OR HEALTH CLUBS TO INSTEAD ALLOW FOR PARKING FOR THE AMENITY CENTER SITES TO BE CALCULATED AT 1 SPACE PER 200 SQUARE FEET OF INDOOR SQUARE FOOTAGE, EXCLUDING KITCHEN OR STORAGE SPACE. 2. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 3.05.10.A.2. - "LOCATION CRITERIA," WHICH REQUIRES THAT "LSPA [LITTORAL SHELF PLANTING AREAS] SHALL BE CONCENTRATED IN ONE LOCATION OF THE LAKE(S), PREFERABLY ADJACENT TO A PRESERVE AREA," TO INSTEAD ALLOW FOR REQUIRED LITTORAL SHELF PLANTING AREAS TO BE AGGREGATED IN CERTAIN SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT LAKES, INCLUDING THE DEVELOPMENT LAKE THAT RUNS ALONG THE EASTERN PERIMETER OF THE SRA. IT SHALL ALSO BE PERMITTED TO UTILIZE GATOR SLOUGH AND CABBAGE SLOUGH AS PART OF ALL THE REQUIRED LSPA. 3. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 5.04.04.B.5. - "MODEL HOMES AND MODEL SALES CENTERS", WHICH PERMITS A MAXIMUM OF FIVE (5) MODEL HOMES, OR A NUMBER CORRESPONDING TO TEN (10) PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PLATTED LOTS, WHICHEVER IS LESS, PER PLATTED APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. THE REQUESTED DEVIATION IS TO ALLOW FOR A MAXIMUM OF 30 MODEL HOMES AT ANY ONE TIME WITHIN THE OVERALL VILLAGE IRRESPECTIVE TO THE NUMBER OF PLATTED LOTS. WITH EACH BUILDING PERMIT FOR A MODEL HOME, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION AS TO THE CURRENT NUMBER OF MODEL HOMES IN EXISTENCE. 1. A DEVIATION FROM LDC SECTION 5.06.02.B.5.a, "ON -PREMISES DIRECTIONAL SIGNS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS," WHICH REQUIRES ON -PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS TO BE SET BACK A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROADWAY, PAVED SURFACE OR BACK OF THE CURB, TO INSTEAD ALLOW A MINIMUM SETBACK OF 5 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROADWAY, PAVED SURFACE OR BACK OF THE CURB, LIMITED TO SIGNS INTERNAL TO THE SRA ONLY. THIS EXCLUDES SIGNAGE ALONG COUNTY OWNED ROADWAYS. # DATE REVISIONS J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA DESIGNED BY: JRE PROJECT #: 01093 1 6-23-25 REVISED PER COUNTY & OWNER COMMENTS J R EVANS 99s, wrFT MYERTATE COMMERCEFLORIDA 33 R, srE. z3o FTMVERs,F�oRIon33s13 DRAWN BY: EKA FILE DATE: Jun-25 ENGINEERING PHONE: (239) 405-9148 EXHIBIT (A) FAX: (239) 288-2537 WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM SRA MASTER PLAN DEVIATION DESCRIPTIONS I SCALE: N.A. SHEET : 5 of 10 n■ m m w N 12' rr, 50' R.O.W. (MIN) r 12' P.U.E. e o��, �Iq�l P.U.E. o = c 13' 2' 10, 10, 2' 13' TRAVELLANE TRAVELLANE o � 51. 4' 2' 4' 51 � ' S/W MIN MIN MIN S/W I I I j 2% (MAX) 2% 2% 2% (MAX) j —1— POTABLE WATER OR POTABLE WATER OR IRRIGATION MAIN IRRIGATION MAIN 5' 5' 5' M I N 5' 5' MIN MIN GRAVITY MIN MIN SEWER FORCE MAIN CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) 50' LOCAL STREET SECTION 12' P.U.E. 9 x uym I 5' 4' i S/W MIN — I 2% (MAX) NTS 50' R.O.W. (MIN) 10, 10, TRAVELLANE TRAVELLANE 2' j MIN 2% 2% mm 12' P.U.E. POTABLE WATER OR POTABLE WATER OR IRRIGATION MAIN IRRIGATION MAIN 3' 5' 5' MIN 5' 3' MIN MIN MIN I MIN FORCE MAIN GRAVITY 7 CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) SEWER (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) 50' LOCAL STREET SECTION NTS CROSS SECTION NOTES A 5-FOOT SIDEWALK IS REQUIRED ON ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE STREET FOR CUL-DE-SACS OR SINGLE -LOADED ROADWAYS. PROVIDES SPACE FOR 12' LEFT TURN LANE AND 4' TRAFFIC SEPARATOR *' THESE DIMENSIONS MAY VARY TO ENABLE MEANDERING OF PATHS & WALKWAYS AND/OR INCREASE / DECREASE MEDIAN WIDTH *" MAY SUBSTITUTE (2)-11' TRAVEL LANES TO CREATE 4 LANE DIVIDED SECTION. UTILITY NOTE UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY. EXACT LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY IMMOKALEE WATER & SEWER DISTRICT (IWSD) AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PPL PERMITTING. # DATE REVISIONS J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA DESIGNED BY: JRE PROJECT #: 01093 1 6-23-25 REVISED PER COUNTY & OWNER COMMENTS J R EVANS 99s, wrFT MYERTATE ,FM FLORIDA 33ERCE R, srE. z3o FT HONE:39)40 - aas,a DRAWN BY: EKA FILE DATE: Jun-25 ENGINEERING PFAX:(29)288-5-9148 EXHIBIT (A) FAX: (239)285-2537 WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM SRA STREET CROSS SECTIONS (1) SCALE: NTS SHEET: 6 of 10 12' �3) I 58' R.O.W. (MIN) I 12' 17' 5'" 4' S/W MIN 2% (MAX) l_ FORCE MAIN IRRIGATION MAIN MIN I MIN MIN 12' P.U.E. 2' 10, 102' 17' TRAVELLANE TRAVELLANE MIN S/W 2% 2% 2% (MAX) POTABLE WATER 5' 5' GRAVITY MIN SEWER IN M CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) 58' LOCAL STREET SECTION NTS S/W MIN 2% (MAX) FORCE MAIN IRRIGATION MAIN MIN MIN MIN 58' R.O.W. (MIN) Q `1 'tea 1 12' 2' � 10, 10' 1'2' TRAVELLANE TRAVELLANE 5 2% 2% 7' 4' 51 MIN S/W 2% (MAX) P.U.E. POTABLE WATER 5' 5' GRAVITY MIN MIN SEWER CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) 58' LOCAL STREET SECTION NTS I CROSS SECTION NOTES I A 5-FOOT SIDEWALK IS REQUIRED ON ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE STREET FOR CUL-DE-SACS OR SINGLE -LOADED ROADWAYS. PROVIDES SPACE FOR 12' LEFT TURN LANE AND 4' TRAFFIC SEPARATOR *' THESE DIMENSIONS MAY VARY TO ENABLE MEANDERING OF PATHS & WALKWAYS AND/OR INCREASE / DECREASE MEDIAN WIDTH *" MAY SUBSTITUTE (2)-11' TRAVEL LANES TO CREATE 4 LANE DIVIDED SECTION. UTILITY NOTE UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY. EXACT LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY IMMOKALEE WATER & SEWER DISTRICT (IWSD) AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PPL PERMITTING. # DATE REVISIONS J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA DESIGNED BY: JRE PROJECT #: 01093 1 6-23-25 REVISED PER COUNTY & OWNER COMMENTS J R EVANS 99s, wrFRsrArE ,FM FLORIDA 33ERCE R, srE. z3o FT MVER:39)40 - aas,a DRAWN BY: EKA FILE DATE: Jun-25 ENGINEERING PFAX(29)288-5-9148 EXHIBIT (A) FAX (239)285-2537 WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM SRA STREET CROSS SECTIONS (2) SCALE: NTS SHEET: 7 of 10 a1 �I m m w 12' 60' (MIN.) R.O.W. P.U.E. CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) i 5.1 4' 9'1 3' 10, 10, 2' 4' 5" S/W MIN PARALLEL TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE MIN S/W PARKING 2% (MAX) 2% (MAX) 12' P.U.E. POTABLE WATER OR 3' VALLEY GUTTER IRRIGATION MAIN POTABLE WATER OR FORCE MAIN GRAVITY 5' IRRIGATION MAIN 5' 10, SEWER MIN MIN MIN CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) 60' LOCAL STREET SECTION (VILLAGE CENTER) NTS 12' I 24' (MIN..) R.O.W. 12' T P.U.E. P.U.E. 12' (MIN) 14' (MAX) TRAVELLANE 17' 3' 3' 5' MIN MIN MIN MIN ►) POTABLE WATER OR POTABLE WATER OR IRRIGATION MAIN IRRIGATION MAIN STORM DRAINAGE 24' ALLEY SECTION (VILLAGE CENTER) NTS CROSS SECTION NOTES A 5-FOOT SIDEWALK IS REQUIRED ON ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE STREET FOR CUL-DE-SACS OR SINGLE -LOADED ROADWAYS. PROVIDES SPACE FOR 12' LEFT TURN LANE AND 4' TRAFFIC SEPARATOR *' THESE DIMENSIONS MAY VARY TO ENABLE MEANDERING OF PATHS & WALKWAYS AND/OR INCREASE / DECREASE MEDIAN WIDTH *" MAY SUBSTITUTE (2)-11' TRAVEL LANES TO CREATE 4 LANE DIVIDED SECTION. UTILITY NOTE UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY. EXACT LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY IMMOKALEE WATER & SEWER DISTRICT (IWSD) AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PPL PERMITTING. # DATE REVISIONS J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA DESIGNED BY: JRE PROJECT #: 01093 1 6-23-25 REVISED PER COUNTY & OWNER COMMENTS J R EVANS 99s, wrFRsrArE ,FM FLORIDA 33ERCE R, srE. z3o FT MVER:39)40 - aas,a DRAWN BY: EKA FILE DATE: Jun-25 ENGINEERING PFAX(29)288-5-9148 EXHIBIT (A) FAX (239)285-2537 WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM SRA STREET CROSS SECTIONS (3) SCALE: NTS SHEET: 8 of 10 m m w cn a 12' 1 _ 70' (MIN.) R.O.W. 1 12' P.U.E. rr�, 2' 10, 5' 2' 5' 11' iMULTI -USE PATH ��, O TRAVEL LANE 1 2% (MAX) J 2% 1 rw POTABLE WATER OR FORCE MAIN IRRIGATION MAIN 5' 5' 5' MIN MIN MIN 11' TRAVELLANE 2% OPTIONAL GRAVITY TYPE "F" CURB (TYP.) SEWER LOCATION (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) 6' 6' S/W 2% (MAX) POTABLE WATER OR IRRIGATION MAIN 5' MIN 70' COLLECTOR ROAD SECTION N.T.S. P.U.E. 12' 80' (MIN.) R.O.W. 12' I P.U.E. I , �,; �, , P.U.E. I 2' 6' 6' 2' 10' 6' 2' 4' 11' 11' 4' 2' 6' 5' I I MULTI -USE PATH MIN.", - —„ TRAVEL LANE O ft.0 TRAVEL LANE — - MIN. S/W I I I I I j 2% (MAX) 2% I 2% 2% (MAX) I Ny �,��__ _._�„� FORCE MAIN IVury IRRIGATION MAIN OPTIONAL GRAVITY OPTIONAL GRAVITY SEWER LOCATION SEWER LOCATION OPTIONAL IRRIGATION TYPE"F" CURB (TYP.) MAIN LOCATION (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) 80' COLLECTOR ROAD SECTION N.T.S. rvu ry WATER MAIN CROSS SECTION NOTES A 5-FOOT SIDEWALK IS REQUIRED ON ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE STREET FOR CUL-DE-SACS OR SINGLE -LOADED ROADWAYS. PROVIDES SPACE FOR 12' LEFT TURN LANE AND 4' TRAFFIC SEPARATOR *' THESE DIMENSIONS MAY VARY TO ENABLE MEANDERING OF PATHS & WALKWAYS AND/OR INCREASE / DECREASE MEDIAN WIDTH MAY SUBSTITUTE (2)-11' TRAVEL LANES TO CREATE 4 LANE DIVIDED SECTION. UTILITY NOTE UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY. EXACT LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY IMMOKALEE WATER & SEWER DISTRICT (IWSD) AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PPL PERMITTING. # DATE REVISIONS J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA DESIGNED BY: JRE PROJECT #: 01093 1 6-23-25 REVISED PER COUNTY & OWNER COMMENTS J R EVANS 99s, wrFRsrArE ,FM FLORIDA 33ERCE R, srE. z3o FT MVER:39)40 - aas,a DRAWN BY: EKA FILE DATE: Jun-25 ENGINEERING PFAX(29)288-5-9148 EXHIBIT (A) FAX (239)285-2537 1 j WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM SRA STREET CROSS SECTIONS (4) SCALE: NTS SHEET: 9 of 10 m m w rn 12' P.U.E. I I I I I I I I I I I I FORCE MAIN (125'u ,,,;gyp 11.5'* 10, 12' "* 5' (V MIN.) MULTI -USE (6' MIN.) l O PATH o ,I2% (MAX) J IVIIIV CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) J (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) IRRIGATION MAIN OPTIONAL GRAVITY SEWER LOCATION CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) OPTIONAL IRRIGATION MAIN LOCATION 2 vl_ 11' 5' 2-1 14.5'*** 6' 13' w (6' MIN.) r S/W (V MIN.) r (MIN.) 0•' 2% (MAX) CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) OPTIONAL GRAVITY WATER MAIN 5, SEWER LOCATION CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) (TYPE & MATERIAL MAY VARY) 125' BOULEVARD SECTION N.T.S. 12' P.U.E 12' I 125' I 12' P.U.E. R.O.W. ? P.U.E. I 11' 18'**** 11' 5' 2' 14 5'*** 6' 13' (1' MIN.) MULTI -USE (6' MIN.) i PATH I DROP CURB I I I - 2% (MAX) NO LANDSCAPING MATERIAL AT FPL CROSSINGS. ONLY GROUNDCOVER AND SMALL SHRUBS (TYP) O� (MIN.) I DROP 9' I 9, DROP CURB CURB (MIN.) I (MIN.) 2% 2% STABILIZED ACCESS (TYP) (6" LIMEROCK BASE OR APPROVED EQUAL) STABILIZED ACCESS (TYP) (6" LIMEROCK BASE OR APPROVED EQUAL) NO LANDSCAPING MATERIAL AT FPL CROSSINGS. ONLY GROUNDCOVER AND SMALL SHRUBS (TYP) TYPICAL FPL EASEMENT CROSSING SECTION N.T.S. I (6' MIN.) S/W (V MIN.) I DROP CURB 2% (MAX) STABILIZED ACCESS (TYP) (6" LIMEROCK BASE OR APPROVED EQUAL) UTILITY NOTE UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY. EXACT LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY IMMOKALEE WATER & SEWER DISTRICT (IWSD) AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PPL PERMITTING. NO LANDSCAPING MATERIAL AT FPL CROSSINGS. ONLY GROUNDCOVER AND SMALL SHRUBS (TYP) CROSS SECTION NOTES A 5-FOOT SIDEWALK IS REQUIRED ON ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE STREET FOR CUL-DE-SACS OR SINGLE -LOADED ROADWAYS. PROVIDES SPACE FOR 12' LEFT TURN LANE AND 4' TRAFFIC SEPARATOR *** THESE DIMENSIONS MAY VARY TO ENABLE MEANDERING OF PATHS & WALKWAYS AND/OR INCREASE / DECREASE MEDIAN WIDTH **** MAY SUBSTITUTE (2)-11' TRAVEL LANES TO CREATE 4 LANE DIVIDED SECTION. # DATE I REVISIONS J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA DESIGNED BY: JRE PROJECT #: 01093 1 6-23-25 REVISED PER COUNTY & OWNER COMMENTS J R EVANS 99s, wrFT MYERTATE ,FM FLORIDA 33ERCE R, srE. z3o FT HONE:39)40 - aas,a DRAWN BY: EKA FILE DATE: Jun-25 ENGINEERING PFAX:(29)288-5-9148 EXHIBIT (A) FAX: (239)285-2537 WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM SRA STREET CROSS SECTIONS (5) SCALE: NTS SHEET: 10 of 10 BBLS SURVEYORS, INC. 9001 HIGHLAND WOOD BLVD., SUITE. 6, BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA, 34135 TELEPHONE: (239) 597-1315 LEGAL DESCRIPTION CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09 AND 10, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: AREA COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 04; THENCE RUN S.88°49' 18"W., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,508.39 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HERIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN S.01010'09"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 560.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.70°39'05"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 408.22 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 69°12'45", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 56.79 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.36°02'42"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.40 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.01 °26' 19"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 188.82 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90000'00", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 70.71 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.43.33'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 78.54 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.88°33'41"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,025.38 FEET; THENCE RUN S.50°56'03"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 169.38 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37°3738", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 32.25 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.69°44'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 32.84 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.88033'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 703.74 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74033'23", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 60.57 FEET, SHEET 1 OF 23 \\10.0.0.10\data\PROJECTS\2023\23.48 CORKSCREW GROVE\LEGAL AND SKETCH EAST VILLAGE BNDY\23.48 LEGAL DESC EAST VILLAGE.rtf EX B to Res. Page 37 of 112 AT A BEARING OF N.54009'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.06 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.16°52'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 136.11 FEET; TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74033'23", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 60.57 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.54°09'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.06 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.88033'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 138.80 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10054'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,723.47 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 82 (A 200 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY); THENCE RUN N.73°57'58"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 3,951.29 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT "A" THENCE CONTINUE N.73057'58"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,511.79 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 04, THE SAME BEING A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT "B"; THENCE RUN N.0I ° 10'09"W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,123.48 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE RUN S.8903435"E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,601.08 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 04; THENCE RUN N.88°49'18"E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,195.39 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS OR 192.492 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. LESS AND EXCEPT COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "A", THENCE RUN N.16°02'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE N.16°02'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.91 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01 002'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 132.64 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88°57'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 234.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01 °02' 17"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 268.38 FEET; THENCE RUN N.73°57'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 264.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 1.264 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. ERNE AREA 2 COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "B", THENCE RUN S.18°37'53"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 82 (A 200 FOOT WIIDE SHEET 2 OF 23 \\10.0.0.10\data\PROJECTS\2023\23.48 CORKSCREW GROVE\LEGAL AND SKETCH EAST VILLAGE BNDY\23.48 LEGAL DESC EAST VILLAGE.rtf EX B to Res. Page 38 of 112 RIGHT OF WAY, THE SAME BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 818.89 FEET; THENCE RUN S.36017'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.80 FEET; THENCE RUN N.73°57'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 327.44 FEET; THENCE RUN N.78°05'08"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 96.93 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00002'23"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 322.02 FEET; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 218.62 FEET; THENCE RUN S.36017'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 265.76 FEET; THENCE RUN S.53°42'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.36017'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 711.07 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 3,151.52 FEET; THENCE RUN S.16°02'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 464.76 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CORKSCREW ROAD (A 100 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY), THE SAME BEING A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT "C"; THENCE RUN S.20051'56"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,727.40 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,859.86 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37°08'16", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 1,184.52 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.39026'04"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,205.52 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.58000'12"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 6,667.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,914.79 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10.45' 18", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 546.33 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.52°37'33"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 547.14 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.47014'54"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 592.73 FEET; THENCE RUN N.42°45'06"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 182.77 FEET; THENCE RUN N.08°34'04"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 29.19 FEET; THENCE RUN N.07° 19'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.16 FEET; THENCE RUN N.04055'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.31 FEET; THENCE RUN N.05'01'49"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.88 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°02'16"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 44.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01 ° 10'03 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.95 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°29'48"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 47.71 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°18'30"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 59.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01001'00"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.59 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01 °26'27"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.34 FEET; THENCE RUN N.26°36'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 21.65 FEET; THENCE RUN N.71 ° 11'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 62.41 FEET; THENCE RUN N.78016'23"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 59.85 FEET; THENCE RUN N.44056'42"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 61.76 FEET; SHEET 3 OF 23 \\10.0.0.10\data\PROJECTS\2023\23.48 CORKSCREW GROVE\LEGAL AND SKETCH EAST VILLAGE BNDY\23.48 LEGAL DESC EASTVILLAGE.rtf EX B to Res. Page 39 of 112 THENCE RUN N.07058'50"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.06048'04"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 79.45 FEET; THENCE RUN N.06°20'44"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 62.71 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°58'06"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 61.35 FEET; THENCE RUN N.10'07'23"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.54 FEET; THENCE RUN N.0I 052'44"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 256.40 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02054' 16"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.49 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°25'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.25 FEET; THENCE RUN N.30°11'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 54.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.86°55'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 54.72 FEET; THENCE RUN S.85°44'03"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 23.63 FEET; THENCE RUN N.62°37'24"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 48.08 FEET; THENCE RUN N.29011'17"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 23.53 FEET; THENCE RUN N.34043'38"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 36.62 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°00'28"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.59 FEET; THENCE RUN N.04°15'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.83 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°00'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 64.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.03°51'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 47.63 FEET; THENCE RUN N.05047'57"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 48.46 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°30'23"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 80.45 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01008'26"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 95.81 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°39'33"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.77 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01 °35'28"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.39 FEET; THENCE RUN N.03007'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 46.18 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00003'06"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.03024'00"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.90 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°04'14"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,048.74 FEET; THENCE RUN N.57°16'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 39.27 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°51'lTV, FOR A DISTANCE OF 944.04 FEET; THENCE RUN S.43°19'43"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.74 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00010'26"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 620.35 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°37'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 59.32 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°07'47"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 176.53 FEET; THENCE RUN S.42°53'32"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.07 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89003'28"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 191.01 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88036'21 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.23 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89019'2I"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 133.04 FEET; THENCE RUN N.85050'05"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 99.43 FEET; THENCE RUN S.79025'26"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.39 FEET; THENCE RUN S.56044'28"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.38 FEET; THENCE RUN S.31 °01'07"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 37.43 FEET; THENCE RUN S.03°43'08"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 96.90 FEET; THENCE RUN S.06032'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 68.49 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°36'31 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.05 FEET; THENCE RUN S.04023'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 79.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01 ° 11'30"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.74 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02048'10"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 118.12 FEET; THENCE RUN S.03003'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 102.35 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01 °30'01 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 119.09 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°20'04"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 75.13 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°29'22"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 94.37 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°42'05"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 92.14 FEET; THENCE RUN S.03036'37"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 117.42 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°50'03"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 106.32 FEET; SHEET 4 OF 23 \\10.0.0.10\data\PROJECTS\2023\23.48 CORKSCREW GROVE\LEGAL AND SKETCH EAST VILLAGE BNDY\23.48 LEGAL DESC EAST VILLAGE.rtf EX B to Res. Page 40 of 112 THENCE RUN S.00040'00"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 97.31 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°35' 17"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 110.31 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00° 16'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 140.41 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°41' 19"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 150.96 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01004'59"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.24 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02022' 19"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.05 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00021'33"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 123.18 FEET; THENCE RUN S.08021'19"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 67.75 FEET; THENCE RUN S.45°16'07"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 68.75 FEET; THENCE RUN S.84° 15'47"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.96 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89°57'40"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.30 FEET; THENCE RUN S.86042'24"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 89.38 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89043'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 83.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88°47'49"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 103.44 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89004'18"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 103.63 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89039'41 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.75 FEET; THENCE RUN S.86002'46"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 64.96 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89035' 1 I "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 68.29 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88055'43"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88°23'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.30 FEET; THENCE RUN S.87°27'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 66.12 FEET; THENCE RUN N.74°04'04"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 74.55 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°09'55"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 119.52 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 78043'31 ", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 31.71 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.3901 F51 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 34.35 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 235.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 78°09'08", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 296.27 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39029'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 320.54 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.00°24'28"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,096.45 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,700.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 22050'27", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 673.22 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.11 000'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 677.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23034'42", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 122.59 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.10°38'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 123.46 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.01 008'43"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 224.54 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33055' 13", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 408.39 FEET, AT A BEARING OF SHEET 5 OF 23 \\10.0.0.10\data\PROJECTS\2023\23.48 CORKSCREW GROVE\LEGAL AND SKETCH EAST VILLAGE BNDY\23.48 LEGAL DESC EASTVILLAGE.rtf EX B to Res. Page 41 of 112 N.15°48'54"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 414.42 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.32°46'30"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 181.86 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°56'43", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 157.82 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39014'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 158.16 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 382.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°56'43", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 86.13 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39014'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 86.31 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.32°46'30"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 53.08 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34°32'04", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 237.46 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.50002'33"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 241.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 62004'46", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 25.78 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.36016' 12"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 27.09 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.05013'48"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 426.62 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27°32'42", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 9.52 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.19°00'09"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 9.62 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.32046'30"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 444.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.37041'31 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 223.51 FEET; THENCE RUN S.51 °54' 14"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 40.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 225.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39039'16", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 152.97 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.71043'53"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 156.07 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.88°26'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 358.52 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 925.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23031'36", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 377.36 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.76°40'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 380.03 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.64054'54"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,604.44 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT "D", THE SAME BEING THE BEGINNING OF A SHEET 6 OF 23 \\10.0.0.10\data\PROJECTS\2023\23.48 CORKSCREW GROVE\LEGAL AND SKETCH EAST VILLAGE BNDY\23.48 LEGAL DESC EAST VILLAGE.rtf EX B to Res. Page 42 of 112 TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,074.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24°30'39", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 456.17 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.77° 10' 13"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 459.67 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.89°25'33"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,254.90 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 874.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25°35'52", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 387.46 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.77°46'31"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 390.70 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND A POINT OF CURVE OF A NON -TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 137.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19°26'36", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 46.27 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.71 °32'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 46.49 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND A POINT OF CURVE OF A NON -TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 675.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20°37'20", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 241.82 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.09008'24"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 243.13 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.01 ° 10' 16"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 214.59 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 574.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30°33'45", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 302.83 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.14°06'37"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 306.45 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 425.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56°52'12", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 405.21 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.00°57'24"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 422.34 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 574.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43°30'44", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 425.89 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.05043'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 436.29 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.16°02'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.84 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 944.869 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. LESS AND EXCEPT COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "D", THENCE RUN S.27"26'0I "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 402.44 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN SHEET 7 OF 23 \\10.0.0.10\data\PROJECTS\2023\23.48 CORKSCREW GROVE\LEGAL AND SKETCH EAST VILLAGE BNDY\23.48 LEGAL DESC EAST VILLAGE.rtf EX B to Res. Page 43 of 112 N.67°11'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.46 FEET; THENCE RUN N.85°21'28"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.15 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89°02' 13"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.07 FEET; THENCE RUN S.56°I5'41"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.07°36'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 52.92 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00007'50"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01-41'56"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.36 FEET; THENCE RUN S.12°47'36"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 42.53 FEET; THENCE RUN S.63014'17"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 36.54 FEET; THENCE RUN S.65058'21 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 78.96 FEET; THENCE RUN S.22°40'47"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 41.36 FEET; THENCE RUN S.04033'09"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01 °42'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.11 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°43' 11 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 51.59 FEET; THENCE RUN S.07040'03"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 31.35 FEET; THENCE RUN S.46°59'16"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 27.98 FEET; THENCE RUN S.75058'12"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.61 FEET; THENCE RUN N.90000'00"E , FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.56 FEET; THENCE RUN N.54040'20"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.65 FEET; THENCE RUN N.40°57'26"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 29.09 FEET; THENCE RUN N.08°36'07"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.19 FEET; THENCE RUN N.07°43'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 46.16 FEET; THENCE RUN N.16°05'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.36 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88050' 11 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.96 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89004'13"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.32 FEET; THENCE RUN N.86053'19"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 90.52 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88°42'22"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.98 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°44'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.21 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88°59'24"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 87.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.78053'49"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.14°20'06"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 66.40 FEET; THENCE RUN S.09°0 F51 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 88.55 FEET; THENCE RUN S.09° 13'56"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 87.61 FEET; THENCE RUN S.I0°53'56"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.09°47'32"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.54 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10°54'31 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.26 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10°45'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 97.85 FEET; THENCE RUN S.08050' 14"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.26 FEET; THENCE RUN S.08024'23"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.35 FEET; THENCE RUN S.07028'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 94.54 FEET; THENCE RUN S. 109 1'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.35009'18"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 54.16 FEET; THENCE RUN S.49038'14"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 76.97 FEET; THENCE RUN S.51°40'50"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.73 FEET; THENCE RUN N.87043'38"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 43.73 FEET; THENCE RUN S.71 °31'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 51.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.74048'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.47044'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 27.22 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00044'13"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 458.91 FEET; THENCE RUN N.50003'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.18 FEET; THENCE RUN N.52°35'34"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 42.36 FEET; THENCE RUN N.52039'27"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 44.34 FEET; THENCE RUN N.66° 17'41 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 33.93 FEET; THENCE RUN N.58° 16'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 44.24 FEET; SHEET 8 OF 23 \\10.0.0.10\data\PROJECTS\2023\23.48 CORKSCREW GROVE\LEGAL AND SKETCH EAST VILLAGE BNDY\23.48 LEGAL DESC EAST VILLAGE.rtf EX B to Res. Page 44 of 112 THENCE RUN N.53046'50"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 103.66 FEET; THENCE RUN N.50° 19'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.52 FEET; THENCE RUN N.59°46'44"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 108.92 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°21'52"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 31.84 FEET; THENCE RUN S.27°44'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 40.05 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°57'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 386.62 FEET; THENCE RUN S.04058'47"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 38.88 FEET; THENCE RUN S.05056'08"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 31.43 FEET; THENCE RUN S.03027'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 74.52 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°15'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.04 FEET; THENCE RUN S.06011'40"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 36.66 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°43'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 350.98 FEET; THENCE RUN S.04021'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 39.53 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°17'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 39.85 FEET; THENCE CONTINUE S.02°17'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 28.25 FEET; THENCE RUN S.37°27'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 43.13 FEET; THENCE RUN S.46° 11'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 38.49 FEET; THENCE RUN S.52°30'51"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 41.39 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89°50'21"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 37.75 FEET; THENCE RUN N.69029'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 144.19 FEET; THENCE RUN N.73051'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.95 FEET; THENCE RUN N.17°36'03"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 19.58 FEET; THENCE RUN N.15055'16"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 469.33 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00054'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63 8.3 7 FEET; THENCE RUN N.10°40'40"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 25.37 FEET; THENCE RUN N.65016'14"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 51.24 FEET; THENCE RUN N.80053' 11 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 377.64 FEET; THENCE RUN N.41 °38'01 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 16.60 FEET; THENCE RUN N.13°21' 12"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 35.89 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00016'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 80.83 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°57'36"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.74 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°54' 14"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.42 FEET; THENCE RUN N.04025'23"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°13'35"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.99 FEET; THENCE RUN N.14°04'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.90 FEET; THENCE RUN N.80017'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.79°24'32"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.53 FEET; THENCE RUN N.33059'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.02 FEET; THENCE RUN N.46053'13"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.26 FEET; TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 22.115 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. AND AREA 3 COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "C", THENCE RUN S.87040'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 105.48 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD (A 200 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY) AND THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CORKSCREW ROAD (A 100 FOOT WIDE WIGHT OF WAY), THE SAME BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN SHEET 9 OF 23 \\10.0.0.10\data\PROJECTS\2023\23.48 CORKSCREW GROVE\LEGAL AND SKETCH EAST VILLAGE BNDY\23.48 LEGAL DESC EAST VILLAGE.rtf EX B to Res. Page 45 of 112 DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID STATE ROAD 82, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,786.39 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00035'44"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 364.23 FEET; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 134.39 FEET; THENCE RUN N.31°00'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 52.82 FEET; THENCE RUN S.58°59'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.31 °00'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.58°59'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.31 000'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 278.43 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 106.67 FEET; THENCE RUN S.16°02'01 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 10.84 FEET; THENCE RUN S.31 °00'01 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 361.08 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 497.96 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02024'27", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 20.92 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.29°47'47"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 20.92 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN, S.73°57'58"E., A DISTANCE OF 1,267.66 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°00'47"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,149.10 FEET; THENCE RUN S.18°00'34"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 269.47 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,725.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 57000'46", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 1,646.54 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.46°30'57"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,716.48 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.75'01'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 885.99 FEET; THENCE RUN S.06°02'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 300.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.14°52'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.55 FEET; THENCE RUN N.75007'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 3,889.60 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID CORKSCREW ROAD; THENCE RUN N.58000'12"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,619.31 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,959.86 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37°08'16", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 1,248.21 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39026'04"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,270.34 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.20°51'56"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,760.94 FEET; TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PAREL CONTAINS 332.608 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SHEET 10 OF 23 \\10.0.0.10\data\PROJECTS\2023\23.48 CORKSCREW GROVE\LEGAL AND SKETCH EAST VILLAGE BNDY\23.48 LEGAL DESC EASTVILLAGE.rtf EX B to Res. Page 46 of 112 THE TOTAL AREA OF PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN IS 1,446.590 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 03, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING A BEARING OF S.89°29'58"E. THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. Stephen DNIc=iUSiou=LS 5296, o=BBLSry Surveyors, inc., cn=Stephen ^7 Berry em Berry Date 202501.2714�6b19 05'00' 01/2 //2025 STEPHEN E. BERRY, STATE OF FLORIDA, (PLS #5296) BBLS SURVEYORS, INC., (LB #8033) SEE ATTACHED SKETCH (SHEETS 12 THROUGH 23) SHEET 11 OF 23 /QNEN E. eF�S ��e-se 5296 " 0 STATE OF ,'I,��1� FLORIDA S of \\10.0.0.10\data\PROJECTS\2023\23.48 CORKSCREW GROVE\LEGAL AND SKETCH EAST VILLAGE BNDY\23.48 LEGAL DESC EAST VILLAGE.rtf EX B to Res. Page 47 of 112 P.O.B. AREA 1 SEE SHEET 13 36 31 HENDRY COUNTY 31 32 32 33 33 34 TOWNSHIP 45S 34.35 06 COLLIER CO NTY 06 05 0504 0403 TOWNSHIP 46S 0302 ARE 1 P.O.B. LESS & SECTION 03 AREA 2 EXCEPT 250' RICH OF SEE SHEET 14 SECTION 0� WAY SECTION 05 - AG PAGE12 75 LESS & EXCEPT 200, } z SECTION 04 I I P.O. RI �"W'4 � REA 3 \ 0 C) j SEE SHEET 13 Y) " w I \ \ 05 04 04 03 03 02 uj uj 0 05 Qk AREA 3 09 10 10 11 U 7 AREA 2 \ � 06 _ SECTION 08 \ \ SECTION 09 I SECTION 10 12 07 I \ \ SECTION 0 80' RIGHT OF WAY \ \ o } AGREEMENT1 m w N w 00 I O.R. 402, PAGE 29 n 00 I 10N s Q Q I �Rk 08 09 09 10 10 11 w P!G aF 17 16 16 15 15 14 Z 12 07 (j O 18 �O 17 SECTION 16 SECTION 15 a W 13 18 SECTION 18 SECTION 17 m m w s N Y 14 13 N W 4 4 E a O � lip W s SCALE: 1" = 3000' r 3 w 0' 1500' 3000' K 15 NOTES 0 0 1.) BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF LEGEND SECTION 04, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS BEING N SHEET INDEX P.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT NOT TO SCALE S88'49' 18"W. vim, P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING ® INDICATES SHEET NUMBER 2.) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, w O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK RESERVATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 0 PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREON 3.) DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET 1,446.590 ACRES t AND DECIMALS THEREOF. 0 4.) SEE SHEETS 21 THROUGH 23 FOR LINE AND o CURVE TABLES a OF THIS IS NOT A SURVEY SHEET 12 23 SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION BBLS SURVEYORS, INC. EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY a 9001 HIGHLAND WOODS BLVD, o m � < a A PORTION OF SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, SUITE 6, BONITA SPRINGS, w 11 o m Z m 3 N .. w w s 09, AND 10 TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 FLORIDA 34135 (239) 597-1315 a � _ Q EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA N Q EX B to Res. Page 48 of 112 NORTH LINE OF P.O.C. THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AREA 1 NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST P.O.B. AREA 1 NORTHEAST CORNER NORTH LINE OF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (BEARING BASIS) QUARTER SECTION 04 THE NORTHWEST QUARTER 2601.08' 33 33 1195.39" S88 49'18"W 33 34 34 I S89'34'35"E 04104 N88'49'18"E 1508.39 04 03 03 03 SOt'10'09"E S88'33'41"E SLY 3�3 0/vc 560.56' N16'52'57"E I136.11 138.80' �" C5 S�S8„ C1 S70'39'05"W AREA 1 <v otiy 106.6j. E S4 *26'19"W 408.22 S50'56'03"E "E � ory oo ' N73'57'58"W S88'33' 41 188.82' 169.38' o��lb _^ 1511.79' LESS AND 1025.38' C2 ^i h N58'59'58"W = EXCEPT 15.00' (SEE SHEE 20) C3 C4 SECTION 04 N3100'02"E PO`, S88'33'41"E 3 30.00' � �'0�/�J N73'57'58"W 703.74' �`,� S73'57'58"E S58'59'58"E q"(SEE 3951.29' a 134.39'DETAIL15.00' I S73'57'58"E EEJ 3151.52' St R ?O) NOT TO SCALE � 04 03 /S16'02'02"W 5g7 I STATE ROAD 82vr.(200' , `" ��NE 04 03 3 RIGHT OF WAY) 10 4g SECTION 03 25.00' \ _ �03 03m _ (SE N73'57'58"W — — 03 103v E NOTES: S73'57'58"E �fJq� 06.67' 1.) BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON I 464.76' P.O.B. geoI s REFER TO THE NORTH LINE OF POINT "C„ AREA 3 0201 "W w LU THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF I 10.84 F SECTION 04, TOWNSHIP 46 P.O.C. S73'57'58"E S00'35'44"E co SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, AREA 3 1786.39' 364.23' S31'0001 "W COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS 61.08' W BEING S88'49'18"W. S20'51'56"W W 1727.40' 73'57'58"E C26 < c 2.) THIS PROPERTY IS ''" I ARE 2 N205156E 134.39' J W Z SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS OR 1760.94' I a J RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. I S73'57'58"E N U CORKSCREW ROA 1267.66' _o > 3.) DIMENSIONS SHOWN (100' RIGHT OF WAY)I o of m Q HEREON ARE IN FEET AND I o I w DECIMALS THEREOF. GAO I o a 0 4.) SEE SHEETS 21 THROUGH I G0 AREA 3 N 23 FOR LINE AND CURVE S18'00'34"W w TABLES 04 0 269.47 03 04, — — — 09 10 10 100 Op N58'00'12"E J 1619.31' SECTION 09 J o N w \ N75'07'20"W W I 20 W \ \ \ \ 3889.60' S06'02'21"W S�gOA I 250' RIGHT OF J \ 300.50' 55599 WAY \ 80' RIGHT OF m AGREEMENT \ \ \ S14'52'39"W WAY N PAGE175, 27 \ \ \ \ 100.55' AGREEMENT o \ \ \ \ PAGE4029' 10 10 09 10 \ \ 10 10 \ 09 10 \ \ \ \ r \ a THIS IS NOT A SURVEY d ci SHEET 13 OF 23 SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION m � N BBLS SURVEYORS, INC. EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY o u) 9001 HIGHLAND WOODS BLVD, 6 w m < '> A PORTION OF SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, SUITE 6, BONITA SPRINGS, N wi AND 10, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28FLORIDA uom�Z09 K a- wJ Ww / ~Q EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 34135 (239) 597-1315 0 l EX B to Res. Page 49 of 112 NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER S89'34'35"E 2601.08' 32 32 32 33 LEGEND 05 05 WEST LINE OF 05 04 STATE ROAD 82 THE NORTHWEST P.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT (200' RIGHT OF WAY) QUARTER V P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING Q N01'10'09"W O o O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1123.48' I a:N R/W RIGHT OF WAY 0 a BRG I BEARING I N S�8• P.O.C.B o= 3j53 fy AREA 2 wN NOTES: SECTION 05 I W 4 4 E P.o.6' 73- '9 V) 0 1.) BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE NORTH LINE Q 0 AREA 2 \�5`w OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 04, TOWNSHIP S (SEE SHEET 20) Lf 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS BEING S88'49'18"W. SCALE: 1" = 1000' N16'02'02"E 69.84' I I 2.) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, � RESERVATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 0' 500 1000' C23 3.) DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND POINT "D" N01*1016"W DECIMALS THEREOF. I P.O.C. 214.59' LESS & SEE SHEETS 4.) SEE SHEETS 21 THROUGH 23 FOR LINE AND CURVE 05 05 EXCEPT 18 & 19 _ TABLES —05 N89'25'33"E v =04 C9 1254.90' C20 C21 P.O.B. LESS & N6 qh EXCEPT R L96 0� 1EEE&SHEETS h C7�, L97 08 S27'26'01"E LESS & 402.44' I EXCEPT LESS & ru \ \ 80' RIGHT OF EXCEPT w WAY I � AGREEMENT \ 0)\ \ O.R. 402, � M I W \ - \ -_PAGE 29 I in W L92 \ \ o0 1O SEE SHEETS I Z GNP C� \ \ \ 18 & 19 C12 C13 \ \ J L91 \ \ \ \ 05 04 _ 05 05-- \ \ 08 09 08 08 \ \ 0 944.04' L42 L43 \ \ U \ S88'51'17"W 250' RIGHT OF \ AREA 2NOT A WAY o, AGREEMENT U J PART O.R. 175, o,* c I PAGE 27 L45 L48 00 o N58'00'12"E L46 z 6667.70' L47 L 9 L50 CORKSCREW ROAD II SECTION 08 (100' RIGHT OF WAY) SECTION 09 0 w 't `6 N 0)SEE DETAIL 4 �� R 9-�� a 0 o I NOT A ( ON SHEET 16 Shy 08 09 0 z I PART 08 09 o MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 17 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 15 THIS IS NOT A SURVEY SHEET 14 OF 23 o SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION BBLS SURVEYORS, INC. EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY 9001 HIGHLAND WOODS BLVD, r A PORTION OF SECTIONS 03, 04, O5, 06, 07, 08, SUITE 6, BONITA SPRINGS, w o L'jm 09 AND 10, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 FLORIDA 34135 (239) 597-1315 w w EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA w r cap a " �N a a o o Page 50 of 112 J J w J MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 16 N W 4 D E �0 S SCALE: 1" = 200' 0' 100' 200' o^ NOT A J PART J N r T tFu M J W WI W J L77 L76 H Q DETAIL 3 SCALE: 1 "=200' ram MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 13 3 } I_ _ z z m I I 08 09 5 G�ti I I 08 09 W S58'00'12"W 6667.70' Y N SEE DETAIL 3 z ON THIS SHEET S47'14'54'W N J 592.73' w w �D J W E a CORKSCREW ROAD O 51 (100' RIGHT OF WAY) S z m w SCALE: 1" = 1000' s 0' 500' 1000' a w S U H w Y LEGEND o z F.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK R/W RIGHT OF WAY 0 3 NOTES: 1.) BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 04, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS BEING S88'49'18"W. �O PO RESERVATIONS EORYR STRICCTIONS OFIS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RECORD OF 3.) DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF. 4.) SEE SHEETS 21 THROUGH 23 FOR LINE AND CURVE TABLES o 0 SHEET 15 OF 23 Z a m m a N SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIF EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY A PORTION OF SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, Lij m ow09 o s AND 10, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 THIS IS NOT A SURVEY N a N o N a EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BBLS SURVEYORS, INC. 9001 HIGHLAND WOODS BLVD, SUITE 6, BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34135 (239) 597-1315 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 14 _ L183 L51 �s °'0 0 oa �o z tn J d J O J rn L57 L55 °0 n J r rM L56 J ro J (D J Ln I J a M J 0 L33 N IM J J M J 0 M N J L28 L29 L25 uo L24 L27 L26 N � N � J J N N J DETAIL 4 I -SCALE: 1 "=200' N � D W E 00 S SCALE: 1" = 200' 0' 100' 200' NOTES: 1.) BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 04, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS BEING S88'49'18"W. 2.) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 3.) DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF. 4.) SEE SHEETS 21 THROUGH 23 FOR LINE AND CURVE TABLES MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 15 LEGEND P.O.C. N SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION POINT OF COMMENCEMENT P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING a m a EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK „ o r > A PORTION OF SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07 08, R/w RIGHT OF WAY > m m W 09 AND 10, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 THIS IS NOT A SURVEY < a tl N < EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Q o � o BBLS SURVEYORS, INC. 9001 HIGHLAND WOODS BLVD, SUITE 6, BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34135 (239) 597-1315 uj N 0 0 m L0 xa) Lu a MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 14 THIS IS NOT A SURVEY c� 3 0 0 z N m W u �4 J W E s Q 0 ~ w S Y SCALE: 1" = 200' 0 z a 0' 100' 200' W J W a ri N } z Z m W U a S LEGEND w P.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT 23 P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING Y O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK o R/W RIGHT OF WAY a a u w i i u') NOTES: r 1.) BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE W NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER W OF SECTION 04, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE Y 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS 11J BEING S88'49'18"W. a r w 2.) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TOCID n L1J EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS g Z OF RECORD. N = 3.) DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET w V AND DECIMALS THEREOF. a H � Qa � 4.) SEE SHEETS 21 THROUGH 23 FOR LINE AND CURVE TABLES o 0 0 0 SHEET 17 OF 20 N SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIF o EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY o m a ' A PORTION OF SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, ' m 09 AND 10, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 N w W wuj EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA J (/ U Q IS c:lo I BBLS SURVEYORS, INC. 9001 HIGHLAND WOODS BLVD, SUITE 6, BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34135 (239) 597-1315 N O co ro cm m a POINT "D" P.O.C. LESS & EXCEPT S27'26'01 "E 0 L99 L100 4707 402.44' �L N �.� P.O.B. L180 LESS & EXCEPT o L179 J a _ J � J L105 J L106 470, J <l � LESS & EXCEPT rn 0 � r J J O M J r-L111 J 7QUARTER 77.64' 80-53'11 " W NOTES:N65'16'14"W 51.24' 1.) BEARINGS SHOWN HEREOHE N10'40'40"W NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEOF SECTION 04, TOWNSHIP 4NGE 25.37'28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, BEING S88'49'18"W. 2.) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJEEASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS ONS OF RECORD. 3 3.) DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET n AND DECIMALS THEREOF. O 4.) SEE SHEETS 21 THROUGH 23 FOR LINE z AND CURVE TABLES THIS IS NOT A SURVEY r� C6 ro ID LEGEND P.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK R/W RIGHT OF WAY L120— m J L112 �1 L113 L174 L115 L154 L11 L155 <7S N �p r) co in �;n 0 I L121 L122 L123 L124 L125 L126 L127 N W44E vo S SCALE: 1" =200' 0' 100' 200' N J N_ L118 J 0 10 6 � 3 � C7S? LESS & <7S EXCEPT 7 � L150 ,IV M �1 J L148 <7R L146 N00'44'13"W 458.91' MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 19 0 SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIF C4 EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY � Li m a -7:� A PORTION OF SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 0 09 AND 10, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 W W EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Q d Q W W � a 1- a M J s M J 3 �I Y U L136 0 SHEET 18 OF 23 BBLS SURVEYORS, INC. 9001 HIGHLAND WOODS BLVD, SUITE 6, BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34135 (239) 597-1315 uj N 00 00 L x 0) w m a N 44 W Q 0 E S SCALE: 1" =200' 0' 100' 200' _ MATCHLINE_SEE SHEET 18 _ L156 3 2 n M J 00 d "n I J Z o O Z tr) J O (O J w O 00 N d L145-� LA44 M J LESS )b�l EXCEP J L142 -L143 NOTES: 80' RIGHT Vn co 1.) BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE OF WAY LESS 2 EXCEPT NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AGREEMENT OF SECTION 04, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE O.R. 402, 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS PAGE 29 L161 BEING S88'49'18"W. \ 1-162 2.) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO \ EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS 1-163 OF RECORD. L170 \ \ \ 3.) DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET \ Clg \ g L164 AND DECIMALS THEREOF. 250' RIGHT OF \ \�76\ L16T� WAY AGREEMENT \ \ L166 \ 4.) SEE SHEETS 21 THROUGH 23 FOR LINE AND CURVE TABLES 0. R. 175, \ \ PAGE 27 \ \ LEGEND P.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK R/W RIGHT OF WAY THIS IS NOT A SURVEY o N m ui a m cn a < N 5Kt I UN I U AUUumrAIV T LtUAL UtSC;MIP' EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY A PORTION OF SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, cj u > o m < O 09 AND 10, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 J a_ a n 0 w N uw w � a EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA N (n Q O li 0 BBLS SURVEYORS, INC. 9001 HIGHLAND WOODS BLVD, SUITE 6, BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34135 (239) 597-1315 AREA 1 N " LESS AND N N N16'02'02"E EXCEPT 60.91' z 106-02P.O.B. 2'e LESS AND EXCEPT L- --N73 8„W POINT 'A" 3951.29, NC LESS AND EXCEPT Y R/W CINE (20o R�Roao 82 soy Or R/W CINf WAY) DETAIL 1 SCALE: 1 "= 200' NOTES: 1.) BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 04, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS BEING S88'49'18"W. 2.) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 3.) DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF. 4.) SEE SHEETS 21 THROUGH 23 FOR LINE AND CURVE TABLES THIS IS NOT A SURVEY I S1837'53"W I 200.21'�I P.O.B. AREA 2 (SEE SHEET 14) W S SCALE: 1" =200' 0' 100' 200' NC Y R POINT "B' P.O.C. AREA 2 (SEE SHEET 14) S53'42'58"E 60.00' (20o R/ RO,40 82 or LEGEND P.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK R/W RIGHT OF WAY SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIP- N m a cq EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY m a A PORTION OF SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, ' m 09 AND 10, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 N W W EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA a ¢ cj w ca �N a V) AREA 1 30 "2 Lo U 3j51. 2 E _ r R/W CINE w 0 SHEET 20 OF 23 BBLS SURVEYORS, INC. 9001 HIGHLAND WOODS BLVD, SUITE 6, BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34135 (239) 597-1315 ui 00 m Lo X Lu a c� 3 0 0 m W J 5 a w x Y z a J Q w J N/ T z z m a w x W Y N a z a a 0 0 0 3 U Y 0 U m a �i N N O N U W 'o a a 0 0 0 THIS IS NOT A SURVEY SHEET 21 0 d OF 23 SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION BBLs SURVEYORS, INC. EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY a 9001 HIGHLAND WOODS BLVD, m } < m A PORTION OF SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, SUITE 6, BONITA SPRINGS, w 0 tn<� Z 0 0 09, AND 10 TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 Q a i w� FLORIDA 34135 (239) 597-1315 N Q o _ o EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Line Table Line # Direction Length Lt N42'45'06"W 182.77 L2 N08'34'04"E 29.19 L3 N07'19'41"E 73.16 L4 N04'55'22"W 49.31 L5 N05'01'49"W 55.88 L6 N00'02'16"W 44.00 L7 N01'10'03"E 63.95 L8 N01'29'48"W 47.71 L9 NO2'18'30"W 59.29 L10 N01'01'00"E 49.59 L11 N01'26'27"W 45.34 L12 N26'36'32"W 21.65 L13 N71'11'20"W 62.41 L14 N78'16'23"W 59.85 L15 N44'56'42"W 61.76 L16 N07'58'50"W 71.72 L17 N06'48'04"W 79.45 L18 N06'20'44"E 62.71 L19 NO2'58'06"W 61.35 L20 N10'07'23"W 57.54 L21 N01'52'44"E 256.40 L22 NO2'54'16"E 84.49 L23 NO2'25'45"E 69.25 L24 N30'11'45"W 54.29 L25 N86'55'39"W 54.72 L26 S85'44'03"W 23.63 L27 N62'37'24"W 48.08 L28 N29'11'17"W 23.53 L29 N34'43'38"W 36.62 L30 NO2'00'28"W 63.59 L31 N04'15'45"W 56.83 L32 NO2'00'20"W 64.72 L33 NO3'51'27"E 47.63 L34 N05'47'57"W 48.46 L35 N01'30'23"E 80.45 Line Table Line # Direction Length L36 N01'OS'26"W 95.81 L37 N00'39'33"W 58.77 L38 N01'35'28"W 73.39 L39 NO3'07'02"E 46.18 L40 N00'03'06"W 63.29 L41 NO3'24'00"W 55.90 L42 N57'16'37"W 39.27 L43 S43'19'43"W 56.74 L44 S00'10'26"E 620.35 L45 S00'37'20"W 59.32 L46 S01'07'47"E 176.53 L47 S42'S3'32"E 45.07 L48 N89'03'28"E 191.01 L49 S88'36'21"E 71.23 L50 S89'19'21"E 133.04 L51 S79'25'26"E 56.39 L52 S56'44'28"E 57.38 L53 S31'01'07"E 37.43 L54 S03'43'08"E 96.90 L55 S06'32'S7"E 68.49 L56 S00'36'31 "E 81.05 L57 SO4'23'21 "W 79.50 L58 S01'11'30"W 100.74 L59 S02'48'10"E 118.12 L60 S03'03'32"W 102.35 L61 S01'30'01"E 119.09 L62 S02'20'04"E 75.13 L63 S00'29'22"E 94.37 L64 S00'42'05"W 92.14 L65 S03'36'37"E 117.42 L66 S00'50'03"W 106.32 L67 S00'40'00"E 97.31 L68 S00'35'17"E 110.31 L69 S00'16'58"W 140.41 L70 S00'41'19"E 150.96 Line Table Line # Direction Length L71 S01'04'S9"W 85.24 L72 S02'22'19"E 85.05 L73 S00'21'33"E 123.18 L74 S08'21'19"W 67.75 L75 S45'16'07"W 68.75 L76 S84'15'47"W 73.96 L77 S89'S7'40"W 81.30 L78 S86'42'24"W 89.38 L79 N89'43'02"W 83.72 L80 N88'47'49"W 103.44 L81 S89'04'18"W 103.63 L82 S89'39'41 "W 71.75 L83 S86'02'46"W 64.96 L84 S89'35'11 "W 68.29 L85 S88'55'43"W 84.29 L86 N88'23'45"W 70.30 L87 S87'27'37"W 66.12 L88 N74'04'04"W 74.55 L89 N00'09'55"E 119.52 L90 N01'08'43"W 224.54 L91 N32'46'30"E 181.86 L92 N32'46'30"E 53.08 L93 N05'13'48"E 426.62 L94 N32'46'30"E 444.29 L95 N37'41'31"E 223.51 L96 S51'S4'14"E 40.72 L97 N88'26'29"E 358.52 L98 N67'11'S2"E 55.46 L99 N85'21'28"E 49.15 L100 N89'02'13"E 58.07 L101 S56'15'41 "E 45.77 L102 S07'36'38"E 52.92 L103 S00'07'50"E 85.50 L104 S01'41'56"E 73.36 L105 S12'47'36"E 42.53 EX B to Res. Page 57 of 112 3 a r 0 z m W 0 J 5 N Q W U H W Y z z a a c� J m a M N } z m a J s N Q W U w Y Vl z a J 0 w i 0 0 3 w U T Y K 0 m a M N M 0 N U O a i a a 0 0 THIS IS NOT A SURVEY d d 0 SHEET 22 OF 23 SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION BBLS SURVEYORS, INC. EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY a 9001 HIGHLAND WOODS BLVD, A PORTION OF SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, m } � SUffE 6, BONffA SPRINGS, a ,yj O W ' m m Z LJ 09 AND 10 TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH RANGE 28 z aZ �N a� ..LO , FLORIDA 34135 (239) 597-1315 U a - � a EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA un a o o Line Table Line # Direction Length L106 S63'14'17"E 36.54 L107 S65'58'21 "E 78.96 L108 S22'40'47"E 41.36 L109 SO4'33'09"E 81.77 L110 S01'42'39"W 70.11 L111 S02'43'11"E 51.59 L112 S07'40'03"E 31.35 L113 S46'59'16"E 27.98 L114 S75'58'12"E 65.61 L115 N90'00'00"E 69.56 L116 N54'40'20"E 30.65 L117 N40'57'26"E 29.09 L118 N08'36'07"E 69.19 L119 N07'43'29"E 46.16 L120 N16'05'02"E 45.36 L121 S88'50'11 "E 57.96 L122 N89'04'13"E 57.32 L123 N86'53'19"E 90.52 L124 N88'42'22"E 65.98 L125 S88'44'52"E 65.21 L126 N88'59'24"E 87.77 L127 S78'53'49"E 56.56 L128 S14'20'06"E 66.40 L129 S09'01'51"E 88.55 L130 S09'13'56"E 87.61 L131 S10'53'56"E 57.56 L132 S09'47'32"E 65.54 L133 S10'54'31"E 84.26 L134 S10'45'45"E 97.85 L135 S08'50'14"E 71.26 L136 S08'24'23"E 58.35 L137 S07'28'27"E 94.54 L138 S10'11'32"W 58.77 L139 S35'09'18"W 54.16 Line Table Line # Direction Length L140 S49'38'14"W 76.97 L141 S51'40'50"W 56.73 L142 N87'43'38"W 43.73 L143 S71'31'S8"W 51.56 L144 S74'48'32"W 45.29 L145 N47'44'22"W 27.22 L146 N50'03'22"W 55.18 L147 N52'35'34"W 42.36 L148 N52'39'27"W 44.34 L149 N66'17'41"W 33.93 L150 N58'16'54"W 44.24 L151 N53'46'50"W 103.66 L152 N50'19'54"W 45.52 L153 N59'46'44"W 108.92 L154 S88'21'S2"W 31.84 L155 S27'44'21"W 40.05 L156 SO4'58'47"E 38.88 L157 SOS'S6'08"E 31.43 L158 S03'27'27"E 74.52 L159 S02'15'32"W 71.04 L160 S06'11'40"W 36.66 L161 SO4'21'32"W 39.53 L162 S02'17'S7"E 39.85 L163 S02'17'S7"E 28.25 L164 S37'27'37"W 43.13 L165 S46'11'45"W 38.49 L166 S52'30'51"W 41.39 L167 N89'50'21"W 37.75 L168 N69'29'22"W 144.19 L169 N73'51'39"W 84.95 L170 N17'36'03"W 19.58 L171 N41'38'01"W 16.60 L172 N13'21'12"W 35.89 L173 N00'16'22"W 80.83 L174 N00'57'36"W 70.74 Line Table Line # Direction Length L175 NO2'54'14"E 63.42 L176 N04'25'23"E 49.72 L177 N00'13'35"W 60.99 L178 N14'04'29"E 81.90 L179 N80'17'27"E 65.29 L180 N79'24'32"E 65.53 L181 N33'59'45"E 70.02 L182 N46'53'13"E 56.26 L183 N85'S0'O5"E 99.43 EX B to Res. Page 58 of 112 c� 3 0 r 0 z m w a s w w Y O z a a 0 w J m Y N } z m w a J S w U H Y N O a a w J 0 0 3 w Y K O U m a N M N O N N F U w O K a a a o_ THIS IS NOT A SURVEY 0 0 d SHEET 23 OF 23 SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION BBLS SURVEYORS, INC. EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY U H N 9001 HIGHLAND WOODS BLVD, a m m o A PORTION OF SECTIONS 03, 04, O5, 06, 07, 08, SUITE 6, BONITA SPRINGS, m o W z W 09, AND 10 TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 z Ja Z d Q .. W FLORIDA 34135 (239) 597-1315 Q o _ o EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Curve Table Curve # Radius Length Delta Chord Chord Brg C1 50.00 60.40 69'12'45" 56.79 S36'02'42"W C2 50.00 78.54 90'00'00" 70.71 S43'33'41 "E C3 50.00 32.84 37'37'38" 32.25 S69'44'52"E C4 50.00 65.06 74'33'23" 60.57 N54'09'38"E CS 50.00 65.06 74'33'23" 60.57 N54'09'38"E C6 1859.86 1205.52 37'08'16" 1184.52 S39'26'04"W C7 25.00 34.35 78'43'31" 31.71 N39'11'51"W C8 235.00 320.54 78'09'08" 296.27 N39'29'02"W C9 1700.00 677.70 22'50'27" 673.22 N11'00'45"E C10 300.00 123.46 23'34'42" 122.59 N10'38'38"E C11 700.00 414.42 33'55'13" 408.39 N15'48'54"E C12 700.00 158.16 12'56'43" 157.82 N39'14'52"E C13 382.00 86.31 12'56'43" 86.13 N39'14'52"E C14 400.00 241.10 34'32'04" 237.46 N50'02'33"E C15 25.00 27.09 62'04'46" 25.78 N36'16'12"E C16 20.00 9.62 27'32'42" 9.52 N19'00'09"E C17 225.50 156.07 39'39'16" 152.97 S71'43'53"E C18 925.50 380.03 23'31'36" 377.36 N76'40'41"E C19 1074.50 459.67 24'30'39" 456.17 N77'10'13"E C20 874.50 390.70 25'35'52" 387.46 S77'46'31"E C21 137.00 46.49 19'26'36" 46.27 N71'32'27"E C22 675.50 243.13 20'37'20" 241.82 N09'08'24"E C23 574.50 306.45 30'33'45" 302.83 N14'06'37"E C24 425.50 422.34 56'52'12" 405.21 N00'57'24"E C25 574.50 436.29 43'30'44" 425.89 N05'43'20"W C26 497.96 20.92 2'24'27" 20.92 S29'47'47"W C27 1725.00 1716.48 57'00'46" 1646.54 S46'30'57"W C28 1959.86 1270.34 37'08'16" 1248.21 N39'26'04"E C32 2914.79 547.14 10'45'18" 546.33 S52'37'33"W EX B to Res. Page 59 of 112 State R°ad SUBJECT 82 Q SITE SUBJECT SITE SUBJECT SITE ate Go��s Bowman Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA EX B to Res. Page 60 of 112 COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL The undersigned do hereby swear or affirm that we are the fee simple titleholders and owners of record of property commonly known as CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA Folio #s: 00050120008, 00050160000, 00050240001, 00050320002, 00050360004, 00050400003,00050440005 & 00050480007 and legal described in Exhibit A attached hereto. The property described herein is the subject of an application for the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. We hereby designate Robert J. Mulhere. FAICP. Senior VP. Jeremie Chastain, AICP Planner III and Richard D. Yovanovich. Esquire, legal representative thereof, as the legal representatives of the property and as such, these individuals are authorized to legally bind all owners of the property in the course of seeking the necessary approvals to develop. This authority includes, but is not limited to, the hiring and authorization of agents to assist in the preparation of applications, plans, surveys, and studies necessary to obtain zoning approval on the site. These representatives will remain the only entity to authorize development activity on the property until such time as a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to Collier County. The undersigned recognizes the following and will be guided accordingly in the pursuit of development of the project: I . The property will be developed and used in conformity with the approved master plan including all conditions placed on the development and all commitments agreed to by the applicant in connection with the SRA document. 2. The legal representative identified herein is responsible for compliance with all terms, conditions, safeguards, and stipulations made at that time of approval of the master plan, even if the property is subsequently sold in whole or in part, unless and until a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to and recorded by Collier County. 3. A departure from the provisions of the approved plans or a failure to comply with any requirements, conditions, or safeguards provided for in the SRA process will constitute a violation of the Land Development Code. 4. All terms and conditions of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA approval will be incorporated into covenants and restrictions which run with the land so as to provide notice to subsequent owners that all development activity within the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA development must be consistent with those terms and conditions. 5. So long as this covenant is in force, Collier County can, upon the discovery of noncompliance with the terms, safeguards, and conditions of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA development, seek equitable relief as necessary to compel compliance. The County will not issue permits, certificates, or licenses to occupy or use any part of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA and the County may stop ongoing construction activity until the project is brought into compliance with all terms, � conditions and safeguards of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. JOHN E. KIERNAN, President, CEO and Director A I ico. Inc. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF L C E The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of physical presence or o online notarization this N-t-= day of Al - .ti , 2025, by John E. Kiernan. Vli person(s) Notary Public must check applicable box: re personally know me ❑ Has produced a curr t river's license o Has produced as iden i cation tt`'P�'`:, MARYE.MOLINA + •: MY COMMISSION # HH 378656 Notary Signature: ..��opQ= EVIRES:J*24,2027 EX B to Res. Page 61 of 112 BBLS SURVEYORS, INC. 9001 HIGHLAND WOOD BLVD., SUITE. 6, BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA, 34135 TELEPHONE: (239) 597-1315 LEGAL DESCRIPTION CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09 AND 10, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: AREA 1 COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 04; THENCE RUN S.88°49'18"W., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,508.39 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HERIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN S.01 ° 10'09"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 560.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.70039'05"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 408.22 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 69012'45", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 56.79 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.36°02'42"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.40 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.01°26'19"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 188.82 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 70.71 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.43033'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 78.54 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.88°33'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,025.38 FEET; THENCE RUN S.50°56'03"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 169.38 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37°37'38", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 32.25 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.69°44'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 32.84 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.88°33'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 703.74 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74°33'23", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 60.57 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.54°09'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.06 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.16052'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 136.11 FEET; TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74°33'23", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD EX B to Res. Page 62 of 112 DISTANCE OF 60.57 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.54°09'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.06 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.88°33'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 138.80 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10°54'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,723.47 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 82 (A 200 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY); THENCE RUN N.73°57'58"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 3,951.29 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT "A" THENCE CONTINUE N.73°57'58"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,511.79 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 04, THE SAME BEING A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT "B"; THENCE RUN N.01-10'09"W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,123.48 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE RUN S.89°34'35"E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,601.08 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 04; THENCE RUN N.88°49'18"E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,195.39 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS OR 192.492 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. LESS AND EXCEPT COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "A", THENCE RUN N.16°02'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE N.16°02'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.91 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01 °02'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 132.64 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88057'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 234.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°02'17"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 268.38 FEET; THENCE RUN N.73°57'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF .264.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 1.264 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. AREA 2 COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "B", THENCE RUN S.18°37'53"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 82 (A 200 FOOT WIIDE RIGHT OF WAY, THE SAME BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN S.73057'58"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 818.89 FEET; THENCE RUN S.36017'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.80 FEET; THENCE RUN N.73°57'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 327.44 FEET; THENCE RUN N.78°05'08"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 96.93 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°02'23"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 322.02 FEET; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 218.62 FEET; THENCE RUN S.36°17'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 265.76 FEET; THENCE RUN S.53042'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.36°17'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 711.07 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE EX B to Res. Page 63 of 112 RUN S.73057'58"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 3,151.52 FEET; THENCE RUN S.16002102"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 464.76 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CORKSCREW ROAD (A 100 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY), THE SAME BEING A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT "C"; THENCE RUN S.20°51'56"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,727.40 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,859.86 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37008'16", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 1,184.52 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.39026'04"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,205.52 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.58°00'12"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 6,667.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,914.79 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10045' 18", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 546.33 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.52037'33"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 547.14 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.47014'54"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 592.73 FEET; THENCE RUN N.42°45'06"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 182.77 FEET; THENCE RUN N.08034'04"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 29.19 FEET; THENCE RUN N.07° 19'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.16 FEET; THENCE RUN N.04°55'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.31 FEET; THENCE RUN N.05001'49"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.88 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°02'16"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 44.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°10'03"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.95 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01 °29'48"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 47.71 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02018'30"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 59.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01'01'00"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.59 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01 °26'27"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.34 FEET; THENCE RUN N.26°36'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 21.65 FEET; THENCE RUN N.71'I 1'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 62.41 FEET; THENCE RUN N.78016'23"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 59.85 FEET; THENCE RUN N.44056'42"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 61.76 FEET; THENCE RUN N.07°58'50"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.06°48'04"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 79.45 FEET; THENCE RUN N.06020'44"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 62.71 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02058'06"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 61.35 FEET; THENCE RUN N. 10'07'23 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.54 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01052'44"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 256.40 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°54'16"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.49 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°25'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.25 FEET; THENCE RUN N.30011'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 54.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.86°55'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 54.72 FEET; THENCE RUN S.85°44'03"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 23.63 FEET; THENCE RUN N.62°37'24"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 48.08 FEET; THENCE RUN N.29°11'17"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 23.53 FEET; THENCE RUN N.34043'38"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 36.62 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°00'28"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.59 FEET; THENCE RUN N.04015'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.83 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°00'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 64.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.03051'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 47.63 FEET; THENCE RUN N.05°47'57"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 48.46 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01 °30'23"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 80.45 EX B to Res. Page 64 of 112 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01 °08'26"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 95.81 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°39'33"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.77 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°35'28"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.39 FEET; THENCE RUN N.03°07'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 46.18 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°03'06"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.03°24'00"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.90 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°04'14"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,048.74 FEET; THENCE RUN N.57°16'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 39.27 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.88°51'17"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 944.04 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.43 ° 19'43 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.74 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.00° 10'26"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 620.35 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.00°37'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 59.32 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01 °07'47"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 176.53 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.42°53'32"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.07 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89°03'28"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 191.01 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°36'21 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.23 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.89°19'21"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 133.04 FEET; THENCE RUN N.85°50'05"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 99.43 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.79°25'26"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.39 FEET; THENCE RUN S.56°44'28"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.38 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.31'01'07"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 37.43 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.03°43'08"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 96.90 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.06°32'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 68.49 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.00°36'31 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.05 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.04°23'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 79.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01 ° 11'30"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.74 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°48' 10"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 118.12 FEET; THENCE RUN S.03°03'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 102.35 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01 °30'01 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 119.09 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.02°20'04"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 75.13 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°29'22"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 94.37 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00042'05"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 92.14 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.03036'37"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 117.42 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00050'03"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 106.32 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.00°40'00"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 97.31 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.00°35'17"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 110.31 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°16'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 140.41 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°41'19"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 150.96 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°04'59"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.24 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°22'19"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.05 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.00°21'33"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 123.18 FEET; THENCE RUN S.08°21'19"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 67.75 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.45°16'07"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 68.75 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.84°15'47"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.96 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.89057'40"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.30 FEET; THENCE RUN S.86042'24"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 89.38 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89°43'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 83.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88°47'49"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 103.44 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.89°04'18"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 103.63 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.89°39'41 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.75 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.86002'46"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 64.96 FEET; THENCE RUN S.8995'11"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 68.29 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.88°55'43"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88°23'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.30 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.87°27'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 66.12 FEET; THENCE RUN N.74°04'04"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 74.55 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°09'55"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 119.52 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 78°43'31 ", SUBTENDED EX B to Res. Page 65 of 112 BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 31.71 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39°1 F51 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 34.35 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 235.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 78°09'08", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 296.27 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39°29'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 320.54 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.00024'28"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,096.45 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,700.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 22°50'27", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 673.22 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.11 °00'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 677.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23°34'42", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 122.59 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.10-38'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 123.46 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.01°08'43"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 224.54 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33055'13", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 408.39 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.15°48'54"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 414.42 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.32°46'30"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 181.86 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°56'43", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 157.82 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39°14'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 158.16 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 382.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°56'43", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 86.13 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39014'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 86.31 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.32046'30"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 53.08 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34°32'04", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 237.46 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.50°02'33"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 24 1. 10 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 62°04'46", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 25.78 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.36°16'12"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 27.09 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.05013'48"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 426.62 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27032'42", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 9.52 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.19°00'09"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 9.62 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE EX B to Res. Page 66 of 112 RUN N.32046'30"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 444.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.37°41'31 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 223.51 FEET; THENCE RUN S.51 °54' 14"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 40.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 225.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39°39'16", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 152.97 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.71°43'53"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 156.07 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.88°26'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 358.52 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 925.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23°31'36", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 377.36 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.76°40'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 380.03 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.64°54'54"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,604.44 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT "D", THE SAME BEING THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,074.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24°30'39", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 456.17 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.77°10'13"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 459.67 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.89°25'33"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,254.90 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 874.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25°35'52", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 387.46 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.77°46'31 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 390.70 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND A POINT OF CURVE OF A NON -TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 137.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19°26'36", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 46.27 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.71 °32'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 46.49 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND A POINT OF CURVE OF A NON -TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 675.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20°37'20", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 241.82 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.09°08'24"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 243.13 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.01°10'16"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 214.59 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 574.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30033'45", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 302.83 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.14006'37"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 306.45 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 425.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56°52'12", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 405.21 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.00°57'24"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 422.34 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 574.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF EX B to Res. Page 67 of 112 43°30'44", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 425.89 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.05°43'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 436.29 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.16°02'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.84 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 944.869 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. LESS AND EXCEPT COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "D", THENCE RUN S.27°26'01 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 402.44 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN N.67°11'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.46 FEET; THENCE RUN N.85°21'28"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.15 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89002'13"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.07 FEET; THENCE RUN S.56°15'41"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.07°36'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 52.92 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°07'50"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°41'56"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.36 FEET; THENCE RUN S.12°47'36"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 42.53 FEET; THENCE RUN S.63°14'17"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 36.54 FEET; THENCE RUN S.65058'21 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 78.96 FEET; THENCE RUN S.22040'47"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 41.36 FEET; THENCE RUN S.04033'09"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01 °42'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.11 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°43'11"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 51.59 FEET; THENCE RUN S.07040'03"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 31.35 FEET; THENCE RUN S.46°59'16"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 27.98 FEET; THENCE RUN S.75°58'12"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.61 FEET; THENCE RUN N.90°00'00"E , FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.56 FEET; THENCE RUN N.54°40'20"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.65 FEET; THENCE RUN N.40°57'26"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 29.09 FEET; THENCE RUN N.08°36'07"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.19 FEET; THENCE RUN N.07043'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 46.16 FEET; THENCE RUN N.16°05'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.36 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°50'11 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.96 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89°04'13"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.32 FEET; THENCE RUN N.86°53'19"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 90.52 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88°42'22"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.98 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°44'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.21 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88059'24"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 87.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.78°53'49"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.14°20'06"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 66.40 FEET; THENCE RUN S.0900F51 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 88.55 FEET; THENCE RUN S.09°13'56"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 87.61 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10°53'56"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.09047'32"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.54 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10'54'31 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.26 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10°45'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 97.85 FEET; THENCE RUN S.08°50'14"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.26 FEET; THENCE RUN S.08024'23"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.35 FEET; THENCE RUN S.07°28'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 94.54 FEET; THENCE RUN S.1091'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.35009'18"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 54.16 FEET; THENCE RUN S.49°38'14"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 76.97 FEET; THENCE RUN S.51°40'50"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.73 FEET; THENCE RUN N.87°43'38"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 43.73 FEET; THENCE RUN S.71°31'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 51.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.74°48'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.47°44'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 27.22 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00044'13"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 458.91 EX B to Res. Page 68 of 112 FEET; THENCE RUN N.50°03'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.18 FEET; THENCE RUN N.52°35'34"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 42.36 FEET; THENCE RUN N.52°39'27"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 44.34 FEET; THENCE RUN N.66' I T41 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 33.93 FEET; THENCE RUN N.58°16'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 44.24 FEET; THENCE RUN N.53°46'50"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 103.66 FEET; THENCE RUN N.50°19'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.52 FEET; THENCE RUN N.59°46'44"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 108.92 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°21'52"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 31.84 FEET; THENCE RUN S.27°44'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 40.05 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°57'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 386.62 FEET; THENCE RUN S.04°58'47"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 38.88 FEET; THENCE RUN S.05°56'08"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 31.43 FEET; THENCE RUN S.03°27'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 74.52 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°15'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.04 FEET; THENCE RUN S.06°11'40"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 36.66 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°43'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 350.98 FEET; THENCE RUN S.04°21'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 39.53 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°17'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 39.85 FEET; THENCE CONTINUE S.02°17'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 28.25 FEET; THENCE RUN S.37°27'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 43.13 FEET; THENCE RUN S.46011'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 38.49 FEET; THENCE RUN S.52°30'51"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 41.39 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89°50'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 37.75 FEET; THENCE RUN N.69°29'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 144.19 FEET; THENCE RUN N.73051'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.95 FEET; THENCE RUN N.17°36'03"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 19.58 FEET; THENCE RUN N.15'55'16"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 469.33 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00054'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 638.37 FEET; THENCE RUN N.10040'40"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 25.37 FEET; THENCE RUN N.65°16'14"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 51.24 FEET; THENCE RUN N.80053' 11 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 377.64 FEET; THENCE RUN N.41038'01"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 16.60 FEET; THENCE RUN N.13021'12"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 35.89 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°16'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 80.83 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°57'36"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.74 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°54'14"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.42 FEET; THENCE RUN N.04025'23"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°13'35"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.99 FEET; THENCE RUN N.14004'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.90 FEET; THENCE RUN N.80'17'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.79024'32"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.53 FEET; THENCE RUN N.33°59'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.02 FEET; THENCE RUN N.46053' 13 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.26 FEET; TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 22.115 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. AREA 3 COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "C", THENCE RUN S.87040'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 105.48 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD (A 200 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY) AND THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CORKSCREW ROAD (A 100 FOOT WIDE WIGHT OF WAY), THE SAME BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., ALONG THE EX B to Res. Page 69 of 112 SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID STATE ROAD 82, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,786.39 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°35'44"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 364.23 FEET; THENCE RUN S.73057'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 134.39 FEET; THENCE RUN N.31 °00'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 52.82 FEET; THENCE RUN S.58°59'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.31°00'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.58°59'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.31 °00'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 278.43 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 106.67 FEET; THENCE RUN S.16°02'01 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 10.84 FEET; THENCE RUN S.31 °00'01 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 361.08 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 497.96 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02°24'27", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 20.92 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.29°47'47"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 20.92 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN, S.73°57'58"E., A DISTANCE OF 1,267.66 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°00'47"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,149.10 FEET; THENCE RUN S.18°00'34"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF269.47 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,725.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 57°00'46", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 1,646.54 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.46030'57"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,716.48 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.75'01'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 885.99 FEET; THENCE RUN S.06°02'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 300.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.14°52'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.55 FEET; THENCE RUN N.75°07'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 3,889.60 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID CORKSCREW ROAD; THENCE RUN N.58°00'12"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,619.31 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,959.86 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37008'16", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 1,248.21 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39026'04"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,270.34 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.20°51'56"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,760.94 FEET; TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PAREL CONTAINS 332.608 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. THE TOTAL AREA OF PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN IS 1,446.590 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 03, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING A BEARING OF S.89°29'58"E. THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. EX B to Res. Page 70 of 112 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX ASSESSMENT Revised June 2025 Prepared For: Alico Land Development Company 10070 Daniel Interstate Court, No. 200 Fort Myers, Florida 33913 (239) 226-2000 Prepared By: Passarella & Associates, Inc. 13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 (239) 274-0067 Project No. 23AII4051 EX B to Res. Page 71 of 112 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................1 2.0 NRI Assessment Methodology and Datasets.....................................................................1 2.1 Stewardship Overlay Designation..........................................................................3 2.2 Proximity................................................................................................................3 2.3 Listed Species Habitat............................................................................................3 2.4 Soils/Surface Water...............................................................................................3 2.5 Restoration Potential..............................................................................................4 2.6 Land Use/Land Cover............................................................................................4 3.0 NRI Assessment.................................................................................................................4 3.1 Stewardship Overlay Designation..........................................................................4 3.2 Proximity................................................................................................................4 3.3 Listed Species Habitat............................................................................................5 3.4 Soils/Surface Water...............................................................................................5 3.5 Restoration Potential..............................................................................................5 3.6 Land Use/Land Cover............................................................................................5 3.7 Final Assessment Result........................................................................................5 4.0 NRI Results Summary.......................................................................................................6 1 EX B to Res. Page 72 of 112 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Spatial Datasets Used in the Corkscrew Grove East Village NRI Assessment Model.........................................................................................2 ii EX B to Res. Page 73 of 112 LIST OF EXHIBITS Page Exhibit 1. Project Location Map.........................................................................................El-1 Exhibit 2. Aerial with Boundary.........................................................................................E2-1 Exhibit 3. Aerial with Stewardship Overlay.......................................................................E3-1 Exhibit 4. Aerial with FLUCFCS Map...............................................................................E4-1 Exhibit 5. Aerial with Listed Species Locations................................................................E5-1 Exhibit6. Soils Map........................................................................................................... E6-1 Exhibit 7. Stewardship Overlay Designation...................................................................... E7-1 Exhibit 8. Proximity Index.................................................................................................E8-1 Exhibit 9. Listed Species Habitat Index............................................................................. E9-1 Exhibit 10. Soils/Surface Water Index............................................................................... E l 0-1 Exhibit 11. Land Use/Land Cover Index............................................................................ El 1-1 Exhibit 12. Final NRI Assessment...................................................................................... E 12-1 Exhibit 13. Natural Resource Index Values....................................................................... E 13-1 EX B to Res. Page 74 of 112 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Natural Resource Index (NRI) Assessment documents the environmental conditions and NRI scores within Corkscrew Grove East Village (Project) Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) and demonstrates that the Project meets the Suitability Criteria contained in Section 4.08.07.A.1 of the adopted Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) amendments. This Assessment is submitted in support of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay District SRA Designation Application on behalf of Alico Land Development Company. This Assessment is consistent with the requirements of the RLSA Zoning Overlay District, Collier County LDC, Section 4.08.00. This NRI Assessment includes the following: • Identification of the acreage of agricultural and non-agricultural lands, by type, included within the SRA; • A summary of the refined and updated data incorporated into the Project NRI model; • A summary analysis and verification of the NRI scores; • Identification of the acreage of lands, by type, within the SRA that have an NRI value greater than 1.2; • An analysis of how the Project NRI scores compare to those in the original Baseline model; and • A demonstration of compliance with the Suitability Criteria contained in Section 4.08.07.A.1. This SRA Designation Application involves the designation of 1,446.6± acres as the Project SRA, located in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10; Township 46 South; Range 28 East; Collier County (Exhibit 1). The location and extent of the Project is indicated in Exhibit 2. The Project is located within lands designated as "Open" on the adopted RLSA Stewardship Map and does not encroach into any Flow -Way Stewardship Area (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA), or Water Retention Area (WRA) lands, as illustrated in Exhibit 3. The Project is not within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). The Project property is currently dedicated to citrus grove operations and includes scattered natural areas composed of forested uplands, forested wetlands, and herbaceous wetlands, all of which exhibit a high degree of disturbance and contain various levels of exotic vegetation infestation (e.g., Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia)). The agricultural and non- agricultural land uses on the Project site are depicted in Exhibit 4. Listed species data from state and federal wildlife agencies indicate occurrences of Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) telemetry points within the SRA boundary. 2.0 NRI ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND DATASETS The NRI Assessment is a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis where resource values are calculated for every acre in the study area using a raster model. The raster model uses one - EX B to Res. Page 75 of 112 acre grid cells that receive a score value based on each of the six NRI Factors, as defined in Section 4.08.01 of the LDC. Baseline NRI values were assigned during the original Collier County RLSA Assessment Study to establish the Baseline conditions. This NRI Assessment includes documentation that refines the NRI Factors from the original study using updated data. Of the six NRI Factors on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet, two factors (i.e., Land Use/Land Cover and Listed Species Habitat) are the most prone to change over time or require mapping refinements. However, in preparing the Assessment, Passarella & Associates, Inc. (PAI) obtained updated datasets, where available, to be included in the model. Table 1 depicts the datasets used for each NRI Factor and indicates where data have been updated from the Baseline model. Table 1. Spatial Datasets Used in the Corkscrew Grove East Village NRI Assessment Model Natural Resource Model Input GIS Dataset Source Date' Index Factors Stewardship Overlay Collier County Collier County Collier County 2 2024 Stewardship Areas Stewardship Areas Designation Collier County Collier County Collier County2 2024 Stewardship Areas Stewardship Areas Proximity Conservation Collier Collier County 2019 Preserve Land Florida Managed Areas FNAI 2019 Florida Panther FWCC 2022 Telemetry Wading Bird Rookeries FWCC 1999 Documented Listed Species Listed Species Listed Species and Habitat Species -Specific Survey PAI 2024 Results Habitat T e FLUCFCS PAI 2025 Soils/Surface Soils for Lee Collier Water Soils and HendryCounties USDA-NRCS 1990 Restoration Potential Land Use/Land Land Cover FLUCFCS PAI 2025 Cover FLUCFCS — Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System FNAI — Florida Natural Areas Inventory FWCC — Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission NRCS — Natural Resources Conservation Service PAI — Passarella & Associates, Inc. USDA — United States Department of Agriculture 'Years in bold indicate updated dataset. 'WRA boundaries around the perimeter of the Project were revised per permitted wetland boundaries and agricultural reservoirs (see Section 2.1). 2 EX B to Res. Page 76 of 112 2.1 Stewardship Overlay Designation As part of establishing the RLSA, the Stewardship Overlay was established to designate land within the RLSA as FSA, HSA, WRA, or Open. To refine this layer, WRA boundaries taken from the Collier County Stewardship Overlay Map were updated through a detailed analysis of these areas on the ground, using actual surveyed wetland and South Florida Water Management District permit boundaries. Using this actual groundtruthed data, the Stewardship Overlay WRA boundaries were refined. The Project SRA boundary was created so that no FSA, HSA, or WRA areas were included. Exhibit 3 illustrates the refined Stewardship Overlay within the SRA boundary. 2.2 Proximity The Proximity Index Factor also utilizes the Collier County Stewardship Areas. The same refined dataset used for the Stewardship Overlay Designation Index Factor was used for the Proximity Index. In addition, the Conservation Collier and Florida Managed Areas datasets were used to determine the proximity of private or public preserve lands. 2.3 Listed Species Habitat The Listed Species Habitat Index values are based on the intersection of documented listed species observations and land cover that is identified as preferred or tolerated by that species. The Baseline model used Land Use/Land Cover mapping from the Stage 1 Report. While this mapping was generally accurate at the regional/planning scale, groundtruthing by PAI revealed some positional and classification errors that are rectified in this application. The updated Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) mapping for the Project SRA is presented in Exhibit 4. The Documented Listed Species datasets were updated to include the results of listed species and species -specific surveys conducted by PAI in 2023 and 2024. In addition, updated listed species occurrence data and Florida panther telemetry was obtained from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC). Pursuant to communication with the FWCC in August 2023, the FWCC no longer releases panther telemetry data to the public per Florida Statute 379.1026. Panther telemetry data was last obtained from the FWCC by PAI in September 2022 and is current through May 2022. A map of the updated listed species occurrences, listed species records, and Florida panther telemetry points is provided as Exhibit 5. 2.4 Soils/Surface Water The U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service soils map for the Project is provided in Exhibit 6. This dataset has not changed since the Baseline model. EX B to Res. Page 77 of 112 2.5 Restoration Potential Restoration Potential is one of the six NRI Factors in an NRI Assessment. However, this Factor is assigned only during a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) designation process, if appropriate, and was not assessed in the Baseline model. As this application and NRI Assessment are for an SRA, this NRI Factor was not incorporated into the Project NRI Assessment. 2.6 Land Use/Land Cover As mentioned in Section 2.3, the updated FLUCFCS mapping conducted by PAI was utilized for the land cover dataset in the Project NRI Assessment. 3.0 NRI ASSESSMENT The following section summarizes the results of the Project NRI Assessment and analyzes how the results of this Assessment compare to the Baseline Assessment results from the Collier County RLSA Assessment Study. Most of the variation in the NRI Factor results between the Project and the Baseline are due to updated datasets. However, it is worth noting that while the Project NRI Assessment was conducted for the proposed SRA boundary, the Baseline Assessment was conducted for the entire RLSA area. This difference results in some minor variations due to the difference in scope between the two Assessments and the alignment of the model's one -acre grid cells. 3.1 Stewardship Overlay Designation In the Assessment for the Project, there are no lands designated as FSA, HSA, WRA, or ACSC. Therefore, the majority of the SRA boundary received a score of 0 for this NRI Factor (Exhibit 7A). The cells that received a score of 0.6 are on the perimeter of the SRA, with the centerpoint outside of the SRA boundary where WRAs are located. The Assessment scoring matches the majority of the scoring for this area in the Baseline Assessment (Exhibit 713). Variations between the two Assessments are attributed to the refinement of the WRA boundaries and the nature of the raster model and the scope of the Baseline Assessment, resulting in minor differences in the alignments of the model's one -acre grid cells. 3.2 Proximity For the Proximity Index, the Project SRA boundary is within 300 feet of an HSA along a small portion of the southeastern boundary. Cells that were within the 300-foot distance from the HSA scored 0.3, and the remainder of the SRA scored 0 (Exhibit 8A). These scores are also supported by the Baseline Assessment (Exhibit 813). Variations between the two Assessments are attributed to the nature of the raster model and the scope of the Baseline Assessment, resulting in minor differences in the alignments of the model's one - acre grid cells. 4 EX B to Res. Page 78 of 112 3.3 Listed Species Habitat The Listed Species Habitat Index for the Project received scores ranging from 0 to 0.4 (Exhibit 9A). The areas that scored 0.4 had observations of listed species within habitats that are considered preferred or tolerated for that species. Areas receiving a score of 0 did not have a listed species observation within a preferred or tolerated habitat. In the Baseline Assessment (Exhibit 913), all areas received a score of 0. Variations between the Baseline and Project Assessments are attributed to the use of updated and groundtruthed FLUCFCS mapping and species datasets. 3.4 Soils/Surface Water For the Soils/Surface Water Index Factor, the Project Assessment received scores ranging from 0 for non-hydric soils to 0.3 for sand depression soils (Exhibit l0A). The majority of the Baseline Assessment (Exhibit lOB) matches the Assessment for the Project. Variations between the two Assessments are attributed to the nature of the raster model and the scope of the Baseline Assessment, resulting in minor differences in the alignments of the model's one -acre grid cells. 3.5 Restoration Potential This Factor is assigned only during an SSA designation process, if appropriate, and was not assessed in the Baseline model. As this application and NRI Assessment are for an SRA, this NRI Factor was not incorporated into the Project NRI Assessment. 3.6 Land Use/Land Cover In the Land Use/Land Cover Index Factor, the Project Assessment received scores of 0 to 0.4, as it contains FLUCFCS Code Groups 4 through 1 (Exhibit IIA). The majority of the Baseline Assessment matches the Assessment for the Project (Exhibit 11B). Differences between the two Assessments are due to the use of updated and groundtruthed FLUCFCS mapping conducted by PAI. 3.7 Final Assessment Results The final model result is calculated by summing the raster cells for each NRI Factor. The Project Assessment demonstrates that none of the land within the SRA boundary carries an NRI value greater than 1.2, with scores ranging from 0 to 1.0 (Exhibit 12A). The majority of the Baseline model cells are in agreement with the Project Assessment (Exhibit 12B). Areas where scoring in the Project Assessment diverge from the Baseline Assessment are primarily due to the refinement of the model to include updated FLUCFCS mapping and species information and the refinement of WRAs to permitted and groundtruthed boundaries. The Project NRI Assessment scores are presented graphically in Exhibit 12A and in table format in Exhibit 13. 5 EX B to Res. Page 79 of 112 4.0 NRI RESULTS SUMMARY The NRI Assessment for the proposed Project SRA has been prepared with updated and refined datasets to reflect current site conditions. This NRI Assessment for the Project SRA indicates there are no habitats within the boundary that score above a 1.2. Comparisons between the updated Assessment for the Project and the Baseline Assessment indicate that the incorporation of updated and refined datasets has not had a significant change to the overall Assessment scoring. Many of the index factors are still in agreement with the Baseline condition. Differences between the Baseline and Project Assessments are due to the refinement of the model to include updated FLUCFCS mapping and species information and the refinement of WRAs to permitted and groundtruthed boundaries. 6 EX B to Res. Page 80 of 112 EXHIBIT I PROJECT LOCATION MAP EX B to Res. Page 81 of 112 EXHIBIT 2 AERIAL WITH BOUNDARY EX B to Res. Page 83 of 112 EXHIBIT 3 AERIAL WITH STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY EX B to Res. Page 85 of 112 EXHIBIT 4 AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS MAP EX B to Res. Page 87 of 112 LEGEND 514 d22;4159 a 51 ') /j6259E f 6319E2 5 i 51 9E4' 51 4, 47 51 89 14 f 89 5 51nn4 53`OJ1514 259E4 nl4 N W E s 0 1,000 2,000 Feet PROJECT LOCATION F,a.- 5%4 FLUCFCS CODE DESCRIPTION 110 RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 221 CITRUS GROVE 262 LOW PASTURE 3209E2 SHRUBANDBRUSHLAND,DISTURBED�25-49%EXOTICS) 3.9. SHRUBAND BRUSHLAN D,DISTURBED (76-100%EXOTICS) 4119E1 PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (0.24%EXOTICS) 4119. PI NE FLATWOODS,DISTURBED (76-100%EXOTICS) 4159E2 PINE, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS) 4159E3 PINE, DISTURBED(50-75%EXOTICS) 4. BRA MAN PEPPER 4221 BRAZILIAN PEPPER, HYDRIC 4289E2 CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED(25-49% EXOTICS) 4289E4 CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (76-100%EXOTICS) 4299E4 WAX MYRTLE, DISTURBED (76-100%EXOTICS) 4349E1 HARDWOOD/CONIFER MIXED, DISTURBED (0.24%EXOTICS) 4349E2 HARDWOOD/CONIFER MIXED, DISTURBED (25-49%EXOTICS) 4349E4 HARDWOOD/CONIFER MIXED, DISTURBED (76-100% EXOTICS) 514 DITCH 114H DITCH, HYDRIC 530 RESERVOIR 6189E1 WI LLOW, DISTUREED (G-. EXOTICS) 6189E3 WILLOW, DISTURBED (50.75%EXOTICS) 6189E4 WILLOW, DISTURBED (76-100%EXOTICS) 6249E4 CYPRESS/PINE/CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (76-100% EXOTICS) 6259E2 HYDRIC PINE, DI STUREED(25-49%EXOTICS) 6259E3 HYDRIC PI NE,DISTURBED (50-75%EXOTICS) 6259E4 HYDRIC PI NE, DISTURBED (76-100%EXOTICS, 6309E3 WETLAND FORESTED MIXED, DISTURBED (50-75% EXOTICS) 6319E2 WETLAND SHURB, DISTURBED(25-49%EXOTICS) 6319E3 WETLAND SHURB, DISTURBED (5G 75%EXOTICS) 6319E4 WETLAND SHURB, DISTURBED (76-100%EXOTICS) 6419E1 FRESHWATER MARSH, DISTURBED (0.24%EXOTICS) 6419E2 FRESHWATER MARSH, DI ITURBEDI25-49%EXOTICS) 6419E4 FRESHWATER MARSH, DISTURBED I76-100%EXOTICS) 740 DISTURBED LAND 7401 DISTURBED LAND, HYDRIC 742 BORROW AREA 743 SPOILAREA 747 BERM 914 ROAD 932 ELECTRICAL POWER TRANSMISSION LINES 9321 ELECTRICAL POWER TRANSMISSION LINES, HYDRIC W.C. 12/5/24 PASSARELLA EXHIBIT 4. AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS MAP REVIEWED BY DATE /24 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE H.S. 1g.m REVISED DDATE ATE _TIEcaloisls & A&,w J��J Vl e TL' S z W.C. 5/29/25 D� an s449 11 EXHIBIT 5 AERIAL WITH LISTED SPECIES LOCATIONS EX B to Res. Page 89 of 112 EXHIBIT 6 SOILS MAP EX B to Res. Page 91 of 112 EXHIBIT 7 STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY DESIGNATION EX B to Res. Page 93 of 112 EXHIBIT 8 PROXIMITY INDEX EX B to Res. Page 96 of 112 EXHIBIT 9 LISTED SPECIES HABITAT INDEX EX B to Res. Page 99 of 112 EXHIBIT 10 SOILS/SURFACE WATER INDEX EX B to Res. Page 102 of 112 �'yyji::fi.�:�i31�[=aLi idS::,: •�� C 'hit, y ro '1�;�'ii;'�il' !iii`'.i!i�jl''.l:i�:•' '�f r �^f: �, �. 11! II:. I LjI+}r ��r•• .I .. i � ` r M1S,W[ 1'?l i' I IAI _ I w .fie I EXHIBIT 11 LAND USE/LAND COVER INDEX EX B to Res. Page 105 of 112 EXHIBIT 12 FINAL NRI ASSESMENT EX B to Res. Page 108 of 112 EXHIBIT 13 NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX VALUES EX B to Res. Page 111 of 112 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX VALUES Revised June 2025 NRI Value Percent of Total SRA Acreage (f) Open Total Acres (:L) Total SRA Acres (f) 0.0 9.6 138.9 138.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 71.1 1,028.0 1,028.0 0.3 3.4 49.9 49.9 0.4 4.3 61.9 61.9 0.5 10.0 144.9 144.9 0.6 0.6 9.0 9.0 0.7 0.3 4.0 4.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 10.0 10.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Totals 100.0 1,446.6 1,446.6 NRI >1.2 Totals 0.0 0.0 0.0 NRI - Natural Resource Index SRA - Stewardship Receiving Area E13-1 EX B to Res. Page 112 of 112 STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA THIS STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the ("Agreement") is made and entered into this day of , 2026, by and between COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "County" whose mailing address is the Harmon Turner Building, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112, and Alico, Inc. hereinafter referred to as "Owner" whose mailing address is 10070 Daniels Interstate Ct. #200, Fort Myers, FL 33913, for the purpose of designating the number of "Stewardship Sending Area" (SSA) Credits consumed in the designation of Corkscrew Grove East Village as a Stewardship Receiving Area and the source of those SSA credits pursuant to Section 4.08.07.C.11 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). RECITALS 1. Owner has applied for SRA designation for Corkscrew Grove East Village and said SRA is approximately 1,446.59 acres in size. 2. The County has reviewed the SRA Designation Application, along with all support documentation and information required by Section 4.08.07 of the LDC and determined that SRA designation for the Corkscrew Grove East Village is appropriate. 3. The County and Owner have reached agreement on the number of Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Credits required to be utilized for such designation. 4. The County and Owner agree that this SRA Credit Agreement is in compliance with and fully meets the requirements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and LDC. NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the above premises and the expenditure of credits and authorizations granted hereby and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 1 of 15 1. Owner is hereby utilizing and transferring 11,703.4 Stewardship Credits (Credits) which shall be applied to the SRA land described in Exhibit "A" in order to carry out the plan of development on the 1,446.59 acres proposed in the Corkscrew Grove East Village Development Document and summarized hereinafter. 2. Exhibit "A" is the legal description of the 1,446.59 acres that constitute the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. 3. Attached hereto is Exhibit `B" the Corkscrew Grove East Village Master Plan which depicts the land uses within the SRA. Also attached as Exhibit "C" is the Corkscrew Grove East Village Land Use Summary which identifies the number of residential dwelling units, gross leasable square footage of retail and office uses, and the other land uses depicted on the Corkscrew Grove East Village Master Plan. 4. Pursuant to the Future Land Use Element — Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay of the Growth Management Plan, the designation of a SRA requires eight (8) Stewardship Credits where such Credits were created from an SSA submitted for review or approved prior to July 13, 2021 and ten (10) Stewardship Credits for each acre of land included in an SRA, where such Credits were created from an SSA submitted for review or approved after July 13, 2021 to be transferred to an SRA in exchange for the development of one acre of land within Corkscrew Grove East Village. Owner is transferring enough credits to allow development on 1,382.96 acres, since 63.63 acres of public benefit use area does not consume Credits. Once credits are transferred, they may not be recaptured by Owner. 5. Owner will be utilizing credits generated from Stewardship Sending Area 11 in the amount of 8,504.80 Credits. 6. Owner will be utilizing credits generated from Stewardship Sending Area 22 in the amount of 3,198.60 Credits. 7. Pursuant to Resolution No. , the County has approved Corkscrew Grove East Village as an SRA consisting of 1,446.59 acres and has approved the Corkscrew Grove East Village Master Plan and Development Document. 8. Applicant and Owner acknowledge that development of SRA land may not commence until an SRA Credit Agreement Memorandum is recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 2 of 15 9. This Agreement may only be amended by written agreement of all the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers or representatives and their official seals hereto affixed the day and year first written above. Attest: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA , Deputy Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: By: Assistant County Attorney WITNESS: (Signature) (Print full name) (Signature) (Print full name) Dan Kowal, Chairman ALICO, INC. By: Printed Name: Title: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement was executed before me this day of 2026, by means of physical presence or online notarization, by , as of Alico, Inc., who is personally known to me or who has produced as identification. (SEAL) Notary Public Print Name Certificate No. My Commissioner Expires Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 3 of 15 BBLS SRA CREDIT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA SURVEYORS, INC. 9001 HIGHLAND WOOD BLVD., SUITE. 6, BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA, 34135 TELEPHONE: (239) 597-1315 LEGAL DESCRIPTION CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09 AND 10, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: W EI l COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 04; THENCE RUN S.88°49' 18"W., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,508.39 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HERIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN S.01 ° 10'09"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 560.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.70°39'05"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 408.22 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 69012'45", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 56.79 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.36°02'42"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.40 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.01026' 19"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 188.82 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 70.71 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.43033'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 78.54 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.88°33'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,025.38 FEET; THENCE RUN S.50°56'03"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 169.38 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37037'38", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 32.25 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.69°44'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 32.84 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.88°33'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 703.74 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74033'23", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 60.57 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.54°09'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.06 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.16°52'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 136.11 FEET; TO THE BEGINNING Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 4 of 15 OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74°33'23", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 60.57 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.54°09'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.06 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.88°33'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 138.80 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10°54'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,723.47 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 82 (A 200 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY); THENCE RUN N.73°57'58"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 3,951.29 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT "A" THENCE CONTINUE N.73057'58"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,511.79 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 04, THE SAME BEING A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT `B"; THENCE RUN N.0I ° 10'09"W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,123.48 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE RUN S.89034'35"E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,601.08 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 04; THENCE RUN N.88°49'18"E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,195.39 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS OR 192.492 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. LESS AND EXCEPT COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "A", THENCE RUN N.16°02'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE N.16°02'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.91 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01 °02'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 132.64 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88057'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 234.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01002'17"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 268.38 FEET; THENCE RUN N.73°57'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 264.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 1.264 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. AND AREA 2 COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "B", THENCE RUN S.18°37'53"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 82 (A 200 FOOT WIIDE RIGHT OF WAY, THE SAME BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN S.73057'58"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 818.89 FEET; THENCE RUN S.36°17'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.80 FEET; THENCE RUN N.73057'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 327.44 FEET; THENCE RUN N.78°05'08"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 96.93 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°02'23"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 322.02 FEET; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 218.62 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 5 of 15 FEET; THENCE RUN S.36° 17'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 265.76 FEET; THENCE RUN S.53°42'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.36°17'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 711.07 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 3,151.52 FEET; THENCE RUN S.16°02'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 464.76 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CORKSCREW ROAD (A 100 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY), THE SAME BEING A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT "C"; THENCE RUN S.20°51'56"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,727.40 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,859.86 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37°08'16", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 1,184.52 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.39°26'04"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,205.52 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.58°00'12"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 6,667.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,914.79 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10.45' 18", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 546.33 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.52°37'33"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 547.14 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.47° 14'54"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 592.73 FEET; THENCE RUN N.42°45'06"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 182.77 FEET; THENCE RUN N.08°34'04"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 29.19 FEET; THENCE RUN N.07°19'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.16 FEET; THENCE RUN N.04°55'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.31 FEET; THENCE RUN N.05'01'49"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.88 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°02'16"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 44.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°10'03"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.95 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01 °29'48"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 47.71 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02° 18'30"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 59.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01'01'00"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.59 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01 °26'27"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.34 FEET; THENCE RUN N.26°36'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 21.65 FEET; THENCE RUN N.71 ° 11'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 62.41 FEET; THENCE RUN N.78° 16'23 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 59.85 FEET; THENCE RUN N.44°56'42"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 61.76 FEET; THENCE RUN N.07°58'50"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.06°48'04"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 79.45 FEET; THENCE RUN N.06°20'44"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 62.71 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°58'06"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 61.35 FEET; THENCE RUN N.10°07'23"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.54 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01 °52'44"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 256.40 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°54' 16"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.49 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°25'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.25 FEET; THENCE RUN N.30° 11'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 54.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.86°55'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 54.72 FEET; THENCE RUN S.85°44'03"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 23.63 FEET; THENCE RUN N.62°37'24"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 48.08 FEET; THENCE RUN N.29° 11' 17"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 23.53 FEET; THENCE RUN N.34°43'38"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 36.62 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°00'28"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.59 FEET; THENCE RUN N.04°15'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.83 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 6 of 15 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°00'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 64.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.03°51'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 47.63 FEET; THENCE RUN N.05°47'57"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 48.46 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°30'23"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 80.45 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01 °08'26"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 95.81 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°39'33"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.77 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°35'28"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.39 FEET; THENCE RUN N.03°07'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 46.18 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°03'06"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.03°24'00"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.90 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°04'14"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,048.74 FEET; THENCE RUN N.57°16'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 39.27 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.88°51'17"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 944.04 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.43°19'43"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.74 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.00°10'26"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 620.35 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.00°37'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 59.32 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01 °07'47"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 176.53 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.42°53'32"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.07 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89°03'28"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 191.01 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.88°36'21 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.23 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89" 19'21 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 133.04 FEET; THENCE RUN N.85°50'05"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 99.43 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.79°25'26"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.39 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.56°44'28"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.38 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.31-01'07"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 37.43 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.03°43'08"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 96.90 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.06°32'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 68.49 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.00°36'31 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.05 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.04°23'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 79.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°I1'30"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.74 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.02°48'10"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 118.12 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.03°03'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 102.35 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01-30'01"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 119.09 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.02°20'04"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 75.13 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.00°29'22"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 94.37 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.00°42'05"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 92.14 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.03°36'37"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 117.42 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.00°50'03"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 106.32 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.00°40'00"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 97.31 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.00°35' 17"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 110.31 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.00°16'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 140.41 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.00°41'19"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 150.96 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°04'59"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.24 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.02°22'19"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.05 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.00°21'33"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 123.18 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.08°21' 19"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 67.75 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.45° 16'07"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 68.75 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.84°15'47"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.96 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.89°57'40"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.30 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.86°42'24"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 89.38 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89°43'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 83.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88°47'49"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 103.44 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89.04' 18"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 103.63 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.89°39'41 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.75 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.86°02'46"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 64.96 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.89°35'11"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 68.29 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.88°55'43"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88°23'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.30 FEET; THENCE RUN 5.87°27'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 66.12 FEET; THENCE RUN N.74°04'04"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 74.55 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°09'55"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 119.52 FEET TO THE Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 7 of 15 BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 78°43'31 ", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 31.71 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39° 1 F51 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 34.35 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 235.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 78°09'08", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 296.27 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39°29'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 320.54 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.00024'28"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,096.45 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,700.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 22°50'27", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 673.22 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.I 1000'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 677.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23°34'42", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 122.59 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.10-38'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 123.46 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.01°08'43"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 224.54 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33055'13", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 408.39 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.15°48'54"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 414.42 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.32°46'30"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 181.86 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12056'43", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 157.82 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39°14'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 158.16 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 382.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°56'43", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 86.13 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39014'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 86.31 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.32046'30"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 53.08 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34°32'04", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 237.46 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.50°02'33"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 241.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 62°04'46", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 25.78 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.36°16'12"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 27.09 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.05°13'48"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 426.62 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 8 of 15 THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27°32'42", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 9.52 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.19°00'09"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 9.62 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.32°46'30"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 444.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.37°41'31 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 223.51 FEET; THENCE RUN S.51 °54' 14"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 40.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 225.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39°39'16", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 152.97 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.71°43'53"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 156.07 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.88°26'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 358.52 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 925.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23031'36", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 377.36 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.76°40'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 380.03 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.64°54'54"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,604.44 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT "D", THE SAME BEING THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,074.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24°30'39", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 456.17 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.77° 10' 13"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 459.67 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.89°25'33"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,254.90 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 874.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25035'52", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 387.46 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.77°46'3 I "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 390.70 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND A POINT OF CURVE OF A NON -TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 137.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19°26'36", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 46.27 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.71 °32'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 46.49 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND A POINT OF CURVE OF A NON -TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 675.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20°37'20", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 241.82 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.09°08'24"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 243.13 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.0I-I0'16"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 214.59 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 574.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30033'45", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 302.83 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.14°06'37"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 306.45 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 425.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56°52'12", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 405.21 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.00°57'24"E., FOR A Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 9 of 15 DISTANCE OF 422.34 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 574.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43°30'44", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 425.89 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.05°43'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 436.29 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.16°02'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.84 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 944.869 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. LESS AND EXCEPT COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "D", THENCE RUN S.27°26'0I "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 402.44 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN N.67° 11'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.46 FEET; THENCE RUN N.85°21'28"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.15 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89°02'13"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.07 FEET; THENCE RUN S.56015'41"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.07°36'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 52.92 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°07'50"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01041'56"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.36 FEET; THENCE RUN S.12°47'36"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 42.53 FEET; THENCE RUN S.63°14'17"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 36.54 FEET; THENCE RUN S.65°58'21 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 78.96 FEET; THENCE RUN S.22°40'47"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 41.36 FEET; THENCE RUN S.04033'09"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01°42'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.11 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°43' 11 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 51.59 FEET; THENCE RUN S.07040'03"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 31.35 FEET; THENCE RUN S.46°59'16"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 27.98 FEET; THENCE RUN S.75°58'12"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.61 FEET; THENCE RUN N.90°00'00"E , FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.56 FEET; THENCE RUN N.54°40'20"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.65 FEET; THENCE RUN N.40°5726"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 29.09 FEET; THENCE RUN N.08°36'07"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.19 FEET; THENCE RUN N.07°43'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 46.16 FEET; THENCE RUN N.16°05'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.36 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°50'11"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.96 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89°04'13"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.32 FEET; THENCE RUN N.86053' 19"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 90.52 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88°42'22"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.98 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°44'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.21 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88°59'24"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 87.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.78°53'49"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.14°20'06"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 66.40 FEET; THENCE RUN S.09°0 F51 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 88.55 FEET; THENCE RUN S.09°13'56"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 87.61 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10°53'56"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.09047'32"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.54 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10°54'31 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.26 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10'45'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 97.85 FEET; THENCE RUN S.08°50'14"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.26 FEET; THENCE RUN S.08°24'23"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.35 FEET; THENCE RUN S.07°28'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 94.54 FEET; THENCE RUN S. 10' 1 1'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.35°09'18"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 54.16 FEET; THENCE RUN S.49038'14"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 76.97 FEET; THENCE RUN S.51°40'50"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.73 FEET; THENCE RUN N.87°43'38"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 43.73 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 10 of 15 FEET; THENCE RUN S.71°31'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 51.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.74°48'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.47°44'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 27.22 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°44'13"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 458.91 FEET; THENCE RUN N.50°03'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.18 FEET; THENCE RUN N.52°35'34"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 42.36 FEET; THENCE RUN N.52°39'27"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 44.34 FEET; THENCE RUN N.66°17'41"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 33.93 FEET; THENCE RUN N.58°16'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 44.24 FEET; THENCE RUN N.53°46'50"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 103.66 FEET; THENCE RUN N.50°19'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.52 FEET; THENCE RUN N.59°46'44"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 108.92 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°21'52"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 31.84 FEET; THENCE RUN S.27°44'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 40.05 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°57'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 386.62 FEET; THENCE RUN S.04°58'47"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 38.88 FEET; THENCE RUN S.05°56'08"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 31.43 FEET; THENCE RUN S.03°27'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 74.52 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°15'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.04 FEET; THENCE RUN S.06°11'40"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 36.66 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°43'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 350.98 FEET; THENCE RUN S.04°21'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 39.53 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°17'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 39.85 FEET; THENCE CONTINUE S.02°17'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 28.25 FEET; THENCE RUN S.37°27'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 43.13 FEET; THENCE RUN S.46°11'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 38.49 FEET; THENCE RUN S.52°30'5I"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 41.39 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89°50'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 37.75 FEET; THENCE RUN N.69°29'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 144.19 FEET; THENCE RUN N.73°51'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.95 FEET; THENCE RUN N.17°36'03"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 19.58 FEET; THENCE RUN N.15°55' 16"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 469.33 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°54'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 638.37 FEET; THENCE RUN N.10°40'40"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 25.37 FEET; THENCE RUN N.65°16'14"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 51.24 FEET; THENCE RUN N.80'53'11 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 377.64 FEET; THENCE RUN N.41 °38'01 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 16.60 FEET; THENCE RUN N.13°21'12"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 35.89 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°16'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 80.83 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°57'36"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.74 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°54' 14"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.42 FEET; THENCE RUN N.04°25'23"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°13'35"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.99 FEET; THENCE RUN N.14°04'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.90 FEET; THENCE RUN N.80° 17'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.79°24'32"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.53 FEET; THENCE RUN N.33°59'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.02 FEET; THENCE RUN N.46°53'13"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.26 FEET; TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 22.115 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. AND AREA 3 COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "C", THENCE RUN S.87°40'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 105.48 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD (A 200 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY) AND THE Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 11 of 15 SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CORKSCREW ROAD (A 100 FOOT WIDE WIGHT OF WAY), THE SAME BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID STATE ROAD 82, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,786.39 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°35'44"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 364.23 FEET; THENCE RUN S.73057'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 134.39 FEET; THENCE RUN N.31°00'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 52.82 FEET; THENCE RUN S.58°59'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.31000'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.58°59'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.31 000'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 278.43 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 106.67 FEET; THENCE RUN S.16°02'01 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 10.84 FEET; THENCE RUN S.31 °00'01 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 361.08 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 497.96 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02°24'27", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 20.92 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.29°47'47"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 20.92 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN, S.73057'58"E., A DISTANCE OF 1,267.66 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°00'47"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,149.10 FEET; THENCE RUN S.I8°00'34"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 269.47 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,725.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 57°00'46", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 1,646.54 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.46°30'57"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,716.48 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.75001'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 885.99 FEET; THENCE RUN S.06002'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 300.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.14°52'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.55 FEET; THENCE RUN N.75°07'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 3,889.60 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID CORKSCREW ROAD; THENCE RUN N.58000'12"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,619.31 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,959.86 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37008'16", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 1,248.21 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39°26'04"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,270.34 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.20°51'56"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,760.94 FEET; TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PAREL CONTAINS 332.608 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 12 of 15 THE TOTAL AREA OF PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN IS 1,446.590 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 03, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING A BEARING OF 5.89°29'58"E. THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 13 of 15 SRA CREDIT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT `B" CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE MASTER PLAN ++++++ a__+ + + +++ ++++ + + + + », o + + +w + + + + ++ y. vW+ + •d'\�A '' +++ �+ 0 z z n - O c� � 5 �U z q m _ jr z a W Qm FN on2 a o0J Ul M mZ ME?mo3a a WK a —_} _ rAmp zq W ag QV021 H02171H0 � ; i ', O O o as w ajW LWQ y SO t'nON � N 00 N tpN mep a > IrZ ee °eeeee ee e e g_ �aa o �..r,l ,,u Ld LU O N Q N 00 A lr O N IO �C W N��Y-/I ❑F ii �0�� p ^' Z U�m'ri r� M tyro v�fn^�°'-.Oe�'ONm� 'l of zZW rZ--+! g ¢ f W N F �� O✓i MF rc Q� QF� Kn sy LL KQ rc0 Vl UO 0 DU �OLu o mzz ga ?O_zz 0WWC1 Fi W a 0 ODWN a N g1ddW>- Xa O U Z XUX W U wmm OaO=p yOUZ a z 0Z❑ NY 16 JO a z znU O O K o9 N a fix¢ zz O U ¢O W �`�'WO� O¢y^ r z z zt�� ¢� 3 mw m U O z 1U z> =W w O O z w3 O W �-' ¢ w�LLO>- �U� O U¢ `n F F F OmW Ow ypw m° rr� c9a ❑ O LLa tiz vWQ=�W WQ 9 ¢¢ m U U O azzg F- OOLL O� W¢ U a W y� W Z W �A U' ¢ W ULL ¢ Z j1 W ZO W!¢fl W �Wz, z} K = F w Y O U O = W K K N w ❑ Z Z Z W< a> W Z Z 0 0 �NSWa mJ maw o z¢ Z z O z oaWo W U �a U Jm v� O w C7a-a ¢¢w i-�9 c�3 w W O U O 0�� Wp ¢ Y m W K a 0 O a N m W Z g N m W O U U Q ❑ 2 m_ ¢ a> m W F O CC Z¢ C1w O Z z z fLw� Oz �Z N a o o a a ¢ S Z p Z J NN W ¢ O c7w¢�LL-¢¢uZipx OWp gam_ ¢O ¢O a0 ~Wtn �O 2wW0 O Wzapz tidy z¢0OOsxu0 ¢,NiiO >w> cNnm ww �¢ w404 Qq o�¢ma in 0 Q occ�J �O sN� w LL 7> z0 x0 a.0 rrOf Odd¢O O ¢ J wJ OJ LL�LL_a �J U�OJ a 4{E a Z y Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 14 of 15 SRA CREDIT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT "C" Land Use Summary Use Density or Intensity Residential Up to 4,502 Dwelling Units Commercial Min. and Max. of 238,606 gross square feet of retail and office uses, a max. of 100,000 gross square feet of indoor self -storage Civic, Governmental, Institutional Min. 42,020 square feet • Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA contains 1,446.59± acres. • Corkscrew Grove East Village contains approximately 24.33± acres of parks, park preserves, wetland park preserves, and a Neighborhood General Amenity Center. This exceeds the SRA requirement of providing 1 % of the SRA gross acreage (14.47 acres) for recreation and parks for neighborhoods. • Corkscrew Grove East Village provides 516.60± acres of (36± percent) of Open Space. • Total acreage requiring stewardship credits is 1,382.96 acres (total Village acreage excluding public use acreage). • Eight (8) credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created from an SSA submitted for review or approved prior to July 13, 2021. The SRA utilizes 8,504.80 Stewardship Credits from SSA 11 created prior to July 13, 2021, which entitles 968.81 acres of the SRA. • Ten (10) credits per acre shall be required for each acre of land included in an SRA, where such Credits were created from a SSA 22 submitted for review or approved after July 13, 2021. The SRA utilizes 3,198.60 Stewardship Credits from SSA(s) created after July 13, 2021, which entitles 319.86 acres of the SRA. • Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA does not include lands within ACSC Overlay. • Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA does not include land designated Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA)or Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA). • There is a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) surrounded by the SRA that includes 81.56 acres of Water Retention Area (WRA). This WRA will not provide stormwater quality treatment for the SRA. • The SRA does not include any lands with a Natural Resource Index (NRI) greater than 1.2. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 15 of 15 Z) Collier County CONSISTENCY MEMORANDUM TO: Nancy Gundlach, Planner III, Zoning Services FROM: Jessica Constantinescu, Planner II, Comprehensive Planning Growth Management Community Development Department DATE: January 8, 2026 SUBJECT: Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving (PL20240010212) PETITION NUMBER: SRA PL20240010212 PETITION NAME: Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Area (SRA) REQUEST: This petition seeks to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) in the form of a Village on an approximately 1,446.59-acre site in accordance with the provisions of Florida Statutes and the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) of Collier County, as contained in the Collier County Growth Management Plan's Future Land Use Element and the Collier County Land Development Code. Development of the Village consists of a residential community (with a maximum of 4,502 dwelling units and 362 affordable housing units) and a mixed -use Village Center containing retail, office, civic, and community uses to support the residential development. LOCATION: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is located on the north and south sides of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road, within Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, Township 46 South, Range 28 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay provisions of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP), in conjunction with the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay District of the County's Land Development Code (LDC), are used to determine the consistency of this SRA request. The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural (Agricultural/Rural Mixed -Use District) as identified in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the GMP. This future land use designation limits development to such uses as agriculture and related uses, essential services, residential (maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres), parks and open space, earth mining, etc. The site is within the Mobile Home Overlay, which allows mobile homes in the Rural Agricultural zoning district, and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO). The RLSAO provides for the designation of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) using Stewardship Credits generated by designation of Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs). SRAs may vary in size and must contain a mixture of uses, as provided for in the RLSAO policies contained in the FLUE. Relevant to this Overlay, the planning strategies and techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area -based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed -use development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. Specifically, the Overlay allows development in the form of towns, villages, and compact rural developments (CRD), subject to certain criteria and development parameters, as an SRA and allows "public benefit uses" such as public schools and public or private pos t Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the minimum acreages required, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities. This application proposes the new Village SRA using the Rural Land Stewardship Credit System, as provided for under Policy 1.4 of the RLSAO. The SRA application further proposes that Stewardship Credits, enabling this SRA to be developed as a Village, will be obtained from permanent restrictions on the use of environmentally sensitive land from Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA). The SRA procedures and standards are outlined in Section 4.08.07 of the LDC. Specifically, the SSA to be used to enable the Village to proceed as an SRA is SSA numbers 11 and 22. SSA 11 was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on June 1 Ot', 2008. The petition for SSA 22 is proposed and is in the staff review phase. This SRA application states that a total of 11,703.40 Stewardship Credits will be used to entitle the Village at 1,382.96 acres. Public Benefit Uses including affordable housing, a public school site, and a fire station comprise 63.63 acres of the Village, amounting to a total SRA acreage of 1,446.59 acres. The Village must meet the RLSA Overlay Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics as identified in the table below. The table lists characteristic land uses and threshold requirements from the RLSA Overlay, [FLUE] Attachment C, followed by staff comments/analysis [in italics]. Underlined uses are not required uses. After the table, the relevant RLSA Overlay Policies (Group 4 Policies) are listed, followed by staff comments/analysis [m italics]. Size (Gross Acres) 300 — 1,500 acres The SRA is f1,446.59 acres. Residential Units (DUs) per gross acre 1 — 4 DUs per gross acre base density Proposed density = 4,502 DU/f1,446.59 gross acres = 3.11 D U/A. Residential Housing Styles Diversity of single family and multi -family housing types, styles, and lot sizes A maximum of 4,502 dwelling units comprised of both single family detached, single family attached/villas, and multi family housing are proposed. Maximum Floor Area Ratio or Retail and Office — 0.5; Neighborhood goods and services are Intensity provided at a minimum of238, 606 sq. ft.; the uses and FARs are provided for in the Village Center. Civic/Governmental/Institution — 0.6; Civic, governmental, and institutional uses are provided at a minimum of 45,020 sq. ft. Group Housing — 0.45; not required — not proposed. Transient Lodging —26 units/ac. net; not required —notproposed. Goods and Services Convenience Goods and Services; Minimum 53 sq. ft. gross building area per DU; The minimum 238,606sq. ft. ofn eigh borhood goods andservices is rovided in the Village Center Context Zone. Water and Wastewater Centralized or decentralized community treatment system; The SRA is within the Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) Service Area. Service is intended to beprovided byIWSD. Interim Well and Septic; This information is notproposed within the SRA document and is not a required use. Recreation and Open Spaces Parks & Public Green Spaces within Neighborhoods (minimum 1 % of gross acres); Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ 14.47 acres are required (f1,446.59 ac. x 1 %) and ±24.33 acres are provided. Active Recreation/Golf Course; not required — not proposed Lakes; 53.20 acres of lake areas are proposed Open Space Minimum 35% of SRA; Open space areas comprise 516.60 acres of the Village SRA, totaling 36% Civic, Governmental and Moderate Range of Services — Minimum 10 SF/DU; 4,502 Institutional Services dwelling units x 10 sf= 45, 020 sq. ft. minimum, 45,020 sq. ft of civic, government, and institutional uses are proposed Full Range of Schools; Included in Village Center Context Zone as allowed use under 5.2. I.A.III.50) Elementary and Secondary Schools, Colleges, Universities, Professional Schools and Technical Institutes, public or private (SIC 8211, 8221-8222). Transportation Auto -interconnected system of collector and local roads; The SRA connects directly to State Road 82 (SR 82), a principal arterial road, and Corkscrew RD (CR 850), a major collector road as classified in the Transportation Element (TR-3.3), and will be interconnected to theproperty to thesouth, whichprovides access to State Road 29 and Oil Well Road. Pedestrian pathways; Interconnected sidewalks and 10 foot multi -use pathways are provided within the SRA as depicted on the SRA Mobility Plan in ExhibitA. Equestrian Trails; not required — not proposed. County Transit Access; At the time of development order; connections between modes of transportation will be identified to ensure interconnectivity between the SRA and external transportation links. RLSA Overlay Group 4 Policies — Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas. Policy 4.1: Collier County will encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of the economic base of the RLSA. Collier County will also encourage development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques and facilitates a compact form of development to accommodate population growth by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). Incentives to encourage and support the diversification and vitality of the rural economy such as flexible development regulations, expedited permitting review, and targeted capital improvements shall be incorporated into the LDC Stewardship District. [The subject petition is for an SRA and must comply with the RLSA Overlay in the LDC.] Policy 4.2: All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for designation as a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as a Stewardship Sending Area. The exception, consistent with Policy 3.13, is when a WRA provides stormwater quality treatment for an SRA, then the acreage of the WRA used for stormwater quality treatment for the SRA shall be included in the Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ SRA. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meetthe suitability criteria and other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay, and in accordance with the guidelines established in Section 163.3248, Florida Statutes, the specific location, size, and composition of each SRA cannot and need notbe predetermined in the GMP. In the RLSAOverlay, landsthat are eligible to be designatedas SRAs generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of agriculture lands which have been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands shown on the Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation include approximately 72,000 acres outside of the ACSC and approximately 15,000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA designation shall be a maximum of 45,000 acres. Because the Overlay requires SRAs to be compact, mixed use and self-sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and infrastructure, traditional locational standards normally applied to determine development suitability are not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore, the process for designating an SRA follows the procedures set forth herein and the adopted RLSA Zoning Overlay District. [Land proposedfor the SRA designation meets suitability criteria and certain other standards described in RLSA Overlay Group 4 Policies. The subject site is designated on the RLSA Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation.] Policy 4.3: Land becomes designated as a SRAupon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The petition shall include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be a finding of consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein, compliance with the LDC Stewardship District, and assurance that the applicanthas acquired orwill acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implementthe SRA uses. The County has adopted LDC amendments to establish the procedures and submittal requirements for designation as a SRA, providing for consideration of impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts, and for public notice of and the opportunity for public participation in any consideration by the BCC of such a designation. [The property owner has submitted the required SRA application along with an SRA Master Plan and has demonstrated acquisition of the required number of Stewardship Credits in the amount of 11, 703.40generated from both SSA Numbers 11 and 22 to entitle development of 1, 382.96 acres in the SRA (plus 63.63 acres of uses providing a public benefit). The basis for approval shall be a finding of consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria setforth herein. Compliance with the `LDC Stewardship District" (RLSA zoning overlay) is addressed later herein.] Policy 4.4: Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SRA. Such updates shall be incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map by amendment periodically initiated by the County, or sooner at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. [This Policy is not directed toward individual applications.] Policy 4.5: To address the specifics of each SRA, amasterplanof each SRA will be prepared andsubmittedto Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate that the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District and is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. The SRA Master Plan shall comply with the County's then -adopted MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), and Access Management procedures. Each SRA master plan shall include a Management Plan with provisions for minimizing human and wildlife interactions. Low intensity land uses (e.g. passive recreation areas, golf courses) and vegetation preservation requirements, including agriculture, shall be usedto establishbufferareas betweenwildlife habitat areas and areas Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ dominated by human activities. Consideration shall be given to the most current Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission guidelines and regulations on techniques to reduce human wildlife conflict. The management plans shall also require the dissemination of information to local residents, businesses and governmental services about the presence of wildlife and practices that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife, while minimizing opportunities for negative interaction, such as appropriate waste disposal practices. [The applicant's submittal appears to demonstrate compliance with all applicable policies of the RLSA Overlay and the LDC Stewardsh ip D is trict (RLSA zoning overlay), based upon s taff discip line reviews. Note: the analysis of some policies has been deferred to other County staff. The SRA is des ignedwith a 300'bufferfrom HSA lands to ensure th a tp otentia 1 in c omp atib le la n d uses are directed away from HSA designated land. In addition, a managementplan with provisions for minimizing human and wildlife interactions is also included with the petition.] Policy 4.6: SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in Section 163.3248, Florida Statutes. These planning strategies and techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area -based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed -use development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. The SRA shall also include a mobility plan that includes vehicular, bicycle/pedestrian, public transit, internal circulators, and other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs andareas of outside development and land uses. The mobility plan shall provide mobility strategies such as bus subsidies, route sponsorship or other incentives which encourage the use of mass transit services. The development of SRAs shall also consider the needs identified in the MPO Long Range TransportationNeeds Plan, and plan land uses to accommodate services that would increase internal capture and reduce trip length and long- distance travel. Such development strategies are recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl, encouraging alternative modes of transportation, increasing internal capture and reducing vehicle miles traveled. [The applicant's SRA document and masterplan appear to demonstrate compliance with this Policy, based upon staff discipline reviews. Additionally, the Mobility Plan depicts a connected trailway and pathway system to encourage pedestrian circulation throughout the SRA.J Policy 4.7: There are three specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, and Compact Rural Development (CRD). The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, and CRD are set forth in Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3. Specific regulations, guidelines and standards within the LDC Stewardship District to guide the design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning and development strategies as set forth in Section 163.3248,Florida Statutes. The size andbase density ofeachform shall be consistent with the standards set forth on Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in Attachment C may only be exceeded through the density blending process as set forth in density and intensity blending provision o fthe Immokalee AreaMaster Plan or through the affordable housing density bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. The base residential density is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not restrict net residential density ofparcels within a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRAwill be determined on an individualbasis duringthe SRA designationreview and approval process. [The SRA size and density are consistent with requirements in FLUE Attachment C. The SRA location is designated on the RLSA Overlay Map as eligible for an SRA designation.] Policy 4.7.1: [This Policy regarding Towns is not applicable to this application.] Policy 4.7.2: Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ Villages are communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 300 acres and up to 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical State Concern and up to 1,500 acres outside the Area of Critical State Concern. Villages are comprised ofresidential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed -use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall haveparks or public green spaces within neighborhoods Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Appropriately scaled uses described in Policy 4.7.3 shall also be permitted in Villages. Villages are an appropriate location for a full range of schools To the extent possible, schools andparks shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing ofrecreationalfacilities. Design criteriafor Villages areincluded in the LDCStewardship District Villages greater than 500 acres shall include an internal mobility plan which shall include a transfer station or park and ride area that is appropriately located within the village to serve the connection pointfor internal and external public transportation. [The proposed Village encompasses approximately 1, 446.59 acres and is organized around a centrally located Village Center. The VillageCenter includes retail and office uses a t a sc a le appropriate to s uppo rt th e s u rrounding residential development. The Village incorporates an interconnected network ofmulti-use pathways, pedestrian sidewalks, and nature observation points, as illustrated on the Mobility Plan. While the education site does not directly abutpublic green space, it is located in close proximity and connected through the integratedpathway system, providing accessible routesfrom the school to adjacentpark areas. A park -and -ride facility is proposed, with its final location to be determined prior to approval of the Site Development Plan.] Policy 4.7.3: [This Policy regarding CRDs is not applicable to this application.] Policy 4.7.4: Existing urban areas, Towns and Villages shall be the preferred location for business and industry within the RLSA, to further promote economic sustainability and development, diversification and job creation. The business and industry use allowed includes, but is not limited to, those as defined as Florida Qualified Target Industries. The appropriate scale and compatibility o fthese uses within a TownorVillage willbe addressedduring SRA application process. [The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA complies with this policy by concentrating business and industry uses within a designated mixed -use Village Center: The Village Centerpermits a broad range of appropriately scaled commercial and employment -generating uses, including those consistentwith Florida Qualified Targetlndustries, thereby supporting economic sustainability and job creation.] Policy 4.7.5: To address the accommodation ofAffordable Housing in a Town or Village, the SRA applicant shall utilize one of the following options: 1) Affordable Housing Land Reservation: a) Reservation of one or more site(s) within the SRA or within a proximal SRA in the RLSAO with densities and development standards that accommodate Affordable Housing residential uses at a minimum density of 10 units peracre, for acquisitionby either Collier County, a Community LandTrust, a private developer or any other affordable housing provider. b) The aggregate acreage of such site(s) shall be equal to or greater than 2.5% of the gross area of the SRA. c) The acreage of land reserved for Affordable Housing will be considered as a Public Benefit Use and not require the consumption of Stewardship Credits but shall be included in the calculation of total SRA acreage. d) The County shall verify the site(s) is/are appropriate and approve the site(s) at time of SRA approval, subject to standards to be established in the LDC. Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ e) Affordable Housing units shall be excluded from the Traffic Impact Statement or trip cap for the SRA in which they are located. 2) Alternatives proposed by the SRA Applicant: a) While compliance with the Land Reservation described above shall be deemed to satisfy affordable housing requirements, other options may be proposed by the SRA applicant and approved by the Board of County Commissioners to address housing affordability issues in the subject SRA. 3) The process and procedures to implement this policy, including a definition to be used to determine "proximal SRA" and specific guidelines and standards in those instances in which alternative options may be proposed, shall be set forth in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Zoning District. Affordable housing opportunities are provided within the Affordable Housing Context Zone of the Corkscrew Grove East VillageSRA. The Affordable Housing Context Zone is comprisedof±3 6.22 acres, entitlingaminimum of 362 dwelling units set aside for affordable housing development at a minimum density of 10 dwelling units per acre. and is adjacent to a commercial tract. This satisfies the first option of Policy 4.7.5. Policy 4.8: An SRA may be contiguous to a FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in Policy 4.13. A SRA may be contiguous to and served by a WRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13. [The SRA is contiguous to lands designated HSA but does not encroach into these areas; and, the proposed SRA development is buffered from those HSA areas, as required in Policy 4.13.] Policy 4.9: A SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development away from wetlands and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs unless the WRA is being used to provide water quality treatment volume as referenced in Policy 3.13, in which case the WRA shall retain its WRAOverlay classification and be included in the SRA acreage total. To further direct development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential; commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Inde x value of greater than 1.2. In addition, conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. Infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses may be exempt from this restriction, provided that designs seek to minimize the extent of impacts to any such areas. The Index value ofgreater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as measured pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater than 1.2. [The Environmental Planning Section evaluated all land within the proposed SRA to determine the Natural Resource Index values. This SPA is adjacent to an HSA but does not encroach into these areas.] Policy 4.10: Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, waterretention and management areas andrecreationuses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore, open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. To ensure that SRA residents have such areas proximate to their homes, open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, or Village. Lands within an SRA greater than one acre with Index values of greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space except for the allowance of uses described in Policy 4.9. [Thep roposed open space meets the minimum of thirty-five percent of the Village's gross acreage: 1,446.59 gross acres x 35% = 506.3 acres; 36% or 516.6 acres are provided. The Environmental Planning Section evaluated lands for the NRI value and identified any such lands greater than one acre for retention as open space.] Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ Policy 4.11: The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The edges of SRAs shall be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property. Techniques such as, but not limited to setbacks, landscape buffers, and recreation/open space placement may be used for this purpose. Where existing agricultural activity adjoins a SRA, the design of the SRA must take this activity into account to allow for the continuation of the agricultural activity and to minimize any conflict between agriculture and SRA uses. [A 300'buffer, consisting of open spaces and lakes will be provided adjacent to HSA designated lands, located directly east and south ofthe SRA. Along the remainingSRAperimeters, landscape buffers and adequate setbacks will be provided, and existing native vegetation will be retained to the extent possible to provide sufficient screen ing/bufferingfrom neighboringproperties. A transition from landscaping buffers, open space and retained native vegetation to residential development is planned from the SRA edges.] Policy 4.12: Where an SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map, best management and planning practices shall be applied to minimize adverse impacts to such lands. SRA design shall demonstrate that groundwater table draw down or diversion will not adversely impact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservation land. Detention and control elevations shall be established to protect such natural areas and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and water tables. [As dep ic ted o n th e Stewa rdship Areas Exh ibit, SSA 22 b o rders th e east b o un dary of Co rkscrew Gro ve East Village SRA. HSA and FSA areas exist within the boundaries of SSA 22. WRA areas of SSA 23 are within portions of the Village. En v iro n me nta I Review s taffa n d Sto rmwater s taffh a ve reviewed the SRAfor compliance with thisPolicy.] Policy 4.13: Open space within or contiguous to a SRA shall be used to provide a buffer between the SRA and any adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map. Open space contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of a FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses provided no fairways or other turf areas are allowed within the first 200 feet, passive recreational areas and parks, required yard and set -back areas, and other natural or man-made open space. Along the west boundary of the FSAs and HSAs that comprise Camp Keais Strand, i.e., the area south of Immokalee Road, this open space buffer shall be 500 feet wide and shall preclude golf course fairways and other turf areas within the first 300 feet. [Open space (open space, lakes and buffer) located within the SRA is used to provide the required buffer between the SRA and the adjoining HSA (refer to the Master Plan).] Policy 4.14: The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. At the time of SRA approval, an SRA proposed to adjoin land designated as an SRA or lands designated as Open Lands shall provide for the opportunity to provide direct vehicular and pedestrian connections from said areas to the County's arterial/co llector roadway network as shown on the MPO's LRTP Needs Plan so as to reduce travel time and travel expenses, improve interconnectivity, increase internal capture, and keep the use of county arterial roads to a minimum when traveling between developments in the RLSA. Public and private roads within an SRA shall be maintainedby the SRA it serves. Signalized intersections within or adjacent to an SRA that serves the SRA shall be maintained by the SRA it serves. No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the LDC, or its successor regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data and analysis. To the extent Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ required to mitigate an SRA's traffic impacts, actions may be taken to include, but shall not be limited to, provisions for the construction and/or permitting of wildlife crossings, environmental mitigation credits, right of way dedication(s), water management and/or fill material which may be needed to expand the existing or proposed roadway network. Any such actions to offset traffic impacts shall be memorialized in a developer contribution agreement. These actions shall be considered within the area of significant influence of the project traffic on existing or proposed roadways. [The SRA proposes ingress/egress points to State Road 82 (SR 82) and Corkscrew Road (CR 850). Concurrency is determined at the time of subsequent development orders. Transportation Planning staff reviewed th is project for its transportation impact, and Comprehensive Planning staff defers comments relative to these aspects of the review to the Transportation Planning Section.] Policy 4.15.1: SRAs are intended to be mixeduse and shall be allowed the full range o fuses permitted by the Urban Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3, andAttachment C. An appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic, governmental, and institutional uses will be available to serve the daily needs and community wide needs of residents of the RLSA. Depending on the size, scale, and character of a SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific SRA, within other SRAs in the RLSA or within the Immokalee Urban Area provided the capacity of those adjoining area's facilities as described in Attachment C to be utilized by the newly created SRA can demonstrate sufficient capacity exists for their desired uses per the standards of Attachment C. By example, each Village or Town shall provide for neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as appropriate civic and institutional uses, however, the combined population of several Villages may be required to support community scaled retail or office uses in a nearby Town. Standards for the minimum amount ofnon-residential uses in each category are set forth in Attachment C, and shall be also included in the Stewardship LDC District. [The Villageprovides a mix ofneighborhood-scaledretail, office, civic, and institutional uses to meet the minimum requirements for non-residential uses in each category identified in Attachment C.] Policy 4.15.2: The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an SRA development, require that suitable areas for parks, schools, and other public facilities be set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use. When the BCC requires such a set aside for one or more public facilities, the set aside shall be subject to the same provisions of the LDC as are applicable to public facility dedications required as a condition for PUD rezoning. [Policy provided for informational purposes.] Policy 4.15.3: Applicants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier County School Board staff to allow planning to occur to accommodate any impacts to the public schools as a result of the SRA. As a part of the SRA application, the following information shall be provided: Number of residential units by type; 2. An estimate of the number of school -aged children for each type of school impacted (elementary, middle, high school); and 3. The potential for locating a public educational facility or facilities within the SRA, and the size of any sites that may be dedicated, or otherwise made available for a public educational facility. [A School ImpactAnalysis is included as part of the application.] Policy 4.16: Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will depend on the form of SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements. The capacity of essential services and infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build -out must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes but not limited to, transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste. Transportation infrastructure is discussed in Policy 4.14. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities are required in Towns and Villages, and maybe required in CRDs depending upon the permitted uses approved within the CRD. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities shall be constructed, owned, operated and maintained by a private utility service, the developer, a Community Development District, the Immokalee Water Sewer Service District, Collier County, or other governmental entity. Innovative alternative water and wastewater treatment systems such as decentralized community treatment systems shall not be prohibited by this Policy provided that they meet all applicable regulatory criteria. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems, limited to a maximum of 100 acres of any Town, Village or CRD of 100 acres are permitted on an interim basis until services from a centralized/decentralized community system are available. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems may be permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less in size. [Infrastructure must be available to serve theproposed Village — or provided concurrently with the demand. The infrastructure analysis for the development has been provided in the Public Facilities Impact Analysis, Traffic Impact Statement, and Letter of Willingness to Serve provided by IWSD within the SRA application submittal documents. It is anticipated that any developer commitments related to utilities, transportation, or otherpublic facilities, once finalized, will be specifically detailed in a Developer's Contribution Agreement. Reviewstalhas determined that adequate public facilities will be available to serve the SRA, consistent with this Policy.] Policy 4.17: The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provisions of Policy 1.2 of the Capital Improvement Element of the GMP and public facilities pursuant to Policy 1.1 of the Capital Improvement Element in addition to the following: jails, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire service, government buildings and libraries. Final local development orders will be approved within an SRA designated by the BCC in accordance with the Concurrency Management System of the GMP and LDC in effect at the time of final local development order approval. [The project does not create a significant impact on countywide population as defined by Policy 1.2 of the CIE. Public facilities impacts will be evaluated at the time offinal local development order approval, consistent with the GMP and LDCJ Policy 4.18: The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the SRA horizon year based on a public facilities impact assessment, as identified in LDC 4.08.07.K The BCC may grant exceptions to this Policy to accommodate affordable housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the assessment shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards. In the event that an SRAdevelopment, generates surplus revenues to Collier County, Collier County may choose to allocate a portion of such surplus revenues to ensure that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier County to respond expeditiously to economic opportunities and to compete effectively for high -value research, development and commercialization, innovation, and alternative and renewable energy business projects. [The Economic Assessment Report has been deemed fiscally neutral and/orpositive to Collier County, Collier County Schools, and Immokalee Fire Control District.] Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ Policy 4.19: Eight (8) credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created from a Stewardship Sending Area submitted for review or approved prior to July 13, 2021. Ten Credits per acre shall be required for each acre of landincluded in an SRA, where such Credits were created from any other Stewardship Sending Area. Land that is designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4.20 do not require the use of Credits. In order to promote compact, mixed use development and provide the necessary support facilities and services to residents ofrural areas, the SRA designation entitles a full range ofuses, accessoryuses and associated uses that provide a mix of services to and are supportive to the residential population of a SRA, as provided for in Policies 4.7, 4.15.1 and Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan. [Both a 1: 8 and a 1:10 ratio is proposed by the applicant to entitle the requested residential density and mix of uses to support the residents of the SRA. The applicant will use Credits generated from SSA Numbers 11 and 22, as demonstrated in the SRA Master Plan.] Policy 4.20: The acreage of a public benefit use shall count toward the maximum acreage limits of an SRA, unless such public benefit uses were approved as part of an SRA approved prior to July 13, 2021, in which case such public benefit uses shall continue to be excluded from the maximum acreage limitation pursuant to the policy in effect at the time of approval. Public benefit uses shall not count toward the consumption of Stewardship Credits. For the purpose of this Policy, public benefit uses include: affordable housing as defined in the LDC, public schools (Pre- K-12) and public or private post secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the minimum acreage requirements of Attachment C, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities as defined in the LDC. The location of public schools shall be coordinated with the Collier County School Board, based on the interlocal agreement, Section 163.3248 F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.193 F.S. Schools and related ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to Towns and Villages subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements. [Public benefit use acreage does notrequire the consumption ofStewardship Credits butis included in the overall SRA acreage calculation.] Policy 4.21: Lands within the ACSC that meet all SRA criteria shall also be restricted such that credits used to entitle a SRA in the ACSC must be generated exclusively from SSAs within theACSC. Further, the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC east of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be CRDs of 100 acres or less and the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC west of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be CRDs and Villages of not more than 300 acres. Provided, not more than 1,000 aces of SRA development in the form of Villages or CRDs , exclusive of any lakes created prior to June 30, 2002 as a result of mining operations, shall be allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, had been predominantly cleared as a result ofAg Group I or Earth Mining or Processing Uses. This Policy is intended to assure that the RLSA Overlay is not used to increase the development potential within the ACSC but instead is used to promote a more compact form of development as an alternative to the Baseline Standards already allowed within the AC SC. No policy ofthe RLSA Overlay shall take precedence over the Big Cypress ACSC regulations and all regulations therein shall apply. [This Policy does not apply, as this site is not within the ACSC.J Policy 4.22: When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA through the SRA designation process, the applicant in conjunction with the Florida Division of Historic Resources will assess the historic or cultural significance and explore the educational and public awareness opportunities regarding significant resources. [Historic and/or cultural resources have not been identified within the SRA.J Policy 4.23: Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ Any development on lands participating in the RLS Program shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Within one year of the effective date of this Policy LDC regulations shall be implemented for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security. [The SRA document includes a regulation requiring outdoor lighting to be consistent with this policy.] CONSISTENCY REVIEW FINDINGS: Based upon the above analysis, staff finds: 1) The requisite credits are approved and will be sufficient in number to enable development of the Village; and, 2) The proposed Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) for the Village may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element, Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.collier.gov/ Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment Collier County Collier County Schools Immokalee Fire Control District Initial Submission: March 6, 2025 Revised: June 20, 2025 Solid Waste and Roads Revised: July 29, 2025 Solid Waste Revised: August 29, 2025 Prepared By: DPlo-G CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................5 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 7 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................................ 7 MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS..................................................................................................................9 Development Assumptions....................................................................................................... 9 Revenue Assumptions.............................................................................................................10 Sales, Just, and Taxable Values.............................................................................................. 10 PropertyTaxes....................................................................................................................... 11 Expenditure Assumptions........................................................................................................11 COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL IMPACTS..............................................................................................12 Collier County Operating Impacts............................................................................................12 Collier County Operating Revenue Projections........................................................................12 Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections..................................................................13 Collier County Capital Impacts.................................................................................................15 Collier County Capital Impacts by Department..................................................................... 15 COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT................................................................................27 Collier County Schools Capital Impacts....................................................................................27 Collier County Schools Operating Impacts...............................................................................31 Immokalee Fire Control District..................................................................................................33 Immokalee Fire Control District Capital Impact.................................................................... 33 Immokalee Fire Control District Annual Operating Impacts ................................................. 34 APPENDIX.................................................................................................................................... 36 GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS................................................................................................54 rA CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 1: Corkscrew Grove East Village Development Program....................................................9 Table 2: Corkscrew Grove East Village Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values....................10 Table 3: Corkscrew Grove East Village Nonresidential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values..............10 Table 4: Corkscrew Grove East Village County Tax Base at Buildout..........................................11 Table 5: Collier County Millage Rates.........................................................................................11 Table 6: Corkscrew Grove East Village Operating Annual Net Impact at Buildout .....................12 Table 7: Corkscrew Grove East Village Annual Operating Revenue Projections .........................13 Table 8: Corkscrew Grove East Village Annual Operating Expenditure Projections ...................14 Table 9: Corkscrew Grove East Village Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County .........................16 Table 10: Corkscrew Grove East Village Regional Parks Capital Impacts....................................18 Table 11: Corkscrew Grove East Village Regional Parks Level of Service....................................19 Table 12: Corkscrew Grove East Village Indexed Capital Cost per Acre......................................19 Table 13: Corkscrew Grove East Village Community Parks Capital Impacts...............................19 Table 14: Corkscrew Grove East Village Community Parks Level of Service...............................20 Table 15: Corkscrew Grove East Village Community Parks Level of Service...............................20 Table 16: Corkscrew Grove East Village Law Enforcement Capital Impacts...............................21 Table 17: Corkscrew Grove East Village Correctional Facilities..................................................21 Table 18: Corkscrew Grove East Village Correctional Facilities Capital Cost...............................22 Table 19: Corkscrew Grove East Village Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost per Resident ........ 22 Table 20: Corkscrew Grove East Village EMS Capital Cost..........................................................23 Table 21: Corkscrew Grove East Village EMS Capital Impact......................................................23 Table 22: CCPC Historical Enrollment and Capital Revenues.......................................................28 Table 23: Collier County Charter School Student Stations...........................................................29 Table 24: Corkscrew Grove East Village Projected Public School Enrollment .............................29 Table 25: Corkscrew Grove East Village Projected Enrollment by School Type ..........................30 Table 26: Corkscrew Grove East Village School Impact Fee Revenue.........................................30 Table 27: Corkscrew Grove East Village School Net Capital Impacts — Total Cash Flow Approach .................................................................................................................................................... 31 Table 28: Corkscrew Grove East Village Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout 32 Table 29: Corkscrew Grove East Village Immokalee Fire Control District Capital Impact ........... 33 Table 30: Corkscrew Grove East Village Immokalee Fire Control Impact Fee Revenues ............34 Table 31: Corkscrew Grove East Village Square Footage............................................................34 Table 32: Corkscrew Grove East Village Immokalee Fire Control District Annual Operating Impacts atBuildout ..................................................................................................................................35 Appendix Table 1: Collier County Base Assumptions.................................................................36 Appendix Table 2: Corkscrew Grove East Village Resident Population and Seasonal Population Coefficients................................................................................................................................. 37 Appendix Table 3: Corkscrew Grove East Village Population and Employment Estimates ......... 37 Appendix Table 4: Corkscrew Grove East Village Population and Employment Summary .........37 Appendix Table 5: Corkscrew Grove East Village Public School Enrollment...............................38 Appendix Table 6: Corkscrew Grove East Village County Tax Base............................................38 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 7: Corkscrew Grove East Village School District Tax Base.................................39 Appendix Table 8: FY 2025 Collier County General Funds and MSTU Revenue Budget Summaries .................................................................................................................................................... 40 Appendix Table 9: FY 2025 Collier County General Funds Revenue Demand Units....................41 Appendix Table 10: FY 2025 Collier County MSTU Revenue Demand Units...............................41 Appendix Table 11: Corkscrew Grove East Village General Funds Revenue at Buildout .............42 Appendix Table 12: Corkscrew Grove East Village MSTU Revenue at Buildout ...........................42 Appendix Table 13: FY 2025 Collier County General Funds and MSTU Expenditure Budget Summaries..................................................................................................................................43 Appendix Table 14: FY 2025 Collier County Expenditure Budget Summaries .............................44 Appendix Table 15: FY 2025 Collier County Appropriations by Program Budget Summaries ..... 45 Appendix Table 16: FY 2025 Collier County General Funds Expenditure Demand Units ............46 Appendix Table 17: EMS Adjusted Operating Expenditures for New Ambulance ......................47 Appendix Table 18: FY 2025 Collier County MSTU Expenditure Demand Units .........................48 Appendix Table 19: Corkscrew Grove East Village General Funds Expenditures at Buildout .....49 Appendix Table 20: Corkscrew Grove East Village MSTU Expenditures at Buildout...................50 Appendix Table 21: Collier County Impact Fee Schedule for Applicable Services .......................51 Appendix Table 22: Corkscrew Grove East Village Impact Fee Revenues for Applicable Services .................................................................................................................................................... 52 Appendix Table 23: Collier County School District Base Assumptions........................................53 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Alico, Inc. is proposing the establishment of the Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area ("SRA") on 1,446.59± acres in Collier County with a portion located on the north side of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road and the remainder located south of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road, east and west of Corkscrew Road. In accordance with the definition of a Village in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area ("RLSA") Overlay, Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA ("Corkscrew Grove East Village" or "Village") is primarily a residential community with a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 4,502 dwelling units. The Village includes 149.07± acres of a mixed -use Village Center providing the required neighborhood -scale retail, office, civic, and community uses. The concept plan also includes 283,500 square feet of retail space and 70,000 square feet of civic/institutional space. As shown in the table below, the Corkscrew Grove East Village will generate substantial tax and impact fee revenues for Collier County, the Immokalee Fire Control District, and Collier County Public Schools. The results are presented at the Project's buildout (horizon year), as required. Summary Table 1: C Collier County: Ad Valorem Tax Base Net Annual Fiscal Benefit Annual Operating Revenues Annual Operating Expenditures Total Annual Net Operating Surplus Collier County Schools: Ad Valorem Tax Base Net Fiscal Benefit: Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Revenues Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Expenditures Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Surplus Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues: Collier County Collier County MSTU Conservation Collier Water Pollution Control Immokalee Fire Control District Collier County Schools - Ad Valorem Operating Collier County Schools - Capital Improvement Total Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues Countywide MSTU $ 2,137,928,000 $ 2,137,928,000 Countywide MSTU $ 8,880,000 $ 1,590,000 5,877,000 683,000 $ 3,003,000 $ 907,000 School District $ 2,197,080,000 Annual Operating* Total Capital $ 6,987,000 $ 67,335,000 6,987,000 67,335,000 At Buildout $ 6,437,000 1,463,000 448,000 53,000 8,017,000 6,987,000 2,490,000 $ 25,895,000 �" CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Required Facility Analysis: Roads - Impact Fees $ 35,834,000 Regional Parks $ 9,246,000 Community Parks $ 3,242,000 Law Enforcement $ 2,258,000 Jail $ 1,898,000 EMS $ 543,000 Schools $ 28,671,000 Water N/A Wastewater N/A Immokalee Fire Control District $ 9,146,000 * The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formulas Source: DPFG, 2025 Developer Contribution Agreements ("DCAs") will be negotiated with the County prior to approval of the Corkscrew Grove East Village. As demonstrated in this report, DPFG concludes that the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is fiscally neutral, as defined, for the following facilities as required by the Collier County Land Development Code ("LDC") Section 4.08.07 L. Summary Table 2: C Collier County Annual Operations: General Funds MSTU Capital: Roads Regional and Community Parks Law Enforcement Jail EMS Immokalee Fire Control District Collier County Schools Annual Operations* Neutral Positive Capital Neutral Positive Collier County Neutral Annual Operations and Capital: Positive Water N/A Neutral Wastewater N/A Neutral Irrigation Water Neutral Neutral Solid Waste Neutral Stormwater Neutral Positive * The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formul * The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formulas. Source: DPFG, 2025 0 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION An Economic Assessment is required as part of the Stewardship Receiving Area ("SRA") Designation Application Package, and each SRA must demonstrate that its development, as a whole, will be fiscally neutral or positive to the County tax base at buildout. At a minimum, the Economic Assessment shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and schools. Development Planning & Financing Group, Inc. ("DPFG") was retained to prepare an Economic Assessment for the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. This report provides complete and transparent support for the methodology, assumptions, and calculations applied to demonstrate fiscal neutrality, as required, for the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA for Collier County ("County'), the Immokalee Fire Control District, and the Collier County Public Schools District ("School District"). METHODOLOGY The Government Finance Officers Association ("GFOA")1 outlines the most common methods for estimating service costs in fiscal impact analysis as: average cost, marginal cost, comparisons to other governments and econometric modeling. In many cases, fiscal impact analysis uses a combination of these methods to generate a projection. • Average Cost is the easiest and most common method and assumes the current cost of serving residents and businesses will equal the cost of serving the new development. The average cost method provides a rough estimate of both direct and indirect costs associated with development. However, this method does not account for demographic change, existing excess capacity, or potential economies of scale in service delivery. Methods of calculating average cost include per capita costs, service standard costs and proportional valuation costs. • Marginal Cost uses site -specific information to determine services costs for a new development. A case study approach is typically necessary to gather detailed information about the existing capacity within public services and infrastructure to accommodate growth from a development project. This method assumes that information about local service levels and capacity is more accurate than standards based on average data • Comparable Governments incorporate the experience by similar governments with comparable development projects. Studying other governments before and after specific ' Michael J. Mucha, "An Introduction to Fiscal Impact Analysis for Development Projects," (white paper, Government Finance Officers Association, 2007), www.gfoa.org 7 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT projects can provide useful information in determining additional costs and the increase in costs over a long period of time. • Econometric Modeling uses complex econometric models and is best used for estimating impacts from large projects that create many indirect effects on the existing community such as a utility plant or an entertainment center. The fiscal impact analysis of the Corkscrew Grove East Village uses a marginal/average cost hybrid methodology to determine the Project's impact on capital and operating costs. Personnel and operating costs were projected on a variable, or incremental basis, as were expenditures for certain capital improvements. Revenues, such as property taxes, were projected on a marginal basis whereas revenues attributable to growth were reflected on an average basis. Allocation bases include Permanent Population, Peak Seasonal Population, Peak Seasonal Population and Employment, Peak Seasonal and Tourist Population and Employment. Persons per residential product type and employees per nonresidential land uses were obtained from the County's 2016 Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Update, which County staff has deemed the most appropriate source of County -adopted residential and nonresidential demographic metrics for purposes of this analysis (see Appendix). Based on discussions with County staff, these demographic metrics are conservative when compared to similar metrics compiled for the impact fee updates which are in process. The Economic Assessment model and future reports will be revised and reissued if the Board of County Commissioners adopts the impact fee updates and establishes new rates prior to hearing.' The analysis includes the following general funds:' (0001) General Fund, (0002) Affordable Housing Impact Fee Deferral Program, (0003) Emergency Relief Fund, (0004) Economic Development, (0011) Clerk of Circuit Court, (0040) Sheriff, (0060) Property Appraiser, (0070) Tax Collector, and (0080) Supervisor of Elections. A reconciliation of these funds to the County's budget documents is provided in the Appendix. The analysis also includes (1011) Unincorporated Area General Fund MSTU, the Immokalee Fire Control & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District. The FY 2025 budget of the County and the FY 2025 budgets of the Immokalee Fire Control District, and the School District form the basis for the service levels and revenue and cost assumptions. This "snapshot" approach does not attempt to speculate about how services, costs, revenues, and other factors will change over time. Instead, it evaluates the fiscal impact to the County as it currently conducts business under the present budget. The impacts of self-supporting funds (e.g., enterprise funds) were not included in this analysis as is typical in fiscal impact analysis. Utility rates and capacity fees are established through 2 Impact fee updates for Roads, Parks, EMS, Law Enforcement, Correctional Facilities, and Schools are currently underway. 3 Collier County considers this listing of general funds as the "General Fund Grouping." M CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT independent studies. Public utilities generally benefit from economies of scale (i.e., more customers) since rate structures are dependent upon recovering fixed infrastructure costs. Based on Pre -Application discussions with County staff, the County accepts the methodology described in this report and as applied in previous SRA Economic Assessments. In particular, the County accepts the preparation of the analysis at the year of buildout (or horizon year) under a snapshot approach which reflects the intended land uses of the project as a whole. In addition, there are no monitoring requirements with respect to the fiscal impact of an SRA Village. MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS Major assumptions supporting the Corkscrew Grove East Village Economic Assessment are summarized in this section. The financial model and assumptions are provided in the Appendix. Balance Carryforwards were excluded from allocation to avoid overstatement of revenues. Interfund transfers were analyzed in depth, and their classifications in the model were carefully reviewed. Revenue and costs are projected in constant 2025 dollars, with no adjustment for future inflation. The use of a constant dollar approach in fiscal impact analysis produces annual and buildout results that are readily comparable and understandable. Results have been rounded to the nearest one thousand dollars ($1,000). Development Assumptions Table 1 presents the Corkscrew Grove East Village development program proposed by the Applicant. The program was the basis for determining the operating and capital impacts of the Project. Table 1: Corkscrew Grove East Village Development Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 Total Market Rate Residential 4,127 Affordable Housing Units 362 Tota Housing Units 4.489 Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft 283,500 Total Non -Residential 283,500 Civic/Institutional 70,000 Grand Total Non -Residential (sf) 353,500 Source: Alico, Inc., DPFG, 2025 E CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Revenue Assumptions Sales, Just, and Taxable Values Estimates of sales, just, and taxable values for the residential units are shown in Table 2. The sales values of the residential product types were provided by the Applicant's market consultant, Mr. Michael Timmerman, CRE. The eligible homestead percentage per residential product type used in computing the taxable value per unit was based on unincorporated County averages published by the Shimberg Center for Housing Studies at the University of Florida. Table 2: Corkscrew Grove East Village Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 $ 418,990 $ 393,850 $ 376,269 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 $ 601,204 $ 565,132 $ 552,035 Total Market Rate Residential 4,127 $ 544,734 $ 512,050 $ 497,563 Source: Mr. Michael Timmerman, CRE, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2025 Table 3 reflects the estimates of sales, just4, and taxable values for the nonresidential land uses. Sales values were based on data provided by the Applicant's market consultant, Mr. Michael Timmerman, CRE. Estimates used to arrive at just values also considered construction cost per square foot estimates from the Cumming Group for reasonableness. Table 3: Corkscrew Grove East Village Nonresidential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft 283,500 $ 350 $ 298 $ 298 Total Non -Residential 283,500 Civic/Institutional 70,000 Grand Total Non -Residential (sf) 353,500 Source: Mr. Michael Timmerman, CRE Cumming Group, DPFG, 2025 At buildout, the real property tax base of the Corkscrew Grove East Village is estimated to be $2.1 billion as reflected in Table 4. 4 In determining just value, reasonable fees and costs of purchase (for example, commissions) are excluded. 10 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 4: Corkscrew Grove East Villaee Countv Tax Base at Buildout Multi -Family Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) Single -Family Detached Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. Total Market Rate Residential Non -Residential Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft 784 $ 416,699 $ 326,692,000 210 $ 271,939 57,107,000 157 $ 320,819 50,369,000 128 $ 367,819 47,081,000 1,279 $ 481,249,000 1,073 $ 483,357 $ 518,642,000 908 $ 567,957 515,705,000 784 $ 614,957 482,126,000 83 $ 671,357 55,723,000 2,848 $ 1,572,196,000 4,127 $ 2,053,445,000 283,500 $ 298 $ 84,483,000 Total Non -Residential 283,500 $ 84,483,000 Total Tax Base $ 2,137,928,000 Source: Mr. Mike Timmerman, CRE, DPFG, 2025 Property Taxes Table 5 reflects the millage rate assumptions (FY 2025) for Collier County used in the analysis. Table 5: Collier County Millage Rates 3.0107 County General Fund 0.0246 Water Pollution Control 0.2096 Conservation Collier Program 3.2449 County Wide Millage Source: Collier County, 2025 Expenditure Assumptions A detailed evaluation of expenditures by the General Funds Group and the MSTU General Fund was performed to determine which were variable (i.e., assumed to fluctuate with growth) or fixed (i.e., not impacted by growth) in nature. For equitable matching of revenues and expenses, certain adjustments were made to account for funding sources from other funds. The primary demand bases in the average cost/revenue calculations were new population and employment for the County and new students for the School District. 11 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL IMPACTS Collier County Operating Impacts Table 6 presents the annual net operating fiscal impact of the Corkscrew Grove East Village at buildout. Table 6: Corkscrew Grove East Village Operating Annual Net Impact at Buildout Total Annual Operating Revenues $ 8,880,000 $ 1,590,000 Total Annual Operating Expenditures 5,877,000 683,000 Total Annual Operating Surplus $ 3,003,000 $ 907,000 Source: DPFG, 2025 Collier County Operating Revenue Projections Projected County annual operating revenues at buildout are summarized in Table 7. Corkscrew Grove East Village is projected to generate annual operating revenues of $8.9 million for the County's General Funds and $1.6 million for the MSTU General Fund. 12 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 7: Corkscrew Grove East Village Annual Operating Revenue Projections Ad Valorem Taxes $ 6,437,000 Licenses & Permits 3,000 Inter -Governmental Revenues 6,000 State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion 283,000 State Sales Tax 1,160,000 Charges for Services 712,000 Fines & Forfeitures 10,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 4,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous 34,000 Indirect Service Charge 113,000 Transfers from Constitutional Officers 99,000 Reimburse from Other Departments 19,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues $ 8,880,000 IVISTU GENERAL FUND REVENUES At Ad Valorem Taxes $ Buildout 1,463,000 Licenses & Permits 6,000 Charges for Services 42,000 Fines & Forfeitures 3,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 4,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous 6,000 Communication Services Tax 55,000 Reimburse from Other Departments 11,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Revenues $ 1,590,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections Projected County annual operating expenditures at buildout are presented in Table 8. Corkscrew Grove East Village is expected to generate annual General Funds service demand of $5.9 million and $683,000 of MSTU General Fund service demand. The Appendix contains a detailed breakdown of operating costs by line -item category. 13 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 8: Corkscrew Grove East County Attorney $ 23,000 Other General Administration 67,000 Property Appraiser 79,000 Supervisor of Elections 51,000 Clerk of Courts 121,000 Sheriff Law Enforcement 2,523,000 Law Enforcement Paid by BCC 69,000 Detention & Corrections 126,000 Bailiffs 4,000 Tax Collector 154,000 Human Resources 37,000 Procurement Services 20,000 Emergency Management Division 65,000 Growth Mgt - Planning 20,000 Growth Mgt - Regulation 27,000 Circuit & County Court Judges 1,000 Public Defender 11,000 State Attorney 13,000 County Manager Operations 15,000 Office of Management & Budget 18,000 Facilities Management Division 147,000 Public Services Administration 4,000 Domestic Animal Services 85,000 Community and Human Services 84,000 Library 165,000 Parks & Recreation 329,000 Public Health 5,000 Transportation Mgt - Public Transit & NE 11,000 Transfer to 1001 Road & Bridge 362,000 Transfer to 1051 Court Administration 45,000 Transfer to 1060 MHz Radio System 9,000 Transfer to 3081 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap 126,000 Transfer to 4030 CATT Transit Enhance 51,000 Transfer to 4033 Transp Disadv 44,000 Transfer to 4050 EMS Fund 735,000 Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies 231,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures $ 5,877,000 14 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Other General Administration $ 31,000 Human Resources 8,000 Growth Mgt - Administration 5,000 Growth Mgt - Planning 31,000 Growth Mgt - Regulation 100,000 Communications Government & Public Affairs 37,000 Parks & Recreation 361,000 Transportation Mgt - Operations 40,000 Transportation Mgt - Landscaping 43,000 Transportation Mgt - Coastal Zone Management 4,000 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 23,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Expenditures $ 683,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally positive with respect to the County's Operating Impacts. Collier County Capital Impacts Collier County Capital Impacts bV Department Methodologies upon which the County's impact fees are based generally use the consumption or existing inventory replacement approach rather than an improvements -driven approach. For example, the County's Parks impact fee is calculated by dividing the existing inventory of park facilities, including land at current replacement value, by the existing population or relevant demand base. This methodology does not consider the timetable over which the existing facilities were acquired, available capacity within existing facilities, or long-range capital improvement plans with timetables for delivery of new facilities. Impact fee methodologies are typically designed to generate the maximum amount of impact fees a jurisdiction can legally assess. Impact fee calculations include a credit component to recognize future revenue streams which will be used to fund capital expansion and certain debt service payments. The credit component prevents new development from being charged twice for the same facility. The analyses of the General Funds and the MSTU General Fund account for these credits by recognizing capital outlays and applicable transfers (e.g., subsidized capital acquisition and capital fund debt service) as expenditures. This approach is very conservative because the associated expenditures include growth and non -growth -related capital outlays and capital fund subsidies. In comparison, the credit component of the impact fee calculation is limited to certain growth -related capital outlay and capital fund subsidies. The impact fee updates for Correctional Facilities and Parks were adopted in 2015, and the corresponding adopted rates have been indexed. EMS and Law Enforcement impact fee studies were updated in 2016, and the associated rates were adopted in 2017. The Road impact fee update was adopted in 2019 with new rates phased -in over a three-year period. Impact fee 15 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT updates for Roads, Parks, Law Enforcement, EMS, Correctional Facilities and Schools are currently underway. Over buildout, new development will be charged impact fees at rates enacted by the County at that time. The Economic Assessment model and future reports will be revised and reissued if the Board of County Commissioners adopts the impact fee updates and establishes new rates prior to hearing. The capital needs of the Corkscrew Grove East Village were discussed with the Collier County Sheriff, EMS, the Immokalee Fire Control District, and the School District. The capital analysis for these services was prepared in accordance with their input. When the achieved level of service ("LOS") for a particular public facility currently exceeds the adopted LOS, then the adopted LOS was applied in calculating demand to (1) recognize existing capacity and (2) avoid overstating demand. When the achieved LOS for a particular facility was less than the adopted LOS, then the achieved LOS was used when calculating demand to avoid charging new development for a higher LOS than provided to existing development. Data from the 2024 Audit Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities ("AUIR"), the most recent source available, was generally used to calculate the achieved LOS. Other inputs were obtained from the relevant impact fee studies. Projected impact fee collections for the facilities specified in LDC Section 4.08.07 L are reflected in Table 9. The County's impact fee schedule is included in the Appendix. Required Facility Analysis: Roads - Impact Fees $ 35,834,000 Regional Parks $ 9,246,000 Community Parks $ 3,242,000 Law Enforcement $ 2,258,000 Jail $ 1,898,000 EMS $ 543,000 Schools $ 28,671,000 Water N/A Wastewater N/A Immokalee Fire Control District $ 9,146,000 Note: Immokalee Water and Sewer District will provide water and wastewater services Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 16 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Collier County Road Capital Impacts Based on the results provided in the Traffic Impact Statement —Section 1, Road Segment Analysis (June 4, 2025) prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA, the Corkscrew Grove East Village is a significant traffic generator for the roadway network at this location and adversely impacts the following roadway segments: • SR 29 from 9t" St. to CR 29A North • SR 29 from Hendry County Line to SR 82 • SR 82 from Hendry County Line to SR 29 The Owner proposes to provide a transportation mitigation plan to stay consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Collier County's GMP. The Owner may be required to assist the County with potential capacity/operational improvements for the roadway segments that are significantly impacted by the project. A detailed evaluation of applicable access points will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting to determine turn lane requirements, as more accurate parameters will be made available. The Owner proposes to pay the applicable Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project. The Owner proposes to provide transportation commitments that will be incorporated into the Development Document for the project. The mitigation plan will include specific improvements to be undertaken, fair share contribution commitments where appropriate, and site related improvements. Site related improvements are addressed as development occurs. Concurrency Fair -Share Estimate Appendix L to the Traffic Impact Statement — Section 1 Road Segment Analysis contains the roadway proportionate share calculation for Corkscrew Grove which will be developed as a pair of SRA Villages. The project traffic's consumption of the projected added capacity is total traffic volume with project minus the unimproved service volume. The estimated roadway service volume in the improved condition uses the Collier County AUIR unimproved condition service volume multiplied by the ratio of LOS D service volumes shown in FDOT Generalized Service Volume Table 7 (Urban Condition, Class I Arterial, Appendix 1) between the improved and unimproved cross sections (product rounded to the nearest hundred). Ex ratios: • 2 lanes to 4 = 2,000/880 = 2.27 • 2 lanes to 6 = 3,020/880 = 3.43 • 4 lanes to 6 = 3,020/2,000 = 1.51 17 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT That ratio isolates the effect of the additional lanes while keeping all other factors affecting service volume constant. The effect of all those other factors is reflected in the County's published service volume in the unimproved condition and explains its relation to the average for all roads of like cross section. The Proportionate Fair share estimate allocable to Corkscrew Grove East Village is $24.9 million ($49.8 million cost for both Villages x 50 percent = $24.9 million allocable to East Village), which is less than the project's projected road impact fees of $35.8 million. The Owner proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project, as applicable. Operational Fair -Share Estimate Based on the results provided in the Traffic Impact Statement — Section 2, Intersection Analysis (August 29, 2025) prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA, an operational fair -share contribution is not required. Corkscrew Grove East Village Regional Parks Capital Impacts The County imposes separate impact fees for community and regional parks. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the County's Parks facilities are provided in the General Funds and MSTU Operating Impacts section. Regional Park capital impacts are presented in Table 10. Table 10: Corkscrew Grove East Village Regional Parks Capital Impacts Regional Park Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue $ 9,246,000 Other Capital Revenues* 481,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 9,727,000 Regional Park Indirect Capital Costs Indexed Land & Facility Cost per Acre $ 590,288 Regional Park Acres at Achieved LOS 16.67 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Regional Park Acres $ 9,840,000 Regional Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ (113,000) Community Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 177,000 Total Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ 64,000 *Included in the Collier County General Funds and MSTU expenditures analysis Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 The County's adopted LOS for Regional Parks is 2.70 acres per 1,000 peak population. County Staff recommended the application of an adjusted achieved LOS of 1.82 acres per 1,000 peak population for purposes of this analysis. 18 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 11: Corkscrew Grove East Village Regional Parks Level of Service • Regional Park Achieved LOS per County Staff 1.82 Corkscrew Grove East SRA Peak Seasonal Population 9,159 Corkscrew Grove East SRA Community Park Acreage 16.67 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 The indexed capital cost per Regional Park acre is calculated in Table 12. Land Purchase Cost per Acre $ 450,000 Landscaping, Site Preparation, and Irrigation Cost, per acre 40,000 Total Land Cost per Acre $ 490,000 Facility & Equipment Cost per Acre 43,634 Total Land & Facility Cost per Acre $ 533,634 Index 1.106 Indexed Cost per Acre $ 590,288 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Corkscrew Grove East Village Community Parks Capital Impacts Community Parks capital impacts are presented in Table 13. Table 13: Corkscrew Grove East Village Community Parks Capital Impacts Community Park Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue $ 3,242,000 Other Capital Revenues* 52,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 3,294,000 Community Park Indirect Capital Costs Indexed Land & Facility Cost per Acre Community Park Acres at Adopted LOS Corkscrew Grove East SRA Community Park Cost 283,638 10.99 $ 3,117, 000 Community Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ 177,000 Regional Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs (113,000) Total Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ 64,000 *Included in the Collier County General Funds and MSTU expenditures analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 The County's adopted LOS for Community Parks is 1.20 acres per 1,000 peak population, and the achieved LOS is 1.22 acres. As such, the adopted LOS was used to estimate the number of Community Park acres needed to serve Corkscrew Grove East Village. 19 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 14: Corkscrew Grove East Vil Parks Level of Service Community Park Adopted LOS Corkscrew Grove East SRA Peak Seasonal Population Corkscrew Grove East SRA Community Park Acreage Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 9,159 10.99 The indexed capital cost per Community Park acre is calculated in Table 15. Table 15: Corkscrew Grove East Vil Parks Level of Service Land Purchase Cost per Acre $ 107,000 Landscaping, Site Preparation, and Irrigation Cost, per acre 10,000 Total Land Cost per Acre $ 117,000 Facility & Equipment Cost per Acre 149,328 Total Land & Facility Cost per Acre $ 266,328 Index 1.065 Indexed Cost per Acre $ 283,638 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Collier County Law Enforcement Capital Impacts The Law Enforcement impact fee includes the capital construction and expansion of police service related to land facilities, and capital equipment required to support police service demand created by new growth. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the Law Enforcement facilities and equipment are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section. Direct capital impacts on Law Enforcement are presented in Table 16. Based on discussions with the Sheriff's office, a substation is needed to serve Corkscrew Grove East Village. Under the adopted impact fee methodology, Corkscrew Grove East Village will generate sufficient impact fee revenues to cover the direct impact of law enforcement facilities and equipment. 20 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 16: Corkscrew Grove East Village Law Enforcement Capital Impacts Law Enforcement Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue $ 2,258,000 Other Capital Revenues* 409,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 2,667,000 Law Enforcement Direct Capital Costs: New Substation - Square Feet 4,500 Cost per Sq Ft $ 470 Cost of New Substation 2,115,000 Law Enforcement Indirect Capital Costs 552,000 Law Enforcement Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ - *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Source Collier County, DPFG, 2025 The County's 2016 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study is based on a Certified Police Officer per Capita LOS, consistent with the County adopted standards at the time. Since then, the County has adopted a Facility Square Footage per Capita LOS. A new impact fee study incorporating this methodology is underway. The Economic Assessment model will be revised upon the adoption of a new Law Enforcement impact fee study. Collier County Correctional Facilities Capital Impacts The Correctional Facilities impact fee includes jail facilities (land and building) and equipment. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating correctional facilities and equipment are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section. Correctional Facilities capital impacts are presented in Table 17. Table 17: Corkscrew Grove East Village Correctional Facilities Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue $ 1,898,000 Other Capital Revenues* 104,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 2,002,000 Capital Cost (Land, Building, Vehicles, and Equipment) - indexed 2,002,000 Correctional Facilities Net Capital Impact $ - *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 The capital cost for correctional facilities is calculated below. 21 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 18: Corkscrew Grove East Vil ilities Caoital Cost Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) 0.83 1,279 1,062 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 1.81 2,848 5,152 Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft 2.34 283,500 663 Total Functional Population 6,877 Indexed Capital Cost per Functional Population $ 290.98 Total Capital Cost $ 2,002,000 Functional Population Coefficients obtained from the Collier County Correctional Impact Fee Study Update (2015) Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 The indexed capital cost per bed is calculated in Table 19. Table 19: Corkscrew Grove East Village Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost per Resident i;escription Figure Net Asset Value - Indexed $ 111,592,344 Number of Beds 1,304 Net Asset Value per Bed $ 85,577 Impact Fee LOS (Beds per 1,000 Functional Residents) 3.40 Asset Value per Functional Resident $ 290.98 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Collier County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Capital Impacts Emergency Medical Service ("EMS") for the project will be initially provided by Collier County Medic Station 32 which is co -located at the Fire District's Headquarters Station 32. If call volume and response time for the Corkscrew Grove East Village and the immediate area generate the need for an additional ambulance, Collier County EMS may choose to co -locate a medic facility at the new Immokalee Fire Control District station. For purposes of the Economic Assessment, it is assumed the space needed for a new ambulance will be leased at the highest annual rent as currently paid for similar space. The EMS level of service in the County's AUIR is approximately one unit (vehicle, equipment, station space) per 16,400 population; however, in addition to this metric, EMS also relies on demand factors such as response time and call volume to site new facilities. Call volume is affected by demographics in the service area. For example, nearly 60 percent of the County's ambulance fee collections are Medicare patients and 10 percent are Medicaid patients. Medicare payments are not based on charged rates, but rather 80 percent of what the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services determines to be allowable. Table 20 calculates the allocable cost of EMS equipment needed to serve the Corkscrew Grove East Village using a peak seasonal resident population approach. 22 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 20: Corkscrew Grove East Village EMS Capital Cost .. . EMS Direct Capital Costs: Equipment Cost $ 903,567 Level of Service Standard 16,400 Per Capita Cost $ 55.10 Peak Resident Population 9,159 EMS Direct Capital Costs $ 505,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Table 21 compares the allocable EMS equipment needs to the estimated impact fee revenues. Table 21: Corkscrew Grove East Village EMS Capital Impact ImpactI EMS Net Capital EMS Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue $ 543,000 Other Capital Revenues* 13,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 556,000 EMS Capital Cost: EMS Direct Equipment Cost $ 505,000 EMS Net Capital Revenues Available for EMS -Growth Related Capital Needs 51,000 Total Capital Cost $ 556,000 *Included in the Collier County General Funds net fiscal impact buildout analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Personnel and operating costs for staffing and operating a new ambulance, including rent, are allocated in Appendix Table 17 based on the level of service in the 2024 AUIR and the peak residential population of the Corkscrew Grove East Village. The calculated General Fund EMS Expenditure per demand unit was multiplied by 187 percent to recognize the additional EMS cost. For conservatism of this analysis, it is assumed the General Fund will subsize 100 percent of the cost, whereas the actual subsidy is generally around 55 percent. The Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Roads, Regional and Community Parks, Law Enforcement, Correctional Facilities, and EMS capital and operating impacts. Water and Wastewater The project site is located within the Immokalee Water and Sewer District ("IWSD") utility service area. Therefore, potable water and wastewater services for the Corkscrew Groves East Village project will be provided by IWSD. To address the potable water demands of the project, the following improvements are anticipated: 1. Regional Water Supply Facility: IWSD plans to construct a regional water supply facility on land currently owned by Alico Land Development Company and located just east of the SRA along the north side of SR 82. This facility will ensure an adequate potable water 23 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT supply for the development and comply with the Florida Administrative Code standards for Public Water Systems. 2. Distribution of Potable Water: Within the project boundaries, potable water distribution will be coordinated between the Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District and the IWSD. Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District will oversee the initial installation of distribution infrastructure. The proposed potable water system will comply with all regulatory requirements, including considerations for the disposal of any waste products generated by the water treatment process. The system will adhere to approved generation rates and design criteria to ensure compliance with Level of Service ("LOS") standards. Potable water demands, including Average Daily Demand ("ADD") and Maximum Daily Demand ("MDD"), will be calculated in coordination with IWSD and the relevant permitting agencies. The following improvements are anticipated to meet the wastewater demands of the project: 1. Wastewater Treatment Facility: IWSD plans to construct a regional wastewater treatment facility on property currently owned by Alico Land Development Company, located just east of the SRA along the north side of SR 82. This facility will treat wastewater generated by the development in compliance with the Florida Administrative Code standards for wastewater treatment systems exceeding 10,000 gallons per day. 2. Wastewater Collection and Transmission: Within the project boundaries, wastewater collection and transmission infrastructure will be coordinated between the Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District and IWSD. Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District will oversee the initial installation of the necessary gravity sewer lines, force mains, and lift stations. The proposed wastewater treatment system will adhere to all regulatory requirements, including the proper disposal of waste products generated during the treatment process. Wastewater flows, including Average Daily Flow ("ADF") and Peak Hourly Flow ("PHF"), will be calculated in coordination with IWSD and the appropriate permitting agencies to ensure compliance with Level of Service ("LOS") standards. The Owner/Developer will not be obligated to pay Collier County Water -Sewer District potable water and wastewater impact fees. Instead, applicable connection fees will be calculated and paid directly to IWSD. The Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County's Water and Wastewater capital and operating impacts. 24 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Stormwater Management Existing stormwater on the site is generated by the agricultural activities that have historically taken place and are currently permitted. Stormwater is collected through a network of internal ditches and canals, which route the runoff to the on -site Water Retention Areas ("WRAs") via pumps. Discharges from these WRAs are controlled through regulated control structures that limit offsite discharge rates. Offsite discharges flow into adjacent canals and/or culverts under Corkscrew Road, with the ultimate outfall directed into the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed ("CREW"). The proposed SRA encompasses three distinct areas: the property west of Corkscrew Road, the property north of SR 82, and the property east of Corkscrew Road and south of SR 82. The existing site has historically been used for agricultural row crops, primarily oranges and tomatoes. The site is composed of an intricate network of agricultural infrastructure, including dikes, impoundment areas known as WRAs, perimeter ditches, and berms. These perimeter berms effectively prevent external surface water from flowing onto the site, ensuring that no stormwater flows from surrounding properties are accepted. Within the site, stormwater runoff from the agricultural fields is collected in perimeter ditches. From there, agricultural pumps transfer the excess runoff into the WRAs. These WRAs are equipped with drainage structures that direct stormwater either into adjacent canals, through culverts under Corkscrew Road, or directly into the CREW lands. Two canals currently traverse the site, ultimately discharging into CREW. These canals, essential for stormwater conveyance from surrounding properties, will be preserved. One of these, Cabbage Slough, will be partially relocated within the site to accommodate the proposed development. This relocation will maintain the canal's current capacity and flow patterns, ensuring that surrounding hydrology is not adversely affected. The other canal, Gator Slough, will remain unaltered to preserve its existing functionality. All WRAs adjacent to the SRA will be integrated into the stormwater management system. Discharges into the WRAs will occur only after the required water quality treatment has been achieved. Stormwater discharge into the WRA will only occur through control structures permitted by the South Florida Water Management District ("SFWMD"). The Owner of Corkscrew East Village SRA will be responsible for all costs associated with the design, permitting, construction, and operation of the proposed stormwater improvements required to serve Corkscrew East Village development. The SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment provides additional information. The Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Stormwater Management capital and operating impacts. 25 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Irrigation Water The Corkscrew Groves project site has a long history of permitted agricultural withdrawals from the Lower Tamiami and Sandstone Aquifers that have not resulted in any known adverse impacts to natural environments. The agricultural water allocations currently permitted and used within the Corkscrew Groves project area total approximately 13.78 MGD on an annual average basis (5,028 MGY) and approximately 18.45 MGD on a maximum monthly basis (572 MGM). At build -out, the Corkscrew Groves project will result in converting approximately 1,447 acres of the currently permitted 3,100 acres of agricultural land into a residential development or about 47% of the currently permitted agricultural acreage. Prorating the currently permitted irrigation allocation to the 1,447 acres proposed for development yields an annual average day allocation of 6.48 MGD and a maximum month day allocation of 8.68 MGD for the proposed development area. The transition of agricultural use to residential/commercial use will result in approximately 432 acres of landscaping and turf within the Corkscrew Groves development requiring irrigation. The project irrigation demand for this amount of irrigated acreage as determined using the SFWMD Blaney-Criddle method is: • 1.44 MGD on an annual average basis or 524 MGY (78% reduction in current use) • 2.24 MGD on a maximum monthly basis or 68 MGM (74% reduction in current use) The proposed change in land use will result in a significant reduction in irrigation water usage at the project site. The Corkscrew Groves project will obtain a water use permit from the SFWMD which will allow withdrawal from onsite surface water and ground water sources to meet irrigation demands. The onsite irrigation water supply system will include stormwater lakes and wells. The lake system will be used to supply irrigation water for the project and wells will be utilized to resupply the withdrawal lakes when needed. The proposed source aquifers for the wells are the Lower Tamiami Aquifer and Sandstone Aquifer as currently permitted to meet the existing agricultural water demands on the project site. The lake withdrawals will provide an efficient and low impact method for effectively harvesting available stormwater supplies while lake storage and re -supply by groundwater will minimize potential impacts to both surface and groundwater levels. The Owner/Developer would be responsible for all costs associated with the permitting, construction, and maintenance of the irrigation system. The SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment provides additional information. The Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Irrigation Water capital and operating impacts. 26 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Solid Waste According to the Economic Assessment, the proposed SRA will increase the County's peak residential population by approximately 9,615 peak population persons at buildout for 4,502 total dwelling units, including 362 affordable housing units. Using a tons per capita rate of 0.70 (per the 2024 AUIR), a population increase of 9,615 people will generate an additional 6,730.5 tons disposed per year. Commercial solid waste and residential curbside solid waste, recycling, and horticulture will be collected with Collier County's franchise agreements by other franchise -approved haulers. Commercial recycling is open to market collection. Construction waste will be collected and processed by a local business specializing in the recycling of construction products. Collier County maintains a Board approved Disposal Capacity Agreement (DCA) with Okeechobee Landfill, Inc., that provides 930,000 tons of reserved capacity at Okeechobee Landfill. The waste generated and transferred to Okeechobee Landfill as part of the DCA is not included in the AUIR capacity LOS. Per the AUIR, for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the LOS Standard for capacity, it is assumed Collier County will renew, amend, or enter into a new agreement, as necessary, and continue to transfer. Commercial, municipal solid waste, and recycling containers will comply with Collier County ordinances. The project will utilize County -approved bear -resistant dumpsters/trash cans for all residential and non-residential uses, with locations of dumpsters being determined at the time of Site Development Plan ("SDP") approval. All costs, including maintenance, of bear -resistant dumpsters will be borne by the Owner/Developer. Revenues and expenses of the solid waste operations described above are accounted for in the County's Solid Waste Fund, a self-supporting enterprise fund. The Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County Solid Waste. COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT Collier County Schools Capital Impacts Three major sources of capital funds are available to Collier County Public Schools: the Capital Millage Tax, impact fees, capital outlay, and debt service. As shown in Table 22, the Capital Millage Tax has funded most of the School District's capital projects over the past 10 years. Over that period, the School District collected $1.4 billion in Annual Capital Millage Tax, and annual Capital Millage Tax revenue is projected to triple from $99.1 million in 2015-16 to over $311.0 million in 2028-29. The School District's capital revenues have provided $386.0 million in debt service funding, thereby positioning the School District to 27 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT be debt -free by 2026, and pay -go financing of Aubrey Rogers High School, Bear Creek Elementary School (the District's first new elementary school in 18 years), and the new elementary school in Ave Maria (scheduled to open in 2026). Table 22: CCPC Historical Enrollment and Capital Revenues 1 2015-16 2 2016-17 3 2017-18 4 2018-19 5 2019-20 6 2020-21 7 2021-22 8 2022-23 9 2023-24 10 2024-25 Net Change/Total Projected: 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Permanent Population 356,874 Student Membership MiddleCounty Elementary .. 42,748 Capital • .vement $ 99,171,443 School Impact $ 10,000,000 362,634 43,321 119,452,273 12,000,000 366,385 43,329 126,312,667 16,312,194 371,939 43,447 132,117,173 14, 000, 000 377,079 43,622 141,768,052 14,000,000 385,980 41,208 150,062,073 23,918,248 390,912 41,665 121,221,683 15,600,000 404,310 42,256 155,853,979 26,152,692 408,381 42,477 183,473,411 22,640,130 413,300 42,550 186, 718, 691 19, 000, 000 56,426 (198) $ 1,416,151,445 $ 173,623,264 $ 260,439,696 $ 275,117,472 $ 293,829,264 $ 310,913,136 Partial Uses of Capacity -Adding Capital Revenues Reduce Outstanding Debt FY 2016-2024 Reduce Outstanding Debt FY 2025 Reduce Outstanding Debt FY 2026 Aubrey Rogers High School (2023) Bear Creek Elementary School (2025) Elementary Q (Ave Maria) (2026) Partial Uses of Capacity -Adding Capital Revenues $ 279,223,924 70,800,000 36,000,000 100,000,000 83,000,000 80,000,000 $ 649,023,924 (1) Month 2 Monthly Membership Report (2) Amounts obtained from Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports and the 2024-25 Work Plan. Italized amounts obtained from Adopted Budgets as they were not separately reported in the ACFR Source: Collier County, Collier County Public Schools, DPFG, 2025 From 2015-16 to 2024-25, the County added over 56,000 new permanent residents, but enrollment in School District elementary, middle, and high schools remained flat. As a result, the student generation rate per housing unit has declined considerably. According to the CCPC Capital Improvement Plan Fiscal Years 2025 through 2044, a robust housing market is expected in Collier County through 2028; however public school enrollment at brick and mortar schools is projected to remain steady. Factors moderating school enrollment during this growth period include the increase of charter school capacity and an expansion of the private school voucher program. As shown in Table 23, over 4,178 new charter school student stations have been added in the District over the past 10 years. 28 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 23: Collier Countv Charter School Student Stations 1 Marco Island Charter Middle 2 Immokalee Community Academy 3 Marco Island Charter High 4 Gulf Coast Charter Academy South 5 Mason Classical Academy 6 Collier Charter Academy 7 BridgePrep of Collier 8 Naples Classical Acadmey 9 Optima Clasical Academy (Virtual Enrolled) Total Increase in Charter School Capacity 2014-15 to 1998 1 470 470 2000 300 300 2011 350 350 2013 336 701 2014 564 1,500 2017 - 1,145 2018 1,000 2021 1,000 L2 - 97 2,020 6,563 2024-25 4,178 Source: Collier County Public Schools, DPFG, 2025 Current school impact fees were adopted in 2015 based on the Collier County School Impact Fee Update Study (June 23, 2015) and were subsequently indexed based on the 2017 Indexing Calculations prepared by the County's impact fee consultant. A school impact fee update is currently underway, and new school impact fees may be adopted before the end of 2025. Certain methodology and policy decisions are made by the Board of County Commissioners during the adoption of legally defensible impact fees. The new impact fees will take into consideration the decline in student generation rate, available capacity in existing schools, the significant increase in new school construction costs, the F.S. 1013.64(b) statutory cost caps, and the substantial increase in Capital Millage Tax available to fund new schools. It is beyond the scope of this analysis to calculate a legally defensible school impact fee. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed the School District will continue to rely on Capital Millage Tax for new school construction costs, and new development will be charged impact fees at rates enacted by the County at that time. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment model and report will be revised and reissued when the Board of County Commissioners adopts the impact fee update and establishes new rates. Corkscrew Grove East Village's estimated demand for student stations is projected in Table 24 based on student generation rates in the 2015 School Impact Fee Update, the most recent adopted data available. Table 24: Corkscrew Grove East Vil ected Public School Enrollment Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 0.11 141 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 0.34 968 Total Market Rate Residential 4,127 1,109 Source: Collier County School District, DPFG, 2025 29 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Projected enrollment by school type and 2028-29 available capacity in Planning Zone 6 is shown in Table 25. Table 25: Corkscrew Grove East Village Projected Enrollment by School Type Planning Zone 6 Projected 2028-29 SchoolType Students Percent Avail Capacity Elementary 517 47% 830 Middle 240 22% 455 High 352 32% 448 Total 1,109 100% 1,733 Source: Collier County School District, DPFG, 2025 The property owners of Corkscrew Grove East Village have reserved approximately 24.0 acres for a dedicated School Site, as depicted on the SRA Master Plan. A stipulation to the development order requires the Owner to convey real property for the School Site (public elementary school) in exchange for educational impact fee credits. The proposed stipulation states, "With respect to the conveyance of real property, by the Applicant to the School District, the School Reservation of the School Site to the School District fully mitigates for the development's impact to the elementary, middle and high schools needed to serve Corkscrew Grove East Village." Projected school impact fee revenue is shown in Table 26. Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 $ 2,844.19 $ 3,638,000 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 $ 8,789.54 25,033,000 Total School Impact Fees 4,127 $ 28,671,000 Source: Collier County Public Schools, DPFG, 2025 As shown in Table 27, capital revenues consist primarily of ad valorem taxes and impact fees. The FY 2025 Capital Outlay Millage, which is determined locally by the School Board within parameters established by the State Legislature, is 1.1332 mills (subject to cap of 1.50 mills). The County voters approved a referendum in 2020 allowing the School District to reduce the Capital Outlay millage by 0.35 mills for four years and levy that millage for operating purposes. 30 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 27: Corkscrew Grove East Vil School Capital Revenues: School Impact Fee Revenue School District Capital Tax Revenue Total School Capital Revenues Direct School Capital Expenditures Net School Capital Expenditures Source: Collier County Public Schools, DPFG, 2025 $ 28,671,000 $ - $ 28,671,000 - 38,664,000 38,664,000 $ 28,671,000 $ 38,664,000 $ 67,335,000 67,335,000 Collier County Schools Operating Impacts The Florida Legislature establishes the school operating millage based on the General Appropriations Act. Legislative committees meet to debate continuing and new initiatives in education and set a budget based on these results within the General Appropriations Act. The State budget determines the Required Local Effort Millage ("RLE") for each school district. The RLE is the amount of funding that each district provides annually towards the cost of the Florida Education Finance Program ("FEFP"). The aggregate RLE for all school districts is prescribed by the Legislature as a specific line item in the annual General Appropriations Act. The Commissioner of Education is also authorized to adjust the millage rate to make sure no school district's RLE exceeds 90 percent of that district's total FEFP entitlement. The Legislature establishes a per student funding amount which is based upon the local authorities taxing of both the RLE and the 0.748 discretionary tax millage. According to the School District, the school tax millage for Collier County is much lower than the statewide average and typically ranks within the four lowest of all Florida school districts. A comparison of the School District's millage history is shown in Figure 1. 31 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Figure 1: Collier County School District Millage History School District Millage History 6.000 S.580 5.480 5.245 5.122 5.049 5.083 5.016 4.889 S•000 4.459 4.292 4.313 4.000 3.332 3.232 2.997 2.894 2.821 2.835 2.768 2.641 " 3.000 m ■ ° 2.211 2.248 2.231 2.000 2.248 2.248 2.248 2.228 2.228 2.248 2.248 2.248 2.248 2,044 2.082 1.000 0.000 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-2S -. -Required State Law Discretionary Millage + -Total Millage Source: Collier County Public Schools, 2025 Because the Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through a series of statewide equalization formulas, most fiscal analysts do not attempt to model school operating impacts. An estimate of local ad valorem school operating revenues is shown in Table 28. Table 28: Corkscrew Grove East Village Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout Ad Valorem Local Millage - Residential 3.1800 $ 6,718,000 Ad Valorem Local Millage - Non Residential 3.1800 269,000 Ad Valorem Local Millage Revenues $ 6,987,000 Ad Valorem Local Millage Operating Expenditures $ 6,987,000 Ad Valorem Local Millage Net Revenues $ - Source: Collier County Public Schools, DPFG, 2025 The Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally neutral respect to the Collier County School District. 32 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Immokalee Fire Control District Immokalee Fire Control District Capital Impact The Corkscrew Grove East Village is located within the service area of the Immokalee Fire Control District ("Fire District"). Fire service for the project will be initially provided by the District's Headquarters Station 32 in Ave Maria. However, a new fire station may be needed to serve the project at buildout. A stipulation to the development order requires the Owner to convey real property of approximately 3.0 acres for a Fire and co -located EMS station in exchange for fire impact fee credits and/or cash. The proposed stipulation states, "With respect to the conveyance of real property by the Applicant to the Fire District, the Fire Reservation of the Fire Site to the Fire District fully mitigates for the development's impact to the Fire/EMS facilities needed to serve the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA." Capital impacts are shown in Table 29 and reflect the cost of a new fire station and the related vehicles and equipment. Capital costs are fully funded by impact fee and other capital revenues and an assumed one-time allocation of the annual net operating surplus generated by the project. Table 29: Corkscrew Grove East Village Immokalee Fire Control District Capital Impact Impact Fee Revenue: Impact Fee Revenue Other Capital Revenue Total Capital Revenue New Station, Vehicles, and Equipment New Fire Station Sq. Ft. Construction Cost per Sq. Ft. Construction Cost Land Value New Station Total Land and Building Vehicles and Equipment Engine and Equipment Ladder Truck and Equipment Attack Truck and Equipment Water Tender and Equipment Total Vehicles and Equipment Total New Station, Vehicles and Equipment 12,000 $ 700 $ 8,400,000 120,000 $ 9,146,000 1,016,000 $ 10,162,000 $ 8,520,000 $ 1,219,000 1,767,000 243,000 572,000 3,801,000 $ 12,321,000 One -Time Capital Revenue Excess (Deficiency) over Capital Cost (2,159,000) One -Time Allocation of Excess Annual Operating Surplus 2,159,000 Net Capital Impact $ - Source: Immokalee Fire Control District, DPFG, 2025 33 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Projected impact fee revenues are presented in Table 30 and total $9.1 million. The adopted rates are based on the 2023 Impact Fee Update Study. Table 30: Corkscrew Grove East Village Immokalee Fire Control Impact Fee Revenues Residential 4,127 9,548,725 $ 0.94 $ 8,975,802 Commercial 283,500 283,500 $ 0.60 170,100 Total $ 9,145,902 Source: Immokalee Fire Control District, DPFG, 2025 The square footage of the Project at buildout is provided in Table 31. Table 31: Corkscrew Grove East Vil Multi -Family Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) Single -Family Detached Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. Total Residential Non Residential Source: Mr. Mike Timmerman, CRE, DPFG, 2025 784 1,900 1,489, 600 210 1,430 300,300 157 1,525 239,425 128 1,925 246,400 1,279 2,275,725 1,073 2,200 2,360,600 908 2,700 2,451,600 784 2,800 2,195,200 83 3,200 265,600 2,848 7,273,000 4,127 9,548, 725 283,500 283,500 Immokalee Fire Control District Annual Operating Impacts Operating expenditures to support a new fire station are estimated in Table 32. Because the current operating millage of the Immokalee Fire Control District is geared to much lower density development, the Corkscrew Grove East Village is projected to generate significant annual operating surpluses for the Fire Control District. 34 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 32: Corkscrew Grove East Vil Annual General Fund Revenue Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Ad Valorem Tax Base $ 2,137,928,000 Immokalee Fire District Control Millage Rate 1 3.75 Annual Ad Valorem Revenue $ 8,017,000 $ 8,017,000 FY 2025 Annual General Fund Expenditures Personnel $ 7,204,911 Operating 1,468,658 Total Annual Personnel and Operating Costs $ 8,673,569 Square Feet per Facility Station 30 Station 31 Station 32 Headquarters Logistics Building Total Square Feet Annual Operating Cost per Square Foot New Station Square Feet New Station Annual Operating Expenditures 12,884 12,000 23,988 5,156 54,028 $ 160.54 12,000 $ 1,926,000 Estimated Ongoing Annual Surplus $ 6,091,000 One -Time Capital Cost (Not Covered by Capital Revenue) (2,159,000) Estimated Annual Surplus after One -Time Capital Cost $ 3,932,000 Source: Immokalee Fire Control District, DPFG, 2025 at Buildout The Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally positive with respect to the Immokalee Fire Control District. 35 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT APPENDIX Appendix Table 1: Collier County Base Assumptions COLLIER COUNTY STUDY PERIOD FY 2025 County Budget Year COLLIER COUNTYWIDE POPULATION 413,300 2025 County Permanent Population -Collier County 2024 AUIR 1.2084 Seasonal Population Coefficient - Collier County 499,426 2025 County Peak Seaonal Population - Collier County 2024 AUIR 86,126 2025 County Peak Seasonal Population COLLIER COUNTYWIDE EMPLOYMENT 283,739 Woods & Poole 2025 Employment 0.8897602 FTE Conversion Factor - IMPLAN 252,460 2025 In -Place FTE Employment COLLIER COUNTY PEAK TOURIST POPULATION 266,200 Collier County CVB Profile - March 2024 8,587 Peak Daily Tourists COLLIER COUNTYWIDE POPULATION AND JOBS 665,760 County Permanent Population and Jobs 751,886 County Peak Seasonal Population and Jobs 760,473 County Peak Seasonal Population, Tourists, and Jobs COLLIER UNINCORPORATED COUNTY POPULATION 376,216 2025 Unincorporated County Permanent Population -Collier County 2024 AUIR 1.2082 Seasonal Unincorporated Population Coefficient - Collier County 454,553 2025 Unincorporated County Peak Seaonal Population - Collier County 2024 AUIR 78,337 2025 Unincorporated County Peak Seasonal Population COLLIER COUNTY UNINCORPORATED EMPLOYMENT 229,808 Allocation basis consistent with prior years. COLLIER COUNTY UNINCORPORATED POPULATION AND JOBS 606,024 County Permanent Population and Jobs 684,361 lCounty Peak Seasonal Population and Jobs COLLIER COUNTY MILLAGE RATES FY 2025 3.0107 County General Fund 0.0246 Water Pollution Control 0.2096 Conservation Collier Program 3.2449 County Wide Millage 0.6844 MSTU General Fund COLLIER COUNTY MILLAGE RATES FY 2025 0.2096 Conservation Collier Program Disclosure Only COLLIER COUNTY % HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION Shimberg Center for Housing Studies - 2024 Final Tax Roll Year 67% Single Family 35% Condominium 0% Rental Apartments $ 50,000 County Homestead Exemption $ 25,000 School Homestead Exemption Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 36 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT dix Table 2: Corkscrew Grove East Village Resident Population and Seasonal Population Coefficients Residential (Units) Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1.04 1.21 1.26 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2.19 1.21 2.65 Source: Collier County 2016 EMS Impact Fee Update, DPFG, 2025 Appendix Table 3: Corkscrew Grove East Village Population and Employment Estimates Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. Total Market Rate Residential Affordable Housing Units Tota Housing Units Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft Total Non -Residential Civic/Institutional Grand Total Non -Residential (sf) Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Appendix Table 4: Corkscrew Grove East 1,279 1.26 1,612 1.04 1,334 2,848 2.65 7,547 2.19 6,246 4,127 9,159 7,580 362 283,500 2.50 95% 673 283,500 673 70,000 353,500 673 Population and Employment Summ Permanent Population 7,580 Residential Seasonal Population 9,159 Employment 673 Permanent Population and Jobs 8,253 Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 9,832 Residential Seasonal Population, Tourists, and Employment 9,832 Public School Enrollment 1,109 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 37 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT dix Table 5: Corkscrew Grove East Village Public School Enrollment Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 0.11 141 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 0.34 968 Total Market Rate Residential 4,127 1,109 Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2025 dix Table 6: Corkscrew Grove East Village Countv Tax Base Multi -Family Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) Single -Family Detached Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. Total Market Rate Residential Non -Residential Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft 784 $ 416,699 $ 326,692,000 210 $ 271,939 57,107,000 157 $ 320,819 50,369,000 128 $ 367,819 47,081,000 1,279 $ 481,249,000 1,073 $ 483,357 $ 518,642,000 908 $ 567,957 515,705,000 784 $ 614,957 482,126,000 83 $ 671,357 55,723,000 2,848 $ 1,572,196,000 4,127 $ 2,053,445,000 283,500 $ 298 $ 84,483,000 Total Non -Residential 283,500 $ 84,483,000 Total Tax Base $ 2,137,928,000 Source: Mr. Mike Timmerman, CRE, Collier County, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2025 38 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT dix Table 7: Corkscrew Grove East Villaee School District Tax Base Multi -Family Type 1 784 $ 425,490 $ 333,584,000 Type 2 210 $ 280,730 58,953,000 Type 3 157 $ 329,610 51,749,000 Type 4 128 $ 376,610 48,206,000 Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 $ 492,492,000 Single -Family Detached Type 1 1,073 $ 500,179 $ 536,692,000 Type 2 908 $ 584,779 530,979,000 Type 3 784 $ 631,779 495,315,000 Type 4 83 $ 688,179 57,119,000 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 $ 1,620,105,000 Total Market Rate Residential 4,127 $ 2,112,597,000 Non -Residential Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft 283,500 $ 298 $ 84,483,000 Total Non -Residential 283,500 $ 84,483,000 Total Tax Base $ 2,197,080,000 Source: Mr. Mike Timmerman, CRE, Collier County, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2025 39 Summaries $ 458,429,200 $ 241,500 $ 491,000 $ 16,438,800 $ 63,275,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 19,103,200 46,400 3,167,200 35,146,800 57,463,600 47,800 $ 340,800 $ 1,613,200 $ 9,096,600 70,700 500 469,600 649,700 $ 146,698,800 $ 7,600,000 $ 20,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,459,100 $ 726,755,000 (28,536,400) $ 698,218,600 20,000 20,000 20,000 542,300 542,300 542,300 172,000 218,400 (2,400) 216,000 15,194,800 18,902,800 (161,900) 18,740,900 266,452,100 266,452,100 266,452,100 10,521,700 1,313,300 11,835,000 11,835,000 35,796,500 35,796,500 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 0001 General Fund 0002 AH Impact Fee Deferral Program 0003 Emergency Relief 0004 Economic Development 0011 Clerk of Circuit Court 0040 Sheriff 0060 Property Appraiser 0070 Tax Collector 0080 Supervisor of Elections Total General Fund Grouping Revenues 1011 Unincorporated Area General Fund 0001 General Fund 0002 AH Impact Fee Deferral Program 0003 Emergency Relief 0004 Economic Development 0011 Clerk of Circuit Court 0040 Sheriff 0060 Property Appraiser 0070 Tax Collector 0080 Supervisor of Elections Total General Fund Grouping Revenues 1011 Unincorporated Area General Fund $ 12,982,800 $ 3,800,000 $ 16,000 $ 200,000 $ 388,500 $ 740,100 $ 88,579,100 $ (3,760,400) $ 84,818,700 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 40 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 9: FY 2025 Collier County General Funds Revenue Demand Units General Fund Grouping Revenue Category Ad Valorem Taxes Licenses & Permits Inter -Governmental Revenues State Revenue Sharing - Fixed Portion State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion State Sales Tax Fed Payment in Lieu of Taxes Charges for Services Fines & Forfeitures Miscellaneous Revenues Interest/ Miscellaneous Indirect Service Charge Carry Forward Transfers from General Fund (001) Transfers from Constitutional Officers Other Transfers Advance/Repay Reimburse from Other Departments Total Budget $ 458,429,200 Demand Base CUMULATIVE AV Multiplier 1.00 Demand N/A p:emana N/A 241,500 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 665,760 $ 0.36 491,000 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 665,760 $ 0.74 1,036,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 15,402,000 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 37.27 63,275,000 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 153.10 1,250,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 57,463,600 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 665,760 $ 86.31 518,500 PEAKPOP 1.00 499,426 $ 1.04 341,300 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 665,760 $ 0.51 2,732,500 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 665,760 $ 4.10 9,096,600 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 665,760 $ 13.66 147,433,100 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 297,500,100 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 7,600,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 751,886 $ 10.11 1,333,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 250,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 1 1,459,100 1PEAKPOP&JOBS 1 1.00 1 751,886 1 $ 1.94 1 $ 1,065,853,600 1 1 1 1$ 309.14 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2025 Appendix Table 10: FY 2025 Collier County MSTU Revenue Demand Units GroupingGeneral Fund Ad Valorem Taxes Licenses & Permits Charges for Services Fines & Forfeitures Miscellaneous Revenues Interest/ Miscellaneous Carry Forward Communication Services Tax Special Assessments Transfers from General Fund (001) Transfers from Constitutional Officers Other Transfers Advance/Repay Reimburse from Other Departments Total $ 66,045,800 Demand CUMULATIVE AV 1.00 N/A N/A 412,800 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 606,024 $ 0.68 3,087,300 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 606,024 $ 5.09 220,000 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 606,024 $ 0.36 295,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 0.43 390,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 0.57 12,982,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 3,800,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 5.55 16,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A - FIXED 1.00 - N/A 200,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 388,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A - IFIXED 1.00 - N/A 740,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 1.08 $ 88,579,100 $ 13.76 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2025 41 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT General Funds Revenue at Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV $ 3.0107 $ 6,437,000 Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0.36 3,000 Inter -Governmental Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0.74 6,000 State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion PERMPOP $ 37.27 283,000 State Sales Tax PERMPOP $ 153.10 1,160,000 Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS $ 86.31 712,000 Fines & Forfeitures PEAKPOP $ 1.04 10,000 Miscellaneous Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0.51 4,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous PERMPOP&JOBS $ 4.10 34,000 Indirect Service Charge PERMPOP&JOBS $ 13.66 113,000 Transfers from Constitutional Officers PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 10.11 99,000 Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 1.94 19,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues $ 309.14 $ 8,880,000 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2025 MSTU Revenue at Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV $ 0.6844 $ 1,463,000 Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0.68 6,000 Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS $ 5.09 42,000 Fines & Forfeitures PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0.36 3,000 Miscellaneous Revenues PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.43 4,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.57 6,000 Communication Services Tax PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 5.55 55,000 Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 1.08 11,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Revenues $ 13.76 $ 1,590,000 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2025 42 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 0001 General Fund 0002 Impact Fee Deferral Program 0003 Emergency Relief 0007 Economic Development 0011 Clerk of Circuit Court 0040 Sheriff 0060 Property Appraiser 0070 Tax Collector 0080 Supervisor of Elections Summaries $ 57,775,700 $ 53,775,200 $ 100,000 $ 3,230,600 $ 10,200,500 $ 11,356,800 149,400 56,000 10,600 13,917,100 3,441,400 262,400 213,395,800 47,017,100 6,039,200 9,178,600 2,616,400 40,000 17,404,100 3,339,500 2,480,600 3,298,900 2,002,600 30,000 0001 General Fund $ 323,224,600 $ 160,992,400 77,562,800 $ 698,218,600 $ 125,082,000 0002 Impact Fee Deferral Program 20,000 20,000 - 0003 Emergency Relief 542,300 542,300 - 0007 Economic Development 216,000 216,000 0011 Clerk of Circuit Court 1,120,000 18,740,900 17,620,900 0040 Sheriff 266,452,100 266,452,100 0060 Property Appraiser 11,835,000 11,835,000 0070 Tax Collector 12,572,300 35,796,500 23,224,200 0080 Supervisor of Elections 5,331,500 5,331,500 1011 Unincorporated Area General Fund $ 2,279,500 $ 35,407,400 $ 6,187,700 $ 84,818,700 $ 40,944,100 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 43 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 14: FY 2025 Collier County Expenditure Budget Summaries buaget 0001 General Fund $ 698,218,600 0002 Utility Impact Fee Deferral Program 20,000 0003 Emergency Disaster 542,300 0004 Economic Development 216,000 0011 Clerk of Circuit Court 18,740,900 0040 Sheriff 266,452,100 0060 Property Appraiser 11,835,000 0070 Tax Collector 35,796,500 0080 Supervisor of Elections 5,331,500 Total General Fund Groupings $ 1,037,152,900 General Fund Groupings $ 449,761,700 Special Revenue Funds 278,884,400 Capital Funds - Enterprise Funds 68,414,700 Internal Service Funds 118,394,800 Trust and Agency Funds 84,200 Transfers and Reserves 232,707,200 Total Operating Services, Excluding Public Utilities $ 1,148,247,000 Board of County Commissioners $ 25,789,500 Constitutional Officers 351,914,300 Corporate Business Operations Department 153,104,600 Public Safety 94,921,800 Growth Management Community Development 210,823,600 Court Related Agencies 7,041,300 Office of the County Manager 129,404,900 Public Services Department 74,844,400 Transportation Management Services 100,402,600 Total Operating Budget Before Public Utilities $ 1,148,247,000 Public Utilities 401,592,400 Grand Total Total Operating Budget $ 1,549,839,400 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 44 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 15: FY 2025 Collier County Aoorooriations by Proeram Budeet Summaries Board of County Commissioners $ 1,625,300 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,625,300 $ 1,625,300 County Attorney 3,526,600 193,000 - - - - - 3,719,600 3,526,600 Other General Administration 16,831,200 3,613,400 - - - - - 20,444,600 7,264,300 Property Appraiser 12,105,100 - - - - - - 12,105,100 12,105,100 Supervisor of Elections 5,507,800 - - - - - - 5,507,800 5,507,800 Clerk of Courts 18,506,200 - - - - - 1,120,000 19,626,200 18,506,200 Sheriff 271,823,100 3,989,100 - - - - 2,706,700 278,518,900 271,823,100 Tax Collector 23,584,000 - - - - - 12,572,300 36,156,300 23,584,000 Corporate Business Operations Administration 541,300 - - - - - - 541,300 541,300 Human Resources 5,728,200 532,900 - - - - - 6,261,100 5,728,200 Information Technology - - - - 19,343,000 - 3,438,500 22,781,500 - Procurement Services 3,049,900 - - - - - - 3,049,900 3,049,900 Risk Management Division - - - - 83,286,400 - 37,184,400 120,470,800 - Emergency Management Division 5,073,400 2,798,100 - - - - 613,100 8,484,600 5,044,600 Emergency Services & Fire District Grants - 7,542,300 - - - - 9,364,700 16,907,000 - Emergency Medical Services EMS - - - 52,283,800 - - 11,414,400 63,698,200 - Fire Districts - 4,920,800 - - - - 911,200 5,832,000 - GrowthMgt- Administration - 12,501,200 - - - - - 12,501,200 - GrowthMgt- Planning 1,525,200 6,563,100 - - - - - 8,088,300 1,525,200 Growth Mgt - Regulation 2,058,100 32,606,900 - - - - 710,500 35,375,500 2,058,100 Growth Mgt- Housing Policy and Econ Development 1,486,000 1,671,800 - - - - 2,310,800 5,468,600 981,200 Growth Mgt - Econ Development and Innovation Zones - 7,296,800 - - - - 12,701,800 19,998,600 - GrowthMgt- Conservation Collier - 44,258,000 - - - 84,200 61,166,400 105,508,600 - Growth Mgt - Reserves and Transfers - - - - - - 23,882,800 23,882,800 Court Administration - 3,514,800 - - - - 488,800 4,003,600 - Circuit & County Court Judges 71,700 - - - - - - 71,700 71,700 Public Defender 486,800 - - - - - - 486,800 486,800 State Attorney 730,000 - - - - - - 730,000 730,000 Guardian Ad Litem Program 4,600 - - - - - - 4,600 4,600 Court Related Technology - 1,630,800 - - - - 113,800 1,744,600 - County Manager Operations 2,319,100 - - - - - - 2,319,100 2,319,100 Office of Management & Budget 2,823,700 1,179,300 - - - - 1,284,100 5,287,100 2,823,700 Communications Government & Public Affairs - 2,542,500 - - - - - 2,542,500 - PelicanBayServices - 5,944,200 - - - - 2,224,800 8,169,000 - Dori Slosberg Driver Education - 193,000 - - - - 82,600 275,600 - Corporate Compliance & Continous Improvement 831,800 - - - - - - 831,800 831,800 Tourist Development Council - 26,089,000 - - - - 15,246,600 41,335,600 - Sports & Special Events Complex - 8,213,100 - - - - 2,244,900 10,458,000 - Bayshore CRA - 4,400,800 - - - - 8,269,100 12,669,900 - Immokalee CRA - 1,861,200 - - - - 1,980,400 3,841,600 - Fleet Management - - - - 15,765,400 - 902,600 16,668,000 - facilities Management Division 22,471,200 90,400 - - - - 2,445,100 25,006,700 22,471,200 Public Services Administration 420,500 - - - - - - 420,500 420,500 Operations and Veteran Services 2,721,300 - - - - - - 2,721,300 2,721,300 Domestic Animal Services 4,736,000 329,500 - - - - 8,200 5,073,700 4,636,000 Community and Human Services 9,182,200 2,692,900 - - - - 617,900 12,493,000 9,182,200 Library 8,987,300 285,400 - - - - 522,600 9,795,300 8,987,300 Museum - 2,861,000 - - - - 42,200 2,903,200 - Parks & Recreation 17,930,400 19,438,500 - - - - 1,516,800 38,885,700 17,930,400 Public Health 1,490,200 - - - - - - 1,490,200 1,490,200 University Extension Service 1,005,000 43,200 - - - - 13,300 1,061,500 1,005,000 Transportation Mgt - Operations - 33,495,000 - - - - 1,303,800 34,798,800 - TransportationMgt- landscaping - 3,018,800 - - - - - 3,018,800 - TransportationMgt- Stormwater Operations - 11,631,900 - - - - 252,400 11,884,300 - Transportation Mgt- Water Pollution Control - 4,157,600 - - - - 2,555,300 6,712,900 - TransportationMgt- Coastal Zone Management - 1,328,600 - - - - 161,800 1,490,400 - TransportationMgt- Airport Operations - - - 9,128,300 - - 2,195,200 11,323,500 - Transportation Mgt- Public Transit & NE 578,500 - - 7,002,600 - - 1,203,400 8,784,500 578,500 Tra nsportation Mgt -MPO - 11,700 - - - - - 11,700 - Transportation Mgt- Improvements Districts & MSTU - 15,443,800 - - - - 6,933,900 22,377,700 - Total $ 449,761,700 $ 278,884,400 $ - $ 68,414,700 $ 118,394,800 $ 84,200 $ 232,707,200 $ 1,148,247,000 $ 439,561,200 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 45 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appenaix i ame 1b: rr cucs comer county t enerai DepartmentDemand Board of County Commissioners Tunas txpenaiture $ 1,625,300 uemana units Base FIXED Multiplier 1.00 Base Demand - Demand N/A County Attorney 3,526,600 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 2.35 Other General Administration 7,264,300 PERMPOP 0.50 413,300 $ 8.79 Property Appraiser 12,105,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 8.05 Supervisor of Elections 5,507,800 PERMPOP 0.50 413,300 $ 6.66 Clerk of Courts 18,506,200 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 12.31 Sheriff Law Enforcement 195,143,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 760,473 $ 256.61 Law Enforcement Paid by BCC 5,371,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 760,473 $ 7.06 Detention & Corrections 64,783,800 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 0.15 760,473 $ 12.78 Bailiffs 6,525,300 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 0.05 760,473 $ 0.43 Tax Collector 23,584,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 15.68 Corporate Business Operations Administration 541,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Human Resources 5,728,200 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 3.81 Procurement Services 3,049,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 2.03 Emergency Management Division 5,044,600 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 760,473 $ 6.63 Growth Mgt - Planning 1,525,200 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 751,886 $ 2.03 Growth Mgt - Regulation 2,058,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 751,886 $ 2.74 Growth Mgt - Housing Policy and Econ Developmen 981,200 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Circuit & County Court Judges 71,700 PEAKPOP 1.00 499,426 $ 0.14 Public Defender 486,800 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 1.18 State Attorney 730,000 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 1.77 Guardian Ad Litem Program 4,600 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 0.01 County Manager Operations 2,319,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 1.54 Office of Management & Budget 2,823,700 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 1.88 Corporate Compliance & Continous Improvement 831,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Facilities Management Division 22,471,200 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 14.94 Public Services Administration 420,500 PERMPOP 0.50 413,300 $ 0.51 Operations and Veteran Services 2,721,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Domestic Animal Services 4,636,000 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 11.22 Community and Human Services 9,182,200 PERMPOP 0.50 413,300 $ 11.11 Library 8,987,300 PEAKPOP 1.00 499,426 $ 18.00 Parks & Recreation 17,930,400 PEAKPOP 1.00 499,426 $ 35.90 Public Health 1,490,200 PERMPOP 0.20 413,300 $ 0.72 University Extension Service 1,005,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transportation Mgt - Public Transit & NE 578,500 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 1.40 General Funds Grouping Totals Less Remittances $ 439,561,200 Remittances 10,200,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A General Funds Grouping Totals Plus Remittances $ 449,761,700 Transfer to 1001 Road & Bridge 27,675,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 751,886 $ 36.81 Transfer to 1051 Court Administration 2,401,700 PEAKPOP 1.00 499,426 $ 4.81 Transfer to 1060 MHz Radio System 1,323,700 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 0.50 760,473 $ 0.87 Transfer to 3081 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap 9,660,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 751,886 $ 12.85 Transfer to 4030 CATT Transit Enhance 2,761,600 PEAKPOP 1.00 499,426 $ 5.53 Transfer to 4033 Transp Disadv 2,380,400 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 5.76 Transfer to 4050 EMS Fund 30,421,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.87 760,473 $ 74.76 Other Transfers 86,030,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers to General Fund 1001 20,000 FIXED 1.00 N/A Advance/Repayments 11,356,800 FIXED 1.00 N/A Restricted for Unfunded Requests - FIXED 1.00 N/A Transfers to Constitutional Officers 323,224,600 FIXED 1.00 N/A Reserves 77,562,800 FIXED 1.00 N/A Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies 12,572,300 PEAKPOP 1.00 499,426 $ 25.17 Total $ 1,037,152,900 1.00 $ 614.82 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 46 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT dix Table 17: EMS Adiusted Operatine Exoenditures for New Ambulance Transfer to 4050 EMS Fund $ 30,421,000 760,473 PEAKPOPTOU R&JOBS $ 40.00 $$ Per Demand Unit 9,832 Corkscrew Grove East PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS $ 393,280 Projected EMS Operating Expenditures 187% Index $ 735,000 Projected EMS Operating Expenditures 9,832 Corkscrew Grove East PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS $ 74.76 Revised $$ Per Demand Unit Alternate Calculation based on Level of Service Company OfficerDescription New Ambulance Annual Operating Expenditures: Annual Personnel Cost per FTE $ 159,310 # of FTEs 3 Annual Personnel Cost $ 477,930 Personal Services $ 1,062,930 Operating Expense 228,000 Annual Facility Lease 26,000 Total Annual Operating Cost $ 1,316,930 New Ambulance Annual Operating Expenditures: Total Annual Operating Cost General Fund Subsidy Percentage General Fund Annual Cost Level of Service Standard Per Capita Amount Corkscrew Grove East PEAKPOP Projected EMS Operating Expenditures $ 1,316,930 100% $ 1,316,930 16,400 $ 80.30 9,159 $ 735,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 $ 111,000 $ 84,000 3 3 $ 333,000 $ 252,000 17% Emergency Medical Service ("EMS") for the project will be initially provided by Collier County Medic Station 32 which is co -located at the Fire District's Headquarters Station 32. If call volume and response time for Corkscrew Grove East Village and the immediate area generate the need for an additional ambulance, Collier County EMS may choose to co -locate a medic facility at the new Immokalee Fire Control District station. For purposes of the Economic Assessment, it is assumed the space needed for a new ambulance will be leased at the highest annual rent as currently paid for similar space. Personnel and operating costs for staffing and operating a new ambulance, including rent, are allocated in Appendix Table 17 above based on the level of service in the 2024 AUIR and the peak residential population of the Corkscrew Grove East Village. The calculated General Fund EMS Expenditure per demand unit was multiplied by 187 percent to recognize the additional EMS cost. For conservatism of this analysis, it is assumed the General 47 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Fund will subsize 100 percent of the cost, whereas the actual subsidy is generally around 55 percent. Hppenaix i ame la: rz lucs comer Lounzy row i u txpenaizure Department Other General Administration uemana Budget 1,515,500 units Demand Base PERMPOP Multiplier 0.50 Base Demand 376,216 Demand $ 4.03 Human Resources 532,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 684,361 $ 0.78 Emergency Management Division 21,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 0.03 Growth Mgt -Administration 375,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 0.55 Growth Mgt - Planning 2,142,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 3.13 Growth Mgt - Regulation 6,966,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 10.18 Communications Government & Public Affairs 2,542,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 684,361 $ 3.72 Pelican Bay Services 156,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Immokalee CRA 237,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Parks & Recreation 17,899,400 PEAKPOP 1.00 454,553 $ 39.38 Transportation Mgt -Operations 2,757,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 4.03 Transportation Mgt - Landscaping 3,018,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 4.41 Transportation Mgt - Coastal Zone Management 256,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 0.38 Transportation Mgt - Improvements Districts & MSTU 422,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Indirect Cost Reimbursement 1,597,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 2.33 Remittances 500,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers 37,686,900 FIXED 1.00 N/A Advances - FIXED 1.00 N/A Reserves 6,187,700 FIXED 1.00 N/A Total $ 84,818,700 1.00 $ 72.94 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 48 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT County Attorney Other General Administration Property Appraiser Supervisor of Elections Clerk of Courts Sheriff Law Enforcement Law Enforcement Paid by BCC Detention & Corrections Bailiffs Tax Collector Human Resources Procurement Services Emergency Management Division Growth Mgt - Planning Growth Mgt - Regulation Circuit & County Court Judges Public Defender State Attorney Guardian Ad Litem Program County Manager Operations Office of Management & Budget Facilities Management Division Public Services Administration Domestic Animal Services Community and Human Services Library Parks & Recreation Public Health Transportation Mgt - Public Transit & NE Transfer to 1001 Road & Bridge Transfer to 1051 Court Administration Transfer to 1060 MHz Radio System Transfer to 3081 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap Transfer to 4030 CATT Transit Enhance Transfer to 4033 Transp Disadv Transfer to 4050 EMS Fund Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 res at Buildout PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 2.35 $ 23,000 PERMPOP 8.79 67,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 8.05 79,000 PERMPOP 6.66 51,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 12.31 121,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 256.61 2,523,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 7.06 69,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 12.78 126,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 0.43 4,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 15.68 154,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 3.81 37,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.03 20,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 6.63 65,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.03 20,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.74 27,000 PEAKPOP 0.14 1,000 PERMPOP 1.18 11,000 PERMPOP 1.77 13,000 PERMPOP 0.01 - PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.54 15,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.88 18,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 14.94 147,000 PERMPOP 0.51 4,000 PERMPOP 11.22 85,000 PERMPOP 11.11 84,000 PEAKPOP 18.00 165,000 PEAKPOP 35.90 329,000 PERMPOP 0.72 5,000 PERMPOP 1.40 11,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 36.81 362,000 PEAKPOP 4.81 45,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 0.87 9,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 12.85 126,000 PEAKPOP 5.53 51,000 PERMPOP 5.76 44,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 74.76 735,000 PEAKPOP 25.17 231,000 S 614.82 S 5.877.000 49 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT nditures at Buildout Other General Administration PERMPOP $ 4.03 $ 31,000 Human Resources PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.78 8,000 Emergency Management Division PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.03 - Growth Mgt -Administration PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.55 5,000 Growth Mgt - Planning PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 3.13 31,000 Growth Mgt - Regulation PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 10.18 100,000 Communications Government & Public Affairs PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 3.72 37,000 Parks & Recreation PEAKPOP $ 39.38 361,000 Transportation Mgt - Operations PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 4.03 40,000 Transportation Mgt - Landscaping PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 4.41 43,000 Transportation Mgt - Coastal Zone Management PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.38 4,000 Indirect Cost Reimbursement PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 2.33 23,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Expenditures 72.94 $ 683,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 50 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 21: Collier Countv Imoact Fee Schedule for Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Unit 1 5 6,950.00 $ Unit $ 8,090.00 $ Sq Ft $ 13.77400 Unit $ 2,844.19 Unit $ 8,789.54 So Ft N/A Services $ 455.20 $ 296.56 $ 228.91 $ 67.50 $ 933.83 $ 586.95 $ 499.19 $ 142.07 N/A $ 0.73064 $ 0.64536 $ 0.18367 51 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT icable Services Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 Unit $ 6,950.00 $ 1,230.24 $ 455.20 $ 296.56 $ 228.91 $ 67.50 $ 2,844.19 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 Unit $ 8,090.00 $ 2,694.32 $ 933.83 $ 586.95 $ 499.19 $ 142.07 $ 8,789.54 Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft 283,500 Sq Ft $ 13.77400 N/A N/A $ 0.73064 $ 0.64536 $ 0.18367 N/A Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 Unit $ 8,889,000 $ 1,573,000 $ 582,000 $ 379,000 $ 293,000 $ 86,000 $ 3,638,000 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 Unit $ 23,040,000 $ 7,673,000 $ 2,660,000 $ 1,672,000 $ 1,422,000 $ 405,000 $ 25,033,000 Retail 200,001- 400,000 Sq Ft 283,500 Sq Ft $ 3,905,000 $ 207,000 $ 183,000 $ 52,000 $ - Total $ 35,834,000 $ 9,246,000 $ 3,242,000 $ 2,258,000 $ 1,898,000 $ 543,000 $ 28,671,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 52 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 23: Collier County School District Base Assumptions STUDENT GENERATION RATES - 2015 IMPACT FEE UPDATE 0.34 ISingle Family 0.11 Multi Family and Single Family Attached 0.28 1 Mobile Home FY 2024-2025 SCHOOL FTE ENROLLMENT (Part 2 General Fund by Schools) 18,788 Elementary 9,324 Middle 13,594 High 675 Alternate Schools 5,256 Charter Schools 47,637 Total SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 2015 IMPACT FEE UDPATE 49%1 Elementary 23% Middle 28% High 100% Total FY 2025 MILLAGE RATES 2.0820 1 Required Local Effort 0.7480 Discretionary 0.3500 Addiitional Millage 3.1800 Total General Fund Millage 1.1332 Capital Improvement Millage 4.3132 Total Millage 2.0820 Required by State Law 2.2312 Total Discretionary Local 4.3132 Total Millage Source: Collier County School District, DPFG 2025 53 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the data contained in this report are accurate as of the date of this study; however, factors exist that are outside the control of DPFG and that may affect the estimates and/or projections noted herein. This study is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed by DPFG from its independent research effort, general knowledge of the industry, and information provided by and consultations with the client and the client's representatives. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by the client, the client's agent and representatives, or any other data source used in preparing or presenting this study. This report is based on information that was current as of March 6, 2025 (except for sections identified as being updated June 20, 2025, July 29, 2025, and August 29, 2025), and DPFG has not undertaken any update of its research effort since such date. Because future events and circumstances, many of which are not known as of the date of this study, may affect the estimates contained therein, no warranty or representation is made by DPFG that any of the projected values or results contained in this study will actually be achieved. Possession of this study does not carry with it the right of publication thereof or to use the name of DPFG in any manner without first obtaining the prior written consent of DPFG. No abstracting, excerpting or summarization of this study may be made without first obtaining the prior written consent of DPFG. This report is not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities, debt, equity, or other similar purpose where it may be relied upon to any degree by any person other than the client, nor is any third party entitled to rely upon this report, without first obtaining the prior written consent of DPFG. This study may not be used for purposes other than that for which it is prepared or for which prior written consent has first been obtained from DPFG. Any changes made to the study, or any use of the study not specifically prescribed under agreement between the parties or otherwise expressly approved by DPFG, shall be at the sole risk of the party making such changes or adopting such use. This study is qualified in its entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations, conditions and considerations. 011 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Solid Waste A solid waste assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The assessment shall identify the means and methods for handling, transporting and disposal of all solid waste generated including but not limited to the collection, handling and disposal of recyclables and horticultural waste products. The applicant shall identify the location and remaining disposal capacity available at the disposal site. According to the Economic Assessment, the proposed SRA will increase the County's peak residential population by approximately 9,615 peak population persons at buildout for 4,502 total dwelling units, including 362 affordable housing units. Using a tons per capita rate of 0.70 (per the 2024 AUIR), a population increase of 9,615 people will generate an additional 6,730.50 tons disposed per year. Commercial solid waste and residential curbside solid waste, recycling, and horticulture will be collected with Collier County's franchise agreements by other franchise -approved haulers. Commercial recycling is open to market collection. Construction waste will be collected and processed by a local business specializing in the recycling of construction products. Collier County maintains a Board approved Disposal Capacity Agreement (DCA) with Okeechobee Landfill, Inc., that provides 930,000 tons of reserved capacity at Okeechobee Landfill. The waste generated and transferred to Okeechobee Landfill as part of the DCA is not included in the AUIR capacity LOS. Per the AUIR, for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the LOS Standard for capacity, it is assumed Collier County will renew, amend, or enter into a new agreement, as necessary, and continue to transfer. Commercial, municipal solid waste, and recycling containers will comply with Collier County ordinances. The project will utilize County -approved bear -resistant dumpsters/trash cans for all residential and non-residential uses, with locations of dumpsters being determined at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP) approval. All costs, including maintenance, of bear -resistant dumpsters will be borne by the owner/developer. Potable Water A potable water assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The assessment shall illustrate how the applicant will conform to either Florida Administrative Code for private and limited use water systems, or for Public Water Systems. In addition to the standard requirements of the analyses required above, the potable water assessment shall specifically consider, to the extent applicable, the disposal of waste products, if any, generated by the proposed treatment process. The applicant shall identify the sources of water proposed for potable water supply. Page 1 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-EMIMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Resubmiftal\Public Facilities ItnpactAssesssment Report (7-28-2025).docx The project site is located within the Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) utility service area. Therefore, potable water services for the Corkscrew Grove East Village project will be provided by IWSD. To address the potable water demands of the project, the following improvements are anticipated: 1. Regional Water Supply Facility: IWSD plans to construct a regional water supply facility on land currently owned by Alico Land Development Company and located just east of the SRA along the north side of SR 82. This facility will ensure an adequate potable water supply for the development and comply with the Florida Administrative Code standards for Public Water Systems. 2. Distribution of Potable Water: Within the project boundaries, potable water distribution will be coordinated between the Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District and the IWSD. Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District will oversee the initial installation of distribution infrastructure. The proposed potable water system will comply with all regulatory requirements, including considerations for the disposal of any waste products generated by the water treatment process. The system will adhere to approved generation rates and design criteria to ensure compliance with Level of Service (LOS) standards. Potable water demands, including Average Daily Demand (ADD) and Maximum Daily Demand (MDD), will be calculated in coordination with IWSD and the relevant permitting agencies. The Owner/Developer will not be obligated to pay Collier County potable water impact fees. Instead, applicable connection fees will be calculated and paid directly to IWSD. Irrigation Water An irrigation water assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The assessment shall quantify the anticipated irrigation water usage expected at the buildout of the SRA. The assessment shall identify the sources of water proposed for irrigation use and shall identify proposed methods of water conservation. The Corkscrew Grove project site has a long history of permitted agricultural withdrawals from the Lower Tamiami and Sandstone Aquifers that have not resulted in any known adverse impacts to natural environments. The agricultural water allocations currently permitted and used within the Corkscrew Grove project area total approximately 13.78 MGD on an annual average basis (5,028 MGY) and approximately 18.45 MGD on a maximum monthly basis (572 MGM). At build -out, the Corkscrew Grove project will result in converting approximately 1,447 acres of the currently permitted 3,100 acres of agricultural land into a residential development or about 47% of the currently permitted agricultural acreage. Prorating the currently permitted irrigation allocation to the 1,447 acres proposed for development yields an annual average day allocation of 6.48 MGD and a maximum month day allocation of 8.68 MGD for the proposed development Page 2 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-EMIMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Resubmiftal\Public Facilities ItnpactAssesssment Report (7-28-2025).docx area. The transition of agricultural use to residential/commercial use will result in approximately 432 acres of landscaping and turf within the Corkscrew Grove development requiring irrigation. The project irrigation demand for this amount of irrigated acreage as determined using the SFWMD Blaney-Criddle method is: 1.44 MGD on an annual average basis or 524 MGY (78% reduction in current use) 2.24 MGD on a maximum monthly basis or 68 MGM (74% reduction in current use) The proposed change in land use will result in a significant reduction in irrigation water usage at the project site. The Corkscrew Grove project will obtain a water use permit from the SFWMD which will allow withdrawal from onsite surface water and ground water sources to meet irrigation demands. The onsite irrigation water supply system will include stormwater lakes and wells. The lake system will be used to supply irrigation water for the project and wells will be utilized to resupply the withdrawal lakes when needed. The proposed source aquifers for the wells are the Lower Tamiami Aquifer and Sandstone Aquifer as currently permitted to meet the existing agricultural water demands on the project site. The lake withdrawals will provide an efficient and low impact method for effectively harvesting available stormwater supplies while lake storage and re -supply by groundwater will minimize potential impacts to both surface and groundwater levels. The Owner/Developer would be responsible for all costs associated with the permitting, construction, and maintenance of the irrigation system. Wastewater A wastewater assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The assessment shall illustrate how the applicant will conform to either Standards for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems, contained in Florida Administrative Code for systems having a capacity not exceeding 10,000 gallons per day or for wastewater treatment systems having a capacity greater than 10,000 gallons per day. In addition to the standard requirements of the analysis required above, the wastewater assessment shall specifically consider, to the extent applicable, the disposal of waste products generated by the proposed treatment process. The project site is located within the Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) utility service area. Therefore, wastewater services for the Corkscrew Grove East Village project will be provided by IWSD. The following improvements are anticipated to meet the wastewater demands of the project: 1. Wastewater Treatment Facility: IWSD plans to construct a regional wastewater treatment facility on property currently owned by Alico Land Development Company, located east side of the SRA on the north side of SR 82. This facility will treat wastewater generated by the development in compliance with the Florida Administrative Code standards for wastewater treatment systems exceeding 10,000 gallons per day. 2. Wastewater Collection and Transmission: Within the project boundaries, wastewater collection and transmission infrastructure will be coordinated between the Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District and IWSD. Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District will oversee the initial installation of the necessary gravity sewer lines, force mains, and lift stations. Page 3 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-EMIMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Resubmiftal\Public Facilities ItnpactAssesssment Report (7-28-2025).docx The proposed wastewater treatment system will adhere to all regulatory requirements, including the proper disposal of waste products generated during the treatment process. Wastewater flows, including Average Daily Flow (ADF) and Peak Hourly Flow (PHF), will be calculated in coordination with IWSD and the appropriate permitting agencies to ensure compliance with Level of Service (LOS) standards. The Owner/Developer will not be obligated to pay Collier County wastewater impact fees. Instead, applicable connection fees will be calculated and paid directly to IWSD. Stormwater Management A stormwater management impact assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The stormwater management impact assessment shall, at a minimum, provide the following information: A. An exhibit showing the boundary of the proposed SRA including the following information: All responses to the questions below are shown on the Village Master Plan submitted as Exhibit A to this Public Facilities Impact Assessment Report. 1) The location of any WRA delineated within the SRA; Areas designated WRA within the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA are shown on the Village Master Plan submitted as Exhibit A to this Public Facilities Impact Assessment Report. 2) A generalized representation of the existing stormwater flow patterns across the site including the location(s) of discharge from the site to the downstream receiving waters; and Existing stormwater on this site is generated by the agricultural activities that have historically taken place and are currently permitted. Stormwater is collected through a network of internal ditches and canals, which route the runoff to the on - site Water Retention Areas (WRAs) via pumps. Discharges from these WRAs are controlled through regulated control structures that limit offsite discharge rates. Offsite discharges flow into adjacent canals and/or culverts under Corkscrew Road, with the ultimate outfall directed into the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW). Please reference the "Storm Water Management Impact Assessment Exhibits" included with this submittal. 3) The land uses of adjoining properties and, if applicable, the locations of stormwater discharge into the site of the proposed SRA from the adjoining properties. Page 4 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-EMIMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Resubmiftal\Public Facilities ItnpactAssesssment Report (7-28-2025).docx Land uses to the north, east, and west is agricultural. Lands to the south are agricultural and public lands outside of the RLSA boundary. B. A narrative component to the report including the following information: 1) The name of the receiving water or, if applicable, FSA or WRA to which the stormwater discharge from the site will ultimately outfall; Corkscrew Grove East Village will ultimately outfall to the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW). 2) The peak allowable discharge rate (in cfs/acre) allowed for the SRA per Collier County Ordinance 90-10 or its successor regulation; The site is located within the Cocohatchee River Canal Basin. The peak allowable discharge, per Ordinance No. 2019-19, is 0.04 cfs/ac. 3) If applicable, a description of the provisions to be made to accept stormwater flows from surrounding properties into, around, or through the constructed surface water management system of the proposed development, The proposed SRA encompasses three distinct areas: the property west of Corkscrew Road, the property north of SR82, and the property east of Corkscrew Road and south of SR82. The existing site has historically been used for agricultural row crops, primarily oranges and tomatoes. The site is composed of an intricate network of agricultural infrastructure, including dikes, impoundment areas known as WRAs, perimeter ditches, and berms. These perimeter berms effectively prevent external surface water from flowing onto the site, ensuring that no stormwater flows from surrounding properties are accepted. Within the site, stormwater runoff from the agricultural fields is collected in perimeter ditches. From there, agricultural pumps transfer the excess runoff into the WRAs. These WRAs are equipped with drainage structures that direct stormwater either into adjacent canals, through culverts under Corkscrew Road, or directly into the CREW lands. Two canals currently traverse the site, ultimately discharging into CREW. These canals, essential for stormwater conveyance from surrounding properties, will be preserved. One of these, Cabbage Slough, will be partially relocated within the site to accommodate the proposed development. This relocation will maintain the canal's current capacity and flow patterns, ensuring that surrounding hydrology is not adversely affected. The other canal, Gator Slough, will remain unaltered to preserve its existing functionality. Page 5 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-EMIMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Resubmiftal\Public Facilities ItnpactAssesssment Report (7-28-2025).docx 4) The types of stormwater detention areas to be constructed as part of the surface water management system of the proposed development and water quality treatment to be provided prior to discharge of the runoff from the site, and In the post -development condition, all agricultural operations will be discontinued, agricultural ditches will be filled, and the site will be redeveloped into a mixed -use village with a master surface water management system. The existing perimeter berms will be retained to ensure that surrounding flow patterns remain unaffected; however, these berms may be modified during construction to comply with South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) criteria. The master surface water management system will provide the necessary water quality treatment and nutrient removal through a combination of traditional stormwater storage methods, such as wet detention and dry retention areas, prior to discharging into WRAs or the offsite CREW Lands. Stormwater from the site will discharge into CREW via multiple existing culverts under Corkscrew Road and the two (2) existing canals that traverse the property described in the previous section. S) If a WRA has been incorporated into the stormwater management system of an SRA, the report shall demonstrate compliance with the provisions of Section 4.08.04.A.4.b. All WRAs adjacent to the SRA will be integrated into the stormwater management system. Discharges into the WRAs will occur only after the required water quality treatment has been achieved. Stormwater discharge into the WRA will only occur through control structures permitted by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The owner of Corkscrew East Village SRA will be responsible for all costs associated with the design, permitting, construction, and operation of the proposed stormwater improvements required to serve Corkscrew East Village development. School Concurrency The adopted level of service for schools is based upon permanent Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity: 100% for high school Concurrency Service Areas (CSAs); 95% for elementary school CSAs; and 95% for middle school CSAs. The subject site is within the Ell Immokalee Area 1 CSA for elementary schools, the M5 Immokalee Area CSA for middle schools, and the H5 Immokalee Area CSA for high schools. The FISH capacity and enrollment data below is per the Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for fiscal years 2025 through 2044. The EI I CSA includes three elementary schools, Eden Park, Highlands, and Lake Trafford. They have a combined FISH capacity of 2,517 students, a 2024/2025 enrollment of 1,922 students, and a projected 2028/2029 enrollment of 2,063 students (82% capacity). Page 6 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-EMIMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Resubmiftal\Public Facilities ItnpactAssesssment Report (7-28-2025).docx The M5 CSA includes one middle school, Immokalee Middle. There is a FISH capacity of 1,715 students, a 2024/2025 enrollment of 1,419 students, and a projected 2028/2029 enrollment of 1,260 students (73% capacity). According to the CCPS CIP, enrollment at Immokalee Middle is being monitored. The H5 CSA includes one high school, Immokalee High. There is a FISH capacity of 2,221 students, a 2024/2025 enrollment of 1,993 students, and a projected 2028/2029 enrollment of 1,773 students (80% capacity). According to the CCPS CIP, enrollment at Immokalee High is being monitored. The proposed Corkscrew Grove East Village consists of up to 4,127 dwelling units (not including the 375 affordable housing units), broken down by type in the table below in accordance with Collier County Impact Fee Ordinance(s) methodology and terminology and applying the student generation rates (SGR) established in the 2015 Collier County School Impact Fee Study (the most recent data available) the Corkscrew Grove East Village is anticipated to generate 1,109 new students at buildout. Residential Unit Type Units SGR Projected Students Multi -family (condo, duplex, single-family attached, etc. 1,279 0.11 141 Single-family detached < 4,000 SF 2,848 0.34 968 TOTAL 4,127 1,109 As the total projected number of students will be distributed between the E11, M5, and H5 CSAs, the Owner/Developer of the Village has reserved a 24-acre dedicated school site as depicted on the SRA Master Plan (Exhibit A of this document). The Owner/Developer will also design the Village stormwater system to accommodate necessary stormwater treatment and storage for the school site. A stipulation to the development order requires the Owner/Developer to convey real property for the school site in exchange for education impact fee credits. The proposed stipulation states: "With respect to the conveyance of real property, by the Applicant to the School District, the reservation of the school site to the School District fully mitigates for the developments impact to the elementary, middle, and high schools needed to serve the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA." Fire and EMS The Corkscrew Grove East Village is located within the service area of the Immokalee Fire Control District (Fire District). Fire and EMS services for the project will be initially provided out of Station 31 in Immokalee. However, a new fire (and co -located EMS) station may be needed to serve the project at buildout. A stipulation to the development order requires the Owner/Developer to convey real property for a three -acre site for a fire and co -located EMS station in exchange for fire impact fee credits and/or cash. The proposed stipulation states: "With respect to the conveyance of real property by the Applicant to the Fire District, the reservation of the site to the Fire District fully mitigates for the developments impact to the fire and EMS facilities needed to serve the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA." Page 7 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-EMIMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Resubmiftal\Public Facilities ItnpactAssesssment Report (7-28-2025).docx Transportation Impacts See the Traffic Analysis provided as part of this SRA application for transportation impacts. Page 8 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-EMIMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Resubmiftal\Public Facilities ItnpactAssesssment Report (7-28-2025).docx MEMORANDUM Jacobs Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment PREPARED FOR: Michael Bosi, Collier County Amy Patterson, Collier County Trinity Scott, Collier County James French, Collier County Kenneth Kovensky, Collier County Ian Barnwell, Collier County COPY TO: Bill Gramer, Jacobs PREPARED BY: Dave Green, Jacobs Michael Oyakojo, Jacobs DATE: January 5, 2025 Introduction Collier County, Florida (the County) Growth Management Division (GMD) engaged Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs) to conduct a peer review of the "Economic Assessment of Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) (Report) prepared by Development Planning & Financing Group (DPFG) on behalf of Alico, Inc. (the Applicant). The version reviewed herein was the most recently revised version dated June 20, 2025. The purpose of the peer review was to assess: • The reasonableness of the assumptions in the assessment. • The consistency of the assessment with the underlying assumptions. • The reasonableness of the anticipated future revenue from ad valorem taxes, impact fees, and other sources for the appropriate forecast period; and reasonableness of expenditures (capital and operating) for the appropriate forecast period. • The consistency of the recommendations and findings with generally accepted governmental accounting and finance conventions, financial forecasting, impact -fee -setting practices, balanced development concepts (growth pays for growth), and/or applicable County policies (such as the Collier County Land Development Code). Our procedures in reviewing the Report included sample verification of significant calculations, testing of consistency among underlying assumptions, data, and calculation methods, and reviewing the consistency of results with the County's current plans and forecasts. Jacobs did not replicate or develop an independent Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (FIAM), but peer reviewed DPFG's alternative fiscal impact model and tested significant and sensitive variables. A record of our verification of sources and assumptions is provided in Appendix A. Pagel of16 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment In preparing this peer review, Jacobs relied, in whole or in part, on data and information provided by the County and third parties, which has not been independently verified by Jacobs and which Jacobs has assumed to be accurate, complete, reliable, and current. Therefore, while Jacobs has utilized its best efforts in preparing the peer review and providing comments and recommendations to the County, Jacobs does not warrant or guarantee the conclusions set forth herein or in the DPFG Report or its fiscal impact model, which are dependent and/or based upon data, information, or statements supplied by the County or third parties. Legal Basis Collier County's Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) program was established under the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Its objective is the creation of an incentive -based land use overlay system based on the principles of rural land stewardship found in Florida Statutes, Section 163.3177(11), including environmental preservation, agricultural preservation, and smart growth development. Through the RLSA program, Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) can be approved for preservation purposes, creating credits to entitle Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs), typically towns, villages, hamlets, and compact rural developments (CRDs). The credit system is designed to incentivize preservation of the most important environmental lands, including large, connected wetland systems and significant habitat for listed species, by awarding higher credit values for high value preservation areas."' Pursuant to the GMP RLSA, Policy 4.18 states "the SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year [emphasis added] based on a cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the County. The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable -workforce housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality, such as Community Development Districts and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, parks, law enforcement, jail, emergency medical services (EMS), schools, and fire control district. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards." Further, the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Section 4.08.07 defines the requirements for SRA Designation, which "is intended to encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of the economic base of the RLSA District....]. One of several preconditions for the SRA designation is an economic assessment, per Section 4.08.07 L. of the LDC, as follows: SRA Economic Assessment. An Economic Assessment meeting the requirements of this Section shall be prepared and submitted as part of the SRA Designation Application Package. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and schools. Development phasing and funding 1 https://www.colliercountVfl.gov/government/growth-management/divisions/planning-and-zoning-division/comprehensive-planning- section/rural-lands-stewardship-area/rural-lands-stewardship-area-history-and-archive Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment 1-5-26 (1 ).do cxCorkscrew Grove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment PeerReviewDraft Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment mechanisms shall address any adverse impacts to adopted minimum levels of service pursuant to Chapter 6 of the LDC. 1. Demonstration of Fiscal Neutrality. Each SRA must demonstrate that its development, as a whole [emphasis added], will be fiscally neutral or positive to the Collier County tax base. 2. This demonstration will be made for each unit of government responsible for the services listed above, using one of the following methodologies: a. Collier County Fiscal Impact Model. The fiscal impact model officially adopted and maintained by Collier County. b. Alternative Fiscal Impact Model. If Collier County has not adopted a fiscal impact model as indicated above, the applicant may develop an alternative fiscal impact model using a methodology approved by Collier County. The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy of fiscal neutrality to accommodate affordable or workforce housing. DPFG was retained to prepare an economic assessment for Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA to demonstrate fiscal neutrality using an Alternative Fiscal Impact Model, as defined by the LDC Section 4.08.07 L.1. b. Although the fiscal impact requirements are specified in the LDC, there remains a considerable amount of flexibility in both the interpretation and application of the law. DPFG is required to measure fiscal neutrality at the project's horizon year or buildout. The timing of when buildout is expected to occur is not identified in the DPFG report. The neutrality assessment is simply evaluated for whenever buildout is achieved. The overall assessment is underpinned by this fundamental assumption, and DPFG's analysis is consistent with this assumption throughout the assessment. It is important to recognize that fiscal impact analysis is not a cash flow analysis, and therefore does not include a year -by -year examination of the County's sources and uses of funds over the development period. New development may or may not achieve fiscal neutrality in the early stages of new development. The County must make initial investments to accommodate growth — prior to a compensatory public revenue stream from a new development to fund the necessary infrastructure and services. This lag effect is inherent in any new development plan, but its annualized impacts are beyond the scope of this peer review and are beyond the County's requirements for fiscal neutrality. There are also inherent limitations of fiscal impact modeling. While we determined that DPFG's analysis largely fulfills the fiscal impact analysis requirement, the following caveats and shortcomings are noted: • Fiscal impact modeling is static and not dynamic. It is a snapshot in time, and therefore known variables (e.g., the costs of construction, the state of the US economy, the pace and mix of the development plan, etc.) are assumed constant. As such, substantial changes to these variables could render the analysis obsolete. • The cost of future financing may not be included in the analysis. This factor can add substantially to the overall costs of infrastructure development and thereby could negatively affect any findings of positive or neutral fiscal impacts should financing be employed by the County, the Fire Rescue District, or School District. The County or Districts may employ various funding and financing options to construct such facilities, which are unknown at this time. • Fiscal impact analysis assumes an average and/or marginal cost basis. Compensatory revenues whether in the form of impact fees or ad valorem, sales, or other taxes may over -recover (subject to Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment 1-5-26 (1 ).do cxCorkscrew Grove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment PeerReviewDraft Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment economies of scale) or under -recover (subject to dis-economies of scale) actual costs for any given development. • While fiscal impact analysis is intended to measure project -specific revenue and cost drivers, certain obligations are subject to the analyst's discretion. The County recognizes and has acknowledged that there are possibilities that the development plans for the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will change, which introduces factors beyond the County's control, and beyond the constraints of fiscal impact analysis, generally. DPFG's methodology and assumptions are described in detail in the following sections. Methodology DPFG's approach to "the fiscal impact analysis of the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA uses a marginal/average cost hybrid methodology to determine the project's impact on capital and operating costs,"' which is customary for fiscal analyses. A marginal approach is used to estimate ad valorem tax revenues. To estimate certain marginal costs, DPFG applied the case study approach for the capital analyses of the: • Sheriff Department • Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Department • Immokalee Fire Control District • School District The case study approach is based on the analyst's determination that other standard approaches have material limitations, and as such, a case study approach is a more appropriate application for the particular use. DPFG's approach also included an analysis of the fiscal impacts to the Unincorporated Area General Fund Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU). Overall, Jacobs agrees with the marginal/average cost hybrid approach taken in this analysis, and the case study approach applied to the referenced departments. 1.1 Key Assumptions Jacobs was provided with DPFG's Report and their corresponding fiscal analysis Microsoft Excel model (filename: Corkscrew Grove SRA Econ Assess 2025.08.29 VIEW ONLY.xlsx). DPFG also spent a significant amount of time answering Jacobs' questions, providing source documentation, and facilitating our understanding of their methodology and assumptions. z DPFG Report, Page 8 Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment 1-5-26 (1).docxCorkscrewGrove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment PeerReviewDraft Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 1.1.1 Inflation All costs (whether historical or future) were adjusted to reflect 2025 dollars. Inflation is typically excluded from fiscal neutrality analysis (constant dollar approach), which enables comparisons across years and across projects. The County's FY 2025 budget, and the FY 2025 budgets for Collier County School District and Immokalee Fire Control District were used for the analysis. 1.1.2 Sales, Just and Taxable Real Estate Values To estimate potential tax revenues, DPFG utilized estimated taxable values for residential (per unit) and non-residential (per sq. ft.) land uses. Sales values for residential units were provided by the Applicant based on their internal market analysis and market analysis performed by third party consultant. 1.1.3 Annual Absorption by Use Not applicable 1.1.4 Millage Rates DPFG utilized fiscal year (FY 2025) millage rates as follows to determine annual ad valorem (property) tax revenues for the forecast period for the County and MSTU. • 3.0107 County General Fund • 0.0246 Water Pollution Control • 0.2096 Conservation Collier Program • 3.2449 County Wide Millage • 0.6844 MSTU General Fund 1.1.5 Corkscrew Grove East VillageSRA Population Growth Forecasts DPFG used residents per housing unit data published in the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Update Study, dated October 10, 2016, to estimate residential seasonal population growth due to Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA development. The seasonal population per unit assumptions utilized were: • Single Family Detached < 4,000 Sq Ft: 2.65 • Total Multifamily (Low Rise, 1-2 Floors): 1.26 Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment 1-5-26 (1 ).do cxCorkscrew Grove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment PeerReviewDraft Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 1.1.6 Structure of Funds For the purposes of fiscal impact analysis, three taxing authorities were evaluated: Collier County (through its General Fund), the Immokalee Fire Control District, and the Collier County School District ("School District"). Each has separate taxing authority, and the Collier County School Board levies its own taxes and receives part of its funding from the State of Florida. The DPFG Report tests the project's fiscal neutrality for County operating impacts, County capital impacts, Fire operating impacts, Fire capital impacts, Schools operating impacts, and Schools capital impacts. 1.1.7 General Fund The General Fund pays for those services benefiting residents and visitors of Collier County. These services include maintenance and operation of the various regional recreational facilities, governmental facilities, social services, animal services, libraries, transportation system, and general administrative services. The largest source of revenue for the General Fund is Ad Valorem — or property tax revenue. Municipal Service Taxing Units exist in various locations and are intended to provide extraordinary services within a specific district, funded by a separate ad valorem property tax. In addition, a water pollution control tax is collected county -wide. 1.1.8 Immokalee Fire Control District Service to the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will be provided by the Immokalee Fire Control District from the Immokalee Fire Control District / County Public Safety Complex Headquarters (Station #32) in Ave Maria. These facilities are funded from impact fees revenues and operations from an Ad -valorem property tax revenues. 1.1.9 Collier County School District School districts in Florida utilize a State mandated accounting method which separates revenues and expenses into specific funds. Each fund is earmarked for a specified purpose or activity and carries specific requirements, restrictions, or limitations. Accordingly, the School District maintains and reports the following segregated major funds: general, debt service, capital projects, special revenue, and internal service. The General Fund covers the day-to-day operations of the School District and accounts for most operational expenses that are incurred. The Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) provides equalized student funding for school districts. This concept guarantees that the availability of educational programs and services will be substantially equal for all students, regardless of geography and/or local economic factors. Funding for the FEFP includes required local effort property taxes that districts must levy, state taxes, and some local discretionary tax mills recommended by the State. 1.1.10 Enterprise and Internal Service Funds Collier County maintains two different types of proprietary funds: enterprise and internal service. Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment 1-5-26 (1 ).do cxCorkscrew Grove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment PeerReviewDraft Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment Enterprise funds report, with more detail, the same functions presented as business -type activities in the government -wide financial statements for water and sewer, solid waste disposal, emergency medical services, transit, and the airport authority. The Collier County Water and Sewer District Fund, the Solid Waste Disposal Fund, and the Emergency Medical Services Fund are tracked individually as major funds. The County also maintains two other (non -major) enterprise funds: Airport Authority Fund and the Collier Area Transit Fund. Table 8 and Appendix Table 16 of the DPFG Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment reflect the impact of the annual general fund contributions to Fund 4030 CATT Transit Enhance and Fund 4033 Transportation Disadvantaged, which are enterprise funds. There are no other impacts to consider with respect to transit enterprise funds in the Economic Assessment .3 Internal service funds are primarily maintained to allocate and accumulate costs internally for Collier County. The County uses internal service funds to account for health insurance, workers compensation insurance, property and casualty insurance, fleet operations, and information technology. While the RSLA program requires that the fiscal impacts on the County's potable water, wastewater, stormwater, irrigation water, and solid waste enterprise funds be examined, enterprise funds are inherently fiscally neutral because they are created for a specific purpose and intended to be self- supporting through user rates and fees. As such, the fiscal impact of the proposed development is expected to be fiscally neutral to the County. Jacobs finds DPFG's exclusion of enterprise funds to be an acceptable and reasonable approach. Fiscal Impacts Recall that the fiscal impact analysis, at a minimum, "shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and schools," each of which is reviewed in the following sections. This peer review is presented in order of services listed in the LDC. 1.1.11 County Operating Impacts Operating impacts are reflected in DPFG's analyses of both the General Fund and MSTU General Fund groupings. These analyses cover transportation (roads), parks, law enforcement, EMS, schools, fire control district, and correctional facilities. Based on the analysis, at buildout, Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA annual total general fund operating expenditures are projected at approximately $5,877,000 against revenues of approximately $8,880,000, resulting in a fiscal surplus of $3,003,000. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA annual total MSTU operating expenditures are projected at approximately $683,000 against revenues of approximately $1,590,000, resulting in a fiscal surplus of $907,000. 3 DPFG Report, Page 14 Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment 1-5-26 (1).docxCorkscrewGrove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment PeerReviewDraft Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 1.1.12 Transportation (Roads) 1.1.12.1 Operating Impacts Transportation Services is a special revenue fund within the County's budget. This fund was established for the maintenance of roads and bridges countywide. The principal funding source for Transportation Services is a subsidy from the General Fund. Based on the 2025 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions Traffic Impact Statement, the Corkscrew Grove East Village is a significant traffic generator and may adversely impacts these three road segments: SR 29 from 9th to CR 29A North, SR 29 from Hendry County Line to SR 82 and SR 82 from Hendry County Line to SR 29. The developer may be required to provide some assistance to the County on capacity/operational improvements to the road segments that may be significantly impacted by the project. 1.1.12.2 Capital Impacts The County imposes road impact fees on new development occurring to fund the construction of growth - related improvements. Consistent with impact fee statutory requirements, these fees place a fair share of the cost burden on new development for transportation -related expansions and improvements, which are necessitated by such development. DPFG treats road impacts from the perspective that the owner will pay road impact fees according to the number of units (residential) or square footage (non-residential) in the development plan and the corresponding fee schedule established by the County. Using DPFG's approach, Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will generate approximately $35.8 million in Road Impact Fee revenues to the County, based on the development parameters and current road impact fee rate table. This is more than the $24.9 million proportionate fair -share estimate for the project. The operational fair share estimate is pending as of the time of our review. Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of fiscal neutrality for transportation (road) impacts to be reasonable, subject to the approval of the companion Developer Agreement. 1.1.13 Potable Water and Wastewater The Corkscrew Groves East Village project is located within the Immokalee Water and Sewer District ("IWSD") utility service area. Hence, IWSD will be responsible for the provision of water and wastewater utility services to Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. To meet the potential demands due to this project, necessary capital infrastructure improvements to the water and wastewater systems are envisaged in line with all regulatory requirements and standards. The project developer will be required to pay the applicable connection fees to IWSD. Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of fiscal neutrality for potable water and wastewater public facilities and services to be reasonable. Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment 1-5-26 (1 ).do cxCorkscrew Grove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment PeerReviewDraft Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 1.1.14 Stormwater Management "The proposed SRA encompasses three distinct areas: the property west of Corkscrew Road, the property north of SR 82, and the property east of Corkscrew Road and south of SR 82. The existing site has historically been used for agricultural row crops, primarily oranges and tomatoes. The site is composed of an intricate network of agricultural infrastructure, including dikes, impoundment areas known as WRAs, perimeter ditches, and berms. These perimeter berms effectively prevent external surface water from flowing onto the site, ensuring that no stormwater flows from surrounding properties are accepted."' All associated costs with the design, permit, construction, and operation of the proposed stormwater improvements will be borne by the Owner. Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of fiscal neutrality for stormwater management public facilities and services to be reasonable. 1.1.15 Irrigation Water "The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA project site has a long history of permitted agricultural withdrawals from the Lower Tamiami and Sandstone Aquifers that have not resulted in adverse impacts to natural environments."' The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA project will result in converting approximately 1,447 acres of agricultural land into a residential development at build -out. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will apply for a water use permit from SFWMD for the use of surface water and ground water sources onsite for irrigation needs. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will be responsible for all relevant costs for the permitting, construction, and maintenance of the irrigation system. Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of irrigation water as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. 1.1.16 Solid Waste The approved Collier County hauler contractor will be responsible for the collection of solid waste generated within Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. County -approved bear -resistant dumpsters and trash cans will be used for the project. The developer will cover the costs associated with the maintenance and operations of the dumpsters. Solid waste collected within Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will be disposed at Okeechobee Landfill through Immokalee Transfer Station. The county maintains a disposal capacity agreement with Okeechobee Landfill with 930,000 tons of reserved capacity. Solid waste capital and operational costs are accounted for in the County's Solid Waste Fund, a self- supporting enterprise fund. Enterprise funds are inherently fiscally neutral because they are created for a ° DPFG Report, page 25 s DPFG Report, Page 26 Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment 1-5-26 (1).docxCorkscrewGrove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment PeerReviewDraft Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment specific purpose and intended to be self-supporting through user rates and fees. Again, enterprise funds were excluded from DPFG's analysis. Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of fiscal neutrality for solid waste facilities and services to be reasonable. 1.1.17 Parks Per the County's 2022 AUIR, the current level of service (LOS) for all county -owned and maintained community and regional parks is a combined 3.90 acres per 1,000 residents. The County's LOS (per 1,000 residents) by type is compared to DPFG's assumptions, as follows: • Community Parks: achieved 1.22 acres • Community Parks: adopted 1.20 acres • Regional Parks: adjusted achieved 1.82 acres • Regional Parks: adopted 2.70 acres It is noted that the DPFG value for Regional Parks achieved of 1.82 acres are based on a county staff recommendation. 1.1.17.1 Capital Impacts The County imposes separate impact fees for community and regional parks. The impact fee revenues of community parks were calculated to be $3,242,000 (plus other capital revenues of $52,000 for a total of $3,294,000), and regional parks were $9,246,000 (plus other capital revenues of $481,000 for a total of $9,727,000). The cost of estimated acreage ($283,638 per acre) required to achieve the County LOS for community parks forms the basis for capital impacts, which DPFG estimated at $3,117,000, leading to an estimated surplus of $177,000 for community parks. The cost of estimated acreage ($590,288 per acre) required to achieve the County LOS for regional parks forms the basis for capital impacts. While the adopted level of service for regional parks is 2.70 acres per 1,000 peak population, the adjusted achieved LOS of 1.82 acres was recommended by the County. With the recommended LOS and cost per acre, results in an estimated capital cost for regional parks of $590,288. The cost of the regional parks of $9,840,000 is more than the estimated impact fee and other capital revenues of $9,727,000 of the regional parks by $113,000. While there is a projected deficit of $113,000 for the regional parks, the forecast surplus of $177,000 for community parks offsets this, and results in the total regional and community parks capital impact to be a slightly positive $64,000.6 6 DPFG Report, Page 19 Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment 1-5-26 (1).docxCorkscrewGrove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment PeerReviewDraft Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment DPFG's assumption that regional park acreage costs will reflect average costs is a conservative assumption compared to the relative cost of inland acreage. If inland acreage costs less, on average, than the blended County average, then capital fiscal surplus for parks would be higher than DPFG's calculations. Based on the adjustment to the achieved LOS discussed above, Jacobs finds that parks are fiscally neutral or slightly positive. 1.1.18 Law Enforcement (Sheriff Department) 1.1.18.1 Capital Impacts The capital needs for law enforcement were established using the case study approach. The law enforcement impact fee is intended to recover the cost of capital construction and expansion of law enforcement related facilities and assets. DPFG estimated impact fee revenue to be $2,258,000 and other capital revenues at $409,000. Capital costs are included to equip the required number of officers, amounting to a total of $2,115,000. The estimated revenues exceed the forecasted direct capital costs and result in a fiscal surplus in the amount of $552,000. This surplus will likely be expended on indirect capital costs and future law enforcement infrastructure needs. Therefore, the impact is neutral. Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of law enforcement as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. 1.1.19 Emergency Medical Services 1.1.19.1 Capital Impacts According to EMS management, Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will be served by the EMS facility located within the Immokalee Fire District's Headquarters Station 32. If the call volume necessitates it, an additional ambulance may be leased, and space rented for its operation. DPFG projects total capital revenues of $556,000. EMS direct capital costs were estimated at $505,000, which is less than the combined projected impact fee of $543,000 and other capital revenues of $13,000, leaving about $51,000 for indirect / related capital cost. Therefore, the impact is neutral. Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of emergency medical services as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. 1.1.20 Immokalee Fire Control District 1.1.20.1 Operating Impacts The current millage rate and the projected tax base of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA result in annual ad valorem revenues of $8,017,000. The annual operating expenses to serve Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA population, based on an average of the fire district's existing stations and population served, are $1,926,000. Thus, there is a projected operating fiscal surplus. Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment 1-5-26 (1 ).do cxCorkscrew Grove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment PeerReviewDraft Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment 1.1.20.2 Capital Impacts The capital needs for fire control district will be funded by impact fees. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will generate adequate capital revenues for Immokalee Fire Control District, with matching levels of capital costs. In exchange for impact fee credits, and prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy, a 3.0-acre parcel shall be donated by the owner to the Immokalee Fire Control and Rescue District. The parcel shall be located within proximity to the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA development. A new station will be constructed and placed into operation if sufficient development occurs within the potential service area to ensure the funding of capital and operating costs of the new station is financially feasible. DPFG projects total capital revenues of $10,162,000 with additional operating surplus of $2,159,000 to match $12,321,000 capital cost for construction, vehicles, and equipment. Therefore, the impact is neutral. Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of fire control district as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. 1.1.21 Schools The analysis uses student generation rate (SGRs) as shown below: • Single Family Detached < 4,000 Sq Ft: 0.34 • Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors): 0.11 1.1.21.1 Operating Impacts Based on projections of school enrollment by type, as well as the operating revenue and costs impacts, the calculations estimating the fiscal impacts on the County School District indicate that Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is fiscally neutral. DPFG estimates ad valorem local millage revenues at buildout of $6,987,000, with matching levels of operating expenditures. 1.1.21.2 Capital Impacts The capital needs for schools were established using the case study approach. The analysis uses the current impact fee structure defined in the 2015 Collier County School Impact Fee Update Study (and indexed on the 2017 Indexing Calculations) to determine the appropriate application of the fees and the revenues derived from fees. DPFG uses adopted school impact fee as shown below: • Single Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft.: $8,789.54 • Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors): $2,844.19 Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment 1-5-26 (1 ).do cxCorkscrew Grove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment PeerReviewDraft Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment Revenues to pay for growth related capital expenditures are derived from ad valorem taxes and impact fees on residential -only units, and a capital outlay millage of 1.1332 mills (subject to a cap of 1.50 mills).' Hence, the residential development will have an impact on the determination of fiscal neutrality. In this case, the revenue from the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA development program results in a net fiscal neutrality. School Capital Revenues: School Impact Fee Revenue School District Capital Tax Revenue Total School Capital Revenues Direct School Capital Expenditures Net School Caoital Expenditures $ 28,671,000 $ - $ 28,671,000 - 38,664,000 38,664,000 $ 28,671,000 $ 38,664,000 $ 67,335,000 Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2025 67,3 35, 000 Jacobs finds DPFG-s determination of schools as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. 1.1.22 Additional Public Services Correctional facilities were evaluated by DPFG for fiscal neutrality. Jacobs categorizes correctional facilities as an additional service because they are not required by the minimum requirements defined in the Collier County LDC. While this additional public service is not a required element of the economic assessment, DPFG did include it in their analysis. 1.1.22.1 Correctional Facilities 1.1.22.1.1 Capital Impacts The correctional facilities impact fee is intended to recover the cost of capital construction for jail facilities (both land and building) and related equipment. Impact fees are charged based on residential units. The County's current LOS was used to calculate the correctional facilities' capital costs. DPFG applied the impact fee study coefficients for population and employment to calculate functional population. Combined revenues from impact fees of $1,898,000 and other capital revenues of $104,000 amount to $2,002,000, with comparable capital outlays, resulting in a finding of fiscal neutrality.' ' As the result of a referendum, the school capital millage rates were reduced by 0.35 mills for 4 years, beginning in FY 2020. DPFG provided a comparative analysis if the capital millage rate reverts to the 1.50 millage rate at the end of the 4-year referendum period. 8 DPFG Report, Page 21 Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment 1-5-26 (1).docxCorkscrewGrove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment PeerReviewDraft Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment Jacobs finds DPFG's determination of additional public services as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. Conclusions and Recommendations Through this independent analysis and peer review, Jacobs confirms the reasonableness of DPFG's analysis and in the project's fiscal neutrality, as defined. It is our opinion that the Applicant fulfilled the intent of the fiscal neutrality requirement and that the proposed Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA development is fiscally neutral, as defined, for Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA for Collier County, the Immokalee Fire Control District, and the Collier County School District. It is important to recognize that fiscal neutrality relies on accurate projections — often 20 years or more into the future. A significant deviation from the development plan will require an adjustment or new analysis to capture changes to this fiscal neutrality determination, which may involve, for example, adjusting the mix of uses or other mechanisms that will impact the future revenue and expense streams. In addition, fiscal impact analysis is only one step in the development program and the County -Developer relationship framework. This fiscal impact analysis will be supplemented and augmented by several DCAs, MOUs, and/or interlocal agreements. Careful negotiation, execution, and administration of DCAs, MOUs, and/or interlocal agreements is required to ensure that the County continues to achieve its fiscal neutrality objectives. Based upon DPFG's analysis and this peer review of that analysis, Jacobs concurs that Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA qualify as fiscally neutral, as defined, with respect to County capital and operating impacts, subject to the approval of the companion Developer Contribution Agreement that is being negotiated between the Collier County School District and the Developer. The DPFG analysis, which, in Jacobs' opinion, is professionally prepared and thorough in its treatment of revenues and expenses, is accurate in its determination that the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA development would meet the County's requirements for fiscal neutrality. Attachment E-Peer Review of Corkscrew Grove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment 1-5-26 (1 ).do cxCorkscrew Grove East Village SRAEconomic Assessment PeerReviewDraft ON [Document title] v !, co S APPENDIX A (Document Ivmbelf 15 [Document title] 2. Sources and Assumptions Model Tab / Report Chart Collier County Impact Fee Schedule (Residential) Collier County Residential Impact Fees 2025 Impact Fee Schedule Checked Collier County Impact Fee Schedule (Commercial) Collier County Commercial Impact Fees 2025 Impact Fee Schedule Checked Community Parks Impact Fees Impact Fee Schedule Comm Parks Impact Fee Rev Checked Regional Parks Impact Fees Impact Fee Schedule Regional Parks Impact Fee Rev Checked Roads Impact Fees Impact Fee Schedule Roads Impact Fee Rev Checked EMS Impact Fees Impact Fee Schedule EMS Impact Fee Rev Checked Law Enforcement Impact Fees Impact Fee Schedule Law Enforce Impact Fee Rev Checked Jail Impact Fees Impact Fee Schedule Jail Impact Fee Rev Checked Collier County Millage Rates Collier County Fiscal Year 2025 Adopted Budget County Inputs Checked 2025 Unincorporated Country Peak Seasonal Population Collier County 2024 AUIR County Inputs Checked 2025 Collier County Permanent Population Collier County 2024 AUIR County Inputs Checked Collier County Peak Tourist Population Collier County CVB Profile- March 2024 County Inputs Checked State Revenue Sharing Collier County Fiscal Year 2025 Adopted Budget General Fund Rev Demand Units Checked Ad Valorem Taxes Collier County Fiscal Year 2025 Adopted Budget General Fund Rev Demand Units Checked Average Taxable Value Per Unit Calculation Residential Just+Taxable Value Checked Total Taxable Value Calculation Residential Just+Taxable Value Checked General Fund Grouping Revenues and Sources-- General Fund Collier County Fiscal Year 2025 Adopted Budget General Fund Grouping Matrix Checked Residents Per Housing Unit Calculation Persons Per Unit Checked Residential Functional Population Coefficient Calculation EMS Pop & Employ Checked Functional Resident Coefficient Calculation EMS Funct Res Non -Residential Checked Total Land & Facility Cost Per Acre Parks Impact Fee Study Parks Impact Per Res Checked Student Generation Rates School Impact Fee Update Study School Inputs Checked FY 2025 Millage Rates CCPS FY25 Final Budget Book School Inputs Checked FY 2025 School FTE Enrollment CCPS FY25 Final Budget Book School Inputs Checked (Document rumbed 16 STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA THIS STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the ("Agreement") is made and entered into this day of , 2026, by and between COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "County" whose mailing address is the Harmon Turner Building, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112, and Alico, Inc. hereinafter referred to as "Owner" whose mailing address is 10070 Daniels Interstate Ct. #200, Fort Myers, FL 33913, for the purpose of designating the number of "Stewardship Sending Area" (SSA) Credits consumed in the designation of Corkscrew Grove East Village as a Stewardship Receiving Area and the source of those SSA credits pursuant to Section 4.08.07.C. I I of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). RECITALS 1. Owner has applied for SRA designation for Corkscrew Grove East Village and said SRA is approximately 1,446.59 acres in size. 2. The County has reviewed the SRA Designation Application, along with all support documentation and information required by Section 4.08.07 of the LDC and determined that SRA designation for the Corkscrew Grove East Village is appropriate. 3. The County and Owner have reached agreement on the number of Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Credits required to be utilized for such designation. 4. The County and Owner agree that this SRA Credit Agreement is in compliance with and fully meets the requirements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and LDC. NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the above premises and the expenditure of credits and authorizations granted hereby and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 1 of 15 l . Owner is hereby utilizing and transferring 11,703.4 Stewardship Credits (Credits) which shall be applied to the SRA land described in Exhibit "A" in order to carry out the plan of development on the 1,446.59 acres proposed in the Corkscrew Grove East Village Development Document and summarized hereinafter. 2. Exhibit "A" is the legal description of the 1,446.59 acres that constitute the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. 3. Attached hereto is Exhibit "B" the Corkscrew Grove East Village Master Plan which depicts the land uses within the SRA. Also attached as Exhibit "C" is the Corkscrew Grove East Village Land Use Summary which identifies the number of residential dwelling units, gross leasable square footage of retail and office uses, and the other land uses depicted on the Corkscrew Grove East Village Master Plan. 4. Pursuant to the Future Land Use Element — Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay of the Growth Management Plan, the designation of a SRA requires eight (8) Stewardship Credits where such Credits were created from an SSA submitted for review or approved prior to July 13, 2021 and ten (10) Stewardship Credits for each acre of land included in an SRA, where such Credits were created from an SSA submitted for review or approved after July 13, 2021 to be transferred to an SRA in exchange for the development of one acre of land within Corkscrew Grove East Village. Owner is transferring enough credits to allow development on 1,382.96 acres, since 63.63 acres of public benefit use area does not consume Credits. Once credits are transferred, they may not be recaptured by Owner. 5. Owner will be utilizing credits generated from Stewardship Sending Area 11 in the amount of 8,504.80 Credits. 6. Owner will be utilizing credits generated from Stewardship Sending Area 22 in the amount of 3,198.60 Credits. 7. Pursuant to Resolution No. , the County has approved Corkscrew Grove East Village as an SRA consisting of 1,446.59 acres and has approved the Corkscrew Grove East Village Master Plan and Development Document. 8. Applicant and Owner acknowledge that development of SRA land may not commence until an SRA Credit Agreement Memorandum is recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 2 of 15 9. This Agreement may only be amended by written agreement of all the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers or representatives and their official seals hereto affixed the day and year first written above. Attest: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Deputy Clerk Dan Kowal, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: By: Assistant County Attorney ALICO, INC. By: I: Printed Name: P, E Title: P- jr , t + L.L,; (Print full name) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER �1+-I-- The foregoing Stewardship Receiving Area Credit greement was executed before me this JJ day of F , 2026, by means of physical presence or online notarization, by'T- 1= tC ✓V1a,0$ I� �-cvt-ial f Alico, Inc., who is personally known to me or who has produced as i en ification. MARYE.MOLINA Notary PA41_ =.; MY COMMISSION # HH 378656 Print Name I v \ 0�.✓l.1 G' d 1 ` n o-- �P°' EXPIRES: July 24, 2027 AL) 96;60605605MR- Fa.;q.. Certificate No. i-�E}' 3�SS( to My Commissioner Expireg-tJAA ( LL/ T-0 Z% Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 3 of 15 BBLS SRA CREDIT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA SURVEYORS, INC. 9001 HIGHLAND WOOD BLVD., SUITE. 6, BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA, 34135 TELEPHONE: (239) 597-1315 LEGAL DESCRIPTION CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE BOUNDARY A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09 AND 10, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: AREA 1 COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 04; THENCE RUN S.88149'18"W., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,508.39 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HERIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN S.0 1 0 1 0'09"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 560.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.70039'05"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 408.22 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 69012'45", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 56.79 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.36002'42"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.40 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.01026'19"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 188.82 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90000'00", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 70.71 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.43033'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 78.54 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.88033'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,025.38 FEET; THENCE RUN S.50°56'03"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 169.38 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37°37'38", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 32.25 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.69044'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 32.84 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.88033'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 703.74 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74033'23", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 60.57 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.54009'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.06 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.I6°52'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 136.11 FEET; TO THE BEGINNING Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 4 of 15 OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74°33'23", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 60.57 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.54°09'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.06 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.88°33'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 138.80 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10°5454"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,723.47 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 82 (A 200 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY); THENCE RUN N.73°57'58"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 3,951.29 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT "A" THENCE CONTINUE N.73057'58"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,511.79 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 04, THE SAME BEING A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT "B"; THENCE RUN N.01°10'09"W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,123.48 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE RUN S.89°34'35"E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,601.08 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 04; THENCE RUN N.88049'18"E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,195.39 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS OR 192.492 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. LESS AND EXCEPT COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "A", THENCE RUN N.16°02'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE N.16°02'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.91 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01 °02'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 132.64 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88057'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 234.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.0 1 002'1 7"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 268.38 FEET; THENCE RUN N.73°57'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 264.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 1.264 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. /: 0IFF AREA 2 COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "B", THENCE RUN S.I8°37'53"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 82 (A 200 FOOT WIIDE RIGHT OF WAY, THE SAME BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN S.73057'58"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 818.89 FEET; THENCE RUN S.36017'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.80 FEET; THENCE RUN N.73057'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 327.44 FEET; THENCE RUN N.78005'08"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 96.93 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00002'23"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 322.02 FEET; THENCE RUN S.73057'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 218.62 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 5 of 15 FEET; THENCE RUN S.36017'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 265.76 FEET; THENCE RUN S.53042'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.36017'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 711.07 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE RUN S.73057'58"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 3,151.52 FEET; THENCE RUN S.16°02'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 464.76 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CORKSCREW ROAD (A 100 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY), THE SAME BEING A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT "C"; THENCE RUN S.20°51'56"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,727.40 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,859.86 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37008'16", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 1,184.52 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.39°26'04"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,205.52 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.58000'12"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 6,667.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,914.79 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10045'18", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 546.33 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.52037'33"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 547.14 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.47014'54"W., ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 592.73 FEET; THENCE RUN N.42045'06"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 182.77 FEET; THENCE RUN N.08°34'04"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 29.19 FEET; THENCE RUN N.07"19'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.16 FEET; THENCE RUN N.04055'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.31 FEET; THENCE RUN N.05001'49"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.88 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00002'16"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 44.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01 ° 10'03"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.95 FEET; THENCE RUN N.0 I 029'48"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 47.71 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02018'30"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 59.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01001'00"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.59 FEET; THENCE RUN N.0 I 026'27"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.34 FEET; THENCE RUN N.26°36'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 21.65 FEET; THENCE RUN N.71 01 1'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 62.41 FEET; THENCE RUN N.78016'23"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 59.85 FEET; THENCE RUN N.44156'42"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 61.76 FEET; THENCE RUN N.07058'50"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.06048'04"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 79.45 FEET; THENCE RUN N.06020'44"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 62.71 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02158'06"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 61.35 FEET; THENCE RUN N.10°07'23"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.54 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01 °52'44"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 256.40 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02054' 16"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.49 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02025'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.25 FEET; THENCE RUN N.30011'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 54.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.86055'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 54.72 FEET; THENCE RUN S.85044'03"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 23.63 FEET; THENCE RUN N.62037'24"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 48.08 FEET; THENCE RUN N.29011'17"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 23.53 FEET; THENCE RUN N.34043'38"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 36.62 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02000'28"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.59 FEET; THENCE RUN N.04015'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.83 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 6 of 15 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02°00'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 64.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.03051'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 47.63 FEET; THENCE RUN N.05°47'57"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 48.46 FEET; THENCE RUN N.0 1'30'23 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 80.45 FEET; THENCE RUN N.01°08'26"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 95.81 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00039'33"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.77 FEET; THENCE RUN N.0I 03528"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.39 FEET; THENCE RUN N.03°07'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 46.18 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°03'06"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.03°24'00"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.90 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00004'14"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,048.74 FEET; THENCE RUN N.57" I 6'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 39.27 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88151'l7"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 944.04 FEET; THENCE RUN S.43019'43"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.74 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°10'26"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 620.35 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°37'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 59.32 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01007'47"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 176.53 FEET; THENCE RUN S.42053'32"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.07 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89003'28"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 191.01 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°36'21 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.23 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89019'21"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 133.04 FEET; THENCE RUN N.85050'05"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 99.43 FEET; THENCE RUN S.79025'26"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.39 FEET; THENCE RUN S.56044'28"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.38 FEET; THENCE RUN S.31001'07"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 37.43 FEET; THENCE RUN S.03043'08"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 96.90 FEET; THENCE RUN S.06°32'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 68.49 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°36'31 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.05 FEET; THENCE RUN S.04023'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 79.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01 ° 11'30"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.74 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02048' 10"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 118.12 FEET; THENCE RUN S.03103'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 102.35 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01 °30'01 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 119.09 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°20'04"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 75.13 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00029'22"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 94.37 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00142'05"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 92.14 FEET; THENCE RUN S.03°36'37"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 117.42 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°50'03"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 106.32 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°40'00"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 97.31 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00035'17"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 110.31 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00016'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 140.41 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°41' l 9"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 150.96 FEET; THENCE RUN S.0 I 004'59"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.24 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02022'19"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.05 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00021'33"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 123.18 FEET; THENCE RUN S.08021'l9"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 67.75 FEET; THENCE RUN S.45016'07"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 68.75 FEET; THENCE RUN S.84015'47"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.96 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89057'40"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.30 FEET; THENCE RUN S.86042'24"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 89.38 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89043'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 83.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88047'49"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 103.44 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89004'18"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 103.63 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89°39'41 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.75 FEET; THENCE RUN S.86002'46"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 64.96 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89035'11 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 68.29 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88055'43"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88023'45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.30 FEET; THENCE RUN S.87027'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 66.12 FEET; THENCE RUN N.74004'04"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 74.55 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°09'55"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 119.52 FEET TO THE Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 7 of 15 BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 78°43'31 ", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 31.71 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39°1 F51 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 34.35 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 235.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 78009'08", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 296.27 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39029'02"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 320.54 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.00024'28"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,096.45 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,700.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 22050'27", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 673.22 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.1 I °00'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 677.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2303442", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 122.59 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.10°38'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 123.46 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.01 008'43"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 224.54 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33055'13", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 408.39 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N. I 5048'54"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 414.42 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.32146'30"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 181.86 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12056'43", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 157.82 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39°14'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 158.16 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 382.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1205643", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 86.13 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39014'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 86.31 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.32046'30"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 53.08 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34°32'04", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 237.46 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.50°02'33"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 241.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 62°04'46", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 25.78 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.36°16'12"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 27.09 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.05013'48"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 426.62 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 8 of 15 THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27032'42", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 9.52 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.19°00'09"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 9.62 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.32°46'30"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 444.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.37041'31 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 223.51 FEET; THENCE RUN S.51'54'14"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 40.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 225.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39039' 16", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 152.97 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.71°43'53"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 156.07 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.88026'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 358.52 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 925.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23031'36", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 377.36 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.76040'41 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 380.03 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.64054'54"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,604.44 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERED TO AS POINT "D", THE SAME BEING THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,074.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24°30'39", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 456.17 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.77010' 13 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 459.67 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.89025'33"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,254.90 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 874.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25035'52", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 387.46 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.77046'31 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 390.70 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND A POINT OF CURVE OF A NON -TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 137.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19°26'36", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 46.27 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.71 °32'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 46.49 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND A POINT OF CURVE OF A NON -TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 675.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20°37'20", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 241.82 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.09008'24"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 243.13 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.01010'16"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 214.59 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 574.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30033'45", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 302.83 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.14°06'37"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 306.45 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 425.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56052' 12", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 405.21 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.00057'24"E., FOR A Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 9 of 15 DISTANCE OF 422.34 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 574.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43°30'44", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 425.89 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.05043'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 436.29 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.16°02'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.84 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 944.869 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. LESS AND EXCEPT COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "W', THENCE RUN S.27026'0I "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 402.44 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN N.67°11'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.46 FEET; THENCE RUN N.85021'28"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.15 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89002'13"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.07 FEET; THENCE RUN S.56015'41"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.07036'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 52.92 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00007'50"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 85.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01 °41'56"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.36 FEET; THENCE RUN S.12°47'36"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 42.53 FEET; THENCE RUN S.63014'17"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 36.54 FEET; THENCE RUN S.65058'21 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 78.96 FEET; THENCE RUN S.22040'47"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 41.36 FEET; THENCE RUN S.04°33'09"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.0I 042'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.11 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02043'11 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 51.59 FEET; THENCE RUN S.07040'03"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 31.35 FEET; THENCE RUN S.46059'16"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 27.98 FEET; THENCE RUN S.75058'12"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.61 FEET; THENCE RUN N.90°00'00"E , FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.56 FEET; THENCE RUN N.54040'20"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.65 FEET; THENCE RUN N.40°57'26"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 29.09 FEET; THENCE RUN N.08036'07"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 69.19 FEET; THENCE RUN N.07143'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 46.16 FEET; THENCE RUN N.I6°05'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.36 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°50' 11 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.96 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89104' 13"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.32 FEET; THENCE RUN N.86053'19"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 90.52 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88042'22"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.98 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88°44'52"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.21 FEET; THENCE RUN N.88059'24"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 87.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.78053'49"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.14°20'06"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 66.40 FEET; THENCE RUN S.09001'51 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 88.55 FEET; THENCE RUN S.09013'56"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 87.61 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10°53'56"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 57.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.09047'32"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.54 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10054'31 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.26 FEET; THENCE RUN S. 10045'45 "E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 97.85 FEET; THENCE RUN S.08050'14"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.26 FEET; THENCE RUN S.08024'23"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.35 FEET; THENCE RUN S.07028'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 94.54 FEET; THENCE RUN S.10011'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.77 FEET; THENCE RUN S.35009'18"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 54.16 FEET; THENCE RUN S.49038'14"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 76.97 FEET; THENCE RUN S.51040'50"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.73 FEET; THENCE RUN N.87043'38"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 43.73 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 10 of 15 FEET; THENCE RUN S.71'31'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 51.56 FEET; THENCE RUN S.74048'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.47°44'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 27.22 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00044'13"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 458.91 FEET; THENCE RUN N.50103'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 55.18 FEET; THENCE RUN N.52035'34"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 42.36 FEET; THENCE RUN N.52°39'27"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 44.34 FEET; THENCE RUN N.66017'41 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 33.93 FEET; THENCE RUN N.58116'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 44.24 FEET; THENCE RUN N.53046'50"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 103.66 FEET; THENCE RUN N.50°19'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.52 FEET; THENCE RUN N.59°46'44"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 108.92 FEET; THENCE RUN S.88021'52"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 31.84 FEET; THENCE RUN S.27044'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 40.05 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00057'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 386.62 FEET; THENCE RUN S.04158'47"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 38.88 FEET; THENCE RUN S.05°56'08"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 31.43 FEET; THENCE RUN S.03027'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 74.52 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02°15'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 71.04 FEET; THENCE RUN S.06011'40"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 36.66 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00043'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 350.98 FEET; THENCE RUN S.04°21'32"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 39.53 FEET; THENCE RUN S.02017'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 39.85 FEET; THENCE CONTINUE S.02017'57"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 28.25 FEET; THENCE RUN S.37127'37"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 43.13 FEET; THENCE RUN S.4601 F45"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 38.49 FEET; THENCE RUN S.52°30'51 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 41.39 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89050'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 37.75 FEET; THENCE RUN N.69029'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 144.19 FEET; THENCE RUN N.73051'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 84.95 FEET; THENCE RUN N.17°36'03"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 19.58 FEET; THENCE RUN N.15°55'16"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 469.33 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00°54'54"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 638.37 FEET; THENCE RUN N.10040'40"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 25.37 FEET; THENCE RUN N.65016'14"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 51.24 FEET; THENCE RUN N.80153'11 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 377.64 FEET; THENCE RUN N.41038'01 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 16.60 FEET; THENCE RUN N.13021'l2"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 35.89 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00016'22"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 80.83 FEET; THENCE RUN N.0005736"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.74 FEET; THENCE RUN N.02054'14"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 63.42 FEET; THENCE RUN N.04025'23"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.72 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00013'35"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 60.99 FEET; THENCE RUN N.14°04'29"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.90 FEET; THENCE RUN N.80° 17'27"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.29 FEET; THENCE RUN N.7902432"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.53 FEET; THENCE RUN N.33°59'45"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 70.02 FEET; THENCE RUN N.46053'13"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.26 FEET; TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 22.115 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. AND AREA 3 COMMENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "C", THENCE RUN S.87040'38"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 105.48 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD (A 200 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY) AND THE Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 11 of 15 SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CORKSCREW ROAD (A 100 FOOT WIDE WIGHT OF WAY), THE SAME BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID STATE ROAD 82, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,786.39 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00°3544"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 364.23 FEET; THENCE RUN S.73057'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 134.39 FEET; THENCE RUN N.31 °00'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 52.82 FEET; THENCE RUN S.58°59'58"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.31 °00'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.58159'58"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.31 000'02"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 278.43 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE RUN S.73°57'58"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 106.67 FEET; THENCE RUN S.16'02'01 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 10.84 FEET; THENCE RUN S.31100'01 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 361.08 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 497.96 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02°24'27", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 20.92 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.29°47'47"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 20.92 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN, S.73057'58"E., A DISTANCE OF 1,267.66 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00000'47"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,149.10 FEET; THENCE RUN S.I8°00'34"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 269.47 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,725.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 57°00'46", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 1,646.54 FEET, AT A BEARING OF S.46030'57"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,716.48 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN S.75°01'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 885.99 FEET; THENCE RUN S.06002'21 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 300.50 FEET; THENCE RUN S.14°52'39"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.55 FEET; THENCE RUN N.75°07'20"W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 3,889.60 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID CORKSCREW ROAD; THENCE RUN N.58000'12"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,619.31 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,959.86 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37008' 16", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD DISTANCE OF 1,248.21 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N.39°26'04"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,270.34 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N.20051'56"E., ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,760.94 FEET; TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PAREL CONTAINS 332.608 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 12 of 15 THE TOTAL AREA OF PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN IS 1,446.590 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 03, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING A BEARING OF 5.89°29'58"E. THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 13 of 15 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE - SRA LAND USE SUMMARY gYMBOL DESCRIPTION ACRES %OPENOPEN SPACE SPACE AC NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE N NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL 998.99 30% 299.70 11 AMENITY 8.50 40% 3.40 ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 6540 15% 9.81 FOOT WATER W TYPE'O' R O.W ATI (CORKSCREW RD) 17.65 15% 2,65 O "-M AREA BUFFER HENDRY COUNTY BUFFER LAKES 53.20 100% 53.20 ® Ac ` , DRAINAGE CANALS 32.13 100% 32.13 0 Bev +tar �N"D R - _ - - - _ _ :-3.ICA. BOUNDARY • st'g . OPEN SPACE 15.83 100% 15.83 22 A X sruE +• • Boe' AaBgRLs,ADr 2 - -_ _ _ . IbgFi��n tq I �KRSo s3A rh . EX. UTILITY E I IN 45.72 9D% 41.15 "F12E'�17aP sr R.n ` r, , NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL 1,237.41 i - N ° • FuwnBunMTv DATE . AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTEXT ZONE 'ppW - _ RIOT.T-- 1. A,- , AFFORDABLE HOUSING 36.22 20% 7.24 Fool YMTER - • - - tltaN GuuV , ESSENTIAL SERVICES 3.41 1 20% 1 0.68 MANADEMENTAREA 1 DOT WAITER• • AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL 1 39.63 - AR A. MANABEA1ta1T ` VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE Byp � - r VILLAGECENTER 145.55 30% 43-88 1 AG &u •D• `�•r,FUT E, ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (PUBLIC 24.00 30% 7.20 IIGATING AFwasAor 61 k c Ac IuNm VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL 169,55 IF POTEN GDARDH0ui;E- 'a N: °Rry ,zpAWc ,INol vR BRA BOUNDARY TOTAL . 9 36% 518.83 ! ENTPY FEATURE V 1��r `+Esp� a AANAim SAor TW SA A I, ( _ 1 1.29541 100% 1_ 1,295.41 I SSA 23 ) 36887 100% 1 388.87�» any P`F p f A2p,�oV . SSABOUNDARY TOTAL 1,694.281 100% - ` AGDr'Yow OPEN SPACE TABLE . It -`! , _ i �� v cQ \�'W4'1• 1 ) % '4FF.444` RctocdlGD c>eeAr� I 'U1EA. AREA AC `. eT+ L' •. � y REQUIRED 506.3 J5X "Fu1w�, .'- B,! uouGT+cANA: �\ xMOeU II PROVIDED 516.6 36% C�ITIECTI�N nDAD CRpsvwu- " OtIRDOGTOOE _ N� vf{ e '•I_ rFp BUFFER REWIRED-- UT4KEQ ACRIT(Fi4. \ LEGEND �4lfiTAT4N+ ' T RDSSWG FR EASEMF.r- _per. N.G �_ -NO ♦ INTERNAL CONNECTION roTETaT1Al FUruaF ( nri+n RrwnmE - _ 1vr�i . LOCATION CONNECTIo•, ,0. EXTERNAL CONNECTION LOCATION -0 OPTIONAL CONNECTION M O ' CORRIOORI ' LOCATION Iv rvPE •r - - N c :" ` - ' � PROJECT ACCESS POINTS Ac ALONG SR 82 ALIGN WITH :.DADA;: nAr�.nw - _ - ' REOUNIEA ' PROPOSED MEDIAN BREAKS 1La S R A ` • rro4 IN FDOT IMPROVEMENT - BOUNDARY '�, �� j . .-�.�.�.. . qS g, • .. PLANS $ R A POTEN1wL GUARUHt1U.iL "� 1' 8 - ENTRY FEATURE •_T r DARY S RA CROSS SECTION BOUNPDTENNALREGIONAL TR15AT4E16i ? WRBN M�WDBEN Cp"- p uTloNe IavrslDE rusTEa swusl LOCATION IDENTIFIER d� Loro 9Sn B2: - p CONCEPTUAL NATURE ` t� GENERAL NOTES TRAILHEADS. BOARDWALKS. OR OBSERVATION PIERS 1 MASTER FLAN IS CONCEPTUAL INTERNAL ROAD AiIGiENTS LAKE 5 LOCATIONS DEVELOPWNT AREAS ARE SUBJECT TO MODKICUTION MT- TILE RI - SOP ANDIOR PPL PERMRTING NO BIFFER REGIARED-ter ' -� p\jA � ezdWAG A AW(lr 2 SEE MMLITY RAN FOR PATr AYS JAC AOENT TO SSA F22 7,t�q 3 NRA LAND USE IS MTIRN SSA RB MIDIS NOT INUUMD W THE SPA BOUNDARY AREA THE IIIRA AREA IS NOl INCLUDED IN Tl1E OPEN SPACE MCULATIONS DATE aEVIS10Ns JR EVA ET�iEER1q Pw CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA DESIGNED By JRE PROJECT• olm 63325 REVISED PER COIWTY{pVlI3ER CpnEM9 JR EVANS __ _ BO1.2S REVISED PER COUNTY COMAENTS ENGINEERING EXHIBIT (A) DRAWN BY EKA FILE DATE Ands wn.d.I..uco" SRA MASTER PLAN BLACK 8 WHITE SCALE -, 12W SKET 2 a 10 A O m SRA CREDIT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT "C" Land Use Summary Use Density or Intensity Residential Up to 4,502 Dwelling Units Commercial Min. and Max. of 238,606 gross square feet of retail and office uses, a max. of 100,000 gross square feet of indoor self-stora e Civic, Governmental, Institutional I Min. 42,020 square feet • Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA contains 1,446.59f acres. • Corkscrew Grove East Village contains approximately 24.33± acres of parks, park preserves, wetland park preserves, and a Neighborhood General Amenity Center. This exceeds the SRA requirement of providing 1 % of the SRA gross acreage (14.47 acres) for recreation and parks for neighborhoods. • Corkscrew Grove East Village provides 516.60f acres of (36f percent) of Open Space. • Total acreage requiring stewardship credits is 1,382.96 acres (total Village acreage excluding public use acreage). • Eight (8) credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created from an SSA submitted for review or approved prior to July 13, 2021. The SRA utilizes 8,504.80 Stewardship Credits from SSA 11 created prior to July 13, 2021, which entitles 968.81 acres of the SRA. • Ten (10) credits per acre shall be required for each acre of land included in an SRA, where such Credits were created from a SSA 22 submitted for review or approved after July 13, 2021. The SRA utilizes 3,198.60 Stewardship Credits from SSA(s) created after July 13, 2021, which entitles 319.86 acres of the SRA. • Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA does not include lands within ACSC Overlay. • Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA does not include land designated Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA)or Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA). • There is a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) surrounded by the SRA that includes 81.56 acres of Water Retention Area (WRA). This WRA will not provide stormwater quality treatment for the SRA. • The SRA does not include any lands with a Natural Resource Index (NRI) greater than 1.2. Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Credit Agreement (2-19-2026).docx Page 15 of 15 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) PRE -APPLICATION MEETING NOTES Collier County GMCD Public Portal .Land Development Code Administrative Code Zoning Pre -Application Meeting Notes Petition Type: SRA & SSA' s Date and Time: —Tuesday lo/l/2o24 at 3: oopm COMPANION ITEMS: Property Information Alica East Village (SRA) - PL2 o 24o o to 212 -Nancy Gundlach Assigned Planner: Alica SSA 23 (SSA) - PL2 o 2 4 o o to 214 -Austin Grubb Alica SSA 22 (SSA) - PL2024 o o to 213 -Austin Grubb Project Name:__ iS; 1�. 2.4�A44..J ��2o 2Ao a Lo_2_];('. =Austin Grubb — ------ PL#:———————————————————————————————— Property ID#: See attached Current Zoning: A - M H_o_-_R_L_S_A_o____ Project Address: City Irnrnokalee State: FL .Zip: 3 414 2 Applicant: Hole Montes, Inc - Stephanie Karol 239-2 s 4-2o 18 Hole Montes, Inc - Bob NhalherE?.. ,th Senior VP Bowman AgentName:_______________ f one: Agent/Firm Address: 95 o Encore Way City: Naples State: FL Zip: 3411 o Property Owner: Ali co Land Dev Co. Please provide the following, if applicable: i. Total Acreage: 1,450 ii. Proposed # of Residential Units: 4,351 iii. Proposed # of Affordable Housing Units:_______ iv. Proposed CommercialSquareFootage: _23 o, s 5 o plus 43, s o o Civic V. For Amendments, indicate the original petition number: vi. If there is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please indicate the type and number: ———————————————————————— vii. If the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#: viii. Is Project within an Area of Historical/Archaeological Probability? Pre -Application Meeting Notes 6/26/2024 Page 1 of 5 Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive- Naples, FL 34104 •239-252-2400 •\\\\W.collicrcoumvtl.eov/ Collier County � L% kJ I S ♦� i4- 7 �.Q ill 1 � Q �1i,�1 J.i V — %-rQ-'L( 21 � 1�Ui4 i2.�� P. S Q- �t �� D iVviz ® 0�_d P A-6-es a C. i .. �7, C , 3,. 7-o/IV, Ivb OI > - $ e- 4 A-7l,teh<- a IL'A A— SSA Aft'LtCA Oas 1 p04-1 2.V s «, 1-s .. Ra«,'ESdstscts fl- r- 'i h _.t_. a ci •'th sr, % L A (,lNo 1 a'> - Ucae.1, /) f..t.: '1 R 2.Jv 't !/C.1J rt",G1,t1 G tY W As, RAnijimd, The most current Application Forms & the Property Ownership Disclosure Form are required for your submittal. Download from this link: https://www.colliercountvfl.aovlgovernment/growth-management/divisions/planning-and- zoning- division/land-use-applications#!/ Di.crinimer- Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Pre -Application Meeting Notes 6/26/2024 Growth Management Community De,•clopment • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive- Naples, FL 34104 •239-252 2400 •W\\W.rnlli.::rrnunr•r1 .gm•/ Page 2 of 5 ThomasClarkeVEN From: Laurie Beard Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2024 3:35 FM To: ThomasClarkeVEN / /07 Subject: Zoning Pre-App RESL•1REH-for Alica East Village (SRA - PL20240010212 & SSAs Attachments: Transportation-SRA monitoring pre app handout 2023.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged UD/SRA Monitoring pre-app notes are attached. Laurie Beard Project Manager II Development Review Office:239-252-5782 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL34104 Laurie. Beard(a)colliercountyfl.gov i!) Collier Count) 01MCOMI 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 Transportation Planning and SRA Monitoring Pre-App Notes Developer Commitments: Transportation Planning "The maximum total daily trip generation for the SRA 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." Use Codes Provide both ITE and SIC use codes in the TIS. SRA Monitoring "One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for SRA monitoring until close- out of the SRA, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out ofthe SRA. At the time ofthis SRA approval, the Managing Entity is the Insert Company Name Here. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the SRA by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the SRA is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of SRA commitments." Miscellaneous "Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part ofthe applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement ofthe development." G,1 G - (J ' •J9V ThomasClarkeVEN From: Michael Sawyer Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2024 3:58 I M To: ThomasClarkeVEN; Nancy Gundlach Subject: Pre-App notes for Alica East Village SRA. Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged Please provide the following notes for Transportation Planning: Transportation Planning: A methodology virtual meeting is required (the preview already provided is much appreciated). Provide a note on the TIS cover sheet that the fee will be collected at the time of PUD submittal. Address all transportation elements of the GMP including SRA provisions. Provide both ITE and SIC use codes in the TIS. Provide trip limit/cap Developer Commitment based on TIS 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 /TE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time ofapplicationforSDP/SDPA orsubdivision plat approval. " Also, provide all potential interconnections where possible to adjacent parcels. Please follow the same review document/format and timing successfully used for previous SRA projects and let us know of any questions or concerns. Due to the development location, there will be additional coordination with other agencies as discussed. Respectfully, Michael Sa"yer Project Manager It Transportation Management Services Department Transportation Planning 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34 I04 239-252-2926 michael.sa\V')'er(i�colliercountyfl.gov Michael Sawyer Project Manager II Capital Project Planning, Office:239-252-2926 Impact Fees and Program Management Michael. Sawyer(a)colliercountyfl.gov Collier County DlHmGJn Under Florida Law. e-mail addresses are public records If you do not want your e-mail address released in response tm a public records request. do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead. contact this office b/ telephone or in writing. ThomasClarkeVEN From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Here you go Tom Austin Grubb Planner III Zoning Office:239-252-2834 Austin Grubb Tuesday, October 29, 2024 1 fl1 PM ThomasClarkeVEN Alica Village East PL20240010212, 13 and 14.docx A.,1*cAev 61omP r2,40,N/" �o► S Austin.Grubb(cbcolliercountvfl.gov A) Collier Count) OIJ£tl!JII 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 n writing PA- 6'_" a C � I I October 29, 2024 GMP Amendment Pre -Application Meeting Standard Comments PL20240010212 PL20240010213 and PL20240010214 Alico East Villaae 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 s5D 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. 1. Please address any applicable policies contained in the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSA). Specifically policies 4.1-4.23. If any policies are not applicable, please indicate why they are not applicable. 2 Please address the applicable requirements of Attachment "C", the Collier County RLSA Overlay Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics for the category of Village. 3 Please ensure that all of the Water Resource Areas are mapped within both the Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) and the Stewardship Sending Area (SSA). 4. In addition, please address the Collier County RLSA Overlay: Attachment A Stewardship Credit Worksheet Proposed. 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: I N, Q_ � 01 - I October 29, 2024 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 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. ��aCo3, Collier County Meeting Notes -Continued -=jkG[U,L-of.Ji_fe!,vT Kc„ "2--VieO � XHM "2 Col I ; - .5 .Le.e..A_77 / fIL o a u L N1 [ " Q C1,-v G.-e. ...... EJV IIIo.Z M _f111L:1n-L C/LA= . n, r,;. w . $2-<2- ZT4,*,- --,.d �f, A:1L (Jul<S 4A-6 5f- - C)I"' s i at'i r S 3 A- 1— , C4.'LL Z �e/L- F d - F / ; r N �L S S: 47TItoh 11 °'2N(I. .L Att- .' &< "T,1vL Nu'rt. 5 lA&,1, II.&'• — 1)/I4--W C. voy O.V A-tt-7hc.i, y <;tGLt.:::;J.., Note 1: {fsite is within the City o fNaples Water Service Area please send to Naples Utilities and Planning Departments. Then. ifthepetition is submitted. xe are to send it (by email) to thefourpersons below hi their Utilities and Planning Department along with a request that they send us a letter or email of "no objection" to thepetition. Bob Middleton RMiddleton(iv.naplesgou.com ,Allyson Holland AAHolland((&napleszoucom, Robin Singer RSingeKa) 'naP1eszoucom. Erica Martin emartin(a,'napleszov.com Note2: The County collects impactfees prior to the issuance o fa Certificate o fOccupancy to help offset the impacts ofeach new development cn publicfacilities. These impactfees are used tofundprojects identified in the Capital Improvement Element ofthe Growth Management Plan (GAP) as needed b maintain the adopted Level ofService (LOS)forpublicfacilities. Otherfees collectedprior to the issuance ofa buildingpermit include buildingpermit reviewfees. Please note that impactfees and taxes collected were not included In the criteria used by staffand the Planning Commission to anazvze this petition. Pre -Application Meeting Notes 6/26/2024 Growth Management Community Oe,•clopment • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive- Napb, FL 34104 • 139-252-2400 -.w\\,,v.collicrcountvtl.em•/ Page 3 of 5 ThomasClarkeVEN From: Jaime Cook Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2024 5:14 PM To: Craig Brown; ThomasClarkeVEN Subject: RE: Zoning Pre-App RE$E.A:tK!=t for Alico East Village (SRA - PL20240010212 & SSA's ,t)t" s Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Craig, For this pre-app, please make sure the client knows we need: 1. NRI Assessment, including Listed Species Surveys for each SSA and SRA 2. GIS Files each for NRI Assessment 3. Credit Agreement for SRA 4. Individual Credit Agreements for each SSA 5. Individual Escrow Agreements for each SSA 6. Individual Easement Agreement for each SSA Any questions, please let me know. Thanks! Jaime Cook M.S., CPM Division Director - Development Review Development Review Office: 239-252-6290 Mobile:239-571-3800 2800 Horseshoe Drive N Naples, FL 34104 Jaime. Cook(a)_colIiercountyfl.gov I! Collier County ofistcoln From: Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Tuesday, October 1 2024 10:48 PM To: ThomasClarkeVEN <Thomas.Clarke@colliercountyfl.gov>; Brett Rosenblum <Brett. Rosen blum@colliercountyfl.gov>; Claudia Vargas <Claudia.Vargas@colliercountyfl.gov>; Jaime Cook <Jaime.Cook@colliercountyfl.gov>; Cormac Giblin <Cormac.Giblin@colliercountyfl.gov>; Craig Brown <Craig.Brown @colliercountyfl.gov>; David Roe <David.Roe@colliercountyfl.gov>; Derek Perry <Derek. Pe,r: ry@colliercountyfl.gov>; Drew Cody <Drew.Cody@colliercountyfl.gov>; Eric Ortman <Eric,O rtman@colliercountyfl.gov>; ImpactFees <ImpactFees@colliercountyfl.gov>; James Sabo -5Ja es.Sabo@colliercountyfl.gov>; Jessica Malloy <Jessica.Malloy@colliercountyfl.gov>; Jocelyn-Nageondelestang <Jocelyn.Nageondelestang@colliercountyfl.gov>; Jocelyn Nageondelestang <Jocelyn.Nageondelestar<'g@col liercountyfl.gov>; Laurie Beard <Laurie.Beard@colliercountyfl.gov>; Lisa Blacklidge <Lisa.Blacklidge@colliercou„ntyfl.gov>; Maria Estrada <Maria.Estrada @colliercountyfl.gov>; Mark Templeton <Mark.Templeton@colliercountyfl_ftOV>; Michael Sawyer <Michael.Sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov>; Michele DSca £ A <Michele.Mosca@colliercountyfl.gov>; Napleslinda <Linda.Naples@colliercountyfl.gov>; Sally Ashkar 1 U N ,,,, ThomasClarkeVEN From: Craig Brown Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 10:24 PM To: ThomasClarkeVEN Cc: Nancy Gundlach „1./Ji:"Es- Subject: RE: Zoning Pre-App Re AB G I for Alice East Village (SRA - PL20240010212 & SSA's Attachments: SRA Designation Checklists.docx Thomas, Here are my notes for Alice East Village SRA Jaime has provided the SSA notes, correct? Please provide a Natural Resource Index Assessment Map (NRI) with calculations, FLUCFCS, Soil mapping and Listed Species Survey. If there are changes to the Natural Resource Index value, please provide supporting documentation. Please provide any supporting documents from State and Federal agencies if available. Please include exhibits for Panther, Bonneted bat, Cara Cara, Black bear, and locations for potential wildlife road crossings, wildlife fencing ect ect. Please show buffers for conservation areas adjacent to development areas. (See checklist). Provide the credit agreement for the SRA. 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 Panther Corridors.) 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). Please provide Human wildlife coexistences plan. Indicate how lighting will be addressed in relation to wildlife protection (Dark skies Compliant) Provide a survey for listed plants identified in 3.04.03. 3. Provide the following Natural Resource Index Assessment and Support Documentation (LDC 4.08.07.D.3-4): 1. Calculations that quantify the number of acres by index values, the level of conservation being offered, and the resulting number of credits being generated. 2. The acreage of agricultural and non-agricultural lands by type being preserved 3. The acreage of all lands by type within the proposed SRA that have an index value greater than 1.2. All lands designated as SRA within the ACSC. NRI assessment GIS Files each for NRI Assessment P ff(., 4'- 4. Provide acreage calcs. for lands being put into an SRA, including WRAs within the SRA boundary. (LDC 4.08.07.D.4.b) 5. Please address how the proposed project is consistent with Conservation Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 6.1.3 and Objective 7.1, Policy 7.1.3. FLUE Policies 5.5,5.6, and 5.7. 6. 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 acreages greater than NRI 1.2). 7. 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). 8. Indicate wetlands to be impacted and the effects of the impact to their functions and how the project's design compensates for wetland impacts. 9. 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. 10. 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) 11. After the first review please contact ES Staff to arrange a field visit. Please Check off $2500 Environmental Data Fee. Craig Brown Manager- Environmental Services Development Review Office:239-252-2548 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Craig. Brown(a�colliercountyfl.gov From: ThomasClarkeVEN <Thomas.Clarke@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2024 3:05 PM To: Craig Brown <Craig.Brown @colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Nancy Gundlach <Nancy.Gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: FW: Zoning Pre-App RESEARCH for Alico East Village (SRA - PL20240010212 & SSA's O Collier County 0 fli MCGII Hi Craig, Forwarding you Jaime's email as a reminderto work on the Pre-App Notes forAlica East Village SRA. I am attaching the Aerials and location map for all the parcels. Thanks Tom 7 e&,,6c z �46 e- :,� 9 - 9-- SRA Designation Sufficiency Checklist (Environmental) 1. Provide the following Natural Resource Index Assessment and Support Documentation (LDC 4.08.07.D.3-4): a Calculations that quantify the number of acres by index values, the level of conservation being offered, and the resulting number of credits being generated. h The acreage of agricultural and non-agricultural lands by type being preserved c. The acreage of all lands by type within the proposed SRA that have an index value greater than 12 d All lands designated as SRA within the ACSC. NRI assessment 2 Provide acreage calcs. for lands being put into an SRA, including WRAs within the SRA boundary. (LDC 4.08.07.D.4.b) 3. Provide aNatural Resource Index map of the area being designated as a SRA. (LDC 4.08.07.D.4.e) N RI map 4. Provide a RLSA Overlay map and aerial delineating the location boundaries of the area being designated as a SRA. (LDC 4.08.07.D.4.c-d) location map 5. Provide a FLUCFCS map on an aerial photograph delineating the area being designated as SRA. (LDC 4.08.07.D.4.f) FLUCCS map 6. Provide a listed species occurrence map delineating the area being designated as SRA. (LDC 4.08.07.D.4.g) 7. Provide a soils map delineating the area being designated as SRA. (LDC 4.08.07.D.4.h) S Provide documentation to support a proposed change to the related Natural Resource Index Value of the site. (LDC 4.08.07.D.4.i) N RIV change 9. Provide the SRA Master Plan identifying all conservation/preservation lands and wetland preservation and buffer areas. Provide documentation of professional credentials of environmental consultant involved with its preparation. (I.DC 4.08.07.D.5) 10. Provide the SRA Development Document. (LDC 4.08.07.D.6) ?4(,.Ti -.. f� Paget'o f?— SRA Designation Review Checklist (Environmental) 1. Demonstrate compliance with environmental zoning overlay requirements (i.e. ST, ACSC-ST, SRA etc) (LDC 2.03.05-2.03.08; 4.08.00) zoning compliance 2 Lands designated FSA, HSA, or SSA cannot be designated SRA. Remove any areas under this designation from the SRA boundaries. WRAs can be within the boundaries of the SRA for water management, but cannot be designated SRA. (LDC 4.08.07 A) designation 3. Lands greater than one acre with an index Yalue greater than 12 shall be retained in a natural state. (LDC 4.08.07.A. Ld) 4. The master plan shall direct incompatible land uses from FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and Conservation. (LDC 4.08.07.G.1) 5. Demonstrate how the SRA shall not encroach into an FSA or HSA. (LDC 4.08.07.A. Lg) SRA encroachment 6 When a proposed SRA adjoins an FSA, HSA or Conservation land, the master plan shall provide a 300' open space buffer. Specify on the plan the permitted uses within the buffer. (LDC 4.08.07.J.6.d.ii) buffer 7. When the SRA abuts the west boundary of FSAs and HSAs in Camp Keais Strand the buffer shall be 500' wide; golf course fairways and turf areas shall not be located within the first 300'. (LDC 4.08.07.J.6.d.ii) west buffer 8. SRA's located within the ACSC or adjoining land designated as Conservation, FSA or HSA shall be heard before the EAC. (LDC 4.08.07 _ E La) ACSC Additional Comments: Stipulations for approval (Conditions) Linda Naples Sr. Fire Plan Examiner Building Plan Review & Inspection Office:239-252-2311 ems: Li nda. Naples(@ -col I iercou ntyfl.gov �c0 c How are we doing' Please Click here to fill out a Customer Survey We appreciate your Feedback! 4) Collier Count) 011MC011n Under Florida Law. e-mail addresses are public records If you do not want your e-mail address released 1n response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity Instead. contact this office by telephone or in writing ? " 3c, ( CAr County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 Meeting Notes North Collier Fire District Pre-app notes for Pre -Application Meeting PL20240010212, PL20240010213, PL20240010214, & PL20240010216 - Alica East Village (SRA) + (SSA) On the cover sheet, please provide the occupancy classification as per the FL Fire Prevention Code, the occupant load, the construction type and total square footage. Please also include the sprinkler intent for this structure. If sprinkler system will be installed, also show point of service and appurtenances PIV, backflow, FDC. Please show FD access road requirements are met with a road within 50 of an entry point/ exterior door and the furthest point of the building cannot be greater than 150 ft from a fire department access road in unsprinklered buildings and 450 ft in sprinklered occupancies. Lastly, please show existing hydrants and provide a fire flow test on district letterhead that is no greater than 6 months old. Please call (239) 597-9227 to schedule a fire flow test. If any further assistance is needed please feel free to contact North Collier Fire Plan Review at (239)252-2311 and ask for Linda Naples Above may not apply for this SRA at this time Applicant stated they will be meeting with Fire Officials At a later date. �GL 3cva- Collier County Zoning Pre -Application Meeting Sign -In Sheet PL# 20240010212 Collier County Contact Information: 20240010213 20240010216 Name Review Discipline Phone Email J ❑ Mike Bosi Division Director-Planning&Zoning 252-1061 Michael. Bosi@colliercountyfLgov ❑ Ray Bellows Manager- Planning &Zoning 252-2463 raymond.bellows@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Richard Henderlong Zoning -Planner III 252-2464 richard.henderlong@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Laura DeJohn Zoning -Vendor 252-5587 Laura.dejohn@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ John Kelly Zoning -Planner III 252-5719 john.kelly@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Tim Finn, AICP Zoning - Planner III 252-4312 timothy.finn@colliercountyfl.gov % Nancy Gundlach, AICP Zoning - Planner III 252-2484 nancy.gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov 71 ❑ Eric Ortman Zoning - Planner III 252-1032 Eric.Ortman@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Sean Sammon Zoning - Planner III P 252-8422 Sean.sammon@colliercountyfl.gov Maria Estrada Zoning Planner 1 252-2408 Maria Estrads@colliercountyfl.gov " Tim Finn, AICP Zoning - Planner III 252-4312 timothy.finn@colliercountyfl.gov El Thomas Clarke Zoning Operations Analyst 252-2526 thomas.clarke@colliercountyfl.gov 0 AnthonyStoltz Utility Planning - Supervisor 252-5835 Anthony. stoltz@col IiercountyfLgov ❑ Drew Cody Utility Planning - Project Mgr 111 252-2917 Drew.cody@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Brandi Pollard Utility Impact fees 252-6237 brandi.pollard@colliercountyfl.gov U Shon Fandrich Utilities -Project Mgt -Supervisor 252-8835 Shon.fandrich@colliercountyfl.gov [J Steve Baluch Transportation Planning 252-2361 stephen.baluch@colliercountyfl.gov Michael Sawyer Transportation Planning 252-2926 michael.sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov U Michael Gibbons Structural/Resident Plan Review 252-2426 michael.gibbons@colliercountyfl.gov Alicia Humphries Right -Of -Way Permitting 252-2326 alicia.humphries@colliercountyfl.gov lZJ Laurie Beard PUD Monitoring -Project Mgr II 252-5782 laurie.beard@colliercountyfl.gov U Sean Lintz Battalion Chief - NL Collier Fire 597-9227 slintz@northcollierfire.com _ 1J Bryan Horbal Captain - N Collier Fire 552-1367 Bryan.horbal@colliercountyfl.gov Daniel Turner Plan Examiner - lu Collier Fire 252-2521 Daniel.turner@colliercountyfl.gov Al Linda Naples Sr. Plan Examiner- N Collier Fire 252-2311 Linda. re ples@col liercou ntyfl .gov Shar A Beddow Dep. Fire Marshal - Gr Naples Fire 241-1422 sbeddow@gnfire.org Thomas Mastroberto Gr. Naples Fire Site Plans Rev. III 252-7348 thomas.mastroberto@colliercountyfl.gov Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Asst. County Attorney 252-8773 heid i.ashton@col liercountyfl .gov Derek Perry Assistant County Attorney 252-8066 Derek. perry@col IiercountyfLgov 11 James Sabo, AICP GMP, Comp Planning Manager 252-2708 james.sabo@colliercountyfl.gov jX Parker Klopf GMP-Comp Planning- Planner III 252-2471 Parker.klopf@colliercountyfl.gov i:)/( Jessica Malloy GMP-Comp Planning -Planner 1 252-4329 Jessica.malloy@colliercountyfl.gov -fir", Stephenne Barter GMP-Comp Planning- Planner 1 252-7707 1 Stephenne.barter@colliercountyfl.gov Pre -Application Meeting Notes 6/26/2024 Page 4 of 5 Growth Management Community Development- Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive- Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 •..ww.col11l'rcounW1.Qm- Collier County ❑ Michele Mosca,AICP Community Development Planner III 252-2834 Michele.mosca@colllercountyfl.gov ff Craig Brown Environmental Review -Mgr. I 252-2548 craig.brown@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Alexandra Mitchel Environmental Specialist 252-2907 Alexandra.Mitchel@colliercountyfl.gov David Roe Environmental Specialist 252-2915 David. Roe@col IiercountyfLgov ❑ Lauren Murray Environmental Specialist 252-2306 Lauren.murray@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ John Houldsworth Engineering Subdivision Vend. 252-5757 john.houldsworth@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jocelyn Nageon De Lestang, P.E. Engineering - Stormwater 252-2434 ocelvn.Na-eondeLestanr colliercountvfl.eov ❑ Jack McKenna, P.E. Engineering Services 252-2911 jack.mckenna@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Matt McLean, P.E. Division Director - IF, CPP & PM 252-8279 matthew.mclean@colliercountyfl.gov Cormac Giblin, AICP Division Director - Economic. Dev. & Housing 252-2460 Cormac.giblin@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Sarah Harrington Manager - Planning 252-4211 Sarah.harrington@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jamie Cook Division Director- Development Review 252-6290 Jaime.cook@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Lisa Blacklidge Development Review Manager- Planning 252-2758 Lisa. blacklidge@col IiercountyfLgov ❑ Christine Willoughby Planner III 252-5748 christine.willoughby@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Brett Rosenblum-P.E. Development Review - Su ervisor Project Mgr. 252-2905 brett.rosenblum@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Mark Templeton Landscape Review - Planner III 252-2475 mark.templeton@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Peter Shawinsky Architectural Review 252-8523 peter.shawinsky@colliercountyfl.gov Gino Santabarbara Impact Fees - Planner III 252-2925 Gino.santabarbara@colliercountyfl.gov Diane Lynch Management Analyst 1 252-4283 diane.lynch@colliercountyfl.gov Renald Paul Client Services 252-2443 Renald.paul@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Connie Thomas Client Services -Supervisor 252-6369 Consuela.thomas@colliercountyfl.gov rt,N- jo i. e Pot- t i t-V 2 0. - Jg314 Additional Attendee Contact Information: Name Representing Phone Email KwM X>vAA Pre -Application Meeting Notes 6/26/2024 Page 5 of 5 Growth Management Community Dc\'clopment • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive- Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252 2400 •\\\\•w.collicrcountvtl.eo\•/ Pre-App Zoom Attendance: COMPANION ITEMS: A_i is a_EastYiva ge (SBAI- PLz 0240010 z 12 PIawec�-Nancy-Gundlach ALLca s Se z 3 (s SA) - P,z0240010z J L _ _ _ _ L mer-AAuAiILG.na..b.b Pkvw-lu 9 in Gull b AUco_SSA 24(SsA)-7PL202400i0216 —21annerLAusiinGrubb Meeting Date: Tuesday 10/1/24 at 3:00 ZOOM "Ll F-. ld a � iart. c ,-ja "lt II t►lornas clarke (Host, me) . W aHeatller Samborski D Lli MGWID Clieli t Services GAPD Client Servic... (Co -host) ff • NancyGundlach - Al DRich Q, L ii ClRobert Qlulhere 01 II Alvaro Yusty • Craig Brown C T DKenP g, 1=tJ Mitch Hutchcraft D. KI • Austin Grubb % L11. Dbeard 1 % Bryan Horbal NC F R % II ca rly.sa nseveri n o % Corn,ac Giblin % Craig Brown % r=-i:J mDaniel Turner, N C F R % aDavidRoe % GmDerek D. Perry, County Attorney •s Office % mGary Ferrante % en 91 Heidi A s i, ton-Cicko % C) i Jeremie C l,astain .% DJmsicar-.tI1allq, % aJosh's iPhone % 11 LBrunetti %p =n aLindaNaples I11 LucyGallo Norn,an Trebitcock mParker Klopf % V1 - sawyern,ichael % i !=J - Schimia % h Solid Wasl:e Division % VT S1:ephenneJ3arter % OJ mTbml:hy Finn % V-tl i t _� ounty Growth Management Community Development Dept. ZONING STAFF FORM FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PRE -APPLICATION MEETING Meeting Date: Tuesday 10/1/24 at 3:00 COMPANION ITEMS: Zoning Operations Staff: Thomas Clarke Alico East Village (SRA) - PL20240010212 Planner: Nancy Gundlach Alico SSA 23 SSA - PL20240010214 Planner: Austin Grubb Alico SSA 22 (SSA) - PL20240010213 Planner: Austin Grubb Alico SSA 24 (SSA) - PL20240010216 • Applicant Submitting Request: Hole Montes, Inc- Stephanie Karol 239-254-2018 stephaniekarol@hmeng.com • Agent to list for PL# Hole Montes, Inc - Bob Mulhere, Senior VP Bowman • Owner of property (all owners for all parcels) Alico Land Dev Co. • Confirm Purpose of Pre-App: Establish an SRA and three SRA's Planner: Austin G • Please list the density request of the project if applicable and number of homes/units/offices/docks (any that apply): TBD • Details about Project: Alico, Inc. proposes to establish the Alico East Village SRA. The subject property is located at the intersection of Corkscrew Road and SR 82 in Eastern Collier, on both the west and east side of Corkscrew Road, and north and south of SR 82. (Folio Numbers: 00050160000, 00050120008,00050480007,00050440005,00050240001,00050400003,00050360004, 00050320002) The SRA is proposed to consist of 1,450 Acres, 4,351 Dwelling Units (3.0 per gross acre), 230,550± square feet of Neighborhood Commercial and 43,500± square feet of Civic (per RLSA). This is a companion item to Alica SSA 22, Alica SSA 23 and Alica SSA 24. Alica, Inc. proposes to establish a new+/- 1.285.3 acre Stewardship Sending Area designation for property generally located east of Corkscrew Road, and north and south of SR 82. The SSA number is to be determined by Collier County but presumed to be SSA 22. (Folio Numbers 00050120008, 00050120007, 00050160000, 00050440006). This is a companion item to Alica SSA 23, Alica SSA 24 and Alica East Village SRA. Alica, Inc. proposes to establish a new+/- 388.9-acre Stewardship Sending Area designation for property generally located west of Corkscrew Road, and south of SR 82. The SSA number is to be determined by Collier County but presumed to be SSA 23. (Folio Numbers 00060240001, 00050400003, 00050320002, 00050360004). This is a companion item to Alica SSA 22, Alica SSA 24 and Alica East Village SRA. Alica, Inc. proposes to establish a new+/- 2,119.9-acre Stewardship Sending Area. designation for property generally located east of SR 29, northeast of the Immokalee Urban Area, and adjacent to the Hendry County line. The SSA number is to be determined by Collier County but presumed to be SSA 24. (Folio Numbers 00063200009, 00064600006, 00089120008, 00064440004, 00089200009, 00089280003, 00089600007, 00089320002, 00089240001). This is a companion item to Alico SSA 22, Alico SSA 23 and Alico East Village SRA. Cancellation/Reschedule Requests: Contact Connie Thomas- Supervisor - Permitting Consuela.thomas@colliercountyfl.gov - Phone: 239-252-2473 Created April 5 2017 Location: K:\CDES Planning Services\Current\Zoning Staff Information Zoning DP.lision• 2800 North Horseshoe Drnte • Naples, Flooda 34104.2 252-2400 • www.coltierg,.,.net P a,� Coder County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING A�EA (SRA) DESIGNATION \ APPLICAT1qN ) The following documents the necessary items, exhibits and agreements "".1it,,,,,=--7Tr.'!TnZd..,-eceiving Area Designation Application. SUBMITTAL PACKAGE Submit the Application to: Growth Management Department Attn: Operations & Regulatory 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples Florida 34104 Phone (239) 252-2400 / Fax (239) 643-6968 The Applicant shall submit one copy of the application or may submit electronically for verification of completeness. The application package shall also contain completed copies of the appropriate form(s) as provided herein. The Applicant is responsible for providing additional copies for public hearings and for County records, once the application is finalized. REQUIRED FEES Application Fee: $7,000.00 plus $25.00 per acre Comprehensive Plan Consistency Review $2,250.00 01 FIAM (Fiscal Impact Analysis) $4,000.00 BCC Legal Advertising $500 �� Q. r C 4/I V 1f\61 \ C� CCPC Legal Advertising $1,125 - 1 O e V IU VV 4 b1 eJ v f� zh �V�1 XJ I,/ 1 J Fire Pre -Application Meeting: $1 50.00 (Applied as credit towards fire review fee upon submittal of applicatio if within 9 months of the pre-opp meeting dote) Fire Planning Review Fee: $1000.00 Transportation Fees -refer to pre -application meeting notes School Concurrency Review Fees, if required. Mitigation Fees, if applicable, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County Refer to pre -application meeting notes for additional required fees. Please make check payable to: Boord of County Commissioners APPLICATION REVIEW SCHEDULE (LDC 4.08.07.E.) The application review schedule is as follows: Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the SRA Application, the applicant will be notified in writing that the application is complete and sufficient for review. If required, the applicant shall submit additional information. Within twenty (20) working days of receipt of the additional information the applicant will be notified if the application is complete. Staff review and written comments shall be submitted to the applicant sixty (60) days after sufficiency hos been determined. Staff shall provide a written report containing their findings and recommendations of approval, approval with conditions or denial within ninety (90) days after sufficiency is determined. EAC hearing per LDC 4.08.07 F. I .a. The CCPC shall hold an advertised public hearing on the proposed application and agreement. The notice of this hearing shall be given ten (1 0) days prior to the meeting date. The BCC shall hold an advertised public hearing on the proposed application and agreement. The notice of this hearing sha II be given ten (1 0) days prior to the meeting date. AMENDMENTS Collier County shall consider an amendment to an approved SRA in the same manner as designated in this application. Revised 2024 i Colfier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA) APPLICATION PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DATE PROCESSED To be completed by staff APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): ----------------------- — Name of Applicant if different than owner: ------------------ — Address: — — — — — — — — — — — — — — City: — — — — — State: — — — — ZIP: Telephone: — — — — — — — — — Cell: Fax: E-Mail Address: ---------------------------- — Agent: --------------------------------- Firm:--------------------------------- Address:— — — — — — — — — — — — — — City: — — — — — State: — — — — ZIP: _ Telephone: — — — — — — — — Cell: — — — — — — — — — Fax: — — — — — — — — — E-Mail Address: ---------------------------- — PROPERTY INFORMATION You must include the County's Property Ownership Disclosure Form with this application in order for it to be considered complete. This lorm is locatedat: https://www.colliergov.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=75093. Section/Township/Range: /__ /__ Zoning: __________ General Location and Cross Streets: Folio Numbers: Total Area of Project: acres List any previously approved or pending petition numbers affecting the property. __ Revised 2024 � ��. Colfier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net ADJACENT ZONING/LAND USE Zoning Land Use N S E W LIST OF CONSULTANTS Name: Phone: Name: Phone: Name: Phone: Name: Phone: Name: Phone: Mailing Address: Mailing Address: _ Mailing Address: Mailing Address:. _ Mailing Address: Applicant is responsible for providing finalized copies as required for public hearing. I hereby submit and certify the application to be complete and accurate. Printed Name of Agent Signature of Agent Revised 2024 Date Cover County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net SECTION I NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX ASSESSMENT (LDC 4.08.07.D.3.) L Submit an Assessment that documents the Natural Resource Index Value Scores. The Assessment is to include an analysis that quantifies the number of acres by Index Values. The Assessment shall include the following: a. Identify all lands within the proposed SRA that have an Index Value greater than 1.2. b. Verify that the Index Value scores assigned during the RLSA Study are still valid through recent aerial photography, satellite imagery, agency -approved mapping, or other documentation, as verified by field inspections. C. If the Index Value scores assigned during the RLSA Study are no longer valid the applicant shall document the current Index Value of the land. d. Quantify by type the acreage of agricultural lands being converted. e. Quantify by type the acreage of non- agricultural acreage being converted. f. Quantify by type the acreage of all lands within the proposed SRA that have an Index Value greater than 1.2. g. Quantify by type the acreage of all lands being designated as an SRA within the ACSC, if any. h. Demonstrate compliance with the Suitability Criteria contained in Section 4.08.07.A.1. SECTION H NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX ASSESSMENT SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION (LDC 4.08.07.D.4.) 1. Documentation to support the Natural Resource Index Assessment shall be provided for each SRA being designated a. Legal description, including sketch or survey. b. Acreage calculations of lands being put into the SRA, including acreage calculations of WRAs (if any) within the SRA boundary but not included in the SRA designation. c. RLSA Overlay Map delineating the area of the RLSA District being designated as an SRA. d. Aerial photograph delineating the area being designated as an SRA. e. Natural Resource Index Map of the area being designated as an SRA. f. FLUCCS map(s) delineating the area being designated as an SRA. Revised 2024 Collier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.collieramnet g. Listed species map(s) delineating the area being designated as an SRA. h. Soils map(s) delineating the area being designated as an SRA. i. Documentation to support a change in the related Natural Resource Index Value(s), if appropriate. SECTION III OTHER REQUIRED DOCUMENTS L Submit a SRA Master Plan consistent with the requirements of Section 4.08.07.G. 2. Submit a SRA Development Document consistent with the requirements of Section 4.08.07.H. 3. Submit a Public Facilities Impact Assessment Report addressing the requirements of Section 4.08.07. K. 4. Submit an Economic Assessment Report addressing the requirements of Section 4.08.07.L. S. School Concurrency - if the proposed project includes a residential component, you are required to contact the School District of Collier County at 239-377-0267 to discuss school concurrency requirements. (Download the School Impact Analysis Application from the website) SECTION IV STEWARDSHIP CREDIT USE AND RECONCILIATION APPLICATION (LDC 4.08.07.D.9) 1. The legal description of, or descriptive reference to, the SRA to which the Stewardship Credits are being transferred. 2. Total number of acres within the proposed SRA and the total number of acres of the proposed SRA within the ACSC (if any). 3. Number of acres within the SRA designated "public use" that do not require the redemption of Stewardship Credits in order to be entitled (does not consume credits). 4. Number of acres of "excess" open spaces within the SRA that do not require the consumption of credits. S. Number of acres of WRAs inside the SRA boundary but not included in the SRA designation. 6. Number of acres within the SRA that consume credits. 7. The number of Stewardship Credits being transferred to (consumed by) the SRA and documentation that the applicant has acquired or has a contractual right to acquire those Stewardship Credits. 8. The number of acres to which credits are to be transferred (consumed) multiplied by 8 Credits/ acre equals the number of Credits to be transferred (consumed). Revised 2024 CAA County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net 9. A descriptive reference to one or more approved or pending SSA Designation Applications from which the Stewardship Credits are being obtained. Submit copies of SSA Stewardship Credit Agreement and related documentation, including: a. SSA Application Number b. Pending companion SRA Application Number c. SSA Designation Resolution (or Resolution Number) d. SSA Credit Agreement (Stewardship Agreement) e. Stewardship Credits Database Report 10. A descriptive reference to any previously approved Stewardship Credit Use and Reconciliation Applications that pertain to the referenced SSA(s) from which the Stewardship Credits are being obtained. 11. A summary table in a form provided by Collier County that identifies the exchange of all Stewardship Credits that involve the SRA and all of the associated SSAs from which the Stewardship Credits are being obtained. SECTION V STEWARDSHIP RECIEVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT {LDC 4.08.07.D.1l.b) 1. The applicant for designation of an SRA shall enter into an SRA Credit Agreement with the County for each SRA. 2. The SRA Credit Agreement shall contain: a. The number of SSA credits applied to the SRA land in order to carry out the plan of development on the acreage proposed in the SRA Development Documents. b. The legal description of the SRA land and number of acres. C. The SRA Master Plan, which must include the following: i. Identify the land uses ii. Identifying the number of residential dwelling units iii. Gross leaseable area of retail square footage iv. Gross leaseable office square footage v. All other land uses depided on the master plan. 3. Description of the SSA credits that are needed to entitle the SRA land and the anticipated source of said credits. 4. Acknowledgement from the applicant that development of SRA land may not commence until the applicant has recorded a SRA Credit Agreement Memorandum with the Collier County Clerk of Courts; and S. The applicant's commitment, if any, regarding conservation or any other restriction on development on any lands within the SRA including wetlands, as may be depicted on the SRA Master Plan for special treatment. Revised 2024 Collier County GMCD Public Po Land Development Code I STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA(SSA) DESIGNATION PLICATION LDC subsecf n-ft-A- n-t-— The following documents are the necessary items, exhibits, and agreements for the Stewardship Sending Area Designation Application. Collier County shall consider an amendment to an approved SSA in the same manner as designated in this application. Application Review Schedule • The application review schedule is as follows: • Within fifteen (15) working days of receipt of the SSA Application, the applicant will be notified in writing that the application is complete and sufficient for a review. If required, the applicant shall submit additional information. • Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the additional information the applicant will be notified if the application is complete. • Staff review and written comments shall be submitted to the applicant sixty (60) days after sufficiency is determined. • Staff shall provide a written report containing their findings and recommendations of approval, approval with conditions or denial within ninety (90) days after sufficiency is determined. • The BCC shall hold an advertised Public Hearing on the proposed application and agreement. The notice of this hearing shall be given fifteen days prior to the meeting date. Applicant Contact Information Name of Property Owner(s):_ --------------------- Name of Applicant, if different than owner: Address: City: State: ZIP: ---------------- ---- --- -- - Phone: E-Mail Address: Name of ApplicanUAgent:--------------- Firm: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Address: _______________ City:---- State: ZIP: Phone: E-Mail Address: Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Designation 6/11/2024 Page 1 of 8 Growth Management Community Oc,•dopmcnt • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Ori\'e • Naples, FL 34104 • 139-252-2400 • ,. " " lollic•runlnt\ll..o. / Collier County List of Consultants Name: ------------------------ Phone: ------- - Address:_ Zip: _ Name: Phone:. Address: Zip: -------- Name: . Phone:. _ Address:---------------------- Zip:— — Name: ------------------------ Phone:. - Address: — Zip:------- — Name: Phone: Address: Zip: Name: ------------------------ Phone: ------- - Address: Zip: Property Information Property Address: Property I.D. Number: Section/Township/Range: Subdivision: Unit: Block: Lot: Plat Book: _____ Page#: Metes & Bounds Description: ------------------------ Size of Property: --__ ft. x ft. = Total Sq. Ft. Acres: ___ _ Total Area of SSA:__________ Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Designation 6/11/2024 Page 2 of 8 Gro„ th Management Community Dc\'elopmcnt • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive- Naples, PL 34104 . 239-252-2400 • ,. ' ' " .colltcrrnunt 11 . c. 1 Collier County Project Information Name: _________ Location: _________________ Agreement: General Location and Cross Streets: --------------------- Current Zoning: Land Use: ------------------------ - Adjacent Zoning and Land Use Zoning Land Use N 5 E W Any contiguous property owned by Applicant or Owner, if so provide legal description: Stewardship Sending Area {SSA) Designation 6/11/2024 Page 3 of 8 Growth Managcmc:nt Community D..:n:lopment • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive- Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • " " " . - ollklrnullt •tl.om Collier County Pre -Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre -Application Meeting and at time of submittal with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Documents shall be submitted electronically. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. Requirements For Review Completed Application (download current form from County website) I71 Pre -Application meeting notes Project Narrative Affidavit of Authorization, signed & notarized ProQerly QwnershiQ Disclosure Form All documents shall be submitted in PDF format unless otherwise noted. SECTION ONE 1) Legal Description and General Description 2) Aerial photograph(s) having a scale of one inch equal to at least 200 feet when available from the County, or a scale of at least one inch equal to 400 feet is acceptable, delineating the area being designated as an SSA. SECTION 1 WO 1) Natural Resource Index Assessment a Summary Analysis quantifying the number of acres by Index Values. b. Level of Conservation being proposed. C. Resulting Number of Credits generated d. GIS files for each factor of the Natural Resource Index Assessment. i Boundary GIS file of SSA xxx ii. FLUCCS (FL Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System) for SSA xxx iii. Remaining Uses for SSA xxx iv. All Listed Species for SSA xxx V. Restoration (if any- this is an optional file) for SSA xxx vi. Soils for SSA xxx vii. Stewardship for SSA xxx viii. Proximity for SSA xxx These GIS files shall be submitted by email and sent to: Beth.Yang@CollierCountyFL.gov 2 Verification of Index Value Scores. a Submit validation of Scores assigned during the RLSA Study through Aerial Photography or Satellite Imagery, agency - approved mapping, or other documentation, as verified by field inspections. Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Designation 6/11/2024 Page 4 of 8 Growth Management Community Dcn:lopmcnt - Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drh•e - Naplc, FL 34104 - 239-252-2400 -" " .. ff>111 imulltd1.n... / Collier County b. If the verification establishes that the Index Value scores assigned during the RLSA Study are no longer valid, documentation of the Index Value of the land as of the date of the SSA Designation Application is to be submitted. 3) Establish the suggested 'Restoration Potential" Index Value for any acres as appropriate. 4) Quantify the acreage of agricultural lands, by type, being preserved. 5 Quantify the acreage of non-agricultural lands, by type, being reserved. 6) Quantify the acreage of all lands by type within the proposed SSA that have an Index Value Qreater than 1.2. 7) Quantify all lands, by type, being designated as SSA within the ACSC, if any. SECTION THREE -LIST OF EXHIBITS AND SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION 1 Legal Description, including sketch or survey. 2) Acreage calculations, e.g., acres of FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs, being designated in the SSA. 3) Stewardship Overlay Map delineating the area being designated as an SSA. a Flowway Stewardship Areas FSAs b. Habitat Stewardship Areas ( HSAs) C. Water Retention Areas (WRAs) d. General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing and Recreational Uses 4) Aerial Photograph(s) having a scale of one inch equal to at least 200 feet when available from the county, otherwise, a scale of at least one inch equal to 400 feet is acceptable, delineating the area being designated as an SSA. 5) Natural Resource Index Map of area being designated as an SSA. 6) Florida Department of Transportation Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) map indicating area being designated as an SSA on an aerial photograph having a scale of one inch equal to at least 200 feet when available from the County, otherwise, a scale of at least one inch equal to 400 feet is acceptable. 7) Listed species occurrence map(s) from United Sates Fish and Wildlife Services, Florida Fish Wildlife Conservation Commission and Florida Natural Areas Inventory, delineating the area being designated as an SSA. 8) United States Department of Agriculture -Natural Resources Conservation Service Soils map(s) delineating the area being desi nated as an SSA. g) Documentation to support a change in the related Natural Resource Index Values , if appropriate. 10) Stewardship Credit Calculation Table that quantifies the number of acres by Index Values, the level of conservation being offered, and the SECTION IV- STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT 1. The number of acres and a legal description of all lands subject to the SSA Credit Agreement. 2 A map or plan (drawn at a scale of 11= 500) of the land subject to the agreement which depicts any_ lands designated Flowway Stewardship Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Designation 6/11/2024 Page 5 of 8 Growth Management Community Dl,clopmcnt • Planning & Zoning 2800 Nortll Horseshoe Drive- Naples, FL 34104 •239-252-2400 •"\\" <nlli. rwramd..... Collier County Areas (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA) or Water Retention Areas (WRA), and the acreage of lands so designated. 3. A narrative description of all land uses, including conditional uses, if any, that shall be removed from the land upon approval of the SSA Credit Agreement. 4. A Natural Resource Index Assessment worksheet for the land subject to the Agreement and the total number of SSA credits that result from the Natural Resource Index Assessment. 5. A copy of the Stewardship Easement, (or deed if a fee simple transfer is proposed) applicable to the land, which shall be granted in perpetuity and shall be recorded by the County upon approval of the SSA Credit Agreement. 6. Land Management measure. a. Submit Agreement, that the owner shall not seek or request, and the County shall not grant or approve, any increase in density or intensity of any permitted uses remaining on the SSA lands or any additional uses beyond those specified in the SSA Credit Agreement on the land. b. Submit Agreement ensuring the enforceability of the SSA Credit Agreement between the landowner and the County 7. If applicable, the number of credits to be granted for restoration (Restoration Credits) together with the following information: a. A legal description of lands to be designated for restoration. b. A map depicting the land being designated as SSA, with the lands to be dedicated for restoration, but which the applicant makes no commitment to undertake restoration, identified as Restoration I ("R I"); and the lands dedicated for restoration identified as Restoration II ("R II"). C. The number of Restoration Credits to be granted for the lands designated R I and R 11. d. A Restoration Analysis and Report, inclusive of a written evaluation of the restoration area's existing ecological/ habit value and the necessary restoration efforts required to reestablish original conditions; enhance the functionality of wetlands or wildlife habitat; or remove exotics so as to enhance the continued viability of native vegetation and wetlands. e. When the restoration is to be undertaken by the applicant, a Restoration Plan that addresses, at a minimum, the following elements; 1. Restoration goals or species potentially affected. 2. Description of the work performed. 3. Identification of the entity responsible for performing the work. 4. Work Schedule 5. Success Criteria and 6. Annual management, maintenance and monitoring. Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Designation 6/11/2024 Page 6 of 8 Growth Management Community Dcn:lopmcnt • Planning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drh•c • Naples, FL 34104 •239-252-2400 • " " " .u.11i, le,- n t 11; , Collier County Fee Requirements t$j Pre -Application Meeting: $500.00 (to be credited towards the application fee if the application is filed within 9 months of pre - application meeting). Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre - application meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a new pre - application meeting will be required. Application Fee: $9,500.00 Make all checks payable to the Board of County Commissioners. *The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Community Development Department I GMCD Porta t https:// cvportal.colliercountyfl.gov/ cityviewweb Questions? Email: GMDclientservices@colliercountyfl.gov Applicant is responsible for providing finalized copies as required for Public Hearings. I hereby submit and certify this application to be complete and accurate. SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE PRINTED NAME Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Designation 6/11/2024 Page 7 of 8 Growth Managcnwnt Community Dc,elopmcnt • PlJnning & Zoning 2800 North Horseshoe Drh•e • Naples, F 1 34104.239-252-2400.111111 m1111 r.ount 11. om Collier County AFFIDAVIT We/1------------ J . being first duly sworn, depose and say that well am/are the owners of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest information, all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief Well understand that the information requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted. As property owner Wellfurther authorize _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this Petition. Administrative Agent Administrative Agent The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this. _ _ day of _ _ _ 2024, by who is personally known to me. State of Florida County of Collier (Signature of Notary Public - State of Florida) (Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Designation 6/11/2024 Page 8 of 8 Growth Management Community Development • Planning & Zoning 2800 Nortl1 Horseshoe Drive- Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • ., "" cnlllacnu111dl. '<\ / CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS{S) ___ EL-2 a2 4 0 0 102 12 1, ]OHN E 1<]ei'M {print name), as PReslOem. CEoa OlReclon (titre, II applicable) of Auco tc (company, I A I i c a b I e) , swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner applicantOcontract purchaserLJand that: 1. 1 have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and Ito impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2 Al answers th the questions h this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; a I have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5 We/I authorize Roben Wllele. FAICP,Sr VP ]agnAChastain. AICP Panne,]I s 04{*D Y.;•nor. C#,N1Ur, th ad as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. *Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the corp. pres. or v. pres. • F the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." • F the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • F the applicant Is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner' of the named partnership. • F the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee". • h each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., inclMdual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated in It are true. Signature J 4lN E KIERNAN, President, CEO and Director,Alico,lnc. SLATE OF FLORIDA Ob UNTY OF COLLIER .3P /2oz5 Date The foregoing Indr ment vies ackr oMeged before rre bj means of A y s i c a t presence cr D oriie nohaftsfun this �7' day of_ . 7® /,y U.H . 201!_, by 01inled name of owner or qualifier) John E • Kiernan su/h person(s) Notary Public must check applicable box: OAre personally known to me ❑ Has produced ❑ Has produced Notary Signature: MORYE M7N4 • •` MY COMMISSION# HH 378856 EXPIRES: July 24,2027 CP\08-COA-00115\155 REV 3/4/2020 .2025 FLORIDA.PROFIT CORPORATION ANNUAL REPORT DOCUMENT# 232797 Entity Name: ALICO, INC. Current Principal Place of Business: 10070 DANIELS INTERSTATE COURT SUITE 200 FT. MYERS, FL 33913 Current Mailing Address: 10070 DANIELS INTERSTATE COURT SUITE 200 FT. MYERS, FL 33913 US FEI Number: 59-0906081 Name and Address of Current Registered Agent: TK REGISTERED AGENT, INC. 101 E KENNEDY BOULEVARD SUITE 2700 TAMPA, FL 33602 US FILED Jan 15, 2025 Secretary of State 8423873647CC Certificate of Status Desired: Yes The above named entry submits this statement for the purpose ofchanging its registered office or registered agent, or both, in the State ofFlodda. SIGNATURE: Electronic Signature of Registered Agent Date Officer/Director Detail : Title PRESIDENT, CEO, DIRECTOR Title DIRECTOR Name KIERNAN, JOHN E Name SLACK, HENRY R Address 10070 DANIELS INTERSTATE COURT Address 10070 DANIELS INTERSTATE COURT SUITE200 SUITE 200 City -State -Zip: FT. MYERS FL 33913 City -State -Zip: FT. MYERS FL 33913 Title DIRECTOR, CHAIRMAN OF THE Title DIRECTOR BOARD Name FISHMAN, BENJAMIN Name BROKAW, GEORGE R Address 10070 DANIELS INTERSTATE COURT Address 10070 DANIELS INTERSTATE COURT SUITE 200 SUITE 200 City -State -Zip: FT. MYERS FL 33913 City -State -Zip: FT. MYERS FL 33913 Title CFO Title DIRECTOR Name HEINE, BRADLEY Name KRUSEN, ANDREW JR. Address 10070 DANIELS INTERSTATE COURT Address 10070 DANIELS INTERSTATE COURT STE 200 SUITE 200 City -State -Zip: FT MYERS FL 33913 City -State -Zip: FT. MYERS FL 33913 Title DIRECTOR Title DIRECTOR Name PUTNAM.ADAM Name PURSE, TOBY K Address 10070 DANIELS INTERSTATE COURT Address 10070 DANIELS INTERSTATE COURT SUITE 200 SUITE 200 City -State -Zip: FT. MYERS FL 33913 City -State -Zip: FT. MYERS FL 33913 Continues on page 2 l hsrsby certify that Mee informatron Indicated on Mris report orsupplsmsntal report Is true and accurate and that my electronic signature shall have the sams legal effect as Qmade under oath; that l am an officer or director of the corporation or Me receiver or trustee empowered b execute this report as required by Chapter 607,, Ronda Statutes; and that my name appears above, or on an aWment mMr all other As empowered SIGNATURE: JOHN E KIERNAN PRESIDENT, CEO, 01/15/2025 DIRECTOR Electronic Signature of Signing Officer/Director Detail Date CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM Alico,Inc. GOAT County Growth Management Community Development Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: (239) 252-1036 1 Email: GMDCIIentServlces@colllercountyfl.gov www.colliercountyfl.gov PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent cn his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a Ilf 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 lercenta a ur sucn interest: Name and Address % of Ownership N/A 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 Alica, Inc. (f/k/a Alica Land Development Co.) 100% 10070 Daniels Interstate Ct. #200, Fort Myers, FL 33913 Alica, Inc. is a publicly traded corporation See attached list of Officers c If the property is n the name of a TRUSTEE. list the beneficiaries of the trust with the )ercentage of Interest: Name and Address % of Ownership N/A 01/2023 Page 1 of 3 ColUr County Growth Management Community Development Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: (239) 252-1036 1 Email: GMDCIIentServices@colliercountyfl.gov www.coltiercountyfl.gov d. If the property Is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners: ! Name and Address % of Ownership 1 NIA 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 )fficers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners: Name and Address % of Ownership NIA f I Date of Contract: f. If any contingency clause or contract terms Involve additional parties, list all individuals or of , or trust: Name and Address g, Date subject property acquired 2-29-1960 & 7-30-1979 D Leased: Term of lease _ _ _ _ _ years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: O1/2023 Page 2of 3 e 0 fl ij r County Growth Management Community Development Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: (239) 252-1036 1 Email: GMDClientServices@colliercountyfl.gov www.colliercountyfl.gov 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 a uthorizedagent/applicardDrthispetition, IattestthataII of the informatiorindicatedon this checklistis Included in this sub mittalpackage. I understandthatfaiIureto include all necessarysubmittalInformationmay resultln the deloyo fprocessingthispetition. *The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Community Development Department I GMO Portal: https://cvportal.colliercountyfl.gov/ cityviewweb Questions? Email: GM Dclientservices@colliercountyfl.gov 44 lu !201s A nt/Owner Signature 9 J hn E. Kiernan, President, CEO & Director Agent/Owner Name (please print) Alico,Inc. 01/2023 Page 3 of 3 2025 FI ORIDA PROFIT_CnRPORATION ANNUAL REPORT DOCUMENT# 232797 Entity Name: ALICO, INC. Current Princlpal Place of Business: 10070 DANIELS INTERSTATE COURT SUITE 200 FT. MYERS, FL 33913 Current Malling Address: 10070 DANIELS INTERSTATE COURT SUITE 200 FT. MYERS. FL 33913 US FEI Number: 59-0906081 Name and Address of Current Registered Agent: TK REGISTERED AGENT, INC. 101 E. KENNEDY BOULEVARD SUITE 2700 TAMPA, FL 33602 US FILED Jan 15, 2025 Secretary of State 8423873647CC Certificate of Status Desired: Yes The above named eMy submits mk statement for tte purpose ofchanging Its registered office ormgistered agent orbotr, in the State ofFbnda. SIGNATURE: Electronic Signature of Registered Agent Date Officer/Director Detail : Title PRESIDENT, CEO, DIRECTOR Title DIRECTOR Name KIERNAN, JOHN E Name SLACK, HENRY R Address 10070 DANIELS INTERSTATE COURT Address 10070 DANIELS INTERSTATE COURT SUITE 200 SUITE200 City -State -Zip: FT. MYERS FL 33913 City -State -Zip: FT. MYERS F 1 33913 Title DIRECTOR, CHAIRMAN OF THE Title DIRECTOR BOARD Name FISHMAN, BENJAMIN Name BROKAW, GEORGE A Address 10070 DANIELS INTERSTATE COURT Address 10070 DANIELS INTERSTATE COURT SUITE 200 SUITE 200 City -State -Zip: FT. MYERS FL 33913 City -State -Zip: FT. MYERS FL 33913 Title CFO Title DIRECTOR Name HEINE, BRADLEY Name KRUSEN, ANDREW JR. Address 10070 DANIELS INTERSTATE COURT Address 10070 DANIELS INTERSTATE COURT STE 200 SUITE 200 City -State -Zip: FT MYERS FL 33913 City -State -Zip: FT. MYERS FL 33913 Title DIRECTOR Title DIRECTOR Name PUTNAM,ADAM Name PURSE, TOBY K Address 10070 DANIELS INTERSTATE COURT Address 10070 DANIELS INTERSTATE COURT SUITE 200 SUITE 200 City -State -Zip: FT. MYERS FL 33913 City -State -Zip: FT. MYERS F 1 33913 Continues on page 2 I h1L1Ilycertifythat=Informal/odndicatedDn this r,portorsupplementateportls tueandaccurateandthatmyelsclronlalgnatur,shallhavethe same legaleffectas Emadeund,r oath; thatIam an oN/c,rordlrlldoiof the corporal/orer the recefv,rorlruslflllempavlldkb executethisreportas r11qu1dkby Chapter607, Florida5tatutes;andthatmy renttapp,ars above, oron an attachmenhvithall othsrlikesm pow, rsd. SIGNATURE:JOHN E KIERNAN PRESIDENT, CEO, 01/15/2025 DIRECTOR Electronic Signature of Signing Officer/Director Detall Date Ord r: 10560886 Doc: FLHEND:176.00137 MG 175 FR��137 STATE OF FLOR IDA OMPARTMENT OF STATE IU I, RICHARD (DICK) STONE. of State of the State of Florida, do hetd,y J.ertlfy that the following 111 tru, 11fld CQ(rec;t 1:opy of Certificate of Amendinont to Certificato of Incorporation i of AL1:CO .L1\IP DEVLWI'1-1 N'1'COMPANY, a corporation organh:cd i and exi ting un er the law, of th State of Ploridb;.ch n9ing { its corporate namo to ALICO, INC., and amending ARTICLE 6, filed on the i•th dny or January, A. D., 191•, as shown by the records of this office. 7 4 2Q4 PA Ulfv°m,f,f !1 ti rfi t 1minlf Is Plt 02 ' tHJ.IiLCJI i r R rti r-: ;i IS t tIERi<.ttru::un "ou:u INgfJ�!% I GIVfN unckr my lr1n:S and the Great 1 �h �y Seal of the Spill of Florida. Ed i /V - �� `• Ta11i?hiUt,>, th,: Cil. ,Ital, th1s the + }ffr;.(`, , •.�.' 141h Cf,1yof January, ' '74. SECRETARY OF STATE ` 1 i `a 42 �. 1' ,1 •- •y;r,...,..•...� _ _ter ...f_. ... .. •... ... .. ... �.: �1{,a'G'lr.J,u=;�=ll:.•`•ltiSw��r. ...�.. - Page f of3 Requested gy: chudcforguson, prlirled; 6/2112022 I 8:46 AM r i i( 1 i L Order: 10550666 Doc: FLHEND:176-00137 Y. W.. Cl1T1ne>. or M75 ,m138 '1O to CU.ftrte.ATZ 1P (I(OODUMIOK or AL1ao WID t>mu,r,o:HT wawn �q] bomrtrer.t of St't U ' .�. Tillnhr,oaee, flotlf.a Z. !•. g Th• '!Qdudmad, J, K srFATr, Pnetdont, Sid CLOIJ 1; J1; � r n C:, I:cuour-.1, of I..Ilco t:::dd VGv,1O,.kt 11AYr ros;,c.ctfulll cbcv t'hf;tl:4:-) .tond 94 Phaeton at • bw.o:itly u1dH1,1 held In 11rior, Morlda on }oucv. lier 4, 1'7), 112*4 a rtleolutkc\ tr„>rw.tn, tMe lollovtni onnil>eat to tho CerU.ficate of lac:orr-"rtlo:i ind ilrectinit t1t lreh 1111otint fli 11\I1mittcd to 6 Vrte of the afacKladcl1, at CID n t annu:il noedirl; tller1Vit 01) lh• l:urtiltdto:l or Via f<,II&-!r.3 JI*Hou of Article 1 of Vto terUJI.C.111c of I71col-poralfon III prce nUy i„rlttout "Articlo 1. The nal or the C0r1P>rotioh akM1 ... ALICO, MC, t Ail itlt rrtndrd rjcci d <1slicto ohdl lc !,.\I th Jfd'I Strc<:t, la tgUo, )'Jc-dda, or we other 012oe to tho IiUte of Fk--r4d r MtLe ,O•lud of Dlrerioi'l1 ehai §CW Uno fo t216 4cm advfn'blo &d II\ tho but irlurctt of th, COM;criy," (f» 1W ,;Oitutlod of t h tollovillr, tn'Ur.0 of J.rticlo E Im n11, omtly vrlttGn: ".utfatc; 4 the nrn oRJca arlJrou 0 dw llrfoclpal C'.iflce of th cortN• uon h11 to Jlolla, I'lo Lt.fl, or rucl oU" ptaee Sn Ih'll Ctohc c4 pcAla tis th Ikam! cef Dincton din!I frcr.i tl to tine deoti cdvlsehto crvl in the best intorest of the coe:pmiy." Jt -;it mul r.cotin lilt -uUc:d ql held 'h La tollt, Fkxlccg1, on Januat• 7, 19A th„ c:t1::,Uuc tllcollt or rc4ea,1?LDd Py il✓C,Y' W rAtIU,:.S iD vAtI Ji m:%ct ci( c7ld L--tsn!e:tL lo thO c-,rtlf.t nt• o! Ircotp„rotk>d dU .cwr-, t);o Gild ILLMFIN1 1U UO \-ote of th Itcllen of rt len Lil, , tHjodty f th outel,..n,l!n!\ ab.im •:it.ItU•1 to Vdm N(fl>41nk Il,c nLpler r 11„2 11dD! in 00>r or ll:c .c•,6i&4t taQ I,Mn,951 •.,r h.Mior 2,(S?,7'1 (':.-flit. H,:s aitr6S entttll',t to vrt\I . s ... ._ .. .- .. ... .. .... _i:i ..�.X:Y•'•tJ:,�',`.•:'L/:s•i!+��ry�!:.r.: 4r :, 'i7�j�t": =.: :!..':. �I Rg3 2di Raqueeted eyc chuck.feigueen, Pd4dad: 6/2i/2022 6:46 AM G.. I Older. 10660666 Doc: FLHEND:176-00137 l.:6. •rrt:175 „ul39- I1t n"VW 1r}IT M. the ondereitead, ae President end secaary of Attoo T,rmd bevvloporu Cotpany, have hereomto sehseribed thtir naea and the Ileere" has effised the corporate asal hereto, all ae of tiR 7th der of Jiawrr 1974. r Y::•'�• , President ', ` • (Co>npocate seal) �; I �1• t" Gloria B. Allem 'Secretary &v71 CP I17nA m:il:rt tP UDIY Ildoro to the 111,49zh*Iod ,•oury PubUc tr. AM fol' th C*jty ad Stat" ltdYe M'1'.ed,rcoaally hpt,e.'Wd P.n. SPAtT ad (;RLA: n. JJ: t:ir.iietivllly 1'red'leilt ua• SeetietarY. of .Alicw Lcdd Pe%nbVQQt Qoopare, to h1 w l I knum to le HI tnd.tviduale 'M 11llW-AW JA* tNta' to Ur !!oxetof,.t J:etUic:at" of IclracMal to We Artfelem of IncotrOratioo of add Alico IE Dade;,pGFt GQ rU f ud the:, ackQwbdzed bclbJ9 rp that d4!! CkV_e stat d ""VL . ttue sd f-Ckrect ad th4t the; cxaaiurl tho. rx 7p lo-t tt c 1 1111(MIa tbuorr. uOcuam 1. Notary to)1l4, itett o: rlotid;.l !1 i (1:0tarlat n_aD Hy Con.isslm Expirrar 10/22/15 3 ••7i Page 3 W Requested By. chucUerguson, Piinted: 6/21/2022 9:46 AM CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) ADDRESSING CHECKLIST J!)collier County Addressing Checklist GMCD Public Portal Land Development Code Administrative Code Please complete the following and upload via the CityView Portal with your submittal. Items marked with a * are required for every application, other items are optional and may not apply to every project. Forms are valid for 6 months following their submittal; an updated form will be required for a new submittal after that timeframe and any time the properties within the project boundary are modified. Applicant Contact Information *Name of owner/Agent: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Senior Vice President Firm [if agent]: B o w m en ---- ---------------------------- *Address: _950 Encore Wayr, *City: Naples *Telephone: (239) 254-200 Cell: *E-Mail Address: RMulhere@bowman.com Location Information *State: *ZIP: 34110 Fax: _ *Folio (Property ID) Number(s) of the subject property or properties [Attach list if necessary]: 00050120008,00050160000, 00050240001,00050320002,00050360004,0005040000300050440005,00050480007 *Legal Description of subject property or properties [Attach list if necessary]: Sections 3, 4, 8-10, Township 46S and Range 28E Street Address(es) where applicable, if already assigned: 6900 SR 82 &4571, 4607, 4625, 4646, 4980, 5005 Corkscrew Road, Immokalee, FL 34142 Addressing Checklist 6/14/2024 Page 1 of 2 Growth Management Community Development • Operations & Regulatory Management 2800 North Horseshoe Drive- Naples, FL 34104 •239-252-2400 •wmnN,collierc:ountvfl.eov/ Collier County Project Information Acceptance of this form does not constitute project and/or street name approval and is subject to further review by the Addressing Official. Pre -approval of project name and/or street name may be requested by contacting us at GMD Add ressingta)colIiercountyfl.go-v. or 239-252-2482 prior to your submittal. Current Project Name: N-A Proposed Project Name: Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Proposed Street Name: Latest Approved Project Number [e.g., SDP-94-##, PPL-2002-AR-####, PL2017000####] I Submittal Requirement Checklist I Additional documents may be attached to this form and can include. Checkmark the items included with this application: Requirements for .Review: Required: LOCATION MAP and/or SURVEY showing the proposed project boundary. A List of additional folio numbers and associated legal descriptions. gT E-mail from Addressing Official for any pre -approved project and/or street names. ❑ The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Community Development Department I GMCD Portal: https: / /cvportal.col liercounWR.gov/citvviewweb Questions? Email: Front. Desk(ocolliercountyfl.gov Addressing Checklist 6/14/2024 Page 2 of 2 Growth Management Community Development • Operations & Regulatory Management 2800 North Horseshoe Drive- Naples, FL 34104 •239-252-2400 •www.colliercountyll.gov/ 6/10/25, 10:14 AM Collier County Property Appraiser Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Parcel ID 00050120008 S*D1sclAress * 6900 SR 82 '` Site City IMMOKALEE Site Site Disclaimer) Note 30142 Address ALICO LAND DEV CO 10070 DANIELS INTSTE CT #200 .—Cii RT MvERS State, FL Zip! 33913 - MR.Ro. I Stran_U2_ �c p _ Township Range Acres *Estimated t-- iQQ� I pp~1 01Do3 I _ 3 46 28 604.91 Legal lI3 46 28ALC IN IOR 5995IPGGN2A978HWY SR 82, AN-D LESS THOSE PORTIONS -FOR SR-82 IMPROVEMENTS L'F899AAAi�aE o 9 4 Sub.JCondo 100 -ACREAGE HEADER Use Code G r66 - ORCHARD GROVES, CITRUS, ETC. Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date --- J.--•gook-Pape i Amount_ Millage Rates-0 *Calculations { School Other Total f 4.3132 8.0068 12.32 2024 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value $4,238,060 (+) Improved Value ? • 3 () Market Value $ 4,333,498 (-) Agriculture $3,527,657; (_) Assessed Value $805,841 School Taxable Value $805,841 () Taxable Value $805,841 Ad Valorem Taxes $9,819.24 C+) Non -Ad Valorem Taxes $ 255.52 () Total Taxes $10,074.76 Values are as of january 1st each year. If all values are 0, this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll. Disclaimer: The actual total property taxes may vary due to changes in millage rates set by taxing authorities, the acldition of non -ad valorem assessments, and special assessments. For the most accurate and up-to-date tax information, please visit the Collier County. Tax Collector's office to see the final Tax bills. https://www.collierappraiser.com V1 6/10/25, 10:15 AM Parcel IQ Collier County Property Appraiser Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Sis CORKSCREW RDte Address s00%i). Site Zone sA16A� Disclaimer ,16,,; Site City:, IMMOKALEE; *Note 34142 , N-ame / Address .ALICALANQ DEV C)D . •• ----- --- - . 110070 DANIELS INTSTE CT #200 1 I. - I CAty FART MYERS State- FL Map o: Strap No. SectkA.l1 To_wnship Range UO�-- -- . i , — � '000100 D0,0040 A 4 46 28 •14 46 28 ALL.LESS ORIGINACHWV SRAs2: AND LESS THOSE PORTIONS I. - - ----Ae9a +4AS1)ESC_IN_aR_5995 PG 297-s- I Zip 913 Acres *Estimated 604.41 s•R-s 2 IMPROVEM-ENTS Millage Area 8 •243 Millage Rates 0 *Calculations ..��-aria•• -- •--••- .. I Sub./Condo i100-ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total --•-- 1 ...... ------••-, -- , Use Code 0 66 - ORCHARD GROVES CITRUS ETC. 4.3132 7.8719 171s�1 Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) T-e0k=-i>0e--1 AAAAnt-- 2024 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value $ 3,938,112 I (+) IAproved Value $ 213,364, (_) Market Value $4,1 s1,s36! (-) AA!Acul!Are t $ 3,292,58A: (_) Assessed Value $ 858,955 (_) School Taxable Value $ 858,955 (_) Taxable Value $ s 58,9 ss Ad Valorem Taxes $ 10,466.46 (+) Non -Ad Valorem Taxes $ 511.041 (_) Total Taxes $ 10,977.s0 Values are as of January 1st each year. If all values are 0, this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll. Disclaimer: The actual total property taxes may vary due to changes in millage rates set by taxing authorities, the addition of non -ad valorem assessments, and special assessments. For the most accurate and up-to-date tax information, please visit the Collier County Tax Collector's office to see the final Tax bills. https://www.collierappraiser.com 1/1 6/10/25, 10:15 AM Collier County Property Appraiser Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Parcel ID 10,0050240001 Site Address 4625 CORKSCREW RD Disclaimer Name/ Address _ALICO LAND DEV CO ! I- --- - 10070 DANIELS INTSTE CT #200 City FORT MYERS State FL r-----M,QP-',No•,.•- N ,.. lr Township I y001 01 DOS 5 46 L - --- _ ----. _ _ . j Legal 5 46 28 ALL EXC HWY, LESS THAT PART LYING N OF SR82, ACREAGE HEADER Use Co" _0'66 - ORCHARD GROVES, CITRUS, ETC. Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) G+A A B*.,O~ Amo"t- Site City IMMOKALEE: SiteZone, 34142 *Note Zip Ran!Je Acres *Estimated 28 570.S Millage Rates 0 *Calculations School Other Total 4.3132 7.8719 12.1851 2024 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value $�984,688 (+) Improved Value $152,406: (_) Value $ 4,137,094: Market - - -- - (-) Agriculture $ 3,420,587 () Assessed Value $716,507; (_) School Taxable Value $716,507 (_) Taxable Value $716,507; Ad Valorem Taxes $8,730.71 (+) Non -Ad Valorem Taxes $0 (_) Total Taxes $8,730.71 Vaiues are as of january ist each year. If all valAs are 0, this parcel w06 created after the Final Tax Roll. Disclaimer: The actual total property taxes may vary due to changes in millage rates set by taxing authorities, the addition of non -ad valorem assessments, and special assessments. For the most accurate and up-to-date tax information, please visit the Collier CountY. Tax Collector's office to see the final Tax bills. https://www.collierappraiser.com 1A 6/10/25, 10:20 AM Collier County Property Appraiser Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Parcel ID 000so320002 S* "� a Address + Site City IMMOKALEE Site Zone 34142 Disclaimer *Note: Name i Address ALICO LAND DEV cA 10070 DANIELS INTSTE CT #2oo I - City FORT ivivERS. State FL Zip Map No. Strap No. �, Section Township Range Acres .*Estimated 1Do6 000loo OololDo6 _6 46 28 627.62 Legal 6 46 28 ALL, LESS 13s.78 ACRES DESC IN OR 2741 PG 1798 MIIAaA_ —ArAo-o 240 130 ._ACREAI HEADER Mseo,oQQAA 66_- A.AA':fARD GROVES, CITRUS, ETC. Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) DdA! AAAu„!_t h"://www.colliemppmiw.cDm .Millage Rates a •calculViAnA- School Other Total 4.3132 7.8719 12.18s 1 2024 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value s 5,050,184 (+)lmprovedAVal_uA $ Oj () Market Value ---- - - . ........L A.s. oso,184; (-) Agriculture $ 4,311,283 (_) Assessed Value $ 73r,90 1 School Taxable Value $ 738,90 l (_) Taxable Value $738,901 Ad Valorem Taxes $9,003.s8 (+) Non -Ad Valorem Taxes $ 0./ () Total Taxes $9,003.58 Values are as of January 1st each year. If all values are 0, this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll. Disclaimer: The actual total property taxes may vary due to changes in millage rates set by taxing authorities, the addition of non -ad valorem assessments, and special assessments. For the most accurate and up-to-date tax information, please visit the Collier County Tax Collector's office to see the final Tax bills. 6/10/25, 10:20 PM Collier County Property Appraiser Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Site Address Site Zone Parcel ID 00050360004 *Disclaimer 4571 CORKSCREW RD Site City IIMMOKALEE *Note --------------- ----- - - Name / Address ALICO LAND DEV CO 10070 DANIELS INTSTE CT#200 City FORT MYERS .......... • J �L State FL Zip- 33913 -QA•Q-QA:-.Q---L�. �JQ��a -- •-------- ....... TowrAh RA!!� Acres *Estimated 001 01007 ! 7 46 28 675.05 Legal 17 46 28 ALL, LESS R/W LESS 3.48 +/- AC DESC IN OR 1577 PG 681 Millacie Area Of 243 Millage Rates_0 *Calculations Sub./Condo 100 -ACREAGE HEADER School Oth er Total Use Code 0 66 - ORCHARD GROVES CITRUS ETC. 4.3132 7.8719 12.1851 Latest Sales History 2024 Certified Tax Roll (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) (Subject to Change) Date _1 o0k4ft QE__ Amount Land Value $ 5,612,044 1(+) Improved Value $ QI (_) Market Value $5,612,044 (-) Agriculture $4,790,817 (_) Assessed Value $821,227 I(=) School Taxable Value $ 9"0011 (_) Taxable Value $821,227: Ad Valorem Taxes $ 10,006.73 1(+) Non -Ad Valorem Taxes Ao, (_) Total Taxes $10,006.73 Values are as of January 1st each year. I all values are 0, this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll. Disclaimer: The actual total property taxes may vary due to changes in millage rates set by taxing authorities, the addition of non -ad valorem assessments, and special assessments. For the most accurate and up-to-date tax information, please visit the Collier CountvTax Collector's office to see the final Tax bills. https://www.collierappraiser.com 1/1 6/10/25. 10:21 AM Parcel ID 00050400003 Collier County Property Appraiser Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Site. AdAress 4607 CORKSAREW RD p' Site City IMMOKALEE * Site Zone Disclaimer *Note ' 341421 Name j Address IALICO LAND DEV CO !10070 DANIELS INTSTE CT#200 City FORT MYERS Map No. Qo. 1D08 000100 001 01 DOS State FL Zip 33913 Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 8 46 28 383.31 Legal y 46 28 ALL LESS R/W LESS 280. 81 AC DESC IN OR 1577 PG 681 Millage Area 0 243 Millage Rates 0 *Calculations Sub./Condo; 100 -ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code G 66 - ORCHARD GROVES, CITRUS, ETC. 4.3132 7.8719 12.1851 Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book -Page Amount 2024 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value $2,821,100 (+) Improved Value $32,268 (_) Market Value $2,853,368 (-) Agriculture $2,381,957; (_) Assessod Value $471,411 () School Taxable Value $ 471,4111 () Taxable Value $471,4111 Ad Valorem Taxes $5,744.19 (+) Non -Ad Valorem Taxes $ 255.52 () Total Taxes $5,999.71 values are as of January 1st each year. If all values are 0, this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll. Disclaimer: The actual total property taxes may vary due to changes in millage rates set by taxing authorities, the addition of non -ad valorem assessments, and special assessments. For the most accurate and up-to-date tax information, please visit the Collier CountvTax Collector's office to see the final Tax bills. https://www.collierappraiser.com 1/1 6/10/25, 10:22 AM Collier County Property Appraiser Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Site. AdQ-ress Parcel ID 00050440005 *Disclaii.:.er 4980 CORKSCREW RD Site City Site Zone I , IMMOKALEE - *No]ti P4142 . Name-/ Address ALICO- LAND DEV ipo l 10070 DANIELS INTSTE CT#200 City FORT MYERS State FL Zip Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range Acres .*Estimated 1DO9�000100 001 O1D09 9 46 28 232.4 . ____ Legal I g 46 28 ALL,_ LESS R/W, LESS 418.16 +/- AC DESC IN OR 1577 PG 681 --- - . ---- ---•-- - - - __.. Qi,I�Q!-Q'.QQ-A Ll� Millage Rates 0 *Calculations Sub./Condo 100 -ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code 0 66 - ORCHARD GROVES, CITRUS, ETC. 4.3132 7.8719 12.1851 Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book -Page Amount 2024 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value $ 1,280,320 (•) Improved Value $429,949 (_) Market Value $1,710,269 (-) Agriculture $1,021,583 Assessed Value $688,686 School Taxable Value $688,686 Taxable Value $688,686 Ad Valorem Taxes $8,391.71: (.) Non -Ad Valorem Taxes $1,788.64 Total Taxes $10,180.35 Values are as of January 1st each year. H all values area this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll. Disclaimer: The actual total property taxes may vary due to changes in millage rates set by taxing authorities, the addition of non -ad valorem assessments, and special assessments. For the most accurate and up-to-date tax information, please visit the Collier County. Tax Collector's office to see the final Tax bills. https://www.collierappraiser.com 1/1 6110/25, 10:22AM Collier County Property Appraiser Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Site Address Site Zone - Pa;ce I ID OQA5048Q00; *Disclaimer Site City IMMOKALEE *Note 34142 i D Name / Addre ss CALICO LAND DEV CO 10070 DANIELS INTSTE CT#200 .......... - — � 1 ........ v ............ •I R ! CitQ; FORT MEVERS State FL Zip: 33913 Map No......., .... _ Strap No. [ Se coon Township Range Acre s *Estimate d 1D10 t - 000100 001 01D10 10 46 28 561.22 w.. _ - "--- ..------- •----------- . L--.---A-- Ae g�� BLESS 96 *t� - — - Millage Area 8 209 Millage Rate s o *Calculations Sub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE, HEADER School Othe r Total Use Code _G -66 - ORCHARD GROVES, CITRUS, ETC. 4.3132 8.0068 12.32 Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book -Page Amount 2024 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value $'3,208,216 (+) Improve d Value $ 0; (_) Marke t Value $ 3,208,216 () Agriculture $2,709,537 (_) ASSe sse d Value $498,679; (_) School Taxable Value $498,679 (_) Taxable Value $498,679 Ad Valore m Taxe s $6,076.45 (+) Non -Ad Valore m Taxe s $ 0 (_) Total Taxe s $6,076.45 values are as of January 1st each year. If all values are 0, this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll. Disclaimer: The actual total property taxes may vary due to changes in millage rates set by taxing authorities, the addition of non -ad valorem assessments, and special assessments. For the most accurate and up-to-date tax information, please visit the Collier CountvTax Collector's office to see the final Tax bills. https://www.collierappraiser.com 1A CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) SRA APPLICATION A. oA Cer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA) DESIGNATION APPLICATION The following documents the necessary items, exhibits and agreements for the Stewardship Receiving Area Designation Application. SUBMITTAL PACKAGE Submit the Application to: Growth Management Department Attn: Operations & Regulatory 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples Florida 34104 Phone (239) 252-2400 / Fax (239) 643-6968 The Applicant shall submit one copy of the application or may submit electronically for verification of completeness. The application package shall also contain completed copies of the appropriate form(s) as provided herein. The Applicant is responsible for providing additional copies for public hearings and for County records, once the application is finalized. REQUIRED FEES Application Fee: $7,000.00 plus $25.00 per acre Comprehensive Plan Consistency Review $2,250.00 FIAM (Fiscal Impact Analysis) $4,000.00 BCC Legal Advertising $500 C C P C Legal Advertising $1,125 Fire Pre -Application Meeting: $150.00 (Applied as credit towards fire review fee upon submittal of application if within 9 months of the pre-app meeting date) Fire Planning Review Fee: $1 000.00 Transportation Fees -refer to pre -application meeting notes School Concurrency Review Fees, if required. Mitigation Fees, if applicable, to be determined by the School District n coordination with the County Refer to pre -application meeting notes for additional required fees. Please make check payable to: Board of County Commissioners APPLICATION REVIEW SCHEDULE (LDC 4.08.07.E.) The application review schedule is as follows: Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the SRA Application, the applicant will be notified in writing that the application is complete and sufficient for review. If required, the applicant shall submit additional information. Within twenty (20) working days of receipt of the additional information the applicant will be notified if the application is complete. Staff review and written comments shall be submitted to the applicant sixty (60) days after sufficiency has been determined. Staff shall provide a written report containing their findings and recommendations of approval, approval with conditions or denial within ninety (90) days after sufficiency is determined. EAC hearing per LDC 4.08.07 F.1.a. The CCPC shall hold an advertised public hearing on the proposed application and agreement. The notice of this hearing shall be given ten (10) days prior to the meeting date. The BCC shall hold an advertised public hearing an the proposed application and agreement. The notice of this hearing shall be given ten (10) days prior to the meeting date. AMENDMENTS Collier County shall consider an amendment to an approved SRA in the same manner as designated in this application. Revised 2024 eollreT County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.collieraov.net STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA) APPLICATION PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DATE PROCESSED To be completed by staff APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): Alico, Inc. (f/k/a Alico Land Development Company) Name of Applicant if different than owner: Addressc10070 Daniels Interstate Ct. #200t Fort Myers State: FL zJP. 33i13 y --- - ------------- ----- Telephone: 239-226-2000 Cell. N/A Fax:-N-I-A _ E-Mail Address: mhutchcraft@alicoinc.com Agent: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Sr. VP & Jeremie Chastain, Planner III* Bowman Firm: Address: 950 Encore Way City: Naples State: - FL - • ZIP: 34110 239-254-2000 Telephone: Cell: NIA Fax: NIA _ E_M a7ElAdd ress: RMulhere@bowman.com & JChastain@bowman.com ------------------------------ - *Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq.,Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., 4001 Tamiami Trail N., Ste.300 Naples, FL 34103; Phone:239-435-3535; Email:ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com PROPERTY INFORMATION You must include the County's Property Ownership Disclosure Form with this application in order for it to be considered complete. This lorm is located at: htt;�.-• /-/www. rnrT; ergnv, net/unme/4hnwnncument72d=75( 93. Portions of Sections 3-10/Township 46S/Range 28E Section/Township/Range: / _ / Zoning: Zoning: A -Agricultural __________ General Location and Cross Streets: North and south of intersection of SR 82 & Corkscrew Rd, and east & west of Corkscrew Road. Folio Numbers: 00050120008,00050160000,00050240001,00050320002,00050360004,00050400003, ^00050440005 & 00050480007 Total Area of Project: 1 , 4 � - 59± acres List any previously approved or pending petition numbers affecting the property. N/A- - - - - Revised 2024 CotlierCou.nly COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net ADJACENT ZONING/LAND USE Zoning Land Use N A-MHO-RLSAO; PUD (Hendry) Farm fields; mining (Hendry) s A -MHO Public Lands (C.R.E.W.) E A-MHO-RLSAO Farm fields w A-MHO-RLSAO Farm fields LIST OF CONSULTANTS Bowman 239-254-2000 Name: Phone: Name: Coleman,Yovanovich Koester Phone:239-435-3535 I� ame:Passarella & Associates Phone: 239-274-0067 Name:`R Evans Engineering, PA Phone: 239-405-9148 Name:Trebilcok Consulting Solut. phone: 239-566-9551 DPFG-Development Planning & Financing Group, Inc., Mailing Address: 950 Encore Way, Naples, FL 34110 _ M Ming Address: 4001—Tamiami Tr N., Naples, FL 34103 M o mg Address:13620 Metropolis Ave, Ft Myers, FL 33912 Mailing Address:9961 Interst Comm Dr, Ft Myers, FL 33913 Mailing Address:2800 Davis Blvd, Naples, FL 34104 250 International Pkwy, #280, Lake Mary, FL 32746 Applicant is responsible for providing finalized copies as required for public hearing. I hereby submit and certify the application to be complete and accurate. Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Sr. VP Printed Name of Agent Si Revised 2024 Date -30 - 2-4L, t Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-63% www.colliergov.net SECTION I NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX ASSESSMENT (LDC 4.08.07.D.3.) 1. Submit an Assessment that documents the Natural Resource Index Value Scores. The Assessment is to include an analysis that quantifies the number of acres by Index Values. The Assessment shall include the following: a. Identify all lands within the proposed SRA that have an Index Value greater than 1.2. b. Verify that the Index Value scores assigned during the RLSA Study are still valid through recent aerial photography, satellite imagery, agency -approved mapping, or other documentation, as verified by field inspections. C. If the Index Value scores assigned during the RLSA Study are no longer valid the applicant shall document the current Index Value of the land. d. Quantify by type the acreage of agricultural lands being converted. e. Quantify by type the acreage of non- agricultural acreage being converted. f. Quantify by type the acreage of all lands within the proposed SRA that have an Index Value greater than 1.2. g. Quantify by type the acreage of all lands being designated as an SRA within the ACSC, if any. h. Demonstrate compliance with the Suitability Criteria contained in Section 4.08.07.A.1. SECTION II NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX ASSESSMENT SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION (LDC 4.08.07.D.4.) 1. Documentation to support the Natural Resource Index Assessment shall be provided for each SRA being designated a. Legal description, including sketch or survey. b. Acreage calculations of lands being put into the SRA, including acreage calculations of WRAs (if any) within the SRA boundary but not included in the SRA designation. c. RLSA Overlay Map delineating the area of the RLSA District being designated as an SRA. d. Aerial photograph delineating the area being designated as an SRA. e. Natural Resource Index Map of the area being designated as an SRA. f. FLUCCS map(s) delineating the area being designated as an SRA. Revised 2024 CofterCounty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net g. Listed species map(s) delineating the area being designated as an SRA. h. Soils map(s) delineating the area being designated as an SRA. i. Documentation to support a change in the related Natural Resource Index Value(s), if appropriate. SECTION 11 OTHER REQUIRED DOCUMENTS 1. Submit a SRA Master Plan consistent with the requirements of Section 4.08.07.G. 2. Submit a SRA Development Document consistent with the requirements of Section 4.08.07.H. 3. Submit a Public Facilities Impact Assessment Report addressing the requirements of Section 4.08.07. K. 4. Submit an Economic Assessment Report addressing the requirements of Section 4.08.07.L. 5. School Concurrency - if the proposed proiect includes a residential component, you are required to contact the School District of Collier County at 239-377-0267 to discuss school concurrency requirements. (Download the School Impact Analysis Application from the website) SECTION IV STEWARDSHIP CREDIT USE AND RECONCILIATION APPLICATION (LDC 4.08.07.D.9) 1. The legal description of, or descriptive reference to, the SRA to which the Stewardship Credits are being transferred. 2. Total number of acres within the proposed SRA and the total number of acres of the proposed SRA within the ACSC (if any). 3. Number of acres within the SRA designated "public use" that do not require the redemption of Stewardship Credits in order to be entitled (does not consume credits). 4. Number of acres of "excess" open spaces within the SRA that do not require the consumption of credits. 5. Number of acres of WRAS inside the SRA boundary but not included in the SRA designation. 6. Number of acres within the SRA that consume credits. 7. The number of Stewardship Credits being transferred to (consumed by) the SRA and documentation that the applicant has acquired or has a contractual right to acquire those Stewardship Credits. 8. The number of acres to which credits are to be transferred (consumed) multiplied by 8 Credits/ acre equals the number of Credits to be transferred (consumed). Revised 2024 Coj f T 9T m-nty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net 9. A descriptive reference to one or more approved or pending SSA Designation Applications from which the Stewardship Credits are being obtained. Submit copies of SSA Stewardship Credit Agreement and related documentation, including: a. SSA Application Number b. Pending companion SRA Application Number c SSA Designation Resolution (or Resolution Number) d. SSA Credit Agreement (Stewardship Agreement) e Stewardship Credits Database Report 10. A descriptive reference to any previously approved Stewardship Credit Use and Reconciliation Applications that pertain to the referenced SSA(s) from which the Stewardship Credits are being obtained. 11. A summary table in a form provided by Collier County that identifies the exchange of all Stewardship Credits that involve the SRA and all of the associated SSAs from which the Stewardship Credits are being obtained. SECTION V STEWARDSHIP RECIEVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT (LDC 4.08.07.D.11.b) L The applicant for designation of an SRA shall enter into an SRA Credit Agreement with the County for each SRA. 2. The SRA Credit Agreement shall contain: a. The number of SSA credits applied to the SRA land in order to carry out the plan of development on the acreage proposed in the SRA Development Documents. b. The legal description of the SRA land and number of acres. c The SRA Master Plan, which must include the following: L Identify the land uses ii. Identifying the number of residential dwelling units iii. Gross leaseable area of retail square footage iv. Gross leaseable office square footage v. All other land uses depicted on the master plan. 3. Description of the SSA credits that are needed tD entitle the SRA land and the anticipated source of said credits. 4. Acknowledgement from the applicant that development of SRA land may not commence until the applicant has recorded a SRA Credit Agreement Memorandum with the Collier County Clerk of Courts; and 5. The applicant's commitment, if any, regarding conservation or any other restriction on development on any lands within the SRA including wetlands, as may be depicted on the SRA Master Plan for special treatment. Revised 2024 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) PROJECT NARRATIVE Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Project Narrative & Statement of Compliance The proposed request is to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) in the form of a Village. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is located in northern Collier County in portions of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, Township 46 South, Range 28 East. The Corkscrew Grove East Village ("Village") contains a total of 1,446.59± acres. A portion of the Village is located on the north side o f the intersection o f State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road. The remainder o f the Village is located south of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road, east and west of Corkscrew Road. Lands north of the Village within Collier County are zoned A -Agricultural and within the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA). Lands to the north within Hendry County are zoned PUD (mining). Lands to the south are zoned A -Agricultural and designated Public Lands. Lands to the east are zoned A -Agricultural and within the RLSA, with a portion designated Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA). Lands to the east are also identified as a Panther Corridor. Lands to the west are within the RLSA, with a portion designated Water Retention Area (WRA). In accordance with the RLSA Overlay definition, the Village is primarily a residential community which includes a diversity ofhousing types and a maximum of4,502 dwelling units (±3.11 DUs per gross acre) , which includes 362 affordable housing units. The Village includes 145.58± acres of a mixed -use Village Center providing for the required neighborhood -scaled retail, office, civic, and community uses. ,Compliance with RLSAO SRA Village Design Criteria The SRA Master Plan lays out the design and development intent for this Village. Corkscrew Grove East Village contains three Context Zones: Neighborhood General (1,237.41± acres), Village Center (169.55± acres), and Affordable Housing (39.63± acres). The SRA Document and Master Plan also provide for the following required perimeter landscape buffers: • Adjacent to Corkscrew Road and State Road 82: 25-foot-wide Type D buffer; • Adjacent to A -Agricultural lands: 10-foot-wide Type A buffer, except adjacent to an SSA or designated preserve, where no landscape buffer is required; and • Adjacent to Preserve or SSA: No landscape buffer required. Page 1 of 19 https: •r-integration msoffice wopi files 51 cee484-3 19e-4459-92e7- ec540d28f2ce WOPIServiceld_TP_EGNYTE_III .US WOPIUserld 209.bowman.egnyte.cointProject Narrative Statement of Compliance (rev 2-19-2026).docx CORK. CREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE RA LAND U.EeUMMARY SYMBOL DESCRIPTION ACRES %OPEN N SPACE SPACE AC NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL CONTEXT ZONE N NEIGHBORHOC D GENERAL 998.99 30% 299.70 AMENITY 8.50 40% 3A0 ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 85.40 15% 181 cmr wArER 1D1vvEv- NENORY COUNTY .O. RESERVATION CORK. CREW RD 17.65 15% 2.0 MNNGEMENIMEA BUFFER R� �FFF V T AKFA __ - - _ _yy♦q♦. .I�,M----;M«___ , ♦ RoxixO 2 >STYPE4 OPEN SPACE 1 7E.a. r. msr, M4iDRS.01 euIFER %. i I MENT (THIN eRA d5. 415 1.5 'TT ¢ xa. , N O }N1Uaaunl• NEIGHBORHOOD GEN ERAL CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL 1 T.41 �r�♦oNJ I' NIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTEXT AFFORDABLE H DUE ING ZONE 3&22 20% 7.24 ♦,q - �, ESSENTIAL SERVICES 3,41 i0% 0.68 FOOT WATER MNIAGENENTAREA yCC k f{Kf, - AFFORDABLEHOUSINGCONTEXT ZONE TOTAL 39.63 WFSER ♦ • A.x. • - �a rrvE D- VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE VILLAGE CENTER 145.55 30% 43.66 /za'lxG'ATRWRl6Cp1 PoTE e�rrtU�v vc f M _ ur E dµnGA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL(PUBLIC) VILLAGE CENTER CONTEXT ZONE TOTAL 24.00 30% 169.55 7.20 RA B BOUNDARY TOTAL 1 d4 9 36X 516.65 F�s011Tus�7 4>p4'1p ,erpwLSaO/ I R - 1,295.41 1.295A1 v E@P��°E �- ( _ SSA 23 V _ 398.87 100% 100% 388.87 "'THp SSA BOUNDARY TOTAL 11. .28 100% OPEN SPACE TABLE AREA(AC) C) s♦a REQUIRED 3 % �Fu Nn S_C A_ "' cnRsox Y' PROVIDED 516.8 38% C rQ`+xECr ROAOORoeewG EIt 6TDG6 TO BE ®O xn. Gvul LEGEND R se Fl RRERw nTA PoTENTIALGUAPGIIOLtSE ENTRY FFAiTmE CRoss[rvc fPL FA msrvr GUxRWgGSE, N.D _ _ _ _ 1 INTERNAL CONNECTION EN1NV FFArGI¢ �\ LOCATION PoTE LWUEcrT pX � MG 0' -t> II CONNECTION® AMExrt71RW -® -(> OPTIONAL CONNECTION AMENm'gp) NO LOCATION. * PROJECT ACCE.. POINT. AG ♦ ♦ K Rowan A♦ t,%S" MO S.R.A. ♦p♦ :D81:♦:♦ IN FOOT IMPROVEMENT BOUNDARY vprExTwLwgpdp[se, PLAN. 5L - ENTRY FEATURE ® BOUNDARY N.O T p'H �p PoTE��S(p11T REOUIREGPoADNCENT s.RA. CROSS a ECTION LOCATION IDENTIFIER OE WSTER SViMSI CONCEPTUAL NATUREg, GENERAL NOTES: b♦♦♦R.:: A:i9♦♦♦:':SLx '3. 3�q _ENTAREAA nxe su ECT ea nxo/oR ro NODTnunaN_ T. RLsn numeL ME AT Twe or LOCATIONS ¢a, q��94. �"q RorivucEawuncU vvL v.RmmTxO mo.Lm MA FOR varxwITS NO FEI REQLN.ED AwACE.T TO 1), 1 iF 3'� sEE 111 116 NOTIMIED I TIE SRA ROuxoARII AREA. TNEwxA / IfrOr NCCupOR1 ESI0 JR=S sINEE44RINUG- __�pRK_%"EW GROVE EASTVILLAGE BRA JR EVANS .. "'.a....o-.-.,.. - ._:- ..._ _ 4f9�!F4:71'_ iR Ia+G�ECr •: _ =T _2S ER COUNTY COMMENTS ENGINEERING I EXHIBIT (A) OTL... n F s RA MA. TER PLAN COLOR SGv.F • = ♦.YLT E ,S RA Design Criteria L The SRA contains 1,446.59f acres. 2. The SRA does not include any lands designated Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA) or Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA) 3. There is a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) surrounded by the SRA that includes 81.56 acres o f Water Retention Area (WRA). This WRA will not provide stormwater quality treatment for the SRA. 4. The SRA does not include any lands with a Natural Resource Index (NRI) greater than 1.2. 5. The SRA does not include any lands within the Area ofCritical State Concern (ACSC) Overlay. 6. The required minimum Open Space (35%) is 506.30 acres. The SRA master plan provides for 516.60 ± acres of Open Space (36%). 7. The SRA is designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and a multi -use pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods with connecting multi -use pathways. 8. The SRA provides a total of 63.63± acres of public benefit use in the form of a dedicated affordable housing site, a public -school site, and a fire station site. 9. The SRA contains three Context Zones: Neighborhood General, Village Center, and Affordable Housing. 10. Within the Village Center Context Zone, the SRA shall provide the following: a minimum and maximum of238,606 gross square feet of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, a maximum of 100,000 gross square feet ofindoor self -storage, and aminimum of45,020 gross square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses, all subject to a trip cap. The required neighborhood goods and services, civic, governmental, and institutional square footage is Page 2 of 19 bttps: Tyte.corn'msofficewopilfiles,51 cee484-319e-4459-92e7- ec540d28f2ce/W0P1Service1d_TP EGNYTE PLUSWOPIUserld 209.bowman.egnyte.com'Project Narrative Statement of Compliance (rev 2-19-2026).docx based on all units including the affordable units. The Traffic Impact Statement does not include the square footage associated with the affordable units. 11. The SRA allows for up to 4,502 dwelling units (3.11 dwelling units per acre), which includes 362 affordable housing units. 12. In compliance with the requirement to provide a diversity of housing types within a Village, a minimum of 10% of units shall be multi -family, based upon the Land Development Code (LDC) definition of Multifamily Dwelling (a group of3 or more dwelling units within a single building), a minimum of 10% of the units shall be single family detached, and a minimum of 10% of the units shall be single family attached or villas. 13. The SRA provides approximately 24.33± acres of parks, park preserves, wetland park preserves, and a Neighborhood General Amenity Center. This exceeds the SRA requirement of providing 1% of the SRA gross acreage (14.47 acres) for recreation and parks for neighborhoods. 14. The SRA has direct access to Corkscrew Road, which is classified as major collector road and State Road 82 which is classified as principal arterial road. 15. The SRA is consistent with the standards set forth in the RLSA Overlay Attachment C, applicable to Villages. 16. The Village will be served by the Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District. 17. The total acreage requiring stewardship credits is 1,382.96 acres (total SRA acreage excluding 63.63 acres ofpublic benefit use). This is calculated as follows: Total SRA Acreage 1,446.59 Acres Public Benefit Use Acrea e l - 63.63 Acres Total 1,382.96 Acres Public benefit uses include 36.22 acresfor affordable housing, 24 acresfor apublic-school site, and 3.41 acresfor afire station site (essential services tract as depicted on the SRA Master Plan). 18. Eight (8) Credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created from an SSA submitted for review or approved prior to July 13, 2021. The SRA utilizes 8,504.80 Stewardship Credits from SSA 11 created prior to July 13, 2021, which entitles 1,063.10 acres ofthe SRA. 19. Ten (10) Credits per acre shall be required for each acre of land included in an SRA, where such Credits were created from an SSA submitted for review or approved after July 13, 2021. The SRA utilizes 3,198.60 Stewardship Credits from SSA 22 created after July 13, 2021, which entitles 319.86 acres of the SRA. 20. The proposed schedule of development within the Village SRA is as follows: a Anticipated timeframe for receipt of required jurisdictional agency permits (or permit modifications) and date of commencement of residential development: two years from approval of this SRA. b. Anticipated sequence of residential development: An average of 250 units per year commencing after receipt of federal, state, and local permits. c. Anticipated timeframe for commencement of minimum required neighborhood retail and office uses: 10 years from date of approval of this SRA. d Anticipated project completion date: fourteen (14) years from date of approval of this SRA or upon approval of any required jurisdictional permits, whichever occurs last. Page 3 of 19 hops: us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com msoffice wopi, files 51 cee484-3 19e-4459-92e7- ec540d28t2cel WOP!Serviceld_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS, WOPIUserld_209.bowman.egnyte.com Project Narrative Statement of Compliance (rev 2-19-2026).docx Natural Resource Index The required Natural Resource Index Assessment (detailed environmental data and analysis) was prepared by Passarella and Associates, Inc. Please refer to the Environmental Assessment Report provided in Sections I and 11. In summary, the subject property has been significantly impacted through long term agricultural operations. Under the RLSA Overlay, the property is eligible to be designated as an SRA. The proposed Village SRA does not include any lands with a score greater than 1.2 on the Natural Resource Index and there are no lands designated Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA) or Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA). There is a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) surrounded by the SRA that includes 81.56 acres o f Water Retention Area (WRA). This WRA will not provide stormwater quality treatment for the SRA. The Village does not include any lands within the Area o f Critical State Concern (ACSC). SRA Master Plan. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Master Plan is consistent with the requirements of Section 4.08.07.G. SRA Development Document The SRA Development Document is consistent with the requirements of Section 4.08.07.H. Public Facilities Impact Assessment (LDC Section 4.08.07.K.) Transportation: See TIS. Sewer and Water: See Public Facilities Report. Public Schools: See Public Facilities Report. Economic Assessment (per LDC Section 4.08.07.L.) Please see Fiscal Analysis included with this submittal. Additional GMP Consistency & LDC Compliance Evaluation Background The Final Order (AC-99-002) was issued by the Administration Commission (Governor and Cabinet) on June 22, 1999. The Final Order required the County to conduct "The Collier County Rural and Agricultural Assessment" (Assessment). The Assessment was required to identify the means to accomplish the following: Identify and propose measures to protect prime agricultural areas. Such measures should prevent the premature conversion of agricultural lands to other uses. Page 4 of 19 https::`us-partner-integrations.egnyte.comimsoffica'wopi -files; 51 cee484-3 J9e-4459-92e7- ec540d28f2ce WOPIServiceld_1P_EGNYTE pLUS WOPIUserld_209.bowman.egnyte.com Project Narrative Statement of Compliance (rev 2-19-2026).docx 2. Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water quality and maintain the natural water regime as well as to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats. 3. Assess the growth potential of the Area by assessing the potential conversion of rural lands to other uses, in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible land uses away from critical habitat and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques including, but not limited to, public and private schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area -based allocations, clustering and open space provisions and mixed use development. The Assessment shall recognize the substantial advantages of innovative approaches to development which may better serve to protect environmentally rural land uses, and provide for the cost-efficient delivery ofpublic facilities and services. The County bifurcated the Assessment area into two major geographic areas, then referred to as the Rural Fringe Area and the Immokalee Area Study. After completion ofthe Immokalee Area Study, the County amended the GMP to adopt the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay (covering the f 195,000 acres within the Immokalee Study Area), followed by LDC amendments to implement the GMP RLSA Goals, Objectives, and Policies. The various state agencies with jurisdictional oversight approved these amendments, finding that the RLSA Overla GOPs address the Final Order requirements related to the Assessment, including: • Providing measures to protect and prevent premature conversion of "prime agricultural lands... ", Providing measures to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat to protect water quality and quantity..., Assessing the growth potential ofthe Area by assessing potential conversions of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible uses away from critical habitat, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques, including but not limited to, public and private schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed use development. Collier County GMP (related to the RLSA) The GMP (through the RLSA Goals, Objectives, and Policies) is structured into five (5) Groups, the following analysis addresses compliance with Group 4 Policies: Group 4 - Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas. Policy 4.1: Collier County will encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of the economic base of the RSLA. Collier County will also encourage development Page 5 of 19 https: lus-partner-integrations.egnyte.com' msoffice wopi, flies, SI cee484-319e-4459-92e7- ec540d28f2cerW0PJServiceld_TP_EGNYTE_ PLUS WOPIUserld_209.bowman.egnyte.com• Project Narrative Statement of Compliance (rev 2-19-2026).docx that utilizes creative land use planning techniques and facilitates a compact form of development to accommodate population growth by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). Incentives to encourage and support the diversification and vitality of the rural economy such as flexible development regulations, expedited permitting review, and targeting capital improvements shall be incorporated in the LDC Stewardship District. ComplianceAnalysis: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA allowsfor a large range o fresidential, commercial, and civic uses to ensure the economicprosperity o fboth the Village and Collier County. Creative land use planning techniques, such as clustered development, mixed use town centers, integrated open space and conservation areas, and a large multi -modal network will be utilized to facilitate a compactform ofdevelopment and, impart, accommodatespopulation growth in Collier County. Policy 4.2: All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for designation as a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as a Stewardship Sending Area. The exception, consistent with Policy 3.13, is when a WRA provides stormwater quality treatment for an SRA, then the acreage of the WRA used for stormwater quality treatment for the SRA shall be included in the SRA. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria and other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay, and in accordance with the guidelines established in Section 163.3248, Florida Statutes, the specific location, size and composition of each SRA cannot and need not be predetermined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible to be designated as SRAs generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of agriculture lands which have been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands shown on the Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation include approximately 72,000 acres outside of the ACSC and approximately 15,000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA designation shall be a maximum of 45,000 acres. Because the Overlay requires SRAs to be compact, mixed -use and self-sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and infrastructure, traditional locational standards normally applied to determine development suitability are not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore, the process for designating a SRA follows the procedures set forth herein and the adopted RLSA Zoning Overlay District. Compliance Analysis: As demonstrated by the data and analysis provided as part of the SRA application process and using creative design techniques and innovative characteristics established for a Village in the RLSA Overlay, the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA complies with thispolicy. Policy 4.3: Land becomes designated as an SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The petition shall include an SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be a finding of consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein, compliance with the LDC Stewardship District, and assurance that the applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. The County has adopted LDC amendments to establish the procedures and submittal requirements for designation as a SRA, providing for consideration of impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts, and for public notice of and the opportunity for public participation in any consideration by the BCC of such a designation. Compliance Analysis: As Policy 4.3 states, "The basis for approval shall be afinding o fconsistency with the policies o fthe Overlay, including the required suitability setforth herein, compliance with the LDC Stewardship District, and assurance that the applicant has acquired or will acquire Page 6 of 19 https:, Itts-partner-integrations.egnyte.comlmsoffice'wopi/files,51 cee484-319e-4459-92e7- ec54008f2co'WOPIServiceld TP EGNYTE PLUS WOPIUserld 209.bowman.egnyte.com.'Project Narrative Statement of Compliance (rev 2-19-2026).docx sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. The County has adopted LDC amendments to establish the procedures and submittal requirements for designation as a SRA. providingfor consideration o fimpacts, including environmental andpublic infrastructure impacts, andforpublic notice ofand the opportunityfo rpublic participation in any consideration by the BCC o fsuch a designation. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is consistent with all applicablepolicies in the Overlay and meets or exceeds all applicable LDC requirements. Policy 4.4: Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SRA. Such updates shall be incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map by amendment periodically initiated by the County, or sooner at the discretion o f the Board of County Commissioners. Compliance Analysis: No analysis specific to Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is required. This policy is a Collier County responsibility. Policy 4.5: To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate that the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District and is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. The SRA Master Plan shall comply with the County's then- adopted MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), and Access Management procedures. Each SRA master plan shall include a Management Plan with provisions for minimizing human and wildlife interactions. Low intensity land uses (e.q. passive recreation areas, golfcourses) and vegetation preservation requirements, including agriculture, shall be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities. Consideration shall be given to the most current Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission guidelines and regulations on techniques to reduce human wildlife conflict. The management plans shall also require the dissemination of information to local residents, businesses and governmental services about the presence ofwildlife and practices that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife, while minimizing opportunities for negative interaction, such as appropriate waste disposal practices. Compliance Analysis: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Master Plan demonstrates compliance with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District and is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. Policy 4.6: SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in Section 163.3248, Florida Statutes. These planning strategies and techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area -based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed -use development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. The SRA shall also include a mobility plan that includes vehicular, bicycle/ pedestrian, public transit, internal circulators, and other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and areas of outside development and land uses. The mobility plan shall provide mobility strategies such as bus subsidies, route sponsorship or other incentives which encourage the use of mass transit services. The development of SRAs shall also consider the needs identified in the MPO Long Range Transportation Needs Plan, and plan land uses to accommodate services that would Page 7 of19 https: integrations.egnyte.comlmsoffice wopilfiles15lcee484-319e-4459-92e7- ec540d28f2ce WOP!Serviceld_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS WOP!Userld_209.bowman.egnyte.com Project Narrative Statement of Compliance (rev 2-19-2026).docx increase internal capture and reduce trip length and long- distance travel. Such development strategies are recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl, encouraging alternative modes of transportation, increasing internal capture and reducing vehicle miles traveled. Compliance Analysis: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA complies with (meets or exceeds) the innovative characteristics established for a Village in the RLSA Overlay, such as clustered development, creating a mixed -use town center that allowsfo r commercial development to serve the Village and surrounding region, andproviding a comprehensive multi -modal network Policy 4.7: There are three specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, and Compact Rural Development (CRD). The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, and CRD are set forth in Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3. Specific regulations, guidelines and standards within the LDC Stewardship District to guide the design and development ofSRAs to include innovative planning and development strategies as set forth in Section 163.3248, Florida Statutes. The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards set forth on Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in Attachment C may only be exceeded through the density blending process as set forth in density and intensity blending provision o fthe Immokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable housing density bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. The base residential density is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not restrict net residential density of parcels within a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process. Compliance Analysis: The proposed density within the Tillage SRA is consistent with applicable LDCprovisions and Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies. Policy 4.7.1: Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix of uses.... Compliance Analysis: Not applicable to the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. Policy 4.7.2: Villages are communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 300 acres and up to 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical State Concern and up to 1,500 acres outside the Area of Critical State Concern. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed -use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Appropriately scaled uses described in Policy 4.7.3 shall also be permitted in Villages. Villages are an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria for Villages are included in the LDC Stewardship District. Villages greater than 500 acres shall include an internal mobility plan which shall include a transfer station or park and ride area that is appropriately located within the village to serve the connection point for internal and external public transportation. Page 8 of 19 https: us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com,msoffice wopi files/5 Icee484-319e-4459-92e7- ec54008f2ce WOP!Serviceld_TP_EGNYTE PLUS,VOP!Userld_209.bowman.egnyte.com Project Narrative Statement of Compliance (rev 2-19-2026).docx Compliance Analysis: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is outside the Area of Critical State Concern and under 1,500 acres; and complies with (meets or exceeds) the innovative characteristics establishedfor a Village in the RLSA Overlay such as: • Providingfor a mixed -use Village Center that will create economic opportunitiesfor and providegoods and services to the Village and the surrounding area; • Creating a multi -modal pedestrian and bicycle network to safely facilitate non -vehicular travel throughout the Village; • Providing±23. 03 acres ofparks,parkpreserves, wetlandparkpreserves, andNeighborhood General amenity centers, exceeding the SRA requirement o fproviding I %o fthe SRA gross acreage (14.47 acres)forparks and recreation/or the neighborhoods; and • Providing a school andfire%ms sites. Policy 4.7.3: Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that shall support and further Collier County's valued attributes of agriculture, natural resources and economic diversity.... Compliance Analysis: Not applicable to the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. Policy 4.7.4: Existing urban areas, Towns and Villages shall be the preferred location for business and industry within the RLSA, to further promote economic sustainability and development, diversification and lob creation. The business and industry use allowed includes, but is not limited to, those as defined as Florida Qualified Target Industries. The appropriate scale and compatibility of these uses within a Town or Village will be addressed during SRA application process. ComplianceAnalysis: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA complies with thispolicy through the establishment o fa mixed -use Village Centerpermitting a large range o fcommercial uses that can service the Village and surrounding area. Policy 4.7.5: To address the accommodation of Affordable Housing in a Town or Village, the SRA applicant shall utilize one of the following options: I Affordable Housing Land Reservation a Reservation of one or more site(s) within the SRA or within a proximal SRA in the RLSAO with densities and development standards that accommodate Affordable Housing residential uses at a minimum density of 10 units per acre, for acquisition by either Collier County, a Community Land Trust, a private developer or any other affordable housing provider. b. The aggregate acreage of such site(s) shall be equal to or greater than 2.5% of the gross area of the SRA. c. The acreage of land reserved for Affordable Housing will be considered as a Public Benefit Use and not require the consumption of Stewardship Credits but shall be included in the calculation of total SRA acreage. d The County shall verify the site(s) is/are appropriate and approve the site(s) at time of SRA approval, subject to standards to be established in the LDC. e. Affordable Housing Page 9 of 19 hUps: us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com msoffice wopi files,S Icee484-3 19e-4459-92e7- ec540d28f2ce,W0PIService1d_TP_ EGNYTE_PLUS1WOP!Userld_209.bowman.egnyte.com'Project Narrative Statement of Compliance (rev 2-19-2026).docx units shall be excluded from the Traffic Impact Statement or trip cap for the SRA in which they are located. 2. Alternatives proposed by the SRA Applicant a While compliance with the Land Reservation described above shall be deemed to satisfy affordable housing requirements, other options may be proposed by the SRA applicant and approved by the Board of County Commissioners to address housing affordability issues in the subject SRA. 3. The process and procedures to implement this policy, including a definition to be used to determine "proximal SRA" and specific guidelines and standards in those instances in which alternative options may be proposed, shall be set forth in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Zoning District. Compliance Analysis: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA proposes a f36.22-acre Affordable Housing context zone to be acquired by Collier County with a minimum density often dwelling units per acre to satisfy the affordable housing requirement. Policy 4.8: An SRA may be contiguous to a FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in Policy 4.13. A SRA may be contiguous to and served by a WRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13. Compliance Analysis: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA complies with thispolicy. Policy 4.9: An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development away from wetlands and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs unless the WRA is being used to provide water quality treatment volume as referenced in Policy 3.13, in which case the WRA shall retain its WRA Overlay classification and be included in the SRA acreage total. To fin-ther direct development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential; commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. In addition, conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. Infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses may be exempt from this restriction, provided that designs seek to minimize the extent of impacts to any such areas. The Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as measured pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater than 1.2. Compliance Analysis: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA complies with this policy. The SRA does not include any lands with a NRigreater than 1.2 nor any lands within the CSC Overlay. Policy 4.10: Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and management areas and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore, open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. To ensure that SRA residents have such areas proximate to their homes, open space shall also comprise a minimum Page 10 of 19 https:l, us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com, msoffice wopi files 51 cee484-319e-4459-92e7- ec540d28t2celW0P[Serviceld TP_ EGNYTE_PLUS WOP1Userld 209.bowman.egnyte.com Project Narrative Statement of Compliance (rev 2-19-2026).docx of thirty-five percent o f the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, or Village. Lands within a SRA greater than one acre with Index values of greater than 12 shall be retained as open space except for the allowance ofuses described in Policy 4.9. Compliance Analysis: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA shall provide a minimum o f35% open space in compliance with thispolicy. Policy 4.11: The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The edges of SRAs shall be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property. Techniques such as, but not limited to setbacks, landscape buffers, and recreation/open space placement may be used for this purpose. Where existing agricultural activity adjoins a SRA, the design ofthe SRA must take this activity into account to allow for the continuation of the agricultural activity and to minimize any conflict between agriculture and SRA uses. Compliance Analysis: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA complies with this policy. Multi- family development has been located within the mixed -use Village Center or in locations that have frontage on and/or access to Corkscrew Road or State Road 82 Policy 4.12: Where a SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map, best management and planning practices shall be applied to minimize adverse impacts to such lands. SRA design shall demonstrate that ground water table draw down or diversion will not adversely impact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservation land. Detention and control elevations shall be established to protect such natural areas and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and water tables. ComplianceAnalysis: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA shall have no adverse impact on FSA, HAS, or WRA designated lands as demonstrated by the environmental data and analysisprovided. Policy 4.13: Open space within or contiguous to a SRA shall be used to provide a buffer between the SRA and any adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map. Open space contiguous to or within 300 feet ofthe boundary of a FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses provided no fairways or other turf areas are allowed within the first 200 feet, passive recreational areas and parks, required yard and set -back areas, and other natural or man made open space. Along the west boundary of the FSAs and HSAs that comprise Camp Keais Strand, i.e., the area south ofImmokalee Road, this open space buffer shall be 500 feet wide and shall preclude golf course fairways and other turf areas within the first 300 feet. Compliance Analysis: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA complies with this policy. SSA 22 provides a buffer between the Village and nearby FSA andHSAs, and the Villageprovides sufficient buffering adjacent to adjoining FSA, HSA, andpublic orprivate conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map. Policy 4.14: The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. At the time of SRA approval, an SRA proposed to adjoin land designated as an SRA or lands designated as Open Lands shall provide for the opportunity to provide direct vehicular and pedestrian connections from said areas Page 11 of 19 https:l•us-partner-integrations.egnyte.comlmsoffice wopi, files. 51 cee484-319e-4459-92e7- ec540d28t2ce1WOPIServiceld_TP.EGNYTE_PLUSIWOPIUserld_209.bowman.egnyte,comProject Narrative Statement ofCompliance (rev 2-19-2026).docx to the County's arterial/ collector roadway network as shown on the MPO's LRTP Needs Plan so as to reduce travel time and travel expenses, improve interconnectivity, increase internal capture, and keep the use of county arterial roads to a minimum when traveling between developments in the RLSA. Public and private roads within an SRA shall be maintained by the SRA it serves. Signalized intersections within or adjacent to an SRA that serves the SRA shall be maintained by the SRA it serves. No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the LDC, or its successor regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data and analysis. To the extent required to mitigate an SRA's traffic impacts, actions may be taken to include, but shall not be limited to, provisions for the construction and/or permitting of wildlife crossings, environmental mitigation credits, right of way dedication(s), water management and/or fill material which may be needed to expand the existing or proposed roadway network. Any such actions to offset traffic impacts shall be memorialized in a developer contribution agreement. These actions shall be considered within the area of significant influence ofthe project traffic on existing or proposed roadways. Compliance Analysis: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA has direct access to State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road and meets the requirements of the County's Concurrency Management System. Policy 4.15.1: SRAs are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range ofuses permitted by the Urban Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4 and Attachment C. An appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic, governmental, and institutional uses will be available to serve the daily needs and community wide needs of residents of the RLSA. Depending on the size, scale, and character of a SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific SRA, within other SRAs in the RLSA or within the Immokalee Urban Area provided the capacity of those adjoining area' s facilities as described in Attachment C to be utilized by the newly created SRA can demonstrate sufficient capacity exists for their desired uses per the standards of Attachment C. By example, each Village or Town shall provide for neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as appropriate civic and institutional uses, however, the combined population of several Villages may be required to support community scaled retail or office uses in a nearby Town. Standards for the minimum amount ofnon-residential uses in each category are set forth in Attachment C, and shall be also included in the Stewardship LDC District. Compliance Analysis: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA meets or exceeds the requirements of Attachment "C' and provides for an appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic, governmental, and institutional uses to serve the daily needs and community wide needs o fresidents and surrounding lands Policy 4.15.2: The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an SRA development, require that suitable areas for parks, schools, and other public facilities be set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use. When the BCC requires such a set aside for one or more public facilities, the set aside shall be subject to the same provisions of the LDC as are applicable to public facility dedications required as a condition for PUD rezoning. Compliance Analysis: The SRA Master Plan designates areasforparks, schools, and otherpublic facilities. The needfor any such publicfacilities will be determined aspart ofthe SRA Designation reviewprocess. Page 12 of 19 https:' us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com,msoffice wopi files151cee484-319e-4459-92e7- ec540d28f2ce WOPIServiceld TP_EGNYTE_PLUS, WOPIUserld_209.bowman.egnyte.com Project Narrative Statement ofCompliance (rev 2-19-2026).docx Policy 4.15.3: Applicants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier County School Board staff to allow planning to occur to accommodate any impacts to the public schools as a result o f the SRA. As apart o fthe SRA application, the following information shall be provided: L Number of residential units by type; 2. An estimate of the number of school -aged children for each type of school impacted (elementary, middle, high school); and 3. The potential for locating a public educational facility or facilities within the SRA, and the size o f any sites that may be dedicated, or otherwise made available for a public educational facility. Compliance Analysis: The SRA Master Plan sets aside areas that could be used for public educationalfacilities. The needfor any such public educationalfacilities will be determined asp art o fthe SRA Designation reviewprocess. Policy 4.16: A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will depend on the form of SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements. The capacity of essential services and infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build - out must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes but not limited to, transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste. Transportation infrastructure is discussed in Policy 4.14. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities are required in Towns and Villages, and may be required in CRDs depending upon the permitted uses approved within the CRD. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities shall be constructed, owned, operated and maintained by a private utility service, the developer, a Community Development District, the Immokalee Water Sewer Service District, Collier County, or other governmental entity. Innovative alternative water and wastewater treatment systems such as decentralized community treatment systems shall not be prohibited by this Policy provided that they meet all applicable regulatory criteria. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems, limited to a maximum of 100 acres of any Town, Village or CRD of 100 acres are permitted on an interim basis until services from a centralized/decentralized community system are available. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems may be permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less in size. Compliance Analysis: These matters are addressed as part o fthe SRA review process. The Public Facilities Impact Assessment provided deals with initial infrastructure needs, and we are coordinating with the Immokalee Water and Sewer District regarding the provision of water and sewer supply. Please see the Letterfrom IWSDfo r additional information. Policy 4.17: The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provisions o Rolicy 12 o fthe Capital Improvement Element o fthe GMP and public facilities pursuant to Policy 1.1 ofthe Capital Improvement Element in addition to the following: jails, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire service, government buildings and libraries. Final local development orders will be approved within a SRA designated by the BCC in accordance with the Concurrency Management System of the GMP and LDC in effect at the time of final local development order approval. Page 13 of 19 https:'-us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com msoffico wopi files 5lcee484-319e-4459-92e7- ec540d28I2ce, WOPIServiceld TP_EGNYTE_PLUS, WOPIUserld_209.bowman.egnyte.com Project Narrative Statement of Compliance (rev 2-19-2026).docx Compliance Analysis: The necessary supporting information to evaluate the impacts on CategoryA publicfacilities isprovided with this application. Policy 4.18: The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the SRA horizon year based on a public facilities impact assessment, as identified in LDC 4.08.07.K. The BCC may grant exceptions to this Policy to accommodate affordable housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the assessment shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards. In the event that an SRA development, generates surplus revenues to Collier County, Collier County may choose to allocate a portion of such surplus revenues to ensure that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier County to respond expeditiously to economic opportunities and to compete effectively for high- value research, development and commercialization, innovation, and alternative and renewable energy business protects. Compliance Analysis: The Corkscrew Grove East Village Economic Analysis provided with this application demonstratesfiscal neutrality. Policy 4.19: Eight (8) credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created from a Stewardship Sending Area submitted for review or- approved prior to July 13, 2021. Ten Credits per acre shall be required for each acre ofland included in an SRA, where such Credits were created from any other Stewardship Sending Area. Land that is designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4.20 do not require the use of Credits. In order to promote compact, mixed use development and provide the necessary support facilities and services to residents of rural areas, the SRA designation entitles a full range ofuses, accessory uses and associated uses that provide a mix of services to and are supportive to the residential population of a SRA, as provided for in Policies 4.7, 4.15.1 and Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan. Compliance Analysis: These uses are located and quantified within the SRA Master Plan. Policy 4.20: The acreage o f a public benefit use shall count toward the maximum acreage limits o f an SRA, unless such public benefit uses were approved as part o f an SRA approved prior to July 13 ,2021 in which case such public benefit uses shall continue to be excluded from the maximum acreage limitation pursuant to the policy in effect at the time of approval. Public benefit uses shall not count toward the consumption of Stewardship Credits. For the purpose of this Policy, public benefit uses include: affordable housing as defined by the LDC, public schools (preK-12) and public or private post -secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the minimum acreage requirements of Attachment C, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities as defined in the LDC. The location of public schools shall be coordinated with the Collier County School Board, based on the interlocal agreement, Section 163.3248 F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.193 F.S. Schools and related ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to Towns and Villages subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements. Page 14 of 19 https:f/us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com msoffice-wopi'files15lcee484-319e4459-92e7- cc540d28t2ce1WOPIServiceld_TP_EGNYTE_ PLUS, WOPIUserld_209.bowman.egnyte.com Project Narrative Statement ofCompliance (rev 2-19-2026).docx ComplianceAnalysis: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA complies with thispolicy byproviding landsfor affordable housing and schools, as depicted on the SRA Master Plan. Policy 4.21: Lands within the ACSC that meet all SRA criteria shall also be restricted such that credits used to entitle a SRA in the ACSC must be generated exclusively from SSAs within the ACSC. Further, the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC east of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be CRDs of 100 acres or less and the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC west of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be CRDs and Villages of not more than 300 acres. Provided, not more than 1,000 acres of SRA development in the form ofVillages or CRDs, exclusive of any lakes created prior to June 30, 2002 as a result of mining operations, shall be allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that had been predominantly cleared as a result ofAg Group I or Earth Mining or Processing Uses. This Policy is intended to assure that the RLSA Overlay is not used to increase the development potential within the ACSC but instead is used to promote a more compact form of development as an alternative to the Baseline Standards already allowed within the ACSC. No policy of the RLSA Overlay shall take precedence over the Big Cypress ACSC regulations and all regulations therein shall apply. Compliance Analysis: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is not within an A CSC. Policy 4.22: When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA through the SRA designation process, the applicant in conjunction with the Florida Division of Historic Resources will assess the historic or cultural significance and explore the educational and public awareness opportunities regarding significant resources. Compliance Analysis: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA does not contain any identified historic or cultural resources but will comply with thispolicy i fthese resources are identified during the SRA designation process. Please see the CulturalAssessm en t Reportfo r additional details. Policy 4.23: Any development on lands participating in the RLS Program shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Within one year of the effective date of this Policy LDC regulations shall be implemented for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security. Compliance Analysis: The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA will be compatible with the surrounding land uses and will comply with the applicable LDC requirements related to outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security. Collier County LDC (related to SRA Designation) LDC Section 4.08.07 states: "SRA designation is intended to encourage andfacilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of the economic base o f the RLSA District, and encourage development that utilizes creative land useplanning techniques andfacilitates a compactform ofdevelopment... " Through requirements, allowances, and incentives LDC Section 4.08.07 includes the following innovative planning techniques for various types of SRA developments, including Villages. Page 15 of 19 https: us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com:msoffice wopi files 5Jcee484-3 J9e-4459-92e7- ecS40d28f2ce WOPIServiceld_TP_ EGNYTE] L U S: WOPIUserld_209.bowman.egnyte.com. Project Narrative Statement of Compliance (rev 2-19-2026).docx A. Lands Within the RLSA District that can be Designated as SRAs. All privately owned lands within the RLSA District that meet the suitability criteria contained herein may be designated as SRA, except lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map as FSA, HSA, or WRA, or lands already designated as an SSA. WRAs may be located within the boundaries of an SRA and may be incorporated into an SRA Master Plan to provide water management functions for properties within such SRA, subject to all necessary permitting requirements. L Suitability criteria. The following suitability criteria are established to ensure consistency with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the RLSA Overlay. a An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development. b. Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within an SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. c. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on land that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size o f the land or parcel. d Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than 12 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state. e. Open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs exceeding 100 acres. Gross acreage includes only that area of development within the SRA that requires the consumption of Stewardship Credits. As an incentive to encourage open space, open space on lands within an SRA located outside of the ACSC that exceeds the required thirty-five percent retained open space shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits. g. An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in Section 4.08.07 J.6. An SRA may be contiguous to, or encompass a WRA. h The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. The Corkscrew Grove East VUlage complies with all the above suitability criteria. Page 16 of 19 https: •us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com msoffice,wopi files. 51cee484-319e-4459-92e7- ec540d28t2ce/WOPIServiceld_TP_EGNYTE_pLUS WOPIUserld-209.bowman.egnyte.com Project Narrative Statement of Compliance (rev 2-19-2026).docx 2. SRAs Within the ACSC. SRAs are permitted within the ACSC subject to limitations on the number, size, location, and form of SRA described herein. Nothing within this Section shall be construed as an exemption of an SRA from any and all limitations and regulations applicable to lands within the ACSC. Lands within the ACSC that meet all SRA suitability criteria shall also be restricted such that credits used to entitle an SRA in the ACSC must be generated exclusively from SSAs within the ACSC. No early entry bonus credits can be used to entitle an SRA within the ACSC. a. The only forms of SRA allowed in the ACSC east o f the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be Hamlets and CRDs of 100 acres or less and the only forms of SRA allowed in the ACSC west of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be Villages and CRDs of not more than 300 acres and Hamlets. Provided, however, two SRAs, consisting of any combination ofVillages or CRDs ofnot more than 500 acres each, exclusive of any lakes created prior to the effective date of this amendment as a result ofmining operations, shall be allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, as of the effective date of the RLSA Overlay, had been predominantly cleared as a result o fAg Group I (Layer 5) or Earth Mining or Processing Uses (Layer 3). b. The Town form of an SRA shall not be located within the ACSC. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is not located within the CSC B. Establishment and Transfer of Stewardship Credits. The procedures for the establishment and transfer of Credits and SRA designation are set forth herein. Stewardship Credits will be exchanged for additional residential or non-residential entitlements in an SRA on a per acre basis, as described in Section 4.08.07 B.2. Stewardship density and intensity will thereafter differ from the Baseline Standards. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA has provided evidence o fhaving enough Credits to entitle the SRA, consistent with County requirements. C. Forms of SRA developments. SRA developments are a compact form of development, which accommodate and promote uses that utilize creative land use planning techniques. SRAs shall be used to facilitate the implementation of innovative planning and flexible development strategies described in § 163.3177 (11), F.S. and Rule 91-5.006(5)(1), F.A.C. These planning strategies and techniques are intended to minimize the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while discouraging urban sprawl, protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and, providing for the cost-efficient delivery ofpublic facilities and services. Only the following four specific forms of rural development in SRAs are permitted within the RLSA District. ................................................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0*** 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...... 0 0 0 0**• 2. Villages. Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100 acres or more than 1,000 acres. Villages are comprised ofresidential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed -use village center to Page 17 of 19 https:' us-partner-integrations.egnyte.comrmsoffice wopi files 51cee484-319e-4459-92e7- ec540d28f2ce, WOP!Serviceld TP_EGNYTE_PLUS WOP!Userld-209.bowman.egnyte.com/Project Narrative Statement of Compliance (rev 2-19-2026).docx serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Section 4.08.07 J.1. Villages are an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. The Village form of rural land development is permitted within the ACSC subject to the limitations of Section 4.08.07 A.2. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA complies with the above, as well as all other applicable requirements and standards in the LDC as they related to a irllage Conclusion In addition to meeting or exceeding the requirements set forth in the LDC for the Village form of an SRA, the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA incorporates a number of innovative elements, including: • A design that provides multi -modal interconnectivity through the Village, including sidewalks and pathways; • Utilizing the RLSA Special District provisions to allow for neighborhood scale goods and services in proximity to State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road; • The Village Center is accessible to residents in the surrounding area, which will effectively reduce vehicle miles traveled by providing closer access to neighborhood goods and services; • Providing neighborhood parks throughout the village connected accessible to the residential units via sidewalks and pathways; • Providing a minimum of 35% open space; • Does not include lands designated as WRA, HSA, or FSA; • Utilizing perimeter water buffers where feasible to discourage wildlife from entering residential areas; and • Providing education/information for residents regarding living with wildlife and the potential for prescribed bums for conservation land management. The Growth Management Plan provides the following Goal and Objective for the RLSA: Goal: To address the long-term needs ofresidents andproperty owners within the lmmokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment by retaining agricultural activities, directing incompatible uses awayfrom wetlands and upland habitat, enabling the conversion ofrural land to other uses in appropriate locations, discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that employs creative land use planning techniques through the use of established incentives. [Underline addedfor emphasis.) Page 18 of 19 llttps: us-partner-integrations.egnyte.comlmsoffice wopi files • SL cee484-3 19e-4459-92e7- ecS40d28t2ce WOPIServiceld_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS WOPIUserld_209.bowman.egnyte.com Project Narrative Statement of Compliance (rev 2-19-2026).doca Objective: Create an incentive based land use overlay system. herein referred to as the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, based on the principles o frural land stewardship as de aned in Chapter 163.3248. FS. The policies that implement this Goal and Obiective are set forth below in groups relating to each aspect ofthe Goal. Group 1 policies describe the structure and organization ofthe Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. Group 2 policies relate to agriculture, Group 3 policies relate to natural resource protection, and Group 4 policies relate to conversion of land to other uses and economic diversification. Group S are regulatorypolicies that ensure that land that is not voluntarily included in the Overlay by its owners shall nonetheless meet the minimum requirements of the Final Order pertaining to natural resource protection. [Underline addedfor emphasis.] LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1. states the Suitability Criteria are "established to ensure consistency with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies ofthe RLSA Overlay". The Village is located on land shown as "Open" on the Overlay Map and is designated for a Town and/or Villages on the Adopted Conceptual Development Plan. Adherence to the applicable LDC requirements and limitations ensures compliance with the Group 4 Policies in the GMP and ensures that an SRA utilizes creative and innovative land use planning techniques. These creative and innovative land use planning techniques are embedded in the RLSA program. Accordingly, it is our position that an application for SRA designation which demonstrates compliance with the requirements within the LDC established for SRA designation, both generally and specifically as they relate to a particular form of SRA, must then be deemed to be consistent with the GMP. The LDC requirements implement the GMP Goals, Objectives, and Policies. The LDC requirements are highly detailed and specific in terms of requirements for each form of SRA. Page 19 of 19 https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com msoffice wopi files, SI cee484-3 I9e-4459-92e7- ec540d28t2ce, WOPIServiceld_TP_EGNYTE PLOSIWOPIOserld_209.bowman.egnyte.com,Project Narrative Statement of Compliance (rev 2-19-2026).docx CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) PROJECT LOCATION MAP CPI RD CHURCH'RD ,o ,RD ` ,1�. s 'f' .J +: � +�4d1�,�'LI F �� i .t ...�` •sy S' •4 t'•�jEtV�AtTT�� N / o ti; :. T+� '', rc� . NEW D LWE T4E:w a�; :. �-.-• 'N_ t ,_ ... '.� ', � ? J+9£J / + _�'�� r�{ 3'.. .. a O "JAGUAR- LVD.� � � pApF T z uwi.. z '� �:?i.. + 4"+�T�• _ � _,�' �., t q4� ,..' i - w - ERMINE�S�T'`E,' .ar. - z m `! HER G R Q MEN ST E i .f-- —PROJECT ¢; L kW, i w DRI ERMgRSTy _.~..i�S^ GP •�+� .._.. H E M LJ R..Y;�\ .J.. F , •y — -� - ^AR LYN y �} ��^ j 2:`.� C O L_ L I E R .• SR x +. �nN nSrarFR —�- r N. z k } — ..' • „• �^ KATYDID LN - -'; - `'3 'S ':.. fn Lul _ _ J ._.. __. y ST pRD.OAKS RD PEPP- i-WESTCC�4 _ O KE TRAF..FOR z _ N, _... a ��; nMMO,� KLEE�DR APPENDIX PROJECT LOCATION MAP �r r• 1 1 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) DEEDS .F y. 54948' r ~ ' f0 -PAtE481 STATS (F 1!'I.Diu;t)I OOLM: ff ottmR Till Im>EHTURE,• It\1 ie thin . 29411 '3ay or—. Fobruoey f�,,;�,Cfi�.,. 1960, ,bl!tuoon TA& ATJA'll'! O Mint *Ll> 000PAW; a .corpoi,tt-lop '.'Jm ' the In...; of the- E:ttito of Virginia, -pnrty or tbo Airot part; •a AL.ICO [At • . OHVELOpt111rc !•tt, a >;t,drati>-W1der tho.l.ava ot•:the rtatet !)l':li'lorida, `,-1e,tquo ra at J c eo?V:111'!t Flo ' r of aoo: -- t, \ >�1 . • WI'rt ETHi : t th.a said .)ltirly oft. iret.. part,: -tor t'ri i h oon- ,tit)eplt:l.on•or'tba:au. of'ra-mUollo.rs and otht'r vduable cQnsidei'llt.!on• to i in-. "-ttri id by the se.!o •p1rty- or -the ,tocond part at. or bet0%.'G tl;la"enaoallns _ _a.• - et„ of- the•n•e: srnts, the reQeipt ,i,hereot s hex'.bY .ao no eds d•; a. g1• mlt%4,rJJ.10 atlll WA 11rr by tbt-9 preeenta doe. fl_$nt, bn•aain, a bnvey unto the 1;1ad pRr of tbo. socond.parli., and its iucoessora. aM a ignpl-Jo.'Over all.tho a cert.ain-tracts.o parc s of' labd: d uo;t;a, , .1¥1u,a ani\;.\I:)tt)6 Co1:,UorCoun:,, si.te or nodda,'amt desol'ibetl.as.tollowtt; o. wits - Top j at. I , '_m• a G: 11st:. _ •A U .se'Qn) .Jesik 26.A.1 a re•s of sta.te ` Rend -Y 11r, ditch,. 6.13, ac•raJ j rr _r.1-,.:a•'I9 , .63.9,33_ •I A:P.S !)tl on6, ", < 11. - \ 646 30.a.cr aj- All. next above descri , 'ir, boil')e aubjc to ea=!8'"onti• ar .itad -i..e County Elocli ir. Coope_rat-fe,.) July 19, 1951;. and raoorded in CR Book JJ, •I)ataen 39%-1,.03, tbOounty, Floridal - .AII action 7, 1., o- t 6$2 W acre91 A I I Qtion 8,. _ • •� 1 .6 : o o aar.a J. All •SO.otion •9, ''" §40.0O acres; .AI1 seoiio 171 .64OtOO acres; M* of IN* 92; or Flu loan Mi. 4M o$ ` S174 sold to W. 11. O,allnbury, of ux.,,AL lflf .Lear those portions sold to G. W. tih�dden`' , vizz R-,., of s4f; of -*j of >fi; and Sr?4 at g1Q1* Of ltl„ ell in ;section 18, f 4?5.71 &axes; AU_ m ction 19, n crpt I* or ; 566.43 sores; • 2M 640.00 n rGsJ A U Ifocl. on 2,11 640,00 ac•io-es; 11-lie, M or. SM aryl Aie or S'Ji•, Section 22; 280,C1n across A I I section 29, 640.00 aQrenJ AU S ction•)i, 640,28 noreaJ All acbion 2, M o . oo aores.r. A otal araa or B,9ZJ.66 ores. I n •TOlnrsbip 1.,6 South., Bulge 29 'Elgt.1 A I I Vlbt Be'ctl 6., 289.46 acres;. iQ- of f?ection. 8, lass 6.28 8:CNS State. !IOM f'-9 right O'W., ;n,.'12 acres) All ction 18 585.96 acre oct:ion 1?, -33 _acresJ r / • Sail1 c1.10 -1$ and II or• Fectiou 19 bd118 Ilbje t o easei„ent • p n lee Coun- y El.ect-r.!c ra.tive, ]no., 19 19Y7., in • , , l 1 13, pages .399-40.3., CaI.11.e-r County-., Ir1Dr1dII.J f /,,; ); •IR{, Section 20 less -92 ac ol!'east; - £or rl:tht o.• wy- tttte oad 11:S, ,1.54-08 acr 99: _fV.e_ A'-=totsl. area or 1>637.55 abraa. ' In'.- p 46 h., Banse 30 East: 640.00 acres; on A.H. + 640,00 acres3 ,•Z se t.f-s:,lle s_ r0/d r �•� 4�a1 • f. 7, 360.00. cresJ III•seotion SLA•oo•a�reor t'-11 ) f 11 section n . �� 640.00 acres= 31A or. c-fiion -�-' =- !J`$0.�0 Via: A w . o r 4000.00 pores. In ow!lhip 52 South, lia a ji- :. ll Sadion. 3 :� _ -;) 61,,040 acrenj All Seot1oii•s,-m:., 1.9.5 ae:re W. U. S. lfl:Jhw;y-§'41, 621.94 acresa -AU Section 7., ' (/ 't1J 640.00 1:9sJ All sectian 9_ Lem:-;a.al. acres 11 . df ) vay u. . Hieltlfa7 ;, - 1 '¥>•19 aoreeJ- -AII Sec cm U, Les$ 16.o acres right V,W u. s. IU.g!M9 641, 624.00 acresJ Section 15, ll-F>joa All Section 17, r 6'0.00 aereJ- section J.9, 64o.00 a res; All. Se Ion 21. 1 640-.(X) 80N9J Al I. Sect on 23, 640•CX> acret:d I I ction 21% 640,<X? aokW Al-i6c:l.on zt, 64.00 aa019J . .' .. ,f. ,:eyi•:•. ..+.. .ra::._.. ... .. ...�L. e.... .... ._. .... .. .. ...r...'.J:r...a.:.»::..i1P. w:a..u�4.rsn:�w4Yr:C:... _`— --_ a•..: 3 60 PACE4 3 AU ectlon)9,-61.0.00 nc All Soctj.on 311 '6/.0o aoJ 1LT All SftctLon - 3,: r 64olf aottei, f !11.Seotion 35, 6/Lo•1'o. ganIUL k total area of . • _10,1 . - •0 9. In 101hfllli 53 South, pitm •2S• is All Roctions 1, 31 r 71 9; U , 1 J I,• • •17, 19, 21; 23, 2s, 2.1, 29, .3, ?3 nd ->0 �.. "'"'• A tt area .ot----:-- 7,995.84 acres. l 'i P.tf Taw 4W 53 r outh 1 I*nff O FaM k . r.. 1. 'kr.:L fiuv:,,eI ' part of ecition•5, 187.00 acresf T'dIs/ctl.on'1, 6(,0.00 aerns; poti of action 9, 138.0 acres) A�•t••� r r � t li• 11-, 640.00 aoxes s ' •i\ 1 ecti9 -- /\ 640.o0.acres; All imilydel S •• .a clion 21, 5.15..00 acres; . rr ti iJ Alt ction 24[}ays,-1;:,e portion:,• sold ' t ,c. SIMI& iv That pn\-L or 1: of nf/4Intl h•1'1-,t•frN"j\whfoh lion ia.s or mmior 1; Awl••, : 9d•\r part pt the •:"` 1- of M whidl Mett 6utJear enllt or 0 ' TurMr' jUver, sU of ',m",o.( N�;.of SI;. :AaoOO •acosJ . rh orM44tte J*gn4 - °109c:W1nt or e 'P' •'I1 A • ,ibhin tlt(1 ML of %! or t?eo.19y)il sold to t7 oyd Ilai"lq — - 50" acre„ J . All UItr� .AU of:: r.tiot 3 � � ,.l �122.00 aoroai 1 • A totnl. ai•on oi' ') a a es - L :rot1. not dk" bP" o?nv:,Q1 by #01 rk.at\ ;36/i, t8 PI'eP., „or or lart. AU th above deMoaihai knJ it •,ubjoot howov,\o:•tb it o rt.afo. War o itnted April- 1, 1958, NJ Mi4 A,'tlnntac. MM W I provemol)t G01 JIlW to Ilq.,,blo Qll and !!of n f d QOIM recorded A# the pubHa reool-ql► or Oolliu Coullty, 1rJDt1•.da uh•cot, o.lno,' to all Mnrr--W', ril!ht or `#Y or oth„r "rest:ria- t,iotl whdh oro of '(< OM on tha doto- of thin;dond. '?ro�n Thor \ d,th •1ht) l;mo _ nti,., hererGtR nt Ad erput-teMnese,. with everryy P,riv:TJoeo, r.\r,ht, -tit.lo, in eront ttld, attta.te, revarnlon,, re_ainder aryl ean0Nnt thofeunto bolonuing -or in anyWao app01-tainirie.. '10IA. XU 10tM the, 11re in re d s'ple .forever • i •iF•i • t OR. • An4 the aid .: ty Cr ti:,mfirst dose oovenant. with. the 1,aid :part;, of the scond pilrt th,;,.t it s a.wMI.q- seized of t. I!!o.id- pre! I'Nell that hey ar i'rao 10111 a I I encu,,;bf =!1 and ijhot it.ha•s gaod.r'i h+. and .lawful authority t sel:]. the_o e,. and he sa!d part-y of th tirp .parl dooe hereby furl.Y iro.r'Int tl)e j-tle to he said I.anA, nd will de!'end. the same asain t the In 1;11 C?lii - o. a I I peraontl hoiilAoov - IN IiIIJBCJSVRRC#.the _said par -of rir„b P4rt liaa c4gaedtt1teae .:'•. present to be•e,c,ctod by its. P:-eQident, •tteatad bT its A i et nt'Seoretarr and- its corporate. aea;t be a!f'i:xed, the day ye r Jkt-e,t-above w itten. t ':-d ti • f10 CAI[/ alp.), i rr' yr. T. PI'eside. ! < }) �a f At st:,- - . .. „ •r,,, Ase .et an'+ e • - , • CR 60 ;acc485 JPLOR. A FOlUI M I FrATH NOCH CAHOLI I . . ' , I 1 .4 COUNTY ij,�! �IJWIG*slt V., I hereby caftutikjlpn this day before mej.an officer duty authorized to tike-Rcknowleogml=6 in the State and Oolinty above� evionally appealed W. T. Idiots -------,ad uspcativak and seemary of--:— ?.-'P*R'MV%Wf GN (XIPAr T& ATIAW mi�. Tnder tile RwS afthe Stateor Ttr6inft to me known to -Le tile persons dekribed in.and who executed .the fattl@ing instrument, aftd they sqv knowledied berate teethe - exectition - thereof as itilihofficers, w by virtue of due And �irxoiporablhet�44kty in them vested,' and AW'Wi the said; ll'tfic 4et and docA of said corporation, •"ADS And tile. mid'— WO .1, Sccr6try as aforesaid, al so acknowledged before me that he affixedi "'I'd the corporate 041 of'SAI(tcown tion. by like authority in him vested. WITNESS.jiy.sipiturc and offidal mud hiA,' eCoet forth, this .2 day t . yn!y And StateQf . . ............... ni-tr, i oR lit.W-I MO. 29th i-Ayfw. -Mar i MSt U ion Fxplrcs jK CWt MRRI),ol• T, Clarkfifro 4. 19875 3 anal -M& -M rl . . . . . . . . . . t � •racy �3� iiiJJ•J.9 ' t (Aurl'aoe R46his Onlf) Ir • •su: n CFIIE14R ccm C' oOtt nit , IM 'P4A M-1 We thitr 291�_ daay _(� Ye ��) A.n., ,:'1960, bedietm UEA 1�D M corporatl. O untlar • -the- 64- of adt S • t e or Virginia- party .or M. f,i'rst pai-t, a►d MICA t1*� a coi-po:ra lion under the 14vs• the St to t_Fl da, with hequnraors at .lacksonville, Florida, party -or the JICAQrl-part, • . •;: .•\11Vh'UL• M,t •.tlie.AO rt - of th:. ti; t Pot and. o— .,A:L•<ce ' or the �1'• or TQn Dallis hd othel' v lU4blf1 con...,lderation it . aid by t' '•tiail .party. of the !'sound "per at or be.fore tho rfoealing. ety of these-prceont, the.i:eoeipt whereor is hereby aokl\Cmedged, s(ar. d., .bargain IM aold anv, by'••"e preaentn dds 1:!ln;.btlga.0 and •oonve• ! �ad,l ty of the- acao part , is-amae•nRr am- astirgns, . t�rever.•-. -�SA[N 12i(W.AC K.in• M tp those certain traots,ocr;ubdal' of land 11 e; •:cying and ing in Collier. OotulV• ate - FIOr a• •• • danen`bc d ?„ m, , to \fi t:. I „ 4 1Eata• • All of;)'se;MOV e B 2531 na'er. il! rinht. • -or f/ Ill U.62, - 6.71: a esJ lr ub'eot,•-'?;, t, eaRomn.t,'for acoell!I •, • ro� •gmll T, R- ` oberts, Anted .\pril 6,. 1959, .reoof4CLL' o. R� Bode 41 t• Page 9 Oolller-OoUfi ff nP r Book to 'ris t t wy dasa n ar t\ tL fad aunty le.ot.rio Boop r - ti;hr4 Mic., de 9, :1957, l:eoorded•in 0, • . Book L3; -LTC , .403, Ool ier Bounty. *All or 11 1p,,,P-xa . Jl- of Mf/,(Govern-. . ''"'ifi IDbo 3 ad4., ;,>4 /\ 6.94 acJ'Ad, 11 Pootioon[�„ .1_- ' 64p.00 aol'eO No- of the u"Ng Pe do/, - ) 80.00 acres; Al or tho nbova d000ribedU .-V j of ' to-tho a oertni9 ro ervnti ns o of d in dgrJ dnted nooP"'bed' 21, 9 , -q, Is... Ttlewb� Cyp?'esl� Oorr��y t Th )tt nti' -bit 1W 'l,p_rovn' art , •reoo\44'!,I 1- • Q n. Rook 31, 1'ae 76, 00 aar Oaunty(,,,..\.. ' 1- r Oe 0or md- o Aoo •" . =a 1 ?•oo ronJ ,Subj<<u t, hU ev,n-, to tho a cai:bain 1'e erVa,,J +•••• •Ueno An .rost'l-Intionn oon Bind d n tho doom rrOri w w• nl:l„ bury, (1 we, to the party of tho f.\. ot•part horein,.dnt rt Ubm_ber 20,- 1?5St rocordad in 0. R Book 41+,. a 116, Coll er Co ty. +mow A total Rma of 1,909.65 aore�. In TWO* 46 south y e e 29 En - All' of Seotion 1, to s richt of way of • . AtLnntlO• Caaa 110 Re-UrAM aOCO 63.6.01 acres; "; ... ................ ...... ..Lr.��?t:.r....: �t.. .a :,i.a?::�:r1v..-... .'i::.. ..:.....e....!:..:•r••:......:a:1o.�•...�i11:..i..ii::?►5.iiisia`a�..(.Fdr�.a:..:tR�.V OR 60 WAS / ,•,.} All or- "ccl;lon a on.t; or rillht or W or Att ntic Oontit MrJdHrol\,1 Om'tWl 57.10 acrasi, " .t :Of tioh U•oa or i nt'or uay r At-lllnto Coa"t lipd "Id-4 Coppn, '• ' 9••QC':6PJ -Ail of Qctflon• 1 ,- "': "YVloea-a \.:s & A.t.oto'l aro of. 1„4,n.9, aoe,r.. ubj ot- t thcen •crrtin" rnlloal,01,,. aontdn d :ir doad flllted Uy 111; 1951, f-or(i th Atlnnt.iQ Coan. ldl}e ilroM •011llpa?1 . ;?1 • ]tr A'ftlhnt lc Akid a&l Hllpuva Q11llP W, xWrdE>d f lblc; 21, Me 6!i, Gollier C ur,tt, Fl<?l: •, f�'''; la�n[Ilhlb 16 i::outh, •!tanlo, m 1„9it 1 t ••JJt or eotion 2, 640.gp darepf''. fa r Section '•• 64Q.� assets; A ! Sact:hon• 6, 615M acvbrij r .7 - -2�5.20 acres „lueotiOli 1.; Ifn" flVl} or " i f , • AJ ar l - '1. la, 640e00 a crest- �" All OT. - i-6 .)P, _640.00 a•o . ..... _A% or ogti �' - 40. it e . . • a> — '`' /LJ1 MOM de0:ori crt 4R1 Ouhjoot o tho e •cellln-W lwmf A.0111 r4, ta ned in. -ia„1 dood ' I;t y: '-' • Mtirl ,ipn2il-y a, t\9,-0,Trom Collier Co-►awra- .,• Mon; •aln9 • • / \r A l flJadon ti/t) ore :. 3 ► .o4•a. of 'Se ubj„ct,: hoR<>or, 9 . 1;1 j611 dl narva _ dAn„ c•tllitw,l 1; dcd •t 1.1 13, 1951, try'" J. J. )UmVY, O'�?�\t The ° Atl.anlo h%\ Lul N%b-ovn_rn?fnlllwiu; °,? y rMor,k,j _* Ilool: 1, Ikk n 3rp; AIM nl o - ruhj otj hod yer, % ccr,r(rn rolaallO9 W _nee d to rpb 1 30, •1959, 1C+- 11(11l or URWAu .-r 1:'lol'laa, rP.o pook 52, PW 3)L1 Gollier Oo\ysty •.;__(>:} \•i: of VVIOE ,m.+.,on :n, ----7 /> %160.co aorei J to subkcli, hownvor, tlioro oortnin T r,e'r'V -<- }) • • =' t.r n- cont,;intlll in tircrl•rlohd Jant1M7 { 11J!,9, 1W, Gayinl• 'IIiap to Tim Athm•L to -: / • Mm Al T4*- •400.• Cuowtw, roc0r.K14 )I)oli j(„ 1'na 221, Colli r C>Unty. A botaI area- of 4,M0./16aeraaj Totar 1•-t nrca hdnr, cumr."" J ❑Ue ih;J. d*Y 1n ;, . Ili . ?,t ac ,. -e oir i- lor.,. — 'shjnct, twevm• to ll1\ cnro`t)A:,1 ri!!bli,r Of "ay or other i-ent1io- tiol\!t Hhlcll VfI or (001'd on bh ,bito -or. *I,. <1oa1 M, M �9i C t" : 60 •.,Afi•I 3 1t. Toeetl *r th.a teM..,antn,• hert,lita"'onts and appurtepanco;, with .OYe17 privlleae, riaht, title,. intere®t anr' &Rtote, rav®r*ion, refflflindor ond- ctasarient t.ItorPunto ®I.onBirl/3„01" to on,wl"o appo®nlnln5, TO HAq AND TO HOW the same in fee simple forever. K®- tba. oald -MT1,y or. the. tirat• Jb'I;t. d9a1 covenant v t t h th® lll&id party or the aeoorid part t!!li.t it 4a 111vrully ndze,J of the 111d p®ir.eo, that *E•Y ara r13G -fr® all -enau.bittnca" and t*t it its eood richt and. lawful autllority to nell tho sn,.,a; and the tlaid -pad,:, or. the tir,it- p,1rt doett hereby' ,:ul.ly waiTant. t1lo t:Itla- to th® cn.id.IRnd; n®1 v i l l defimc\. the. sar9 against the ®/f"'®I. oloJ"'® or a®1 por0olls wO*I'la®vo7• _ /4 /, •, • * \ rFLSg, VMCE<F -tlie .naid pa®y 9f tho Al?,i® pat n aausefl thas Pf®®In t® 1.ieexgOU" by itq Pre®ide®t,.attented by-ite Assistant Secretary- . lW _;';-'\®01 •®omte neal to ba ntf:bed® tho. day ®rd ye®'-' fir ®t ab®vo vri®®e* -. $igna<, a)ll'!d. and deliverect•. TIE-A.T!A\VrIC TANP AIR) I.(M t (P SIB ka N. T. RICt) `President; r: C�;rr1 , AttesttC ! __ .(;, j %• )7. T. iSAIIAQLD .Assi�belgt' SeOra,.�„ ..till z, ;6 f r t.—.... LII';'sai PLO IDA POBM (R W =489 e7 STATE OF rc"N CARCIRrA COUNTY OF r�i 3tA .Mw 16ae6j an this day before me. an officer duly authorized to take ackwwkdpmtn in the State and County A.04 $t�peisonal(ir apprnrc l il. T. Eire .,d ' ld. T. ?%Lm'ble L P*eoiden� and breraYdtatrt _ SeaRtary oL� Tsiri ASt"r691RTG rg vrry.i !f 'EX nmrporation under tbcUwsoftleStateoF Y=�+.,3•da tome known to be the Persons described in and who excenud the foregoing imaenxnk and they aeknowlcdgod. before rat tho execution - thereof -as such aWkint. by virtue of due and proper ogrp aadwritty in than vested. and that the said" hutrmgmt is the act aarj dccd of slid aorporatioo. }} And the said V. T. lurabld AAalnLantSecretary . �aciumciodgcdhdaemethathea uedtQsaidinsumneatthecorporatosrnlofsnidcorparation,byVjeandwrity f i i vested- 1. — {YTIIQFSS my sknunre and otficid �4 �'in,• :County and State above set forth. this &Y or all, Fi 2 / e j. ✓ Notary YabTie; M,;/pr ,issian Fspires l nlmLsean 1wres :anuxes 1a. 19M STATF OF Fl OF. CcIt.%'R filar It76 -y ra , 1 • rUltcowt i1FP. p�ypoyo �. r..: �pRAN oyes 3'2 4;P GE 13'4 D a •Thi$ Jndenture ,fade, thia 30th dclj 01 1Nly A.D. 1979. ROBBRT J, &OBBR' a . -1-(fre f.'o my of C9il' er, . VW $late, of Imo;:IcW parlye. of the flrsh part. and A.Ltco., INC.- UihQll! -mail{ng arJdre„ fs 11. 0. Box• 33& t J, I.eile. 1?lor •aa 393 P of rile CounJu q Hendey :Stale vl/ . PT064 •, :part.;-.... of the set'od: pa -if. • Tfltnesselh that lite' 1dd pnrt of the fit;,, par(, (m:,.an.d,' 'h or 14e sum of TEN ($•1.0. 00J' -+-_L - ;•_•,•y;'•-----Dq.11 r11 _ aird Y7 E r)ood and tictivable 1:s ID .hilii in 11cff1d paid, .the rtcc:lpt 1,11JIerlof @L hereby a1moQ10 s granted, bclrgalled sold"<111d.conlleyed, a1rd bl) these. pr,:;u:,,l, d. es o,:an(,.ba g= slll/, tfonucy (107.1..muJfi rr: ,— the „aid party 4 JAe."loolld pdd amf' ft.s • -Wm V114 a$s1onL foreve,•r, 11 that certain ptirc 1 "(.Land kA10 <M bril:g In 1/it <aunty of and Stat of ) more J'Ilncc" rig ((ec-rtbed a foUarvs : Th Iio##*(J:e, (NI/2) of t:he ltpr.thwest (NBI*.e• W. 7/4), Sectioll 1,- Twnsh:fp ; Range-.28 East. • • The abov p r g p e A i s not the homeste d o i Rob Crt A. Robe ts. Thi$ coney c _1- ;a b t to current. 't;axes and rightli• of way of i,'e•cQ;.f. • urFIct", Ong l s$, t M • it ,, •a •�,. -' a sIM / 14 logtllttr mit/J ati the tMcmell(s, herethittmenls and appurlenCtp-e.')vilh ellery pr iuiltgt rip li(1'e, infore 1 and estate, dower and right of dowet rellasroll, rein'!B(.d.e,; and .easement Ihetefo W1019ing or in anywise, ap1).edgi'11it1g: 1 0 & u e and to Jlo(d. 111r1a.lo. Q! lee simple {Qr ver And•the sod part y of the firs) parl do es- caveu!'111 will! •U cti-ti:• pqrl of the setolld part Ihul he luwfully seiacd -0( /lie 8c17 pr,•limcs, Thal 'Iliey &e free, from a11J.mci,mbtrrnc('J--- r(irit he bas• • .guod right crnd• bAM ful-crulhoriu- to ell t1,e s w,(.; mtd 11A snid Iw• y o/ the/n$t•11cnL do e, liarobyfully watrant .,.iuHitfolt1o1oald•Irtl"; nd iril/-de/nd the><' <tgninst -tit lau:flil rfoim,; of all11"dom• wmruoe"er. lliltnts htrto_f the said' purl y of the first part ha' hcre'it�do set his lianq aid sear n,e cF%f cald yeat above written. Sl d/ed and delivered in our preeence: A. ROBERTS aft _._.._ _ ..._....».......... _._- .... _... ._....... _ ....-.-_._-. _ _.-- IM --- -- - ....................... .............._._...-.._._.._.._..... ............ _ _ _..-..............__ _ . ..-_ . 71VIs Iludnmftllprtpn-rrd hy: Gloria EL Allen .Addrw • . O, Sox 3'.I8, La Belle, PL 3i9[iS i U 'FF. 8.2 4 PAGU 3 41 RAC. Jfafer,f now €009 of =cMANDS J.'Mertbg • ttrtify, Tltai-o.n # . d<iy, before•m<,•_q,i noicar 4uly a"ih,orized in-( a St te-afore.- said and, in. tft - County a fores iil io take aclmowlc4gmeritsi personally a,J?penred ROBERT A-. R0)mRTS - Meknow to be tie. person described in and who execuMd the foregoing, instrument and acknowledgod befoie me .that he exacutad thettame. t ifi�eSs' my.hancl and official seal in the County and State Last a/orQsaid-this 30th Is .4.D.1079} Notary Public, ^'� ' f5"G"i „en ' My commission expires :, tic •.r�:�['„i „�: •� • r : .� { f - P.W. l t fleli'n ,g LNse liter% 110 atf 1979, �^ � 1ty Commts .:•.r• ./ FlOterded cnd V"rll(ed % OOl �IEN NTY n+cU, of L s�o IPA c�0.wxc, A ' p ' � 3 0 Y p IV CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) FLORIDA SITE FILE REPORT Page 1 Ent D (FMSF only) Survey Log Sheet Survey# (FMSF only) Florida Mas Version 2.0 9/97 Consult Guide to the Survey Log Sheet for detailed instructions. Iduntincatiun:and=Blbliu a hic-h foA15 i 1 Survey Project (Name and project phase) Phase One Cultural Resource Assessment of the Alico Parcel, Collier County, Flodda S l U-1 Report Title (exactly as cn title page) A Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment of the Alica Parcel, Collier County, Florida Report Author(s) (as on title p a g e - individual or corporate; last names first) Carr, Robert S.; Betz, Matthew; Faulkner, Scott; Beriault, John Cx--------------------- - - - - -- Publication Date (year) _2 0 0 8 ____ Total Number of Pages in Report (Count text, figures, tables, not site forms) _54_ _ _ _ Publication Information (If relevant, series and no. in series, publisher, and city. For article or chapter, cite pag<t.. 9 numbers. Use the style of r 1 ' > A A A \ . A > -;t;# is J A V American A Ou/ty.' see Guide to the Survey Log Sheet.) Archaeological and HistoricaihWF\c4-Technical Report# .A N /. 11.. A A _ T A-- 1\ _ . 4 rl In-CR AY•.- - TA 4 1 11.11n-.1 t Supervisor(s) of Fieldwork (whether or not the same as author[s]; last name first) Carr, Robert S. _____ _ Affiliation of Fieldworkers (organization, city) Archaeological and Historical Conservancy(AHC), Davie, FL Key Words/Phrases (Don't use the county, or common words like archaeology, structure, survey, architecture. Put the most important first. Limit each word or phrase to 25 characters.) Survey Sponsors (corporation, government unit, or person who is directly paying for fieldwork) Name Alico Land Development c._____�__ ___ _ ___ _ Address/Phone _Gj/fSc\IIH NET'tIEAr, ?7i'?>S 663 Recorder of Log Sheet _John G. Beriault Date Log Sheet Completed _7 _/_26_/_08_ Is this survey or project a continuation of a previous project? X No Oyes: Previous survey #(s) [FMSF only] _____ Haim Counties (List each one in which field survey was done - do not abbreviate; use supplement sheet if necessary) Collier C o u n ty---------------------------------- USGS 1:24.000 Map(s): Map Name/Date ? f Latest 9 e v i O n As 9Q.ler.t\ot 9 i f necessary): o Corkscrew, rev. 19h;' Alva SE, rev. 1973, A C K A - A) I Pe-1-.V ) 9 HR6E06610-97 Florida Master Site File, Division of Historical Resources, Gray Building, SW South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phone 850481-2299,Suncom 2n-2299, FAX 850-921-0372, Email fmsfiile@mail.dos.state.fl.us,Webhttp://www.dos.state.fl.us/dhr/msf/ C:\Documents and Settings\amwesterman\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK13F\ALICO PARCEL SURVEY LOG 8-14-08.doc 04/21/09 1:27 PM Dates for Fieldwork: Start_6/23/08— End _7/23/08_ Total Area Surveyed (fill in one} hectares _4800_ _ _ acres Number of Distinct Tracts or Areas Surveyed _ o n e If Corridor (fill in one for each): Width meters feet Length ___— kilometers ----- miles Paget Survey Log Sheet of the Florida Master Site File Types Of Survey (check all that apply): x archaeological a architectural 0 historical/archival a underwater e other: Preliminary Methods (4Check as many as apply to the project as a whole. If needed write others at bottom). 8 Florida Archives (Gray Building) e library research- local public a local property or tax records a windshield 0 Florida Photo Archives (Gray Building) e library -special collection - nonlocal — — — — — — — e r x FMSF site property search 0 Public Lands Survey (maps at DEP) 0 literature search 8 FMSF survey search x local informant(s) 0 Sanborn Insurance maps A =&Aarfeleaeritio0myUResaei:ial-pt,etogPnpt,s&Fi-1cJ666-MeU' — Ac..A �- :4 t--. G - A ' I A c • 0— Archaeological Methods (Describe the proportion of properties at which method was used by writing in the corresponding letter. Blanks are interpreted as "None.") F(-ew: 0-20%1, S(-ome: 20-50%); M(-ost: 50-90%); or A(11, Nearly all: 90-100%). If needed write others at bottom. 9 Check here if NO archaeological methods were used. _ surface collection, controlled _ surface collection, Y.KCintrolled A shovel test-1 /4"screen posthole tests shovel test-1/8" screen _ _ auger (size:__ ) shovel test 1/16`screen —coring _ shovel test-unscreened _ test excavation (at least UQ M) _other (describe): ------------------------------------ — other screen shovel test (size: water screen (finest size: magnetometer side scan sonar _ unknown Historical/Architectural Methods (Describe the proportion of properties at which method was used by writing in the corresponding letter. Blanks are interpreted as "None.") F(-ew: 0-20%), S(-ome: 20-50%); M(-ost: 50-90%); or A(11, Nearly all: 90-100%). If needed write others at bottom. X Check here if NO historical/architectural methods were used. building permits _ demolition permits — neighbor interview _ subdivision maps commercial permits — exposed ground inspected _ occupant interview tax records interior documentation _ local property records _ occupation permits unknown _other (describe):------------------------------------ Scope/Intensity/Procedures Review of USGS maps and aerial photographs followed by vehicular and pedestrian survey of entire parcel, the selection of thirty-seven probability areas, and the excavation of 222 shovel tests in 34 of 37 chosen targets. e&es«_eiaaiis:foeiia.irmaaeiiii=eeiitlneci Site Significance Evaluated? XYes ONO If Yes, circle NR-eligible/significant site numbers below. Site Counts: Previously Recorded Sites _ N o n e---------- Newly Recorded Sites One -------------------------------------- — Previously Recorded Site #'s (List site #'s without "8." Attach supplementary pages if necessary) HR6E06610-97 Florida Master Site File, Division of Historical Resources, Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phone 850-487-2299,Suncom 2n-2299, FAX 850-921-0372, Email frnsfIle@mail.dos.state.fl.us,Webhttp://www.dos.state.fl.us/dhr/msf/ C:\Documents and Settings\amwesterman\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKI3FWLICO PARCEL SURVEY LOG 8-1 8.doc 04/21 /09 1:27 PM Newly Recorded Site #'s (Are you sure all are originals and not updates? Identify methods used to check for updates, ie. researched the FMSF records. List site #'s without T." Attach supplementary pages if necessary.) CR1073_ Site Form Used: X SmartForm e FMSF Paper Form 0 Approved Custom Form: Attach copies of written approval from FMSF Supervisor. DO NOT USE ******SITE FILE USE ONLY• • • • • • DO NOT USE BAR Related BHP Related 0872 e 1A32 a State Historic Preservation Grant OCARL euw eCompliance Review: CRAT HR6E06610-97 Florida Master Site File, Division of Historical Resources, Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phone 850487-2299,Suncom 277-2299, FAX 850-921-0372, Email fmsflle@mall.dos.state.fl.us, Web http://wwW.dos.state.fl.us/dhr/msf/ C;\Documents and Settings\amwastennan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK13F\ALICO PARCEL SURVEY LOG 8-14-08.doc 04/21/09 1:27 PM R 1 a MPZ-15 ST142.146 `..ice MPZ-14 S17.7 1 . y. _ .. MPZ-13 211 ST72w7 — - ST20-29 z, - Corkscrew a q _ � � p • 4fr ..... w �•-t .._'ate' 'p ..j +'72 � ~ .•. a �' T .i + N ♦ � _r+. Figure 1. Map of the Nico Parcel area. southwestem portion. N 0 1/8 1/4 11'2 Mile approx. 0 .2 .4 .8 Km. approx . 00 — 4C Ar ,�lM .... 34 a. 4 .01 ir �r — i r.� T VC1, �_MPZ-29 ' ST#97 y ST6448 r i • C :� • zai : a � • T <' MP -4 r ST9f122 1 Uti . t I� i 1' F s u re 1. Map of the Al ico Parcel area, northeast portion. 0 1/8 1/4 0 .2 .4 �I 1/2 Mile approx. .8 Km. approx. INN . `-p i o ..... _x T MPZ-28 �MPZ�� 'i STIf IIS STi 74 J 4 j _ MPZ-26 s'M2e� MPZ- _ �• - ' _-- ST131 ST41.48 ,�• "`• `;,• • , y ST123-141 }�1J� STSS-ss ,+ .y- - -31 MPZ-e f ' zi MPZ-10 STst.63 MPZ-30 � -ST219-222 l MPZ-9 - ST52-54 U Y � Figure L Map of the Alico Parcel area, central portion. N 0 118 114 12 Mile approx. 0 .4 .8 Km. approx . 00 � •.� rir.�`j ,e 4 ;i � ► 9 f ymjm Ab r — 41 — .�► Y * ( -46. - 4 f ... - 4 JZ , *' 5 MPZ-2 31 4 -ST1-8 ... 3� .- MPZ-17---- ;�, ST1 so- i si MPZ-18 MAZ-12 S'M54-161 , MPZ-16 ST147149 An 77 MPZ-II 7ST36-39 t—' am I�f Figure 1. Map of the Ali co Parcel area, northwestern portion. N 0 is 19 1/2 We approx. 0 2 .4 .8 Km approx IT, d Vie � r MPZ-32; �- Brio 9a12 -33 MPZ 36` IV ST196--198-218 +, C' Hf>Z- 5 51"176-187.19"3-05, - ` &2-34 `N`N..STTmO-11(9�_2, 198-2201 .- ow - w�-- 14� ` `MPZ-37 - _' - ST202 08 Sr \ Figure I. Map of the Ali co Parcel area, southwest portion N 0 118 114 1f2 Mile approx 0 2 4 8 Km approx PROJECT PARCEL r 1 l Map of the Alico Parcel area. N TOVVNSHIP 46S, RANGE 28E, SECTIONS 3, 4, 5, 6 A 1. a S. la is. IS 0 1(2 1 2 Me approx. USGS Maps: CORKSCREW. rev 1973 M C.- I(It L - f l 0 ,$ 16 12Km approx AI..VASE, r e v 1973 E:L'o FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Kurt S. Browning Secretary of State DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES Mr. Robert Carr April 21, 2008 Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc. 4800 S.W. 64t' Ave., Suite 107 Davie, Florida 33314 Re: DHR Project File No.: 2008-06240-B / Received by DHR September 25, 2008 Additional Information Received: March 23, 2009 and April 21, 2009 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey o fthe Alico Parcel, Collier County, Florida Dear Mr. Carr: We note that in June and July 2008, the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc. (AHC) conducted the above referenced survey for Alico Land Development, Inc. in anticipation of a request by the Florida Division of Historical Resources for a cultural resource assessment survey. Our office proceeded to review this report with the expectation that Alico Land Development, Inc. will be engaging in permitting processes that will require this office to comment on possible adverse impacts tot cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or otherwise of historical, architectural, or archaeological significance. We recommend at the time such actions are taken, a copy ofthis letter be forwarded to the permitting agency(ies) with the application. This may eliminate the permitting agency(ies) from having to submit an application to the Division of Historical Resources for review, or, if applications are forwarded to the Division with this letter, it would facilitate our review. AHC identified one previously unrecorded archaeological site (8CR1073) within the parcel during the investigation and determined that it did not meet minimum criteria for listing in the NRHP. Based on the information provided, our agency concurs with these determinations and finds the submitted report complete and sufficient in accordance with Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code. It is the opinion of this agency that the proposed development will have no effect on cultural resources listed, or eligible for listing, in the NRHP. No further investigation is necessary. For any questions concerning our comments, please contact Rudy J. Westerman, Historic Preservationist, by electronic mail at amwestemlan&.dos.state.fl.us, or by phone at (850) 245-6333. We appreciate your continued interest in protecting Florida's historic properties. Sincerely, J,n — S— Frederick P. Gaske, Director, and State Historic Preservation Officer 500 S. Bronough Street • Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 • http://www.flheritage.com CI Director's Office ❑ Archaeological Research Iii Historic Preservation (850) 245-63M . FAX: 245-6436 (850) 245-6444 • FAX: 245-6452 (850) 245-6333 . FAX: 245-6437 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey - of the Alica Parcel, Collier County, Florid.a 000 By. Robert S. Carr, M.S. Matthew .Betz, B.A. Jobn G. Beriault, B.A. Scott Faulkner ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL CONSERVANCY, INC. 4800 SW64thAvenue, Suite 107 Davie, Florida 33314 (954) 792-9776 archlgd@bellsouth.net www.flarchaeology.org For: ALICO LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC August 2008 AHC Project Na 2008.49 — AHC Technical Report No. 861 ;ib�.,,"7w-^L. 4L1h�".E.:.*i'�'2:...!'>..�i:er.?:•4 ;ti' •::',' _ a.9:::W. a =' Ix9 a+1+`w:Ssi�9hf9:i� 9'fie :'iKk': t A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE i SURVEY OF THE ALICO PARCEL COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA z By: t Robert S. Carr, M.S. r: Matthew Betz, BA. John G. Beriault, B.A. t Scott Faulkner k I ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL CONS.ERVANCY, INC w Davie, Florida, 33314 ;< c 1 j For: t ALICO LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 2008 AHC PROJECT NO. 2008.49 AHC TECHNICAL REPORT 861 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES CONSULTANT SUMMARY 1 PROJECT SETTING 3 PREVIOUS RESEARCH 13 CULTURAL SUMMARY 20 METHOD LOGY 30 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 37 REFERENCES CITED 39 APPENDIX t ALICO PARCEL TARGET LOG 49 APPENDIX It FIELD SPECIMEN LOG 53 APPENDIX III: SURVEY LOG 54 Y APPENDIX IV: FLORIDA SITE FORM, 8CR1073 57 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Map of the Alico Parcel 2 Figure 2 Portion of the 1873 Plat Map for Township 46S, Range 28E with the modern parcel boundaries superimposed 6 -- Figure 3. 1953 black and white aerial photograph mosaic of the Alica parcel area 7 Figure 4, 2005 color aerial orthophotograph of the Alica parcel area 8 Figure 5. Soil map showing soil types found in the Alica parcel 9 Figure 6. View east at the Intersection of Corkscrew Road with State Road 82 in the northeastern portion of the project parcel 10 Figure 7. View north at the interface in northern portion of parcel 10 Figure 8. View east at oak cluster along edge of citrus grove 11 Figure 9. View south down main access road in southeastern portion of parcel 11 Figure 10. View west at PPZ-28, a cluster of oaks 12 Figure 11. View north across interior of MPZ-27 12 y Figure 12. Map of the Alico Parcel showing location of previously recorded sites 19 Figure 13. Map of the Alica Parcel area showing location of assigned _ probability areas and shovel tests 20 Figure 14. 2005 aerial orthophotograph of the Alico parcel area showing _ location of assigned probability zones and shovel tests. 33 Figure 15. Map of the Handfern Hammock, 8CR01073 area showing location of shovel tests 35 Figure 16. View west across MPZ-34 36 Figure 17. View west at positive Shovel Test 192 36 CONSULTANT SUMMARY In June and July of 2008, the Archaeological & Historical Conservancy, Inc. (AHC) conducted a Phase I cultural resource survey for Alico Land Development, Inc. of the Alico parcel. The -- ±4800-acre parcel adjoins State Road 82 in the Corkscrew area of northern Collier County, Florida. The parcel is divided into two adjacent portions by the SR82 right of way. The parcel was surveyed to locate and assess any sites of archaeological and/or historical significance. This assessment was conducted to fulfill historic and cultural resource requirements for Florida,s Chapters 267 and 373 and cultural resource requirements of the Collier County Historic Commission. This assessment was conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665), as amended in 1992, and 36 C.F.R., Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties. The work and the report conform to the specifications set forth in Chapter IA-46, Florida Administrative Code. The project parcel is located within Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, I0, 15, and 16 in Township 46S, Range 28E (Figure I). Historically this parcel was characterized by pine and cypress flatwoods located north and west of Corkscrew Marsh. The parcel is currently active citrus groves with few undisturbed natural areas. Seven modem structures occur on the parcel; none of them older than fifty years. This Phase I cultural resource assessment included an archival review, a pedestrian survey, and subsurface testing across the parcel. A site search with the Florida Division of Historic Resources determined that six previously recorded sites occur within one mile of the parcel. Of these, three are prehistoric archaeological sites: 8CR709, 8CR838, and 8CR839. All lie south of the parcel within Corkscrew Marsh. Three other sites are a resource group including a historic road and bridge structures 8CR979, 8CR980, and 8CR981 associated with State Road 82, which passes through the northern portion o f the parcel. A total of 222 shovel tests were excavated in 37 transects representing low and moderate probability zones identified during this assessment. One archaeological site, Handfern Hammock, 8CR1073, was discovered in MPZ-34. This site is a prehistoric scatter of a single freshwater snail shell and a sand -tempered plain sherd on the upland interface edge of the _ Corkscrew Marsh. It is the consultant's opinion that site SCRI073, based on available data, is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Figure 1 Map of the Ali cu Parcel area. TOWNSHIP 465, RANGE 28E, SECTIONS 3, 4, 5, 6 7,8,9, 10, 15, 18 USGS Maps: CORKSCREW, SJ 1973 JUVA SE. rev. 1973 PROJECT PARCEL 0 112 1 2 Mies approx. 0 8 16 3.2 Km app-ox 2 PROJECT SETTING The subject parcel is located in parts of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 16 in Township 46S, Range 28E adjoining County Road 82 in northwestern Collier County -- (Figure 1). The ±1920 hectare (±4800 acre) project area is a polygon with straight and irregular sides. The subject parcel is bordered partially to the west and east by Corkscrew Road (State Road 850), on a portion of the northern side by State Road 82, and on the other sides by cleared fields, undeveloped woodland, scattered residences, and Corkscrew Marsh and CREW Trust lands. The relevant USGS maps are Alva SE and Corkscrew, Fla. The parcel is divided into two adjacent portions by the SR82 right o fway. Historically much of the area was fairly low to moderately elevated slash pine flatwoods/saw palmetto prairie which dropped to the south and east into Corkscrew Marsh, a large drainage trough which includes part of the Lake Trafford drainage to the south and east which in tum feeds sloughs such as Fort Keis and Bird Rookery Strand trending south and southwest down a physiographic region called the Southwestern Slope. Much of this region was alternating southern slash pine/saw palmetto flatwoods together with low pond cypress forests, linear cypress sloughs, and cypress dome/pond features. The subject parcel is largely improved as extensive citrus groves which cover an estimated 90-95 percent o f the parcel. Wetlands also occur that are currently used as water impoundment areas for the groves. Prior land alterations include clearing, grading and ditching. Most portions of the parcel have been previously farmeq with winter vegetables. The project region is low-lying to moderately elevated (20-30 feet, NGVD) vegetated in slash pine/saw palmetto flatwoods with grassy marshes and scattered cypress heads/domes or sloughs. Throughout the immediate area are isolated rounded cypress dome/solution ponds surrounded by what were historically hydric (seasonally flooded) slash pine/saw palmetto flatwoods. The vegetation in these flatwoods has limited diversity of plant species. A variety of annual and perennial wildflowers such as marsh pinks, asters, St. John's worts, mints, Ludwegias, and composites that can be found blooming seasonally in clearings defined by concentrations of wire grass (Arisdda spp.) amidst the patches of saw palmettos. The slash pines are now limited to scattered immature, emerging specimens due to extensive logging of old -growth pines in the m region from the 1920s through the 1940s. Slash pine flatwoods communities are usually situated on high ground in much of _ northern Collier County. Historically, floral communities which contain a dense, often head -high understory of saw palmetto, were subject to and maintained by periodic forest fires. Fires either began naturally through lightning strikes or were started by prehistoric Indians or by early settlers to aid hunting or cattle grazing. Among the plants typically found in the slash pine/saw palmetto flatland/prairie environments are: slash pine, saw palmetto, gallberry, shiny lyonia, rusty lyonia, staggerbush, dahoon holly, ground oak, 3 wire grass, broom sedges, shiny blueberry, xyris, and a variety of annual and perennial herbs and wildflowers blooming seasonally. Scattered through the pine flatwoods are large circular or irregular grass marsh ponds. Many of these are solution ponds created initially through geologic processes including ongoing peat accumulation through decay of succulent marsh plants in the deepest portions of the ponds. Many of these pond features are oval or circular and fairly symmetrical in shape. Some ponds exhibit a concentric "banding" of plant communities -- determined by depth and situation within the ponds. Most ponds seldom exceed two feet depth, but many have hydroperiods lasting the better part of the year and are home to alligators, wading birds, snakes, amphibians, fish, turtles, and other animals. Bordering high ground areas and running as north -south linear transverse depressions are deep sloughs and bald cypress swamp, cypress heads and marsh ponds. These areas even -' with present-day drainage activities contain standing water much of the year and support a rich diversity of plant and animal life. Some of the plant species present in freshwater swamp/sloughs (generally immediately north of the subject parcel) include cordgrasses (Spartina spp.) and succulent marsh plants such as pickerelweed (Pontederia lanceolata) and arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.) and fems such as swamp fem (Blechnum serrulatum), Thelypteris and Osmunda ferns. At present, many of these features contain pop ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), pond apple (Annona glabra), coastal plain willow (Salix caroliniana), and buttonbush. All of these environmental zones were heavily exploited by prehistoric Indians, early white settlers, and more recent recreational hunters. At present there are approximately twenty-eight wetland features including ponds and sloughs an the project parcel. The features have been altered to serve as water impoundment areas for regulating water levels in the citrus groves. A ground -frothing of all these features indicated very little undisturbed high ground in association with the preserved wetland areas. Any discreet high ground areas adjacent to or within wetlands encountered during fieldwork were regarded as potential moderate probability zones and were systematically shovel tested. One higher ground mesic oak hammock occurs en the parcel. This hammock has live oak/laurel oaks with a very limited tropical hardwood hammock component that exists mostly as patchy understory. The feature was given the designation HPZ-1, was systematically tested with nine shovel tests, all of which were negative. The geology of the central Lee County area is characterized fine-grained wind and wave bom sands overlying shelly marls. Most of the surfacial sands are characterized in the Lee County Soil Survey as "hydric, level, poorly drained' and are fine-grained wind and water -born deposits from the late Pleistocene/early Holocene. Gray and tan sands found extensively in the district usually overlie relict marine deposits of shelly marl and marly limestone caprock that are part of Pleistocene formations. Many of these formations are linked to the Caloosahatchee/Fort Thompson/Coffee Mill Hammock series. Marine marls contain lenses and deposits of clay intermixed with varying percentages of sand These clays may have been a source for ceramic manufacture by the Formative period Native Americans. Mantling the Pleistocene sands are windblown deposits of gray sands 4 of varying depths. -- The Alico Parcel contains seventeen soil types (Figure 5). Most of these are characterized as fine, poorly drained sand or sandy loams. Many of these occur in the area as formations on moderately elevated ground; others are depressional and are located is the ponds, sloughs and wetlands of the parcel. Among those noted are: Myakka fine sand (2.6%); Boca fine sand (.5%); Pineda and Riviera fine sands (4.3%); Immokalee fine sand (4.2%); Oldsmar fine sand (12.4%); Malabar fine sand (1.3 %); Wabasso fine sand (18.9%); Winder, Riviera, limestone substratun, and Chobee soils, depressional (1.7%) Riviera, limestone substratum -Copeland fine sands (0.9%); Riviera fine sand, limestone substratum (1.5%); Bassinger fine sand (3.4%); Fort Drum and Malabar, high fine sands (2.7%); Chobee Winder and Gator soils, depressional (8.2%); Holopaw and Okeelanta soils, depressional (0.2%); Boca, Riviera, limestone substratum, and Copeland fine sands, depressional (0.6%); Holopaw fine sand (13.8%); and Tuscawilla fine sand (20.9%). Areas of the parcel contain tan and gray sand surfacial zones overlying a dense brown sand spodic horizon (often referred to as "hardpan"). This formation is a zone of organic leaching accumulation. Occasionally, harder "nuggets" or nodules of an iron oxide precipitate will be found in this zone, which is sometimes a basal archaeological zone. Limestone caprock can contain the index fossil bivalve, Chione cancellata, in quantity. Many higher ground formations in the area appear to be bedrock unconformities that consist of fully exposed tabular slabs of limestone caprock containing numerous rounded solution holes. There is a fine grain limestone siltstone, naturally occurring in the region of the parcel which has cleavage planes similar to chert; the chert will be cryptocrystalline and frequently translucent, the natural limestone/siltstone will not and lacks the hardness of chert. The northern Collier/south central Lee County area has been the focus of low-impact/low density ranching and farming activities for many years. "Improved" areas are interspersed with undeveloped woodlands. Recently, the area has had increased growth in the form of planned residential communities that have advanced at a steady rate along State Roads 82 and Corkscrew Road. 5 km T 46S R2SL �"" _._-1---�rti )►�a .__.:-. ..4.7Y.�27 hrw � .It'R'Fa T 4raY �._ •", A'.. r'.'7F4•V �•r•. .n r.. p. rr•.� Irr °9.ra ; Afi'r L',t, � t PROJECT • PARCEL �.lt. _-Ni'�-.... r�1[Y.1.tr 1+r> � C4•! h:.+... r.y,.s.u^c-R.a l•---•_.-,�.,.:1r.... .. .a .lrrt-y ... A• . IILIN► ..cw wt4w.r.e:+. _ sa i�._,r � s., r•..� ,•„ 9 u � • v aDua w.erarrra..awr.- ...l.s.lf•�•r�. r... � «,.. .r. a 4. a. si - �+ 7+' Jr��Y•i�rtr n�'. (lull.... r4t-.: ,w..`:1r•. Figure 2 Portion of the 1873 plat map for Township 46S, Range 28E with the modem parcel boundaries superimposed N 0 �r s � •. � �La.i A., i AL 1 ,Y� IL • t r. u x Figure 3. 1953 black and white aerial photograph o f the Alico parcel area. N 0 1/2 1 2 Miles approx. 0 S 1.6 3 2 Km. approx. 7 imi Sal Map-:.dl c Counry Alva. Flomm Hendry County Fbnca and Len County Florida (ALICO PARCEL) Yr rn a 13M) tLao 20Ga SI1Q1 FVC a I-107 5.00a 100011 fi rAa Con.., Counr, Area Florida (FL&: Map Unit Symbol _ Nap Untt Name I A— W AOI Pasant of AOI Motac,o, 1-tt 4ati2 a' 4 , P,v a Ornua, no obO �I--•- i,a .. .,,, ti, c sates iLlyeWm find aac ,7 , 2.13 A -6 0IO8111u fine :,nrd II;J.B ,2., /P R Mtl{4 tine W 1 n0li= 7 1 .5 4 11aYW11 y Pt OKWn ad Mol.nNi' MQi Oe I .+ • :177, snnda a Cnot,—. ]vn�a o Galor rlp; <kpco.olalel ~ dau,eaekn.uf - - Lbm Rl~t Wnc&lo, e I ? O.M, S.IOlaaala a'd Cap'llao fne auk d.......-..:su..u.t . W :f'israoo flnc Cho 9 G' S :6.9%, 31 T...:::u—,,nu fine uu, c - :1CI.O'/. 43 T*nHti, R1— li11oslaiu C 1' ✓w sub&Wtum. mU Cnobee 0,4-jupo,slcn.al Figure 5. Soil map showing soil types found in the Alico Parcel courtesy of the USDA web soil survey. Aae 0 Il'Cae�r,+. .. •s.,+�M�R�.+�t,. - _ ` _ _ice- _ -. - Figure 6 View east at the intersection of Corkscrew Road with State Road 82 in the northeastern portion of the project parcel. State Road 82 has been designated an historic roadway in Collier County, 8CR979. Figure 7. View north at interface in northern portion of parcel between cultivated citrus groves and the slough/floway draining toward Corkscrew Marsh. Several concentrations -� of oaks in this area proved to by hydric hammocks and only marginal Moderate Probability Zones (MPZs). 10 r X" Figure 8 View west at oak cluster along edge of citrus grove dropping west do wetland in the southern portion of parcel. These isolated clusters often indicative of higher hammocks proved do be seasonally flooded hydric formations or second -growth oaks on edges of recent ditch/berm areas. Figure R View south down main access road in southestem portion of parcel. Nearly all available high -ground areasof the parcel are currently highly -disturbed areas being farmed in citrus groves. A, 7 - 74 Ll All, OFQ fy, PREVIOUS RESEARCH Southwest Florida has been a focus of archaeological investigations since the 1880s, although much of the early work was directed toward the recovery of museum quality artifacts rather than understanding cultural processes. Griffin (1988:48-50) discussed some of the very early references lo archaeological sites in South Florida. He noted that these early reports were mostly casual observations, and few appear to refer to southwest �• Florida, but rather refer to the southeast and Key West areas. Kenworthy's (1883) informal report an shell mounds and ancient canals was one of the first reports cn southwest Florida archaeological sites. At about the same time as Kenword*s investigations, Simons (1884) gave a narrative account o f some of the very large coastal shell middens, and Douglass (1885) provided further information about prehistoric canals (although he did not accept that they were prehistoric). One account described a canal near Gordon's Pass that is probably the Naples Canal (8CR59), and another further north may be the Pineland Canal. Douglass' diaries record excavations of a post -contact era site (8CR41) on Horns Island, as evidenced by the presence of European artifacts (Griffin, 1988:50-51). Douglass visited Lostman's River and other areas in the Ten Thousand Island area including Horrs Island (1890). In 1895 Dumford reported that cordage and other artifacts were recovered from a mangrove muck pond on Marco Island (8CR49). The material was shown m Cushing, w who mounted a major project to recover more material from the site. Cushing (1897) reported recovering wood and other perishable artifacts from the muck pond cn Marco Island, adjacent to a large shell works and midden village site. Publication of illustrations of the spectacular finds generated a great deal of subsequent interest. Wells M. Sawyer, a young artist accompanying the expedition, produced an excellent and presumably accurate contour map for the entire Key Marco Shell Midden. This map is valuable to present-day efforts in understanding many of the now obliterated features and interpreting (reconstructing) the "architecture" ofthe shell midden. Widmer (1983) notes that Cushing also focused attention on the nonagricultural chiefdom level of social organization supported by the rich estuary and marine resources, although his anthropological observations have remained overshadowed by the wealth of artifacts. Moore (1900, 1905, 1907) investigated a number of sites along the Collier/Lee County coast, apparently attempting to find material comparable m Cushing's finds. Although Moore provided information about site locations and general contents, most of his work was extremely crude and uncontrolled, by both contemporary archaeological standards, and by modem standards. The first attempt to systematically survey and investigate archaeological sites was initiated by Ales Hrdhcka, who visited a number of sites along the coast and tidal mangrove estuaries in 1918, focusing en the Ten Thousand Island region (Hrdlicka 1922). Hrdlicka noted that southwest Florida was a distinct region within south Florida and made an attempt to type sites by function. 13 Matthew Stirling's (1931, 1933) excavation of a burial mound on Horrs Island represents — one of the first controlled excavations in Collier/Lee Counties (although he attempted stratigraphic control, Cushing had little success in his wet site excavation). The site was named the Blue Hill Mound, but it is not recorded under that name in the FMSF (either as --- a primary or secondary name), so it is unclear exactly which site he excavated, although it was probably site 8CR41 (McMichaels, 1982). These reports by Stirling are preliminary, and apparently neither a final report nor a skeletal analysis has been -- published. John M. Goggin was the first to define a south Florida cultural area (Glades Area), and describe south Florida ceramics (Glades ware), establishing a basis for later archaeological work. He published an analysis of the ceramic sequence in south Florida (Goggin, 1939, 1940). In later reports (Goggin, 1947, 1949a, 1949b), he formulated a basic framework o f cultural areas and chronologies that is still current (although modifications with additional data have been made, see further discussion below). Goggin (1949b) summarized much of this information in an unpublished manuscript, which Griffin (1988) thoroughly described. In passing, one unfortunate aspect of Goggin's work was a dependence on informant information for location of sites (especially interior sites) and he had a real concern that existing sites would be looted. This concern resulted in his either deliberately or incidentally reporting vague locational data for many sites. Some of these sites have never been satisfactorily relocated, although a few have undoubtedly been re -recorded by later investigators. For several decades, much of the subsequent archaeological investigations in the region took place in Lee and Charlotte Counties, especially in the Cape Haze, Charlotte Harbor and Pine Island areas. It is rumored that Goggin had a "gentleman's agreement" with ~' many o f the other leading practicing Florida archaeologists o f the time that the South Florida area was his exclusive province to investigate. If this rumor is correct, it might explain the neglect shown the southwest Florida area in the archaeological arena from the end of World War R to Goggin's death in 1964. In 1956, Sears reported on a large village and mound complex at the mouth of Turner River on Chokoloskee Bay south of Marco Island, and in 1967 he reported on the results of a survey of the Cape Coral area (Sears, 1956, 1957). Laxson (1966) reported on w, excavations at Turner River Jungle Garden site, which is upriver from the Turner River site, although these have been confused in recent accounts. w Van Beck and Van Beck (1965) excavated three small test pits on Marco Island (at the Marco midden, 8CR48) associated with the Cushing site (8CR49). The resulting publication of this work was some of the first reported scientific archaeological work to w come from the southwest Florida area in nearly twenty years (Van Beck and Van Beck, 1965). 14 In 1967 through 1969, Marco Island was extensively surveyed and a few sites were tested through excavation by Cockrell, Morrell, and others (Morrell, 1969). No complete site .... report was ever published, although an unpublished and incomplete manuscript is available. Some of these sites were discussed in Cockrell's master's thesis (1970). Widmer performed a survey of Big Key, John Stevens Creek, Barfield Bay, Blue Hill -- Bay, and Collier Bay, which are proximal to Marco Island (Widmer, 1974). Widmer eventually utilized his southwest coast experience to write a doctoral dissertation on the Calusa that not only remains the definitive work on that group, but also explored the relationship between subsistence adaptation and cultural evolution (Widmer, 1983). In Lee County, Arlene Fradkin and other investigators from the University o f Florida began an ongoing involvement with the Pine Island Sound/Sanibel Island area in the 1970s. Her first investigations were at the Wightman site on northern Sanibel Island (Fradkin, 1976). Several archaeologists excavated at Horrs Island in the 1980s. McMichaels (1982) reviewed sites on Horrs Island in a Master's thesis. In 1983, Marquardt began a series of investigations at Josslyn Key, Useppa Island, Pineland, Buck Key, Galt Island in Lee County, and at Big Mound Key in Charlotte County (Marquardt, 1984, 1987, 1988, 1992). Marquardt and Russo have investigated Horrs Island in Collier County. A number of the large shell midden village sites they excavated appear to be late Archaic, and they expect to document a more elaborate social organization at these sites and larger sedentary or semi -sedentary population sizes than previously known for that period (Russo, 1990, and pers. comm.). Most of these studies focused on the coastal sites, as have subsequent summaries and discussions. Recent work on the interior has made significant advances in documenting the extent and intensity of inland resources, especially in the Big Cypress and Everglades parks (Ehrenhard et al., 1978, 1979; Ehrenhard and Taylor 1980; Ehrenhard et al., 1980; Taylor and Komara 1983; Taylor, 1984, 1985). Griffin's (1988) synthesis of the Everglades Park data is the defining work on south Florida archaeology to date. Athens (1983) summarized some of the results of the Big Cypress survey, but more analysis of this data resource is needed. Beriault and colleagues (1981) reported on salvage excavations at Bay West Nursery (8CR200). Their description of the site includes a well known but rare and infrequently documented Early and Middle Archaic use ofponds for cemeteries. In 1995, Widmer and Story began an ongoing investigation at the Key Marco Midden (Widmer, 1996). In the first season they excavated with the help of graduate students and volunteers. The results o f their work have appeared in the Florida Anthropologist. In the last two decades the pressure o f development as well as a recognized need for _. preservation or mitigation of prehistoric sites has led to a number o f reports by commercial cultural resource management consultants. While most o f these reports are limited in scope due to restriction to a small tract of land, many have produced useful 15 swnmaries of regional archaeological, as well as insightful analysis of the relationship between site types and location and ecotypes (Almy and Deming 1982, 1986a, 1986b, 1986c, 1987, Austin 1987, Carr and Allerton 1988a, 1988b, Deming and Almy 1987, 1988, Fay and Carr 1990, Fuhrmeister et al. 1990, Martinez 1977, Miller and Fryman 1978, Swift and Carr 1989). w Arthur W. Lee, John Beriault and others in the Southwest Florida Archaeological Society (SWFAS) have recorded and investigated a large number of archaeological sites in -- Collier and Lee Counties. It is an ongoing effort o f the Society to publish and disseminate reports and manuscripts (Lee et ark, 1993, 1997, 1998; Beriault, 1973, 1982, 1986, 1987; Beriault and Strader, 1984). Many of these reports deal with small interior seasonal sites. In addition, Beriault has provided several unpublished manuscripts as to site types and areas (Beriault 1982, 1987). The Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc. (AHC) has investigated several large parcels in the Corkscrew Road area. In 1998, AHC personnel assessed the Standerfer Parcel which is located five miles west of the present subject parcel. In 1999, ABC personnel conducted a Phase I assessment of the ±300-acre Brown's Citrus Parcel located six miles west of the subject parcel and the 1000-acre Habitat Parcel five miles west of the subject parcel locating one archaeological site. In 2003 AHC personnel conducted a phase one archaeological survey one mile west of the subject parcel at the 300+-acre Corkscrew Links Parcel. The present investigator (Beriault) has also produced an historic study of the Caloosahatchee River east of Ft. Myers (Beriault 2001). In July through November 2007, the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc. (AHC) conducted a Phase I cultural resource assessment of the ±6600-acre Old Corkscrew DRI Parcel located in southeastern Lee County immediately west of the present project parcel. This assessment resulted in the discovery of one prehistoric site, 8LL2473, and one historic site, 8LL2474, believed to be associated with a sawmill (McIntosh et al. 2007). LITERATURE REVIEW A site search was requested on 6-20-08 with the Florida Division of Historic Resources for relevant archives and literature produced for the project area. This included, but was not limited to, site forms from the Master Site File in Tallahassee concerning previously recorded sites within a 1.6 kilometer (1.0 mile) radius of the Alico Parcel and reports for cultural resource investigations previously conducted within a 1.6 kilometer (1.0 mile) radius of the Alico Parcel (Table 1). Table 1. Literature Review Summary Previously Recorded Sites: Abutting Survey Parcel Within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of Parcel Previous Investigations: In Survey Parcel 3 (8CR00979, 8CR00980, 8CR00981) 3 (8CR00709,. 8cr00838, 8CR00839) 16 Within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of Parcel A review of state site files conduced on 20 June 2008 resulted in the identification of three previously recorded sites, 8CR00979, 8CR00980, and 8CR00981, adjacent to the survey parcel (Table 2). These three sites are historic State Road 82 and two 1950s FOOT bridge structures associated with that state road. They are part of a Resource Group including portions of the road and other roadway structures in Collier, Lee and Hendry Counties. No standing historic structures within the parcel are indicated. Table 2 Previously Recorded Sites Summary' Site No. Site Chronology Site Type In Survey References Outside of •.. Parcel Parcel Prehistoric, Glades Dickel, et al, Collier d BCR00709 Midden County Survey, unspec., 1991 Halperin et a( Cultural Resources Survey of Me Corkscrew Marsh BCR00838 Prehistoric Mound Tract of the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed, Collier -� County, Florida Halperin eta( Cultural Resources Survey of Me Corkscrew Marsh 8CR00739 Prehistoric, Glades Midden Tract of Me unspec. Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed, Collier County, Florida Historic, 20`h Century, Historic Road, State Florida Master Site BCR00979 1950 Road 82 in Collier File fomUResource County _ Group Historic, 2o", Century, Historic bridge Florida Master Site 8CR00980 1950 associated with State File fomz/Resource J Road 82 Group _ m Historic, 20 Century, Historic bridge Florida Master Site 8CR00981 1950 associated with State File fomvResource Road 82 Group Notes: Based on sites within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 miles) of the survey parcel. In addition, a review of the state report files conducted in the same area indicated three investigations previously conducted within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 miles) of the subject parcel (Table 3). Again, these investigation were not within the parcel Table 3. Previous Investigations' _ S Hovey Date Author Title In Parcel Out of Parcel Dickel, David; Carr, 2934 1991 Robert S.; Duda, Collier County Survey Mark Halperin, Christina; Cultural Resources Survey of the Corkscrew 7218 2002 Vojnovski, Pamela; Marsh Tract ofthe Corkscrew Regional Newman, Christine Ecosystem Watershed, Collier County, Florida _ 2007 McIntosh, Thomas; A Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment of the 17 Chapman, Eugene,; Old Corkscrew ORI Parcel, Lee County, Florida Beriault John G. Notes: 113ased on sites within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 miles) of the survey parcel. 18 PARCEL 4 ` Figure 12. Map of the Alico Parcel area showing location of previously I recorded sites. (A� TOWNSHIP 465, RANGE 28E, SECTIONS 3, 4, S, 6 7,8,9, 10, 15,18 USG$ - CORt<S EW. mr 1973 A1.VASE. rev.1973 N 0 1'2 1 2 Maes approx, 0 .8 1.6 32Kmapox 19 CULTURAL SUMMARY Stirling was the first to distinguish the indigenous prehistoric cultures of southern Florida in 1936 by defining a Glades cultural area, including all o f south Florida (Carr et aL, 1994b:9; Milanich, 1994:5-6). Griffin (1988) pointed out that this was not formulated as a strict cultural area, but it was rather a geographic region with some common cultural traits. Kroeber (1939), in a review of North American prehistory, utilized a slightly different tern, the "South Florida Area," basing his definition on both environmental and cultural factors. Subsequently Goggin delineated more particular boundaries for southern Florida and divided the region into three sub -areas: "Okeechobee" around Lake Okeechobee, "Tekesta" for southeast Florida and the Florida Keys, and "Calusa" for Southwest Florida (Carr et A, 1994b: 10; Goggin, 1947: 114-127). Following Goggin's study, subsequent researchers have refined or altered the cultural distinctions attributed to southern Florida's prehistoric populations. There has been criticism that Goggin's names and definitions were based on historic accounts of the main (proto) historic groups found in the respective regions and not on the archaeological evidence of spatial, temporal, and cultural differences (Sears, 1966; Griffin, 1974; Carr and Beriault, 1984; Griffin, 1988). Griffin, in particular, questioned the distinctions. He believed that South Florida cultures varied only by local environmental conditions and ceramic exchange rates. Griffin believed the inhabitants of prehistoric southern Florida were mainly dwelling on the coast and that the interior was nearly uninhabited and under- utilized. Griffin designated the entire southern Florida region as the "Circum-Glades" area (Eck, 1997:5; Griffin, 1974:342-346). This new designation for the area was furthered by a widely circulated book on Florida archaeology by Milanich and Fairbanks (1980). Griffin later (1988) retreated to some extent from his earlier position as further research (particularly by Ehrenhard, Carr, Komara, and Taylor in the Big Cypress and Carr in the eastern Everglades in the 1970s and I980s) showed abundant sites (and concomitant use and habitation) in the interior and Everglades. Carr and Beriault, in particular, have taken issue with the concept of a Circum-Glades ... region. Carr's research in the Big Cypress and Everglades and his subsequent analysis demonstrating variation of key cultural markers (particularly in decorated ceramics) formed the basis for this contention. There is abundant evidence for cultural (and probably political or tribal) diversity in the various areas of south Florida. Carr and Beriault particularly noted and defined differences between the lower southwest Florida coast, which they termed the "Ten Thousand Island" region, and the area to the north, -- which they called the "Caloosahatchee" region. This latter area they believed to be the seat of the historic Calusa chiefdomship, although previous (and some subsequent) researchers have called the entire southwest Florida from Cape Sable to the Cape Haze -- peninsula (and beyond) in Charlotte County "Calusa." Griffin, in his definitive 1988 synthesis on Everglades archaeology, attempted to W- reconcile and refine some o f the conflict in the definition o f south Florida prehistoric and historic culture areas. As stated by Carr and colleagues (1994b), "the issue... appears in part to be one of trying to determine the significance of regional and temporal variation, 20 rather than whether these differences are real." There is evidence that changes through time in regional political affiliations or realties makes any model not addressing this complex issue two-dimensional. The Calusa hegemony that was in place by the time of the arrival of Europeans may have begun as early as 800 AD in the Ten Thousand Island "district" or area (Griffin, 1988:321; Carr et d, 1994b:12). There is currently ongoing ... research to further refine present thought as to cultural affiliations in south Florida. It would seem only a matter of time before new directions and emphases provide a more accurate summation of south Florida cultural affinities. Using the present models, the coastal zones of Collier County and southern Lee Cowtty contain three distinct culture areas. Indian Hill on Marco Island lies thirty miles from the projected interface by Carr and Beriault (1984) of the Caloosahatchee area (called the "the 'heartland' of the Calusa," Carr et d, 1994b:12) to the north, and the Ten Thousand Islands area to the south. At a yet undefined point to the east lies the Okeechobee cultural -- area, but the boundary, if it is a definite, fixed one, is likely to occur in the vicinity of the lmmokalee rise forty miles or more to the northeast of Indian Hill. Further work is in progress by Carr to address the issue of where the southwest boundaries o f the �- Okeechobee culture area occur. TEMPORAL PERIODS AND ADAPTATIONS At the same time that the south Florida archaeological cultural models have evolved over the past 60-plus years, so have the temporal markers or framework on which we base evolution of that culture. Much of this latter effort has resulted from comparisons made between the recovered artifacts from the 100-year period of scientific and nonscientific excavation and collection by the various individuals and institutions (and others) enumerated in part above. This Floridian effort must be seen against the broader background of archaeological work in eastern North America and the New World as a _. whole. All o f these efforts have been mutually complimentary and certainly not exclusive. In South Florida, the following periods and adaptations are generally accepted. Part o f this chronology involving the later or Formative period is called the Glades sequence in honor of Goggin, the greater part of whose work in defining the ceramic sequence or markers has withstood the test of time and subsequent criticism (Goggin, 1939, 1947, 1949c). From Goggin's day to present, pottery variability in form, substance, and decoration has proven useful for providing time markers, at least during the archaeologically -brief (± 3500 year) period spanning the late Archaic and Formative periods that it was produced. Other artifact types and their variations have, to present, proven somewhat less reliable as absolute indicants o f prehistoric age. Radiocarbon .._ dating, a phenomena of the last 30-plus years, provides, within the standard deviation expressed in plus -or -minus years BP (before present), a relatively absolute date for a given sample and provides a yardstick to measure traits or distinctions in provenienced r. artifacts. Determining and adequately defining what traits we can discern against this absolute is part o f the ongoing function o f the regional archaeological effort. 21 C= _ The following information is generalized and abbreviated. The dates are approximate; transitions between periods are in reality more gradual that the manner they are expressed for convenience. Paleo Period (14,000-10,000 BP) During the Paleo Period, the first Native Americans began moving into the southeastern portion o f North America and Florida. Most evidence o f their presence in Florida can be reliably dated to about 10,000 BP. There are no known Paleoindian sites in Lee County. Several are documented from y„- elsewhere in south Florida, including Wann Mineral Springs and Little Salt Springs in Sarasota County (Cockrell and Murphy, 1978; Clausen and Gifford, 1975), Harney Flats in Hillsborough County (Daniel and Wisenbaker, 1987) and the Cutler Fossil Site in _ Dade County (Carr, 1986). During this period, the terminal Wisconsian ice age, the climate was probably less extreme, with cooler summers and warmer winters. The climate was also drier, and sea levels were lower (Carbone, 1983; Allerton and Carr 1988a; Griffin, 1988). One reason that possible Paleo period sites have not been discovered in Charlotte County is that the shoreline may have been as much as 100 miles further west due to lower sea levels. Drier conditions may have made the interior very inhospitable, and the shallow ,.. estuarine and littoral sites that existed were flooded by post -ice age Holocene sea rises. Any possible interior sites from the Paleo Period may be unrecognizable due to lack of diagnostic artifacts, subsequent reuse of site areas, low population density, and few permanent camps. These and other factors may help explain the absence to date of identifiable Paleo period sites in the area. Archaic Period (10,000 - 2,500 BP) -- The Archaic period reflects a post -Pleistocene shift in adaptation marked by an increase in the seasonal exploitation of a broad spectrum of food resources, a more restricted use of territory due to regional specialization, and more semi -sedentary habitation sites. No ceramics are known until the Late Archaic. During the Archaic, regional specializations became more marked, not only with material culture but also with distinct local utilization of local plant and animal resource. As mentioned above, there is, as yet, no firm evidence of human presence in southwest Florida during the Paleo period (Allerton and Carr, 1988:14). This is also true for the Early Archaic (8500- 7000BP), as there is evidence of an environment too and to support scrub oak, and the presence of shifting wind formed dunes (Watts, 1975; Widmer, 1983). 22 By about 6500 BP mesic conditions began to spread, although localized xeric conditions continued (and still exist in some areas) through South Florida. Middle Archaic sites -- dating from this time are rare, although the Bay West Nursery site (8CR200) in Collier County and the Ryder Pond site (8LL 1850) in Lee County near Bonita Springs provide evidence of occupation, as do several sites in southeast Florida. The Bay West site is a -- Middle Archaic cypress pond cemetery, associated with a lithic scatter. The Ryder Pond site is a similar mortuary pond site surrounded by pine flatwoods (Carr and Heinz, 1996). Beriault has also recorded several aceramic shell scatters in coastal sand hills (paleo dunes), some of which may date to the Middle Archaic. Griffin (1988) summarizes evidence indicating that despite the rise of available surface water, brackish estuaries and other major modem landscape features had not formed, and population (or repopulation) was still sparse. During the Archaic period sea levels began to rise at a fairly rapid rate, estimated at 8.3 cm. per 100 years 6000.3000 BP, and 3.5 cm per 100 years afterwards (Scholl et aL, 1969), although whether sea levels were steadily rising or oscillating is still unclear (see Griffin 1988; Allerton and Carr, 1990 for recent reviews of the literature). Data is somewhat difficult to sort out as sea level rise was accompanied by both shore regression and transgression in places. As conditions became wetter (and wanner) in the interior, cypress swamps and hardwood subtropical forests established themselves by about 5000 BP (Carbone 1983, Delcourt and Delcourt 1981). By late Middle or early Late Archaic times (4000 years BP) there were significant shell mounds and middens on Horrs Island, Marco Island, and elsewhere in the coastal regions, suggesting that the estuary system had been established and was being utilized to provide the subsistence basis for denser populations and semi -sedentary settlements (Morrell, 1969; Cockrell, 1970). At Useppa Island in Lee County, excavations have provided radiocarbon dates from pre -ceramic shell middens ranging between roughly 4900 BP and 5600 BP, suggesting that the Middle Archaic as well as Late Archaic periods had a r growing dependence on shellfish resources (Milanich et at:, 1984). There are aceramic coastal sand hill and interior wetland sites as well, but these have not been demonstrated to be Archaic despite some investigators equating aceramic with preceramic. Radiocarbon dates for these sites would clarify this point. Allerton and Carr (1988) noted that a number of stratified sites in the wet mangrove and marsh areas of the Everglades, as well as on Horrs Island, contain Archaic preceramic horizons, although it is unclear if aceramic was equated with preceramic. Additional supporting evidence of interior use by Archaic peoples will provide a new dimension to the archaeological understanding of Archaic resource utilization. Allerton and Carr point out that if the wet tree islands were initially used by Archaic people, then at least some of the hardwood hammocks in swamp environments were raised in elevation (with subsequent changes in vegetation) due to human activities. Post -Archaic people extensively utilized these hammocks and continued to advance their development as ._ distinct geomorphic features. This is obviously an area where additional archaeological investigations have a potential to contribute to understanding the interaction of geomorphic and cultural evolution in Southwest Florida. 23 Toward the end of the Archaic there was the introduction of fiber -tempered pottery into -- the archaeological record, often used as a marker of the Orange Phase, commencing at about 4000 BP, either coincident with or soon after the development of the extensive shell middens. The Late Archaic Orange Phase subsistence strategy is characterized by intensive use o f shellfish and marine resources, as well as being marked by an accelerated trend toward regional specializations. -4 A number of the large shell middens on Marco Island (Cockrell, 1970), Horrs Island (Russo n.d.), Cape Haze (Bullen and Bullen, 1956), and elsewhere date from this period or earlier, as they contain fiber -tempered ceramics, although there are known aceramic (preceramic?) levels below the Orange Phase deposits that may date to the Middle Archaic. These shell middens are usually capped by deposits from later occupations as well. Formative Stage or Glades Periods (2500 BP - 500 BP) The Formative or Glades adaptation, based on hunting, fishing, and the harvesting o f shellfish and plants, was similar to the Archaic, but was characterized by increasing specializations in gathering strategies and tool-making. Earlier writers have typed this hunter -gatherer society as primitive or "low-level" (Kroeber, 1939). However, there is certainly evidence from the specialization of tools, from the beautifully -executed wood carvings from Key Marco in Collier County and those from Fort Center near Lake Okeechobee (Cushing, 1897; Sears, 1982), and from the historic accounts of the Calusa hegemony, that the south Florida area had an advanced culture that Goggin (1964) has called a "stratified non -agrarian society." The preceding Late Archaic late Orange phase (also known as the transitional phase) was marked by changes in pottery, and terminated with the relatively rapid replacement o f fiber -tempered pottery with sand -tempered, limestone -tempered, and chalky "temperless" pottery. It was also characterized by changes in ceramic style and often by reduction in the size of stone projectile points. The Formative Stage (beginning about 2500 BP) is divided in south Florida into the Glades Periods sequence. Subsistence adaptation is marked by a narrowing spectrum of resource use, as well as continued trends toward regional diversity and ecological specializations, marked in part by the proliferation o f inland resource extraction encampments. Formative Period cultural evolution eventually led to increased political sophistication, perhaps initially o f modest dimensions, but culminating in broad regional political alliances and regulation of materials and goods (ie. resources) between the coast and inland areas (Milanich and Fairbanks, 1980). By protohistoric and contact times the Calusa were the dominant tribal group, gaining broad political influence and at least partial control over much o f south Florida as far north as central Brevard County. Historically, the main Calusa village has been regarded as "Calos" on Mound Key in 24 Estero Bay in Lee County, although 50 tro 70 large villages were under direct Calusa control by contact times (Griffin, 1988). During the Formative Periods, village sites grew to the proportions of large multi -use complexes, particularly along the coast and barrier islands of southwest Florida. Some of �- the projected intra-site functions of the elements of these complex shellworks were as temples, canals, causeways, temple and platform mounds, courtyards and watercourts. Current research involving the excavating of large contiguous areas of these shell mound complexes is beginning to establish demonstrable uses for the features of these large sites, upon which heretofore were merely speculated (Widmer, 1996). Tidal estuary rivers and inland hammocks along deep water sloughs, marshes, and permanent ponds were seasonally visited for extraction of natural resources, and are now marked by small to relatively large black dirt middens, some of which may have been semi -permanent hamlets. The pine and cypress flatwoods appear to have supported few sites, although areas around Lake Trafford and other rich interior areas developed substantial sites, including sand mounds, and may be more similar to the Okeechobee cultural area than to the coastal cultures. In 1992, Dickel and Carr excavated a Deptford Period burial mound (the Oak Knoll Site) in the Bonita Bay Tract north of the Imperial River. Exotic trade items and seventy or more human burials were among the material findings. The resulting conclusions and subsequent surveying and testing of the Bonita Bay Shell works (8LL717) suggest social stratification and complexity may extend further back into the past than the Formative period (Dickel and Carr, 1992). Coastal sites (shell middens) reflect a predominate dependence on fish and shellfish, wild plant foods and products, and larger inland game. The inland sites show a greater reliance cn interior resources, including large, medium and small mammals, turtle, small freshwater fish, alligator, snake, frogs, and, sometimes, freshwater shellfish. Interior and coastal resource exchange can be documented by the consistent finds o f moderate w amounts of marine shell in many interior middens, as well as interior resources in coastal middens. The Formative Stage (with a nod m Goggin) has been often termed the Glades cultural tradition. Much of this "tradition" is focused on decorated ceramics, the minority in the archaeological record, although the majority o f recovered (rim) sherds are plainware. However, despite this, pottery (and its decorations) is usually utilized as the major temporal marker(s) for fitting sites into a temporal framework Changes in pottery do not represent mere changes in artistic motifs, but reflect inter- and intra-regional trade contacts and outside cultural influences (possibly through exogamy, shifting o f populations, and even the through evolution o f a culture through time). Whatever the influences, the Glades tradition is continuous from post -Archaic times to contact times. Despite the fact that exogamy is likely m have been practiced, traders or other specialists probably moved between major cultural areas in small numbers, and genetic flow 25 probably accompanied cultural exchange, although perhaps not on the same scale. This may have increased in later times due to use of traditional obligations of kinship and intennarriage to stabilize alliances that were not codified into a formal legal system. The Caloosahatchee subarea' s chronology has been defined based on the ceramic sequences found there. Below is a table partially adapted from Susan Lynn White in her analysis of Galt Island ceramics (White 1995) which she in turn adapted from Randolph Widmer's book on the evolution of the Calusa (Widmer 1988): Table 1. Caloosahatchee Area Ceramic Sequence Period/fime Range Caloosahatchee I (500 B.C.- A.D.700 Caloosahatchee II (A.D. 700-1200) Caloosabatchee III (A.D. 1200-1400) Caloosahatchee IV (A.D. 1400-1513) Caloosahatchee V (A.D. 1513-1750) Characteristic Traits ❑ Sand -tempered Plain predominant ❑ Belle Glade Plain absent ❑ First appearance of Belle Glade Plain D Increase in Belle Glade Plain use D Englewood ceramics D St. Johns Check Stamped D Safety Harbor ❑ European goods D Mission period aboriginal pottery ❑ Pinellas Plain -Glades Tooled ❑ Decrease in Sand -tempered Plain use ❑ Laminated/contorted paste ❑ Small amounts of St. Johns Plain By European contact times (the first half of the 16th century), the southwest coast of Florida was maintaining a vigorous, possibly expanding political chiefdom with a broad network of alliances, as well as a rich and ancient cultural tradition without an agricultural base. However, direct conflict with Europeans and, more importantly, exposure to European diseases led to the rapid decline of the Calusa. By the mid 1700s their numbers had greatly diminished. The remnants o f this once -powerful tribe may have left south Florida in the 1760s with the Spanish for relocation in Cuba. Others may have become indistinguishable from Spanish Cuban fishermen who worked the great fishing "ranchos" in the Pine Island Sound region catching and salting fish for export to Cuba. w Other groups ofNative Americans may have fused with the Creek -derived Seminoles. In the late 1700s, members of the Creek tribe were forced into Florida from Georgia and Alabama. They were later called Seminoles, from the Spanish term "cimmarones." Pressures from colonial (and later) white encroachment on their traditional territories forced them into the Big Cypress and Everglades area by the 1830s. By this time, most of 0 the cultural identity of pre -contact times had been lost, although some of the Calusa subsistence strategies may have been partly adopted by Seminoles. A number of Seminole period sites have been documented on earlier Glades middens. This coincidence may in part reflect the paucity of high land in the interior (Ehrenhard et al, 1978) 1979, 1980; Ehrenhard and Taylor, 1980; Taylor and Komara, 1983; Taylor, 1984, 1985). Older midden sites (particularly those called "black dirt" middens) can be rich agriculturally as well as archaeologically, making these foci for historic Seminole gardens and fruit groves. Seminole periods in south Florida are divided into I (1820-1860), It (1860-1900) and III (1900-1940) (Ehrenhard et at, 1978). Post-1940 Seminole camps are designated "Late Seminole" in some reports. These designations reflect the different stages of Seminole migration into south Florida, Seminole displacement and active conflict with the expanding American culture, and the eventual refuge by Seminole remnants in Big -' Cypress and Everglades regions. Military records, and, in particular, several sketch maps by military personnel done in the 1830s and 1840s and the Ives military map of South Florida (1856) shows evidence of investigations at and near "Malco Inlet," "Casimba," �- "Good Land," and "Cape Romans." Seminole Wars in the Southwest Florida Area The advent of the Second and Third Seminole Wars (1834-38, 1855-58) disrupted the peaceful settlement of the Southwest Florida region. There were a number of forts, "temporary" and permanent, established along the Caloosahatchee River during this time. Fort Dulaney was established at Punta Rassa near the mouth of the Caloosahatchee in 1837 and was occupied intermittently through 1841, and again in 1855. After a hurricane destroyed Ft. Dulaney in 1841, Fort Harvie was established upriver. The name of this fort was changed in 1850 by its commander General Twiggs to honor his new son-in-law, Col. Abraham Myers. Fort Myers was thus created, and became the chief fort of the region. From this central administrative point, a line of forts was established up the Caloosahatchee River. They were: Fort Denaud, Fort Adams, Fort Thompson, and Fort Center on Fisheating Creek leading into Lake Okeechobee. Other forts and "temporary depots" were established south into the Big Cypress Swamp such as Fort Simon Drum, Temporary Depot Number One, Fort Doane, Fort Simmons, Fort Keis, Fort Foster, Fort Shackleford, and others. A nwnber of military expeditions were sent south along the coast during the Second and Third Seminole Wars with the objectives of interdicting trade in guns and ammunition ._ between the Seminoles and the Spanish -Cuban fishing community, and hunting and capturing Indians. General Thomas Lawson, who had just been appointed Surgeon General of the United States, commanded one of the early notable expeditions. Lawson's expedition left Fort Harvie (Fort Myers) in February 1838. Elements of Lawson's command explored the area in and around the Caxambas Point area, discovering two abandoned Indian villages in the Blackwater River/Palm Bay area. Other expeditions 27 bivouacked at Cape Romano and Caxambas Point. Colonel Rogers, o f the ill-fated Parkhill expedition, wrote several dispatches from Cape Romano in the Caxambas area in 1858, describing the ambush o f Captain Parkhill's party at the headwaters o f Turner River. The Collier County Museum is the repository for a collection o f military artifacts purportedly found by a local collector near Indian Hill in the early 1960s. This material -- may have originated with one of the various military expeditions stopping at Caxambas Point. Corkscrew Area History The place name "Corkscrew" has its earliest written reference on an 1857 military map "Reconnaissances South of the Caloosahatchee River" by Lieutenant Hartsuff. The "mouth of the Corkscrew" as depicted on the map likely represents the mouth of today's Imperial River. Other sources suggest a crooked creeklet flowing through present-day Corkscrew Swamp, which was given that name by early white settlers. The Seminole name for the general area was "Cho-la-la-palka" The settlement of the area began with the arrival of the Jehu J. Whidden family in 1911. The Whiddens had seven sons and five daughters. Prior to that time several other families lived in the vicinity but were largely itinerant cattlemen and hunters. Scattered cattle grazed throughout Corkscrew Marsh and were particularly numerous in the North Marsh area. The Whidden family purchased a 40 acre farm from Joseph and Pearl Carson for five hundred dollars on February 11 �', 1911. The Whiddens had previously lived at Henderson Creek in Collier County and Bonita Springs (then called Survey) in southern Lee County. They built a substantial frame house with material they brought overland by ox cart from Alva on the Caloosahatchee. The Whiddens and families such as the Carters and Browns farmed, ran cattle on, and hunted the surrounding country. The Whiddens maintained hunting camps at Turtle Mound and at another mound called Bob's Camp in the northern part o f what is now Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. By the 1920s the "community" of Corkscrew contained twenty families, enough to warrant the establishment of a school which operated from 1923 until 1946 when it was moved to Imrnokalee. The community never contained a large enough population base to wai ant the establishment of either a store or post office; all of those needs were conducted by going twelve miles on foot or by horseback to Immokalee. Community access was helped when individuals connected with the Koreshan Unity persuaded the Lee County Commission in the 1920s and 30s to create an all-weather road from Estero to Corkscrew. A "rough" road was created to the general vicinity of Corkscrew by the 1940s; the modem road (placed north of the original road) by the .. 1960s. Four of the Whidden children, Sam, Bob, Stan, and Fletcher were instrumental in .— constructing the buildings, a boardwalk and other amenities at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in the mid. J 950s. Another brother, Graham Whidden, served as Collier County Commissioner from 1930 to 1952. 28 In the late 1940s through early 1950s the area north of and around Corkscrew Swamp — was extensively logged and all siz.able pine timber taken from Little Corkscrew, Eagle, and Ruess Islands. Saw logs had to be a minimum of 9 inches in diameter and seventeen feet long. Many first -growth pines in the area exceeded two feet in diameter. A concrete floor discovered in the project parcel is believed to represent part of one of these small independent saw mills operating in the early 1950s. �- By the 1960s the community of Corkscrew situated along Whidden Loop Road, Wayback Road, and including the Bar -None Ranch built by Judge Hugh Starns contained a remnant dozen houses, many earlier structures being replaced by trailers or more modem -~ buildings. The number of historic homes may be as few as four. The core of this community lies one half -mile east of the project parcel just off State Road 850 across the county line in Collier County. 29 METHODOLOGY Archival Review -- Prior to conducting fieldwork in the project parcel, relevant archives and literature were reviewed. This included, but was not limited to, studying the previous cultural resource reports for sites in Collier/Lee Counties and the Corkscrew area, reviewing information from the Master Site File in Tallahassee concerning nearby sites, and examining USGS maps of the project area. A review of the Labins database of land surveys also was conducted. In addition, color and black and white aerial photographs from the project area, which could aid in revealing anthropogenic changes to the topography and floral communities were reviewed. A site search with the Florida Division of Historic Resources determined that three prehistoric sites occur approximately one mile south of the parcel area and that three historic road/bridge structures associated with State Road 82 right ofway separating the two adjacent areas. Research Design Tiris Phase I cultural resource survey of the Alico parcel incorporated the use of certain predictive archaeological site models. These models postulate that elevated oak/cabbage palm hammocks adjacent to wetlands (i.e. the Corkscrew Marsh and adjacent wetlands) are high probability areas for being associated with archaeological sites. These can be identified examining vintage aerial photographs taken prior to the advent/invasion of exotic pest plants such as meleleauca and brazillian pepper and prior to extensive clearing/reconfiguring for citrus groves. The elevational information on the USGS Corkscrew and Alva SE Quadrangle maps for the area was used. It was determined that overall, the project parcel had a low to moderate probability for containing archaeological sites, based on the parcel historically having been an extensive pine -cypress flatwoods r` area adjacent to Corkscrew Marsh with slough and wetland marsh features but with few elevated hammocks. Fieldwork The subject parcel was assessed by pedestrian survey and subsurface testing. Thirty- seven low to moderate probability areas were identified on the parcel based on a review of aerial imagery and subsequent ground-trothing. A total of 222 judgmental and systematic shovel tests was excavated in 37 transects. Shovel tests generally were placed in 10, 20, or 50-meter intervals depending on probability and size of the anomaly. All holes were 50 an square and dug to a depth of 100 an where possible, to the limestone cap rock or where excavation became impossible due to dense sterile muck. All recovered sediments were subject to sifting through a 1/4-inch screen. 30 Collections All cultural material, field notes and maps repose at the AHC offices in Davie. Informants An interview with Jeff Haines, general manager of the citrus grove, indicated he knew of no cultural material or sites associated with the project parcel. His assistant manager, -- Glen Blake, who had worked in the area fifteen years also had no information on any artifacts or sites in the citrus grove operation. Franklin Adams, a retired ranger at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary and Ed Carlson, current manager at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary were interviewed on the history o f the Whidden family and the Corkscrew community. 31 M r•+ v* j Pz 4 NPZ-32 UP7,21 xMPZ34 jai Wh J1dR1&3 PZ35 s n M � 1 ,,. ' • � 1 �tA��18 / e f , i •»six 1141FOU ,IAPZs yq I Yl,r Y1�1*, � ,P- ,i•• A AA �1•/F, 4�1 / 1 r ��1��—� Ye • I f rUP., IWZ4 a ? s�fla.�32 � I 1, °, l ��,,,jjjYYY I t• ' �� • 1 1• � r f � /f u JJ f 1' , 9 7 ' i. , Nam`-{Y 1 •( HPZFl 16,i a ir.� 1 i t fli t t _ rr IA Figure 33. Map of the Ali co Parcel showing location of identified Z probability areas and shovel tests. - POSITIVE SHOVEL TEST = NEGATIVE SHOVEL TEST TOWNSHIP 465, RANGE 28E, SECTIONS 3, 4, 5, 6 718,9, 10,15,18 0 114 1/2 1 Mile approx. USGS Maps. CORKSCREW. rev 1973 ALVA SE, rev.1973 t t. • 0 .4 .8 1.6 Km. approx. 32 Site Summary Site Name: Site Number: Location: V Environmental Setting: Site Type: Site Function: Description: Chronology: Collections: Ownership: Condition: Significance: Recommendations: Handfern Hammock 8CR1073 T. 46S., R. 28E., Sections 10/15 Slightly elevated oak hammock on east edge o f Corkscrew Marsh Midden Habitation This site is located immediately east of the Corkscrew Marsh/upland interface in the southeastern portion of the project parcel and was identified by one positive shovel test yielding a freshwater snail shell and one sand -tempered plain sherd at 20 cm depth. Four shovel tests placed 5 meters at the cardinal points from the positive hole failed to yield additional archaeological material. The ceramic recovered was a single undecorated rime sherd o f a gray, well -made and likely local paste. The snail shell was a fragment of a large apple snail Pomacea caliginosa which has been noted on deep Everglades sites as likely food shell. Prehistoric: Glades unspecified STP ceramics, freshwater snail shell. Private Good to excellent, site area is unaltered woodland Site is locally significant but is not regarded as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places Additional testing is recommended if site is to be impacted. 34 r r i MARSH POND i MARSH 750 , 760 aou ■ ST-188 f � 760 MARSH I POND MARSH � I Figure IS Map of the Handfem Hammock, 8CR01073 area showing location of shovel tests. ® = POSITIVE SHOVEL TEST N ■ = NEGAITIVE SHOVEL TEST 0 5 10 15 Meters approx. CONTOURS N 10-CM INTERVALS 0 16 32 48 Feet approx. 35 7r ep if Nil RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS A Phase I cultural resource survey of the Alico parcel resulted in one archaeological site, 8CR1073, being found. A total of222 test holes were dug (of which one was positive) in 37 low to moderate probability zones across the parcel (Figure 8). These zones were identified using vintage aerial photographs shot as early as 1953 indicating possible hammocks that may have existed prior to citrus development (Figure 3). The parcel was determined to be extensively disturbed by agricultural operations and no hammocks and other higher elevation features were identified in the citrus groves or areas north of Corkscrew Marsh, however, several small hammocks do occur away from the groves in the wetlands. Areas of higher elevation that existed prior to farming activities have been leveled. Nonetheless, locations of historic hammocks were identified within the existing groves based on vintage aerial photographs and systematically tested. A TRS review with the Florida Division of Historic Resources indicated that three previously recorded archaeological sites occur approximately one mile to the south of the project parcel. These sites include one prehistoric mound and two middens. Three sites indicated as adjacent to the project parcel is an historic road (State Road 82) and two associated bridge structures built c. 1950 and listed as part of a resource group. These sites are within a state-owned road right of way. The newly -discovered site, 8CR1073, is a sparse deposit of cultural material. Only a sand -tempered plain sherd and a freshwater snail shell was found. The site is situated at an upland/lowland interface on an oak hammock area lying between two circular marshes. The site may represent limited or even a single occupational episode and is of local significance but is not potentially eligible for listing on the National Register o f Historic Places. The paucity of sites found during this assessment despite the relatively large size of the subject parcel can be explained by several factors. Corkscrew Marsh is a large, several - square mile wetland slough system. The previously recorded sites located south of the project parcel tend to occur within the marsh and are located on small discreet elevated areas resembling the tree island sites in the Everglades. These sites may have been .. selected for security and/or ease of securing resources from the surrounding wetlands. The known sites generally represent minimal, perhaps marginal deposits of archaeological material possibly reflecting limited or even single occupations. These small hammocks are infrequent in the subject parcel, although more common in the adjacent wetlands. Finally, ninety percent or more of the current project parcel has been intensely impacted by farming activity making the documentation of these small archaeological sites problematic. It is the consultant's opinion that archaeological site 8CRIO73 is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Although a systematic effort was made to document other sites on the subject parcel with negative results, there is a small potential of archaeological features or artifacts occurring. Should subsequent development reveal 37 this, the consultant archaeologist and relevant agencies should be notified and efforts should be made to document these resources. If human remains are uncovered then the provisions for Florida Statute 872.05, the Unmarked Human Graves Act, will apply. 38 REFERENCES CITED Allerton, D and RS Carr 1988 An Archaeological Survey of the Shell Big Cypress Seismic Project (DNR permit `- G81-86). Manuscript on file, Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Florida. 1990 An Archaeological and Historical Assessment of the Goodland Marina Project '- Tract, Collier County. Conducted for Coastal Engineering Consultants. Almy, MM and JG Deming 1982 Cultural Resources Survey of the Emerald Lakes Tract in Northwest Collier County, Florida. Archaeological Consultants Inc., Sarasota FMSF #902. 1986a Archaeological Assessment Survey of Twelve Lakes, Collier County, Florida. Archaeological Consultants Inc., Sarasota. 1986b Archaeological Assessment o f Bretonne Park, Collier County, Florida Archaeological Consultants Inc., Sarasota. 1986c Archaeological Assessment of City Gate Commercial Park, Collier County, Florida. Archaeological Consultants Inc., Sarasota. 1987 Archaeological Assessment Survey of Designated Potions of the Woodlands in Collier County, Florida. Archaeological Consultants Inc., Sarasota. Athens, WP 1983 The Spatial Distribution ofGlades Period Sites within the Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida. Masters thesis on file, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida. Beriault, JG 1973 A Preliminary Report on the Area Known as the Collier -Coral Ridge Tract, Southwest Florida. Unpublished Ms, on file at FMSF, Tallahassee and AHC, Miami. 1982 A Preliminary Report on Stratigraphic Excavations at Addison Key, Collier County, Florida. Unfinished MS. 1986 Report and Recommendations Concerning the Barron Collier Company Tract on _. Chokoloskee Island, Collier County, Florida, MS on file, AHC. 1987 Suggestions for a Collier County site Model, a report submitted to the r. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, December 15th, 1987. MS on file, AHC. 39 1998 An Archaeological Survey of the Standerfer Parcel, Lee County, Florida. AHC Technical Report #226. 2001 An Archaeological Survey ofthe Riverwood Parcel, Bonita Springs, Lee County, Florida. AHC Technical Report #292. 2003 A Phase 1 Archaeological Survey o f the Arborwood Parcel, Lee County, Florida, AHC Technical Report #438 2004 A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Bokeelia Parcel, Lee County, Florida, AHC Technical Report #598 2005 A Phase If Archaeological Survey of the Bokeelia Parcel, Lee County, Florida, AHC Technical Report #650 2005a A Phase I Archaeological Assessment ofthe Turtle Cay Parcel, Lee County, Florida. AHC Technical Report #658 Beriault, JG, RS Carr, J Stipp, R Johnson, and J Meeder 1981 The Archaeological Salvage ofthe Bay West Site, Collier County, Florida. In Florida Anthropologist 34(20):39-58. Beriault, JG and RS Carr 1998 An Archaeological Survey of the Winding Cypress Parcel, Collier County, Florida. AHC Technical Report #221. Beriault, JG and C Strader 1984 A Preliminary Report on Stratigraphic Excavation on Chokoloskee Island, Florida. Southwest Florida Archaeological Society, MS on file, AHC. Beriault, John G. and Victor Longo 2002 A Phase Two Archaeological Assessment o f the Riverwood Parcel, Bonita Springs, Lee .. County, Florida AHC Technical Report #370. Beriault, John G., and John Crump 2005 A Phase One Archaeological Assessment of the Bonita 120 RPD Parcel, Lee County, Florida AHC Technical Report #641. Bullen, RP and AK Bullen 1956 Excavation on Cape Haze Peninsula, Florida. Contributions ofthe Florida State Museum. Social Sciences A Gainesville, Florida. Carbone, VA 1983 Late Quaternary Environments in Florida and the Southeast. The Florida Anthropologist 36:3-17. 40 r� Carlson, Ed �. 2001 Sam "iWen k Recollections ofCorkscrew Swamp as told to Ed Carlson. Manuscript on file Collier County Museum: Naples, Fl. �- Carr, RS 1986 Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Cutler Fossil Site (8DA200I) in Southern Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 39:231-232. 1989 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Part of the Williamson Property, Collier County, Florida. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami. FMSF 2458. 2002 "The Archaeology o f Everglades Tree Islands" in Tree Islands o fthe Everglades, edited by Fred H. Sklar and A. Van der Valk, Kluver Academic Publishers, Boston Carr, RS and D Allerton 1988a An Archaeological Survey ofNorth Keewaydin Island, Collier County, Florida. -�" Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami, Florida. 1988b An Archaeological and Historical Assessment of the Goodland Marina Project Tract, `— Collier County, Florida. MS on file, Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami, Florida. Carr, RS and JG Beriault 1984 Prehistoric Man In South Florida. In PJ Gleason (ed), Environments o fSouth Florida: PresentandPastll Coral Gables: Miami Geological Society, FL. pp. 1-14. Carr, Roberts. and John G. Beriault 2001 An Archaeological and Historical Survey o f the Verandah Parcel, lee County, Florida. AHC +" Technical Report #247. Carr, RS and K Heinz 1996 Archaeological Excavations at the Ryder Pond Site, 8LL1850, Lee County, FL. April, 1986. — Carr, RS and W Steele 1993 An Archaeological Survey and Assessment of the Lely Resort Properties, Collier County, Florida. AHC Technical Report #70. Carr, RS, W Steele and J Davis 1994a A Phase I Archaeological and Historical Assessment o f the Piper Tract, Collier County, Florida. April, 1994. 1994b A Phase U Archaeological and Historical Assessment o f the Piper Tract, Collier County, Florida. June, 1994. 41 Clausen, C and J Gifford �- 1975 Florida spring confirmed as 10,000 year old early man site. The Florida Anthropologist 8 (3), Part 2. Cockrell, WA -- 1970 Glades I and Pre -Glades Settlement and Subsistence Patterns on Marco Island (Collier County, Florida). M.A. thesis of file, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida. -' Cockrell, WA and L Murphy 1978 Pleistocene Man in Florida. Archaeology ofEastern North America Teal 6 Newark, Delaware: Eastern States Archaeological Federation. Cushing, FH 1897 Exploration of Ancient Key -Dwellers' Remains on the Gulf Coast of Florida. -' Proceedings ofthe American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia 35 (153): 1-329- 448. Daniel, RI and M Wisenbaker 1987 Harney Flag Baywood Publishing Company, Farmingdale, New York. Delcourt, PA and HR Delcourt 1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 40,000 Years B.P. to Present. In R.C. Romans (editor) Geobotanyfl New York Olenum Publishing Press. Deming, JG and M Almy 1987 A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Audubon Country Club Tract in Northwest Collier County, Florida. Archaeological Consultants Inc., Sarasota, Florida. FMSF 1487. 1988 Mitigative Excavation at Selected Portions of Site Complex 8CR860 in Northwest Collier County, Florida. Archaeological Consultants Inc., Sarasota, Florida. FMSF 1813. Dickel, D and RS Carr 1992 Archaeological Investigations at Bonita Bay Properties, Phase II. Lee County, W FL. AHC Technical Report 949. Douglass, AE 1885 Ancient Canals on the South-west Coast o f Florida American Antiquarian 7:227-285. 1890 Mounds in Florida. American Antiquarian 12. 105-107. Durnford, CD 1895 The discovery o f aboriginal netting, rope, and wood implements in a muck deposit in west Florida. American Naturalist 29. I032-1039. 42 Ehrenhard, JE, RS Carr, and RC Taylor 1978 The Archaeological Survey o fBig Cypress National Preserve. Phase I National Park •- Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida. 1979 The Big Cypress National Preserve: Archaeological Survey Season 2. National Park Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida. Ehrenhard, JE and RC Taylor 1980 The Big Cypress National Preserve. Archaeological Survey Season 3 National Park Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida. Ehrenhard, JE, RC Taylor, and G Komara 1980 Big Cypress National Preserve Cultural Resource Inventory Season 4 National Park Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida. Fay, P and RS Carr 1990 An Archaeological Review Of Select Sites of Impact in the National Panther Refuge, Collier County, Florida. AHC Technical Report #22. Fradkin, A 1976 The Wightman Site: A Study of Prehistoric Culture and Environment on Sanibel w Island, Lee County, Florida. M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Fuhrmeister, C, RJ Austin, and H Hansen 1990 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Collier Tract 22 Development Site, Collier — County, Florida. Piper Archaeological Research Inc. St. Petersburg, Florida. FMSF 2423. Goggin, JM w. 1939 A Ceramic Sequence in South Florida. New Mexico Anthropologist 3:36-40. 1940 The distribution o f pottery wares in the Glades Archaeological Area o f South Florida. New Mexico Anthropologist 4:22-33. 1947 A Preliminary Definition of Archaeological areas and Periods in Florida. American Antiquity 13:114-127. 1949a Cultural Occupation at Goodland Point, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 2(3-4): 65- 91. 1949b The Archaeology o f the Glades Area. Unpublished MS on file, S E Archaeological Research Center, NPS, Tallahassee, Fl. 1949c Cultural Traditions in Florida Prehistory. In J.W. Griffin (editor) The Florida Indian and .. his Neighbors. Winter Park, Florida: Rollins College. 43 Goggin, JM and WC Sturtevant 1964 The Calusa: A Stratified, Nonagricultural Society (with notes on sibling marriage). In W �- Goodenough (editor) Explorations in CulturalAnthropology: &says in Honor ofGeorge PeterMurdock New Yolk: McGraw Hill. Pp. 179-291. Griffin, JW 1974 Archaeology and Environment in South Florida. In P.J. Gleason (ed.), Environments of South Florida: Present andPastH.. Coral Gables: Miami Geological Society, pp 342- -� 346. 1988 The Archaeology of Everglades National Park: A Synthesis. National Park Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida. Hrdlicka, A 1922 The Anthropology o fFlorida. Deland, Florida: Publications of the Florida State Historical Society 1. Jordan, Elaine Blohm 1982 Pine Island, the Forgotten Island. Author Printing: Cape Coral, FL. Kenworthy, CJ 1883 Ancient Canals in Florida. Smithsonian Institution Annual Reportfo r 1881: 105- 109. Kroeber, AL 1939 Cultural and Natural Areas in Native North America. Berkeley: University of California Press. Laxson, DD 1966 The Turner River Jungle Gardens Site, Collier County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 19: 125-140. Lee, AR, JG Beriault, W Buschelman, J Belknap 1993 A Small Site - Mulberry Midden, 8CR697 - Contributes to Knowledge o f the Transitional Period. The Florida Anthropologist 46:43-52. Lee, AR, JG Beriault, J Belknap, WM Buschelman, AL Snapp and JW Thompson 1997 Salvage Excavation of an Archaic Period Special -Purpose Site in Collier County. The Florida Anthropologist 50:11-24. 1988 Heineken Hammock, 8CR231: A Late Archaic Corridor Site in Collier County. Southwest Florida Archaeological Society. Naples, Florida. Lee County Warranty Deed 44 1911 Between Joseph and Pearl Carlson (sellers) and Jehu J. Whidden (buyer) for 40 acres of land Section 18, Township 46S/Range 28 East. On file at Collier County Museum, -- Naples Fl. McMichaels, A �- 1982 A Cultural Resource Assessment ofLIorrs Island, Collier County, Florida. MA thesis, Department of Anthropology University of Florida, Gainesville. Marquardt, WH 1984 The Josslyn Island Mound and its Role in the Investigation o fSouthwest Florida's Past. Gainesville: Florida State Musewn, Department o f Anthropology, Miscellaneous Project Report Series 22. 1987 The Calusa Social Formation in Protohistoric South Florida. In T.C. Patterson and C.W. Gailey (editors) Power Relations and State Formation. Washington, D.C.: ~^ Archaeology Section, American Anthropological Association, pp. 98.116. 1988 Politics and Production Among the Calusa of South Florida. In T. Ingold, D. Riches, and J. Woodburn (editors) Hunters and Gatherers 1: History, Evolution, and Social Change. London: Berg Publishers, pp. 161.188. 1992 Recent Archaeological and Paleoenvironmental Investigations in Southwest Florida. In W.H. Marquardt (editor), Culture and Environment h the Domain o f the Calusa. Gainesville: Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies. Monograph 1, University of Florida, pp. 9.5g Martinez, C 1977 Archaeological and Historical Survey and Assessment of the Proposed Collier County 201 Waste Water Management Facilities, Collier County, Florida. Russell & Axon Inc. and Smally, Welford & Nalven Inc. FMSF #257. Milanich, JT 1994 Archaeology o fPrecolumbian Florida. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Milanich JT, J Chapman, AS Cordell, S Hale, and R Meninan 1984 Prehistoric Development of Calusa Society in Southwest Florida: Excavation on Useppa Island In D.D. Davis (editor) Perspectives on Gulf Coast Prehistory. Gainesville: University Presses of Florida, pp. 258-314. Milanich, JT. and CH Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology. New York: Academic Press. Macintosh, Thomas, Eugene Chapman, John G, Beriault 2007 A Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment of the Old Corkscrew DRI Parcel, Lee County, Florida. AHC Technical Report #826. 45 Miller, J J and ML Fryman -- 1978 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Collier Bay Tract, Marco Island. Cultural Resource Management Inc., Tallahassee, Florida. FMSF #3124. Moore, CB 1900 Certain Antiquities ofthe Florida West Coast. Journal ofthe Academy ofNatural Science, Philadelphia 11:369-394. 1905 Miscellaneous Investigations in Florida Journal ofthe Academy ofNatural Science, Philadelphia 13:299-325. 1907 Notes on the Ten Thousand Islands. Journal oflhe Academy ofNatural Science, Philadelphia 13:458-470. Morrell, RL 1967 Florida site form for site 8CR107. 1969 Fiber -tempered Pottery from Southwestern Florida. Abstract of presented paper, American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans, on file at AHC. Russo,M 1990 Report I on Archaeological Investigations by the Florida Museum o Natural History at Horrs Island, Collier County, Florida. FMSF 2353. Scholl, DW, FC Craighead, and M Stuiver 1969 Florida Submergence Curve Revisited: Its Relation to Coastal Sedimentation Rates. Science 163. 562-564. +' Sears, WH 1956 The Turner River Site, Collier County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 9(2):47-60. 1966 Everglades National Park Archaeological Base Mapping Part L Unpublished, FMSF MS# 1009. 1967 Archaeological Survey of the Cape Coral Area at the Mouth of the Caloosahatchee River. The Florida Anthropologist 20: 93-102. 1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Oke chobee Basin. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. Simons, MH 1884 Shell Heaps in Charlotte Harbor, Florida. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report for 1882. 194-196. 46 Stirling, MW 1931 Mounds o f the Vanished Calusa Indians o f Florida. Smithsonian Institution Explorations and Field Work/or 1930. 167-172. 1933 Report of the Chief. Bureau o fAmerican Ethnology Annual Report 48:3-21. 1936 Florida Cultural Affiliations in Relation to Adjacent Areas. In Essays in Anthropology -- in Honor o f yl ed Louis Kroeber. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp 351-357. Swift, A and RS Carr 1989 An Archaeological Survey o f Caxambas Estates, Collier County, Florida. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami, FL. AHC Technical Report #13. Taylor, RC 1984 Everglades National Park Archaeological Inventory and Assessment Season 2: Interim Report. National Park Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida. 1985 Everglades National Park Archaeological Inventory and Assessment Season 3: Interim Report. National Park Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida. Taylor, RC and G Komara 1983 Big Cypress Preserve Archaeological Survey. Season S National Park Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida. Tebeau Charlton W. 1957 Collier County: Florida's Last Frontier. Coral Gables: University o f Miami Press. Van Beck, JC and LM Van Beck 1965 The Marco Midden, Marco Island, Florida. De Florida Anthropologist 16:1-20. Whidden, Graham, obituary 1970 "G. Whidden Dies, Pioneer Resident" Fort Myers News -Press, October 16t', 1970. Widmer, RJ 1974 A Survey and Assessment ofArchaeological Resources on Marco Island, Collier County, Florida. Ms on file, FMSF #265. 1983 The Evolution o f the Calusa, a Non-agricultural Chiefdom on the Southwest Florida Coast. Ph.D. thesis, Pennsylvania State University, distributed by University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1996 Recent Excavations at the Key Marco Site, 8CR48, Collier County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 49: I0-26. 47 Williams, JL w 1837 The Territory o fFlorida. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. 48 APPENDIXI: ALICO PARCEL TARGET LOG HPZ-1 A small, slightly ovoid, minimally -elevated oak hammock formation noted during field investigations in the southwest comer of the parcel. Vegetation included live oaks, cabbage palms and brazillian pepper. Nine shovel tests were placed at 10 meter intervals across this feature with negative results. MPZ-2 A linear curving strip of very marginally higher ground stretching north -south across a cypress dome/flatwoods area in the northwestern portion of the parcel. Eight shovel tests were dug across this area at 50 meter intervals with negative results. MPZ-3 Another linear slightly higher ground zone west of MPZ-2 in the same general area. Nine shovel tests were excavated along this feature with negative results. • MPZ-4 An area, now part o f the citrus grove, noted on 1953 imagery as being an elevated area between two marsh ponds in the northern portion of the parcel. Eight shovel tests were placed across the feature with negative results. MPZ-5 An area, now part of the citrus grove, noted on 1953 imagery as being an elevated area adjacent and to the north of a marsh pond in the northern -central portion of the parcel. Two shovel tests were placed in the feature with negative results. MPZ-6 An area, now part of the citrus grove, noted on 1953 imagery as being an elevated area adjacent and to the south of a marsh pond in the northern -central portion of the parcel. Two shovel tests were placed in the feature with negative results. MPZ-7 An area, now part of the citrus grove, noted on 1953 imagery as being an elevated area which is now vegetated in cabbage palms and brazillian peppers adjacent to a recent ditch. Two shovel tests were placed here with negative results. MPZ-8 An area, now part of the citrus grove, noted on 1953 imagery as being an elevated area adjacent and to the north of a marsh pond in the northern -central portion of the parcel. Two shovel tests were placed in the feature with negative results. MPZ-9 An area, now part of the citrus grove, noted on 1953 imagery as being an elevated area in the northern -central portion of the parcel. Three shovel tests were placed in the feature with negative results. MPZ-10 An undisturbed area of cabbage palms and slash pines adjacent to a marsh pond and immediately east of the main maintenance facility on the parcel. Three shovel tests were placed in this locale with negative results. MPZ-11 An area, now part o f the citrus grove, noted on 1953 imagery as being an elevated area -- in the central portion of the parcel. The feature lay immediately south of a large wetland/marsh feature. Four shovel tests were placed at 20 meter intervals in the feature with negative results. 49 MPZ-12 An area., now part of the citrus grove, noted on 1953 imagery as being an elevated area adjacent to a marsh in the central portion of the parcel. The feature lay immediately west of a large wetland/marsh feature close to the MPZ-11 area. Six shovel tests were placed at 20 meter intervals in the feature with negative results. -- MPZ-13 An area of diffuse oaks and cabbage palms surrounded by recent ditching in the southwestern comer of the parcel. Five shovel tests were placed at 10 meter intervals across the feature with negative results. MPZ-14 An area of diffuse oaks and cabbage palms surrounded by recent ditching in the circling a marsh pond area in the southwestern comer of the parcel. Five shovel tests were placed -- at 10 meter intervals across the feature with negative results. MPZ-15 An area, now part of the citrus grove, noted on 1953 imagery as being an elevated area -- adjacent tD a marsh in the south-central portion of the parcel. Five shovel tests were placed at 10 meter intervals across the feature with negative results. MPZ-16 An area, now part of the citrus grove, noted on 1953 imagery as being an elevated area adjacent to a marsh in the south-central portion of the parcel. Three shovel tests were placed at 20 meter intervals across the feature with negative results. MPZ-17 An area, now part of the citrus grove, noted cn 195 3 imagery as being an elevated area adjacent is a marsh in the west -central portion of the parcel. Four shovel tests were placed at 20 meter intervals across the feature with negative results. MPZ-18 A crescent -shaped area, now part of the citrus grove, noted cn 1953 imagery as being an elevated area adjacent to a marsh in the west -central portion of the parcel. Nine shovel tests were placed at 20 meter intervals across the feature with negative results. LPZ-19 A crescent shaped grove of slash pines with brazillian pepper understory flanking a remnant wetland area in the east -central portion of the parcel identified as a potential target during review of aerial imagery. Ground -frothing noted the highly disturbed nature and low- lying situation of the feature. No shovel tests were made. MPZ-20 An area of slash pines with scattered cabbage palms east of a remnant circular marsh in the eastern portion of the parcel.. Two shovel tests were excavated in the feature with negative results. MPZ-21 An small discreet circular area of slightly higher ground vegetated in Saw palmetto, cabbage palm, and laurel oak in close proximity to the north end of Corkscrew Marsh Two shovel tests were placed in this feature with negative results. LPZ-22 A large laurel oak located in dense vegetation along a ditchline area in the extreme eastern edge of the parcel. Investigation proved the oak was growing on a recent spoil bank of a ditch. No shovel tests dug. 50 MPZ-23 The entire northern edge between upland/slough along an east -west drainage feature originally part of the Carson Gully drainage into the northern head of Corkscrew Marsh. Nearly the entire upland area is disturbed and been configured to citrus grove. Thirty-four shovel tests were dug at 50 meter intervals with negative results. MPZ-24 The entire southern edge between upland/slough along an east -west drainage feature originally part of the Carson Gully drainage into the northern head of Corkscrew Marsh. Nearly -- the entire upland area is disturbed and been configured to citrus grove. Twenty-three shovel tests were dug at 50 meter intervals with negative results. -- MPZ-25 Elevated areas vegetated in laurel oaks believed to be push pile areas adjacent to extremely low slough area. Two shovel tests were dug with negative results. MPZ-26 The upland/slough interface area running east -west along a portion of a branching slough system in the north -central portion of the parcel. All upland areas have been configured to citrus grove. Eighteen shovel tests were dug at 50 meter intervals with negative results. MPZ-27 A prominent cluster of laurel oaks extending into the slough north of the easterly end of MPZ-26. Five shovel tests were dug at 10 meter intervals here with negative results. MPZ-28 A prominent cluster of laurel oaks extending into the slough north of the easterly end of MPZ-26. The area, upon inspection, proved to be low-lying, seasonally -flooded hydric hammock Three shovel tests were dug at 10 meter intervals here with negative results. MPZ-29 A discreet area of cabbage palms with brazillian pepper understory immediately south of the mid portion of MPZ-23 into the slough area. One shovel test was dug in this locale with negative results. MPZ-30 A feature visible on 1953 aerial imagery believed to have been a discreet high area west of Carson Gully, now part of the citrus grove. Four shovel tests were dug in this locale with negative results. LPZ-31 A feature visible on 1953 aerial imagery believed to have been a discreet high area east of Carson Gully with evidence of historic disturbance ( a rectangular cleared field?) , now a triangular area of low -ground water retention basin. The area is flooded and bounded by diked ditches. No shovel tests were dug. MPZ-32 The edge of an upland/lowland interface between a pine grove and ovoid marsh pond. Four shovel tests were placed along a area of slightly elevated ground with negative results. W MPZ-33 A feature visible on 1953 aerial imagery believed to have been a discreet high area north of Corkscrew Marsh and a NE -SW trending drainage slough. The area is now a squared y protrusion of the citrus grove into the marsh to the south. Six shovel tests were dug here with negative results. 51 MPZ-34, Now called the Handfern Hammock Site, 8CR1073 A discreet oak hammock located between two circular marsh ponds in the NE comer of the Corkscrew Marsh/upland interface. Nine shovel tests were dug in a counterclockwise direction around the upland/lowland interface, with four of these tests surrounding positive Shovel Test 192 out five meters at the cardinal points. HPZ-35 An ovoid elevated oak hammock with an old hunting camp near the northern end of Corkscrew Marsh. Fifteen shovel tests were systematically placed at I0-meter intervals with — negative results. MPZ-36 A small high area immediately west of HPZ-35 vegetated in oaks with a saw palmetto understory and surrounded by marsh ponds. Three shovel tests were placed here with negative results. MPZ-37 A hydric oak hammock positioned between two marsh pond features in the southeastern part of the parcel. The feature lies due east of Corkscrew Marsh. Seven shovel tests were placed in a clockwise direction around the upland/lowland edge of the feature with negative results. 52 Appendix 2: Field Specimen Log - Alico Parcel FSNUMBER PROVENIENCE DESCRIPTION 1 MPZ-34, Handfern Hammock Site, I fragment Pomacea (apple 8CR1073, ST-192, in SW quadrant of snail) shell 2g.; I rim sherd feature, 20cm. depth I STP ceramics 4 F, 53 r Map of the Ali co Parcel area. TO\NNSHIP 46S, RANGE 28E, SECTIONS 3, 4, 5, 6 7, 8, s. 10, 15, 18 USGSMaps: CORKSCREW, rev.1973 M.<;Y/' ALVASE, rev. 1973 eLbP. PROJECT PARC);__ N 0 112 1 2 Miles approx. 0 .8 1.6 3.2 Km approx. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) SCHOOL IMPACT ANALYSIS APPLICATION 'strict Schoo, q� � Collier Cou Collier County School District School Impact Analysis Application Instructions: Submit one copy of completed application and location map for each new residential project requiring a determination of school impact to the Planning Department of the applicable local government. This application will .not be deemed complete until all applicable submittal requirements have been submitted. Please be advised that additional documentation/information may be requested during the review process. For information regarding this application process, please contact the Facilities Management Department at 239-377-0267. ease check f1l type of application request (one only): School Capacity Review D Exemption Letter OConcurrency Determination D Concurrency Determination Amendment For descriptions of the types of review please see page 3, L Project Information: Project Name: ooRKscREwGbEEAffvIu msPA Municipality: cd�suff of T, Pa reel ID#: (attach separate sheet for multi pie pa reels): 000601uz o00W1MM 00os0z=1. wO5MXM wo%%ooK 000soao= 00050a0006. w0MV0001 Location/Address of subject property: sEEAnA_d-IEDMAP (Attach location map) Closest Major Intersection: NORTH & SOUTH OF INTERSECTION OF SR 82 &CORKSCREW ROAD, AND EAST & WEST OF CORKSCREW ROAD II. Ownership/Agent Information: Owner/Contract Purchaser Name(s): Ara1N�___________________________ _ Agent/Contact Person: JEREMIE CHASTAIN, AICP, SENIOR MANAGER, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, BOWMAN (Please note that if agent or contact information is completed the District will forward all information to that person) Mailing address: 93DENCORE WAv. su11E zoo. NAPLEs, FLa4110 Telephone#: msz�=zm __________ Fax: A _________ Email Jcnastain n'an.mm I hereby certify the statements and/or information contained in this application with any attachments submitted herewith are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 0 -lie, o,- - th A _, Agent ^i nature Date III. Develooment Information Project Data Unit Types defined on age 2 of application) Current Land Use Designation: Agricultural RLSA Proposed Land Use Designation: Agricultural_ RLSA Current Zoning: A-MHO-RLSAO Proposed Zoning: Village SRA Project Acreage: 1 , 446. 59± Unit Type: SF MF MH C G Total Units Currently Allowed by Type: Total Units Proposed by Type: 1,654 Is this a phasedproject: Yes or No If yes, please complete page 2 of this application. Date/time stamp: E CHURCH- ti5 [! P VATT'LN HERITAGE RD�_ PROJECT LOCATION ` i HE DRY COiLLIER 0 aid }Hi ORD OAKS RD - �-PEPP� "LAKE TRAFFOROIRD-z�+^ MMOKAL RI,'� CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) IWSD - WILLINGNESS TO SERVE LETTER IMMOKALEE �� WATER&SEWER I! DISTRICT June 4, 2025 Alvaro Yusty, P.E., Project Manager J . R Evans Engineering, P.A. 9961 Interstate Commerce Drive, Suite 230 Fort Myers, Florida 33913 0: (239) 405-9148 Email: Alvaro@ireen_q com RE: Corkscrew Grove Villages Indication of Willingness to Sery e - Immokalee Water and Sewer District To Whom It May Concern: The proposed Corkscrew Grove Villages are located within the Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) Service Area, which was established by an Act of the Florida Legislature on July 51 1978. The service area includes the entire subject property, as depicted on Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1: Immokalee Water and Sewer District Service Area R 26 E y �. `�9 E R ab " �-, - t i • a � � 2 t F � 1. .� TT IQ m 1Y � N 1 ']• I} J � � I/ I {� J _. T 46 sYc, �_ . - . -- - I .T 46 S ,� j tv 4 tr g iv is . ' m x 31, t 3 4 F . __ _� �__— S � L .— } _ 1 • i 1 j 1 } � } f � - k�. T 47 S .. - T 47 5 1 'f• p � 116 tf ft +z a i7 9 tl `9i 7a tt I *>b � _ _ _ J IF W MMOKAALEE { 8 28 i 1R 29 9Q $ Ms. P.i.trlCYAnne Goodroght Vice Chair Ms_ Bonnie Keen Sec tary M. Robert Iman Treasurer Ms. Magda Ayal.l CommiliSic:iner IMMOKALEE WATER&SEWER DISTRICT Potable water and sanitary services along SR 82 are contemplated in IWSD's most recent Strategic Plan, entitled, :-strategic Report and Development -A New Chapter, dated September 2022, and the 2024 Updated IWSD Master Plan. The services are being planned in cooperation with multiple landowners within the service area, and vim be subject to permitting by SFWMD. Consistent with IWSD's service area and Strategic Plan, IWSD intends to provide service to the subject property in cooperation with the developer's efforts to provide infrastructure within individual development parcels, and participate in certain developer -funded system enhancements, as may be required. The property owner has indicated that this project will consist of residential, commercial, civic, office and restaurant uses, and the ultimate buildout development program will generate an estimated potable water demand of approximately 3.16 MDG and an estimated wastewater generation of 2.43 MGD. The IWSD is currently finalizing our feasibilfty study and preliminary faciHty plans and will be working with the developer and SFWMD to provide service concurrent with project phasing. IWSD will continue to assess the current and future treatment capacity demands and will adjust accordingly to accommodate the future developments that would like to take advantage of IWSD's utility systems. Availability of potable water and sanitary sewer service is contingent upon the transfer of permitted consumptive use water quantities and associated wells to the IWSD by the property owner. the final permitting and construction of the planned expansion of water and sewer infrastructure. and the acceptance of infrastructure to be constructed by the developer. Upon completion and final acceptance of this project. potable water and sewer service will be provided through IWSD's planned SR82 water and sewer facilities. There currently are no reuse mains in the vicinity of these parcels. Provision of irrigation supply within the limits of the subject property will be the responsibility of the developer and/or Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District in the near term. However, at some point in the future: reuse water may become available from the IWSO'S planned SR 82 wastewater treatment plant. Potential connection to the reuse system will need to be evaluated at that time. Prior to beginning detailed design work on this project, please meet with IWSD Staff to determine the best point of connection and discuss requirements for construction. IMMOKALEE r �' WATER&SEWER DISTRICT This letter should not be construed as a commitment to serve, but only as an indication of a willingness to provide service. IWSD will commit to serve only upon receipt of all appropriate connection fees, a signed request for service and/or executed service agreement, approval of IWSD permitted consumptive use quantities and wells, and the approval of all State and local regulatory agencies. Further, this letter of availability of potable water and sanitary sewer service is to be utilized for Development Review and South Florida Water Management District only. Individual letters of availability will be required for the purpose of obtaining building permits. Sarah A Catala: Executive Director Immokalee Water & Sewer District CC: Mr. Joseph Brister, Chair, Immokalee Water & Sewer District CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) SRA CREDIT USE & RECONCILIATION APPLICATION CO 8v County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA) CREDIT USE AND RECONCILLIATION APPLICATION PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME COMPANION SRA# For Staff Use DATE PROCESSED PLANNER OWNER/APPLICANT INFORMATION APPLICANT: Alico, Inc., Agents: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Sr VP & Jeremie Chastain, AICP, Lead Planner FIRM: Bowman ADDRESS: 950 Encore Way, Naples, FL 34110 PHONE: 239-254-2000 FAX: _N/A CELL: _N/A E-MAIL ADDRESS: RMulhere@bowman.com & JChastain@bowman.com LAND OWNER: Alico, Inc. ADDRESS: 10070 Daniels Interstate Court #200, Fort Myers, FL 33913 PHONE: ,239-226-2000 FAX: _N/A CELL: _N/A E-MAIL ADDRESS: mhutchcraft@alicoinc.com I hereby submit and certify the application to be complete and accurate. SAatureofAgenf Dale eOtWI o un ty .000001�— COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION PROJECT NAME: Corkscrew Grove East Village 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net The legal description of, or descriptive reference to, the SRA to which the Stewardship Credits are being transferred: See attached legal description. Total number of acres within the proposed SRA: 1, 446 . 59 Number of acres of the proposed SRA within the ACSC {if any): 0 Number of acres within the SRA designated "public use" that do not require the redemption of Stewardship Credits in order to be entitled {does not consume credits): 63. 63 Number of acres of "excess" open spaces within the SRA that do not require the consumption of credits: N / A Number of acres of WRAs inside the SRA boundary but not included n the SRA designation: 0 Number of acres within the SRA that consume credits: 1, 382 . 96 Number of Stewardship Credits being transferred {consumed by) to the SRA (8 credits per acre of SRA):11,595 credits. Based on 8 credits/acre for SSA's established prior to July 13, 2021 (8,504.80 credits entitling 1,063.10 acres), and 10 credits/acre for SSA's established after July 13, 2021 (3,198.6 credits entitling 319.86 acres) Attach documentation that the applicant has acquired or has the contractual right to acquire those Stewardship Credits. Provide a descriptive reference to one or more approved or pending SSA Designation Applications from which the Stewardship Credits are being obtained: Credi is from SSA 11 will come from the available 8,504.80 credits. Credits will also come from future SSA 22 (to be approved concurrently with this SRA) , in the amount of 3,090.20 credits. Attach copies of SSA Stewardship Credit Agreement and related documentation, including: e0t&.4'ounty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net SSA Application Number(s): 11, 22, _, -- Pending Companion SSA Application Number(s): SSA Designation Resolution or Resolution Number(s): 11: SSA Stewardship Credit Agreement(s) Stewardship Credits Database Report 2008-162, , Provide a descriptive reference to any previously approved stewardship Credit Use and Reconciliation Applications that pertain to the referenced SSA(s) from which the Stewardship Credits are being obtained: SSA 11 was submitted for review prior to July 13, 2021 and entitles an SRA at 8 credits per acre. SSA 11 has 8,504.80 credits available for consumption within this SRA (no credits have been used in another SRA). SSA 11 entitles 1,063.10 acres. SSA 22 will be established prior to the approval of this SRA and will en tit le an SRA at 10 credits per acre . SSA 22 will have 3,994 .70 credits available for this SRA . SSA 22 en tit les 319.86 acres. Complete the following summary table that identifies the exchange of all Stewardship Credits that involve the SRA and all of the associated SSAs from which the Stewardship Credits are being obtained. Credits from SSA Credits from SSA Credits from SSA Total Credits No. 11 No. 22 No. Total SSA Credits Originally 3,994.70 Approved 8,504.80 (pending) Credits Previously Transferred to Other SRA(s) 0 0 Credits Being Transferred to 8,504.80 3,198.60 eoff unty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION 111117111MI1 Balance of SSA Credits Remaining 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.collieraov.net CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) DEVIATIONS & JUSTIFICATIONS Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Deviations and Justifications 8.1. Neighborhood General Standards: Note: LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii requires that Neighborhood General design standards in a Village be the same as those required in a Town for a Neighborhood General Context Zone. Therefore, the following deviations are requested from Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii. a) through 1) on the basis of how such standards apply to Neighborhood Center in a Village. 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.12.d.iii.f)iv), "Non-residential uses," which states "the maximum square footage per [non-residential] use shall be 3,000 square feet and per location shall be 15,000 square feet," to instead allow [non-residential uses] the Amenity Center sites to be a maximum of 30,000 square feet each per location. Justification: Community Centers, will provide multiple amenitles and uses for Village residents (and guests). This effectively reduces external trips. This also requires flexibility in size, in order to be sufficient to meet market demands. Note: This LDC Provision (and thus this deviation request) is unique to the RLSA Overlay. 2) A Deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.d.iii.e)ii), which states that in the case of "Multi -Family residential," "side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet for the primary structure... " to instead allow for a side yard setback of 0 or 5 feet and a rear yard setback of 10 feet for zero lot line and townhome development, as set forth in Table 1: Neighborhood General - Required Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height and Table 3: Affordable Housing - Required Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height. Justification: The RLSA encourages a diversity of housing types. Allowing for Townhome and Villa type development in the Neighborhood General Context Zone promotes such diversity. To build such units effectively and efficiently they must be consistent with design used in other similar developments where the market has responded favorably. There are many approved projects that allow for such setbacks for villas and townhomes. We have maintained the required minimum 10-foot side and 20-foot rear yard setbacks for traditional multi -family product and this deviation is limited to the Villa Townhome product. Note: This is a deviation that has routinely been granted for projects in the Urban area and in other approved RLSA Villages, when requested. 3) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e)i), which establishes multi -family residential lots to be a maximum of acres, to instead allow multi -family lots to be a maximum of25-acres. Page Iof6 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023 I20\WP\Initial Submittal\Deviations and Justifications (3-10-2025).docx Justification: This deviation will allow for additional flexibility in the design ofthe different multi -family housing options proposed within this village. 4) A deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02 C., which limits fences or walls to a maximum height of six (6) feet in residential districts to instead allow a twelve (12) foot wall/berm combination. The maximum height of the wall will be eight (8) feet. Justification: The deviation will allow for additional visual screening and noise attenuation from adjacent properties and roadways. Approval of the deviation will promote the public health, safety and welfare and enhance the visual appeal of the proposed development and community park internally and to existing external uses. 8.2 Village Center Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.p)ii) "General Parking Criteria," which states "The majority of parking spaces shall be provided off-street in the rear of buildings or along the side secondary streets. Parking is prohibited in front of buildings... " to instead allow parking in front o f buildings in the Village Center, when such parking is in support of a shopping center, or when located on a lot with two or more street frontages, or when located on a lot fronting on Corkscrew Road or State Road 82. A Type 'D' buffer per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road. Justification: The Village Center fronts on Corkscrew Road and State Road 82 and is separated by a 25-foot-wide Type D Buffer. To remain viable in the marketplace, the Village Center commercial uses need to be accessible to and convenient to motorists from Corkscrew Road or State Road 82. This may warrant parking in the front yard. However, with a 25-foot-wide Type D Buffer along Corkscrew Road and State Road 82, such parking will be adequately screened from view. Without direct access and exposure to and from these roadways, the commercial enterprises will not be viable in the marketplace. The request is to eliminate the restriction on the amount of parking that may be located within any yard. Notes: This LDC provision (and thus this deviation request) is unique to the RLSA Overlay. 2) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the majority of parking be located in the rear ofbuildings and prohibits parking in the front ofbuilding except on -street parking within the right-of-way to instead allow parking in the front, side, and rear yards, when such parking is in support of a shopping center, or when located on a lot with two or more street frontages, or when located on a lot fronting on Corkscrew Road or State Road 82. A Type 'D' buffer per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road. Justification: This deviation is requested to allow parking in front, side, or rear yards in the Village Center to provide for maximum design flexibility for what will be a relatively small number of commercial uses providing neighborhood goods and services. Also see Justification for Village Center Standards# 1, above. Convenience Page 2of6 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023 120\WP\Initial Submittal\Deviations and Justifications (3-10-2025).docx and easy access are critical for achieving market viability for the nonresidential uses in the Village Center, particularly for the pass by traffic which is necessary for the viability ofthe commercial elements. Design flexibility is also necessary. Note: This LDC Provision (and thus this deviation request) is unique to the RLSA Overlay. 3) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the amount of required parking in the Village Center "be demonstrated through a shared parking analysis submitted with an SRA designation application... " and be "determined utilizing the modal splits and parking demands for various uses recognized by ITE, ULI or other sources or studies... " to instead allow the parking demand analysis to be submitted at the time of initial Site Development Plan (SDP) or, at the discretion ofthe County Manager or designee, at the time of a subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment, in order to allow for a more comprehensive parking demand analysis based upon the mix of uses at the time ofthe initial SDP or subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment. Justification: Requiring this parking demand analysis at the time of SRA application makes no sense as the type and mix of uses in the Village Center is undetermined at the time of SRA application. This analysis should be conducted at the time of initial (or possibly subsequent) SDP for non-residential uses in the Village Center. 4) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.g), which establishes a maximum block perimeter of 2,500 feet in the Village Center to instead allow for the Neighborhood General block perimeter provlslOns per LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.c): the maximum block perimeter shall be 3,500 feet, except that a larger block perimeter shall be allowed where an alley or pathway provides through access, or the block includes water bodies or public facilities. Justification: The road network within the Village Center has been designed to accommodate the required separation ofthe limited access points to Corkscrew Road and State Road 82. The Village Center development tracts will contain connecting and entry driveways, sidewalks, and lakes, to effectively break up the block length and provide through access. This design effectively meets the LDC intent to have smaller blocks. It recognizes that there are limited opportunities to accomplish this through additional roadways connections to these roadways and allows for alternatives that accomplish the LDC intent. 5) A deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02 H 1.b. and c., which requires non-residential development to provide a wall within the right-of-way landscape buffer when located on property opposite a residentially zoned district but fronting on a local street or roadway to instead not require a wall. This deviation shall not apply to the rear of shopping centers and building areas where overhead doors are located and facing towards a residential district. Justification: The Village SRA is required to include a mixed -use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. The Village Center will include most of the non-residential development and to require a Page 3 of6 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023 I20\WP\Initial Submittal\Deviations and Justifications (3-10-2025).docx wall between this area the adjoining residential tracts will create a physical barrier where there should be a seamless connectivity between the uses. 83 Transportation Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b, "Figures 5, 6, and 7, Local Street Neighborhood General" which requires a 6-foot-wide planting area between the travel lane and the sidewalk, to instead allow for a 4-foot-wide planting area in the same location for local roads within the project in Neighborhood General. In such cases, either a root barrier or structural soil shall be utilized. If the option of structural soil is utilized, a minimum of 2 cubic feet of structural soil per square feet of mature tree crown projection shall be provided. Justification: This is a minimal reduction and is required to ensure the necessary (LDC required) 23 feet, measured from the back of the sidewalk to the garage, to allow room to park a vehicle on the driveway without parking over the sidewalk. Please see the Local Street Sections in the Master Concept Plan for additional details. The substantive deviations from the LDC cross-section for a local road in a village are the planting area between the sidewalk and travel lane is 4 feet verses 6 feet. Note: This local street cross section is unique to the RLSA - SRA Village. 8.4 Sign Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.a, "On -premises directional signs within residential districts," which requires on -premise directional signs to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, to instead allow a minimum setback of 5 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, limited to signs internal to the SRA only. This excludes signage along County owned roadways. Justification: This deviation will allow more flexibility for directional signage internal to the project. A unified design theme will be utilized for all signage throughout the community. All roads and drives will be privately owned and maintained. This deviation is typical of master -planned residential developments in Collier County Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County (per the Section 5.06 .00 (Signs Regulations). Note that the deviation does not apply to such signs located along County Roads. 8.5 Landscape Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C., Buffer Requirements, "Types of buffers," Table 2.4 Information, Footnote (3) which requires 'Buffer areas between commercial outparcels located within a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a shared buffer 15 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 75 feet", to instead allow a shared buffer 10 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 5 feet. Page 4 of6 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023IAWP\Initial Submittal\Deviations and Justifications (3-10-2025).docx Justification: The combined I0-foot shared buffer will provide for sufficient separation and "breaking up" of parking areas within the Village Center. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County and similar deviations have been granted. 2) A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02 A., which requires landscape buffer strips to be shown and designated on the final plat within an easement, to instead allow the same required landscaping materials to be demonstrated on a planting plan, for staff review as part of the respective plans and plat application (PPL), with m requirement to provide a landscape buffer for any residential development adjacent to a lake regardless of location within the Village. Justification: This deviation is intended to remove the required buffer easement for single-family residential development when adjacent to other single-family and multi- family subdivisions located within the same neighborhood context zone and when they are separated by a lake. The LDC already allows for clustering of the buffer requirements in this circumstance. In addition, sufficient transition and buffering between single-family and multi -family uses will be maintained as the multi -family residential developments will still be required to provide a 15' Type B buffer to adjacent single-family uses. The deviation is only to eliminate the requirement to establish a buffer easement in this limited circumstance. All required planting will be provided and depicted on a planting plan for staff review as part of the subdivision plats and plans application, and again, only in limited circumstance where single-family uses are adjacent to other single-family or multi -family residential subdivisions or developments within the Neighborhood General Context Zone and when separated by a lake. Since the landscape plan will be part ofthe approved PPL, it will have an enforcement mechanism. 8.6 Other Deviations 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.G, "Parking Space Requirements," which requires 1 parking space per 100 square feet for recreation facilities (indoor) sports, exercise, fitness, aerobics, or health clubs to instead allow for parking for the Amenity Center sites to be calculated at I space per 200 square feet of indoor square footage, excluding kitchen or storage space. Justification: The project will have a complete system of interconnected sidewalks and multi -use pathways that can accommodate golf carts and bicycles, allowing residents to travel to the amenity center without using a car. Additionally, the Amenity Center is restricted for use by only Village residents and guests and are not open to the general public. The 1 space per 100 square feet for these "community" amenity centers is excessive. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County and similar deviations have been granted. 2) A deviation from LDC Section 3.05.10.A.2. - "Location Criteria," which requires that " L S P A [littoral shelf planting areas] shall be concentrated in one location ofthe lake(s), preferably adjacent to a preserve area," to instead allow for required littoral shelf Page 5 of6 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023 I20\WP\Initial Submittal\Dcviations and Justifications (3-10-2025).docx planting areas to be aggregated in certain specific development lakes, including the development lake that runs along the western and northern perimeter of the SRA. It shall also be permitted to utilize Gator Slough and Cabbage Slough as part of all of the required LSPA. Justification: These areas will be designed to create, enhance or restore wading bird/waterfowl habitat and foraging areas. They will be designed to recreate wetland function, maximize its habitat value and minimize maintenance efforts. They will enhance survivability of the littoral area plant species, as there is a lower survivability rate in littoral planting areas along larger lakes subject to more variable water levels and wind and wave action, which negatively affects these littoral planting areas. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County. 3) A deviation from LDC section 5.04.04.B.5. - "Model Homes and Model Sales Centers", which permits a maximum of five (5) model homes, or a number corresponding to ten (I0) percent of the total number of platted lots, whichever is less, per platted approved development prior to final plat approval. The requested deviation is to allow for a maximum of 30 model homes at any one time within the overall Village irrespective to the number of platted lots. With each building permit for a model home, the applicant shall provide documentation as to the current number of model homes in existence. Justification: The Village allows for a maximum of 4,502 residential dwelling units, which will take a significant amount of time to get to completion and include multiple developers. The allowance of the maximum of 30 model homes will allow for the different styles associated with different developers and current trends or architectural styles that may change throughout this build out stage. A similar deviation was approved in the Town of Big Cypress SRA, Willow Run RPUD and the San Marino RPUD. Page 6 of6 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023IAWP\Initial Submittal\Dcviations and Justifications (3-10-2025).docx CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) TRAFFIC IMPACTMENT STATEMENT - SECTION 1 TREBILCOCK CONSULTING SOLUTIONS Traffic Impact Statement Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area Section 1- Road Segment Analysis Collier County, Florida 12/23/2025 Prepared for: Alico, Inc. 10070 Daniels Interstate Court, Suite 200 Ft Myers, FL 33913 Phone: 239-226-2000 Prepared by: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-566-9551 Email:.ntrebilcock(@trebilcock.biz Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee* - $500.00 Fee Collier County Transportation Review Fee* - Maior Study - $1.500.00 Fee Note - *to be collected at time of first submittal Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Statement of Certification I certify that this Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. 0.1 2 : No 47116 '. 3 STATE OF •:��/ , This item has been electronically signed and sealed by Norman I Trebilcock, P.E., State of Florida license 47116, using a SHA-1 authentication code. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed, and the SHA-1 authentication code must be verified on any electronic copies. Norman Digitally signed by Norman Trebilco Trebilcock Date . . Ck 2025.12.23 08:16:00-05'00' Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, PTOE, P.E. FL Registration No. 47116 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Blvd., Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 12 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Table of Contents ProjectDescription....................................................................................................................................... 4 TripGeneration............................................................................................................................................. 5 ModelAdjustments...................................................................................................................................... 8 Trip Distribution and Assignment............................................................................................................... 15 Future Background Traffic Volumes........................................................................................................... 19 Existing and Future Roadway Conditions Without Project......................................................................... 22 FY25 - FY29 Five -Year Work Program/CIE/TIP........................................................................................... 22 Collier 2045 LRTP - Highway Cost Feasible Plan......................................................................................... 22 Future Conditions with Project................................................................................................................... 25 ProjectTraffic Impacts................................................................................................................................ 25 Impacts to Agricultural Products Transport................................................................................................ 27 ImprovementAnalysis................................................................................................................................ 27 Mitigationof Impact................................................................................................................................... 28 East Village without West Village............................................................................................................... 29 Appendices Appendix /A Project Conceptual Site Plan................................................................................................. 30 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting)................................................................. 32 Appendix C Project Trip Generation Calculations..................................................................................... 45 Appendix D FSUTMS Inputs and Outputs................................................................................................. 73 Appendix E Collier County 2024 AUIR Attachment F - Significantly Impacted Roadway Segments ........ 99 Appendix F. Collier County FY25 - FY29 Five Year Work Program/CIE.................................................... 101 Appendix G: Collier 2045 LRTP Tables 6-2 and 6-3.................................................................................. 103 Appendix H: Collier County 2024 AUIR Attachments H-1 and H-2.......................................................... 107 Appendixt FOOT Sources........................................................................................................................ 110 Appendix J: Collier County Transportation Element Map TR-7............................................................... 119 Appendix K 2045 - All Road Segments.................................................................................................... 121 Appendix L• Concurrency Proportionate Share....................................................................................... 123 Appendix IVI: East Village Alone............................................................................................................... 129 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 13 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Project Description The proposed Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area project is in north-eastern Collier County roughly centered on Section 5, Township 46S, Range 28E. The project is predominantly south of SR 82 and west of Corkscrew Rd, with small portions north of SR 82 and east of Corkscrew Rd (see Figure 1). Corkscrew Groves (East and West Villages) will be developed as a pair of Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Villages (West Village application to follow). This report examines the effect when both are built out. Figure 1- Project Location Fei da 4. N LazySpnngs Recreation ParkWO • Project Location LO • N N fY U7 1 CRE'/ Wildlife and Enwonmenlal Area c`aracara Prairie Preserve A:.;poats & 4!IIaiC 3 a For traffic analysis purposes, the two villages will add the following land uses: 9,003 residential dwelling units (including affordable housing); 567,000 commercial square feet (SF), and 140,000 SF of civic/institutional uses. The traffic analysis excludes 750 Affordable Housing units. The purpose of this Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) is to document the transportation impacts associated with the proposed request at its buildout in 2048. This analysis consists of two reports: Section I Road Segment Analysis; and Section 2, Intersection Analysis. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 14 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 This traffic report agrees with the latest adopted Collier County Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and Procedures per the submitted Methodology (Appendix B). Consistent with the adopted Collier County Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and Procedures, traffic generated by a site is estimated using the latest Institute ofTransportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation publication (12t" edition) or other rates as requested and/or approved by the County. The project buildout and future planning horizon year for this analysis is 2048. An initial methodology meeting was held with Collier County Transportation Planning staff on November 26, 2024 (Appendix B). Preliminary estimates of Project access connections to the surrounding roadway network are illustrated in the proposed Conceptual Site Plan (Appendix A). A detailed evaluation of applicable access points will be performed at the time of site development permitting. Trip Generation Gross trip generation was estimated using the ITE Trip Generation Manual 12`" ed. equations. Table 1 contains the intensities at buildout in 2048, and land use codes chosen to represent the uses. ITE Land Use Code (LUC) represents retail plazas from 40,000 SF to 150,000 SF each. This development was assumed to contain a grocery store. Civic uses are analyzed as Office Park. A summary of the 121" edition formula types and coefficients, along with excerpts from the 12th edition Trip Generation Manual are in Appendix C LUC 750 has no data page for daily traffic in the 12th edition; 11t" ed. information is used here. Analyzed intensities may not agree with other parts of the SRA application but yield a conservative estimate of project traffic when they don't. The ITE PM peak internal capture method (which is based on capture rates recommended in NCHRP 684) result with the proposed collection of uses is 18.6 percent (see Appendix C). This method is insensitive to the location of the project and ignores the number, nature and proximity of complementary land uses outside the project and hence their effect on traffic internalization. For this reason, the internal capture rate proposed here is the trip internalization produced using the adopted 2045 travel demand model when the project uses are placed at the project location. The model estimate is 30.3 percent (see Appendix D Intra-zonal and Inter -zonal captured trips tables). Appendix C contains a trip generation summary and internal capture development tables (AM and PM) based on the ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd ed. method of estimating internal capture. The upper two tables contain the directional percentage limits on internal trip ends from the Handbook Tables 6.1 and 6.2. The middle two tables apply those percentages to the total entering and exiting trips for each use. The result at that point 6 unconstrained by comparison with the alternate estimate at the other end of the trip interaction, which is limited using a different percentage. The lower left table contains the lesser of the two possibilities. The lower right table contains the summary of all trips. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page IS Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Table 1- 2048 Trip Generation Shopping Plaza 40K-150K • Supermar1<et Yes 821Y 1000 SF 567.000 Rat. 1 f I) � 1 E.1— 2 Total 57,511 PM FoAk 2562 Hour I 2667 5229 AM Peak 1204 Hoyt 003 20107 Internal 10,581 30.9 448 1166 1614 5.9 67 52 119 Retail 1 faternal 46,930 2114 1501 3615 1137 751 1888 Pass -By 574 10.4 1 220 157 377 10.4 119 78 197 Net New 46,356 1894 1344 3238 1018 673 1691 Single -Family Detached Housing 210 Dwelling Units 5,695 2 2 1 2 46,224 2459 1507 3966 1032 2789 3821 Single -Family Attached Housing 215 Dwelling Units 1,568 2 2 2 10,242 505 381 886 228 682 910 Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit 220 Dwelling Units 990 2 2 2 5,694 299 184 483 86 273 359 8,253 Total 62,160 3263 2072 5335 1346 3744 5090 Residential Total Internal 9,987 30.0 1162 438 1600 2.1 43 66 109 External 52,173 2101 1634 3735 1303 3678 4981 Office Park 750 1000 SF 140.000 2 2 1 Total 1,805 25 144 169 156 19 175 Office/Industrial Total Internal 305 20.1 14 20 34 13.7 16 8 24 External 1,500 11 124 135 140 11 151 Total 121,476 5850 4883 10733 2706 4566 7272 Internal 20,873 30.3 1624 1624 3248 3.5 126 126 252 Total External 100,603 4226 3259 7485 2580 4440 7020 Pass -By 574 5.0 220 157 377 2.8 119 78 197 Net New 100,029 4006 3102 7108 1 2461 4362 6823 Trip Generation Rates from ITE Trip Generation Manual 12th Ed. Internal Capture Rate from FSUTMS. Pass -by Capture volume based on lesser of. A) Rate per ITE Tip Generation Handbook 3id Ed.; B) County maximum allowable rate: or C) 10% of future background traffic. Daily Internal Capture Rate is average of the AM and PM rates. Daily Pass -by Capture Volume is sum of the AM and PM volumes. Civic Uses are represented by Office Park. Dialy traffic formula from the 11th ed. Table 1 Note: Refer to Appendix M trip generation table on page 132 for East Village alone. The analysis conducted for this project replaces the ITE based internal capture estimate with one derived from the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS). If total external trips were the only measure of interest, and in the absence of land uses with the potential for pass -by capture, altering the base ITE trip generation table to conform with a different internal capture estimate would merely involve subtracting that percentage from the total trips, exactly as FSUTMS reports it in the INTRA_DAY.dbf file shown in Appendix Q However, because retail traffic is involved, the internally captured trip total must be apportioned to the various land uses to isolate the retail external traffic, on which the pass -by captured volume is usually based. To preserve the relative magnitude of internal capture rates among land uses (which differ) but ensure that the overall internal capture rate conforms with the FSUTMS estimate, the numbers in the unconstrained trip tables described above were uniformly inflated until the FM overall capture matched the FSUTMS estimate. The inflation factor is the ratio of the FSUTMS/ITE capture rates. The same ratio is Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 16 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 applied to the AM ITE internal capture estimate. The internal capture development tables consistent with Table 1 are also in Appendix C Pass -by capture for LUC 821 is limited by Collier County to 25 percent and is applied to the commercial external traffic following the deduction of internally captured trips. That volume result (25% of 3615 = 904) is compared with ten percent of the projected future adjacent PM peak background traffic volumes on the segments of Corkscrew Rd and SR 82 that border the project. To estimate the total two-way peak hour volume required, the future directional background traffic volumes on the two roads were divided bV a D factor of 0.55 consistent with the Methodology Memo as follows: Corkscrew Rd. peak hour directional volume =480 (Table 5). SR 82 peak hour directional volume = 1596 (see Table 5). Total adjacent peak hour 2-way = (480 + 1596)/0.55 = 3775. Total Captured Pass -by Two -Way Volume limit= 3775 x 101/o = 377. Because it is less than 904 it replaces the project traffic -based pass -by volume estimate h Table 1 Collier County allows the use of a maximum AM peak hour pass bar capture rate comparable to the PM rate. Because in this instance the pass -by capture is limited bV the adjacent street volume, but the AM peak hour background traffic is unknown, the AM pass -by capture rate proposed here is the same as the PM rate. In agreement with the Collier County TIS guidelines, significantly impacted roadways are identified based on the proposed project's highest peak hour trip generation (net external traffic) and consistent with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. Based on the information contained in the Collier County Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), the peak hour for the adjacent roadway network is PM peak hour. The daily traffic internal capture rate is the average of the AM and PM rates. The daily traffic pass -by rate can normally be 101/o less than the peak hour rate. Because that peak hour rate is 10.4%, the daily pass -by volume estimate is the sum of the AM and PM pass -by volumes. The estimated net new increase in external trips at project buildout condition of both the East and West Villages is 7,108 PM peak hour two-way trips (adjusted). The final report section summarizes the impact of the East Village alone in its projected buildout year of 2038 without interaction with the West Village. The estimated net new increase in external trips at project buildout condition of the East Village is 4,092 PM peak hour two-way trips (adjusted). This is greater than half the cumulative impact of both villages because one village alone will have a smaller internal capture rate than two villages interacting together. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 17 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Model Adjustments The project traffic distribution pattern, project internal capture, and background traffic volumes were estimated using FSUTMS. The model used currently in Collier County was developed by the Florida Department ofTransportation (FOOT), encompasses the entirety of FOOT District One, is called the District One Regional Planning Model (01RPM) and is the basis for Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Updates adopted by all MPOs in District One. The model reflecting the adopted LRTP updates throughout District One is maintained by FOOT and downloaded with approval from the District One Model Coordinator. The 2048 buildout analysis involves two model runs both based on the county's adopted 2045 Cost Feasible model (Figure 2). Discussed in more detail below, one contains the buildout project contents in the project traffic analysis zones (TAZs) and one without project zones is used to estimate future background traffic volumes. All adjustments to the adopted 2045 Cost Feasible model described below were made for both model runs. One involved the representation of developments that were approved after the model was adopted. Centroid contents and connections in the adopted model (Figure 2) were adjusted to reflect the approved projects those TAZs contain. Appendix D contains the development of all the zonal contents, including tables converting areas of non-residential use to employees by type, and development of full socio- economic data contents based on averages in nearby zones. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 18 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TLS Section 1 -Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Figure 2 - 2045 LRTP Cost Feasible Network as downloaded North 1512 t V SR 82 2202 2639 4434 3110 2414 G° 4433 2235 2231 Corkscrew Rd Number I Lanes 2 -4 4230 -s -g _,O FacIlty Type - Toll Facilities - Freeways & Ramps Minor & Malor Arterials Collectors Centroid Connectors Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 19 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Zonal Changes to the With Project and Without Project Model Runs Kingston Kingston is a large (10,000 homes, 1850 employees) mixed -use community in Lee County, with a spine road that extends from Corkscrew Rd. to SR 82. At the request of Collier County, both model runs contain a representation of it consistent with work done for the Lee MPO. It involves adjustments to the location and centroid connections of TAZ#s 4230 and 4433 (no changes to zonal contents), and the addition of TAZ#s 4492 through 4496 (see Figure 3). The model files provided to the applicant for guidance in this are included with this application. Julian Grove Julian Grove is a mixed -use development (1800 homes, 2700 employees) in Hendry County on the north side of SR 82 between Calumet Rd on the west and Church Rd. on the east. As depicted in Figure 3, it is represented here by two zones, one containing all residential uses (1582) and one containing all commercial uses (1583). A short length of entrance road was added to simplify notation of trip interactions with the project as a whole. TAZ development tables are in Appendix DQ Table 2 summarizes the zonal contents described above. Table 2- Nearby Project Zonal Adjustments TAZ Name DUs EMP Model (1) Adjusted (2) Change Model (1) Adjusted (2) Change 1582 Julian Grove Residential 0 1800 1800 0 0 1583 Julian Grove Commercial 0 0 0 0 2700 2700 4230 668 668 0 16 16 4433 389 389 0 46 46 44921 Kingston 0 3000 3000 0 400 400 4493 Kingston 0 1400 1400 0 0 4494 Kingston 0 4300 4300 0 125 125 4495 Kingston 0 1100 1100 0 0 144961 Kingston 1 01 200 200 01 1325 1325 Notes: J) Adopted 2045 DIRPM Kingston as modeled for Lee MPO. Julian Grove consistent with Rezone TIS. Trebilcod< Consulting Solutions, PA Page 110 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Figure 3 - 2045 Without Project Network and Zones North 1512 ll L:. V Julian 1582 U 4496 Grove SR 82 1583 4495 2202 2639 4434 Kingston 2474 4494 4433 2235 '2231 4493 4492 - Number of lanes 2 4230 4 -6 -g - 1 O Facility Type Toll Facilities Freeways & Ramps Minor & Major Artenals - Collectors ntroid Connectoni Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 111 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Network Changes in the With Project and Without Project Model Runs Two lanes on SR 29 were removed between Oil Well Rd. and Agriculture Way near Immokalee to be consistent with the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) list of Financially Feasible Plan improvement projects in the currently adopted Collier MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The facility type is consistent with those in the 2015 validation model. Figure 3 shows the Without Project Model set up used to forecast future background traffic volumes. With Project Model Set Up The increase in uses analyzed in this application spans two villages. TAZ#s 3001 to 3004 compose the East Village. TAZ#s 3005 and 3006 compose the West Village. Also represented separately as their traffic is not included are Affordable Housing units in TAZ#s 3009 to 3011, which are physically near TAZ#s 3001, 3003 and 3005 respectively. The zonal contents used presumed 375 affordable housing units in each village. The current estimate is that 362 will be n the East Village, the remainder in the West Village. Table 3 summarizes the uses in each of the TAZs. Figure 4 depicts the new TAZs. The commercial land use types were converted into employees by type (Industrial, Commercial and Service) used in the model using conversion rates recommended by FOOT in their Multimodal Transportation Site Impact Handbook (2024) Table 9 (see Appendix D). The household attributes (household size, vacancy percentages, auto ownership levels, average income) used are the averages of those attributes found in the 2045 adopted model in TAZ#s 4221, 4230, 4433, 4434 (see Figure 4). Figure 4 shows the With Project zones and their connection to the network consistent with the site plan in Appendix A Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 12 rD tT n O W, 0 c �o N O C o' N AH in AH in AH in EV-1 EV-2 EV-3 EV-4 WV-5 WV-6 EV-1 EV-3 WV-5 TAZ# TAZ# TAZ# TAZ# TAZ# TAZ# TAZ# TAZ# TAZ# Land Use 3001 3002 3003 3004 3005 3006 3009 3010 3011 Total Size Units Single Family Detached (DUs) 325 823 733 966 485 2,363 - - - 5,695 DUs ingle Familyttached 100 206 240 238 215 569 - - - 1,568 DUs (DUs) I Multi -Family 150 60 150 135 345 150 - - - 990 DUs DUs) ffordable Housing {DUs) - - - - - - 200 175 375 750 DUs Civic (SF) 20,000 5,000 40,000 5,000 60,000 10,000 - - 140,000 SF Retail (SF) 5,000 - 273,500 5,000 273,500 10,000 - - - 567,000 SF Guidance on ratios and employee type: FDOT 2024 Multimodal Transportation Site Impact Handbook Table 9 Single Family Detached (DUs) 5,695 Single Family Attached (DUs) 1,568 Multi -Family (DUs) 990 Total Residential not Affordable Housing (DUs) 8,253 Affordable Housing (DUs) 750 Total Dwelling Units 9,003 Civic (SF) 140,000 Retail (SF) 567,000 i North 4221 n s � U SR 82 3001 300 3009 3011 t i 3010 3003 i 3002 4434 3006 3004 ION yes, 4433 • • • a »Q r: F ON:mae Lr 060 cN. tcm _T 0'q C CD (D P- iC G 0 CDD' rr Z 0 r+ 0 D1 7 0. N 0 0 (D Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Trip Distribution and Assignment Figure 4 shows the location of villages' centroid locations and adds a representation of connections to the surrounding road network consistent with the site plan depicted in Appendix A The connections of the affordable housing zones are intended to ensure their trip interactions with the project zones. Their trips are not part of the project traffic distribution pattern, consistent with the prior analyses. For the collection of uses proposed for Corkscrew Groves, in the location involved, the model projects an internal capture rate of 30.3 percent. The Intra-zonal and Inter -zonal trip tables in Appendix D show the daily volumes involved. The model output file INTRA_DAY.dbf contains the total trip generation for each project zone along with the trips captured within the zone. The companion table in Appendix D reports the trips that exit each project zone but travel no further than other project zones. Summing both the intra-zonal and inter -zonal totals is an estimate of the portion of total trips that stay within the project daily and thus likely underestimates the internal capture rate in the PM peak period for which it is used in this analysis. Mathematically, a daily internal capture rate is a volume weighted average of the capture rates n all the periods in the day. Thus, it could exceed the PM rate only if a combination of volumes and higher capture rates in enough of the remaining periods n the day moved the average for the day higher than the PM period. For this collection of uses, the ITE estimate for internal capture is 16.7% PM and 25 AM (Appendix C), so the PM rate is higher than the average capture rate for just the two peak periods alone. In the model loaded network file, the total daily project trips on each road segment are expressed as percentages of the town's total external traffic and populate the loaded highway network link attribute PCT_CG_EXT. On each road segment, the percentage used in the analysis is the average of the percentages at the segment end points consistent with the Methodology Memo (Appendix B). Figure 5 illustrates the resulting percentages in the vicinity of the project. The highlighted percentages sum to 99.98. Exhibit A, Appendix K and all calculations that follow display and use the percentages to one decimal place only. Appendix K displays information for all road segments that are either significantly impacted or tested for significance to ensure the limit of significance has been identified. Tables 4-7 contain subsets of information in Appendix K h Appendix K the significantly impacted segments are listed with existing traffic volumes from the 2024 AUIR. On a separate page are the insignificantly impacted segments listed with enough information to verify that. The service volumes n all tables reflect the 2024 AUIR and all cost feasible improvements through the end of the planning period in which the analysis year falls consistent with the Methodology Memo (Appendix B). In a study area this size, many FSUTMS plot elements are needed to populate the tables in this report. The sheer number of model output plot elements and the tendency for overlap to conceal needed values if zoomed out too far result in a cumbersome number of plots of project traffic distribution percentages (and 2015 and 2045 background traffic AADTs) to display all needed values without overlap. To verify all the entries in Appendix K requires either the travel demand model files that accompany this report, viewed in the model software, or a 3-page companion PDF file (Exhibit A) that provides all the needed plot elements if zoomed n sufficiently in a PDF viewer, but is not legible if printed on any normal printer (PDF page size is 92" x 92"). Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 15 Collk3Lrew Groves Fast Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 - Road Segment Analysis-December2025 Figure 5 - Percentage Distribution of Corkscrew Groves Trips r zA T'rebAco& (00n Iting =S dtions, IPA IP a Ig ie 1I:16 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 In Table 4, the distribution percentages are the averages of those at the segment endpoints, as depicted in Exhibit A, listed in Appendix K and consistent with the Methodology Memo (Appendix B). Their product with the net new external PM peak hour trip generation from Table 1 becomes the estimated project traffic on each segment, shown in each direction. The maximum directional project volume (regardless of background traffic peak direction) is expressed as a percentage of the road's adopted minimum standard service volume. That percentage is compared with the significance threshold for the road segment, which varies with distance from the project entrance in accordance with the Collier County Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. Table 4 contains all the Collier County road segments on which the project has a significant impact and those tested to verify the extent of significantly impacted segments. Roadway configuration and service volumes for most segments are from the 2024 AUIR (Appendix E) or the LRTP. The Corkscrew Rd. service volume is from the 2023 FOOT Generalized Service Volumes, LOS 0, Context Class C3R (Appendix I). Appendix K contains the AUIR contents for the significantly impacted road segments and the insignificantly impacted segments that were tested to determine the limit of the significance area. Because of the 2048 timeframe for the project buildout, future improved geometries are used, based on information in the adopted five-year work program and in the Collier MPO's 2045 Cost feasible LRTP (see discussion below in the section Existing and Future Roadway Conditions Without Project) and consistent with the Methodology Memo (Appendix B). For any existing roads scheduled for improvement, the roadway service volumes in the improved condition use the Collier County AUIR unimproved condition service volume multiplied by the ratio of LOS 0 service volumes shown in FOOT 2020 Generalized Service Volume Table 7 (Urban Condition, Class I Arterial, Appendix 1) between the improved and unimproved cross sections (product rounded to the nearest hundred). Ex ratios: • 2 lanes to 4 = 2,000/880 = 2.27 • 2 lanes to 6 = 3,020/880 = 3.43 • 4 lanes to 6 = 3,020/2,000 = 1.51 That ratio isolates the effect of the additional lanes while keeping all other factors affecting service volumes constant. The effect of all those other factors is reflected in the County's published service volume in the unimproved condition and explains its relation to the average for all roads of like cross section. These ratios are similar enough for other area types that they are used here regardless of area type. FOOT 2023 Context Class Service Volume tables were not considered as a source because Collier County does not recognize context classes in its service volumes. For any roads that do not exist today, the projected peak hour peak direction service volumes assumed are 1000 for 2-lane roads, 2000 for 4-lane roads and 3000 for 6-lane roads, which represent rough averages for those facility types in the AUIR. The calculations that the table contains are performed with more decimal places than those displayed. Using only the displayed decimals will yield slightly different results. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 17 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Table 4 -2048 Project Traffic Distribution and PIVI Peak Hour Impact Peak Direct - Peak ion Hour Project PM PM Peak Traffic Percent Peak Peak LOS Direct- Signif- as Per - of Total Hour Hour Mini- ion icance centage Signif- Project Project Project Config- mum Service Thres- of icant AUIR Traffic Traffic Traffic uration Stan- Volume hold(%) Service Impact ID# Roadway Link From To 1 (1) N/E (2)IS/W(2) (3) 1 dard (3) (4) Volume Y/N Immokalee Everglades Camp Keais 46.0 0.4 16 u 2U D 900 3 1.8 No Road Boulevard Road _ Immokalee Camp Keais 46.0 Eustis Ave 2.3 90 70 2U D 900 3 10.0 Yes Road Road Immokalee 46.0 Eustis Ave SR 29 2.7 108 84 4D D 2000 3 5.4 Yes Road New Market SR-29 (Main 58.0 N 1st Street 2.7 108 84 2U D 900 3 12.0 Yes Road Street New Market 59.0 Broward Street SR 29 0.5 16 20 2U D 900 3 2.2 No Road Pope John Paul 1 Immokalee 61.0 Camp Keais 1.6 64 50 2U D 1000 3 6.4 Yes Boulevard Road Pope John 61.0 Camp Keais Oil Well Road 0.4 16 12 2U D 1000 3 1.6 No Paul 11 83.0 SR 29 Vl frAgriculture CR846 1.5 58 45 4D D 2000 3 2.9 No 1 New Market 84.0 SR 29 CR846 0.3 12 1 9 4D D 1700 3 0.7 No 84.0 SR 29 New Market Rd 9th Street 0.4 14 11 4D D 1700 3 0.8 No 85.0 SR 29 9th Street CR 29A North SA 202 157 21J D 900 3 22.4 Yes 86.0 SR 29 CR 29A North SR 82 20.9 837 649 4D D 2000 2 41.9 Yes Hendry County 87.0 SR 29 SR 82 3.3 102 133 2U D 800 2 16.6 Yes Line Hendry County Church Rd/ 88.0 SR 82 34.5 1382 1070 4D D 1850 2 74.7 Yes Line W Entrance 2 Church Rd/ 88.0 SR 82 Entrance 3 40.1 1606 1244 4D D 1850 2 86.8 Yes Entrance 2 88.0 SR 82 Entrance 3 Corkscrew Rd. 20.3 813 630 4D D 1850 2 43.9 Yes 88.0 SR 82 Corkscrew Rd. SR 29 24.5 758 980 4D D 18SO 2 53.0 Yes 116.0 Carson Road SR 29 3.5 140 109 2U D 800 3 17.5 Yes RWeesdtclox SR 29 SR 29 S 5R 29 N 8.9 275 354 4D D 2000 3 17.7 Yes Bypass SR 29/SR 29 Hendry CR846 0.4 12 16 2U D 1000 3 1.6 No Bvoass Countv Line Corkscrew Collier County W Project Rd. Line Entrance 1 6.1 242 188 2U D 1110 2 21.8 Yes Corkscrew W Project Entrance 2 0.4 16 12 2U D 1110 2 1.4 No Rd. Entrance 1 Corkscrew Entrance 2 Entrance 3 1.3 52 40 2U D 1110 2 4.7 Yes Rd. Corkscrew Entrance 3 SR82 5.6 224 174 2U D 1130 = Yes Notes: V Average of the endpoint values, Appendix K Exhibit A 4 Percentage times RVI peak hour net new external directional project traffic totals Table 1 I Collier 2024 AUIR and approved future roadway improvements. Corkscrew Rd. per FOOT, (lass C311LOS ❑ For roads that cb not exist today, defaults are 1000 (2U), 2000 (40), and 3000 (60). 4) Collier County TIS Guidelines. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 18 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Future Background Traffic Volumes The rate of change between the base (2015) and forecast (2045) Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) model volumes reflect far more future influences on traffic volumes than any continuation of historical traffic volume growth rates can capture. At a minimum, the model reflects the fact that in certain areas, the buildout capacity of the land based on Future Land Use Element (FLUE) densities will be reached before the forecast year. The portion of the historical traffic volume growth due to the historical land use intensification towards buildout cannot continue in those areas. Conversely, in areas where there has been little historical development activity and hence little traffic volume growth in the past, the model can estimate what the effect will be on traffic volumes of new large- scale developments in that area. Historical traffic volume growth rates can also slow when the road's capacity is approached. Increasing congestion and delay at that point motivates drivers to find alternate paths that, although maybe longer in distance, are quicker. Thus, there is a disconnect between historical growth in demand and historical growth in traffic volume on these road segments. Model volumes account for this effect and thus reflect the effect of network changes yet to occur, which in some instances can produce future year volumes lower than the base year model volumes or current traffic counts. This happens when network improvements create new and superior paths to currently congested road segments, and trip makers on the congested segments divert to a superior path. For the reasons above, and consistent with the Collier County TIS Guidelines, the method used here to estimate future background traffic is to use the growth rate in AADT volumes between the adopted model's two scenario years (2015 base and 2045 forecast) and apply that growth rate to current year peak hour peak direction traffic counts, in effect replacing what the model predicted for this year when it was developed with the volume that actually exists today, while preserving the other influences described above that are reflected in the growth rate between base year and forecast year model volumes. The Trip Bank value for each segment is not added to this forecast, nor is the forecast compared to an AUIR existing count plus Trip Bank sum. The change in model volumes from base to forecast year is due to the influence of all the development projects foreseen from the base year, whether subsequently adopted but not yet constructed (and thus contributing to the trip bank) or not. As an enhancement, this project's analysis reflects the influence of a handful of other large projects (described above) that were adopted after 2045 LRTP model development. Adding the Trip Bank volume to such a forecast is double counting the traffic from the trip bank contributors. Replacing a model -based background traffic forecast with an AUIR count plus Trip Bank sum ignores the effect of network improvements as described above. One concern with using model volumes directly as estimates of future traffic magnitude is whether the model was underestimating or overestimating the counted traffic in the base or validation year. Compensations for such discrepancies may be applied to the model's future year volumes, in essence as if the distortion observed in the base year model still exists in the future year model. Using the model volumes for growth rates alone can ignore this concern since any estimation distortion presumed to exist at both ends of the line between base and future year volumes has negligible effect on its slope. The road segments in Table 5 are the significantly impacted segments in Table 4 The existing peak hour peak direction volumes for all but Corkscrew Rd. are from the 2024 AUIR (Appendix E). The Corkscrew Rd. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 19 Corkscrew Groves East village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 current peak hour volume calculation is based on FOOT Station 4126: 2024 AAOT of 7,000 x K=.09 x 0=0.55. These are reasonable Kand Oestimates given this is a planning level study. The Kfactor was used by FOOT n their 2020 Generalized Service Volume Tables. The O factor is suggested in the 2023 Multimodal Quality/level of Service Handbook pg. 42. This O factor will be used in other parts of the analysis (converting peak hour peak direction volumes to 2-way volumes) as needed. Both were agreed for use on all segments in the Methodology Memo (Appendix B). All FOOT related information are in Appendix I. The AAOT volumes from the base year 2015 model and the 2045 cost feasible model (modified as described previously) are displayed in hundreds. On each segment, the AAOT volumes displayed are the average of those at the segment endpoints (see Exhibit A and Appendix K). The average annual percentage (compounded) growth rate from 2015 to 2045 based on the two model volumes is shown, along with the growth factor using it for 24 years (from 2024 to the analysis year 2048), and the resulting 2048 background traffic peak hour peak direction projection. Peak directions for most segments are from the 2024 AUIR. New Market Rd. is the current SR 29 Bypass route around Immokalee and its peak direction K used for the new Bypass route to be constructed. The calculations that the table contains are performed with more decimal places than those displayed. Using only the displayed decimals will yield slightly different results. Exhibit A contains the model plots showing the AAOT volumes in hundreds that appear in Appendix Kand whose averages are used in Table 5 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 20 2024 2048 Annual Peak Hour Existing FSUTMS FSUTMS Growth Peak Year Peak 2015 2045 Rate Growth Direction Hour Peak Peak AADT AADT (Percent Factor to Background AUIRID Direction Direct- (100s) (100s) Compound- Analysis Traffic # Roadway Link From To Volume (1) ion (2) (3) 1 (3) ed) (4) Year(S) Volume (6) 46.0 Immokalee Road Camp Keais Road Eustis Ave 600 E 117.5 229.5 2.3% 1.708 1025 46.0 Immokalee Road Eustis Ave SR 29 600 E 112.5 224.0 2.3% 1.735 1041 58.0 N. 1st Street New Market Road SR-29 (Main Street) 720 N 44.0 106.5 3.0% 2.028 1460 Pope John Paul 1 61.0 Camp Keais Immokalee Road 340 S 62.0 160.0 3.2% 2.135 726 Boulevard 85.0 SR 29 9th Street CR 29A North 680 S 106.0 134.5 0.8% 1.210 823 86.0 SR 29 CR 29A North SR 82 680 S 147.0 287.0 2.3% 1.708 1161 87.0 SR 29 Hendry County Line SR 82 300 S 32.0 105.0 4.0% 2.587 776 Hendry County Line/ W 88.0 SR 82 Church Rd/ Entrance 2 890 S 124.0 255.0 2.4% 1.780 1584 Entrance 1 88.0 SR 82 Church Rd/ Entrance 2 Entrance 3 890 S 120.0 249.0 2.5% 1.793 1596 88.0 SR 82 Entrance 3 Corkscrew Rd. 890 S 120.0 249.0 2.5% 1.793 1596 88.0 SR 82 Corkscrew Rd. SR 29 890 S 120.0 254.0 2.5% 1.822 1621 116.0 Westclox Road Carson Road SR 29 280 W 54.0 116.0 2.6% 1.844 516 SR 29 Bypass SR 29 S SR 29 N N/A E 0.0 172.5 2.0% 0.000 906 Corkscrew Rd. Collier County Line W Project Entrance 1 347 E 8.0 12.0 1.4% 1.383 480 Corkscrew Rd. Entrance 2 Entrance 3 347 E 8.0 12.0 1.4% 1.383 480 Corkscrew Rd. Entrance 3 SR 82 347 E 8.0 12.0 1.4% 1.383 480 Notes: 1 2024 AUIR for all but Corkscrew Rd Its 2024 peak hour volume is 2024 AADT 7,000 (FOOT sta. 4126, 4139) • K=.09* D-_55 4 2024 AUIR for all but SR 29 Bypass. Its peak direction matches New Market Rd, the current SR 29 Bypass route. 3) Appendix Kand Exhibit A -Average of the Segment Endpoints 4) Growth Rate R = (2045 FSUTMS Vol/2015 FSUTMS Vol)"(1/30)-1 or, if 2015 AADT unavailable, 211. 9 & Growth Factor= (1+11)"24. Q 2024 Peak hour volume x G or, if either existing volume or 2015 AADT unavailable, (2045 FSUTMS AADT x K=.09 x D=.55) • (I+R)"3 a O III F CT O ll�� - u1 00 m In Q n � OB 0 O� C 4 1 ul g I Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Existing and Future Roadway Conditions Without Project Appendix E Collier County 2024 AUIR Attachment F - Roadway Segments indicates one significantly impacted road segment that currently exceeds its adopted LOS standard: SR 82 from the Lee County line to SR 29. Improving this segment to four lanes was fully funded in FY 2023, is partially completed (from SR 29 to Gator Slough Ln) and doesn't appear in the lists below because its construction funding precedes the current work program's first year. Consistent with the Collier County's TIS Guidelines, roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the five-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital Improvement Program (CIP) are considered committed improvements. The adopted FY2025 - FY2029 Five Year Work Program/CIE for Collier County is in Appendix F. In addition, because the analysis year is 2048, all LRTP improvements through 2045 are reflected in Table 5 FY25 - FY29 Five -Year Work Program/CIE/TIP With potential impact to study network, the document depicts the following committed road improvements: - Collier Blvd. from Green Blvd. to the Golden Gate Canal - expand from 4 lanes to 6 lanes. - Oil Well Rd. (CR 858) - widening from 2-lane to 6-lane roadway from Everglades Blvd. to Oil Well Grade Rd. - Everglades Blvd. - widening from 2-lane to 4-lane roadway from Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Extension to Randall Blvd. - Wilson Blvd. from Golden Gate Blvd. to Immokalee Rd. - expand from 2 lanes to 4 lanes. - Construction of 2 new bridges: 16th St NE, 47th Ave NE - Randall Blvd./Immokalee Rd. Intersection -At grade intersection improvements to include 4-lane widening of Randall Blvd., from Immokalee Rd. to gth St NE. Collier 2045 LRTP - Highway Cost Feasible Plan The Collier MPO's adopted 2045 LRTP (December 2020) Highway Cost Feasible Plan contains the following pertinent improvements: a) Highway Improvements 2026-2030 SR 29 - widening from 2-lane to 4-lane roadway from New Market Rd. N. to north of SR 82 b) Highway Improvements 2031-2035 - Randall Blvd. - widening from 2-lane to 6-lane roadway from 8th Street NE to Everglades Blvd. c) Highway Improvements 2036-2045 - Everglades Blvd. -widening from 2-lane to 4-lane roadway from Randall Blvd. to south of Oil Well Rd. - Everglades Blvd. - widening from 2-lane to 4-lane roadway from Vanderbilt Beach Rd. to 175. - Everglades Blvd. - new interchange at 1-75. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 22 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 - SR 29 Bypass - new 4-lane roadway from Immokalee Rd. (CR 846) to New Market Rd. N. - SR 29 - widening from 2-lane to 4-lane roadway from Agriculture Way to CR 846 E The Collier 2045 LRTP Tables 6-2 and 6-3 Cost Feasible Plan Projects are contained in Appendix Cz Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Extension east of Collier Blvd. is represented consistent with the configuration for it contained in the LRTP adopted 2045 Cost Feasible model: • Collier Blvd. to Curry Canal bend (NW 7`/9tn Street)- Six lanes; • Curry Canal bend (NW 7tn/9tn Street) to Wilson Blvd. - Four lanes; and • Wilson Blvd. to Everglades Blvd. - Two lanes. Table 6 compares the future background traffic volumes with future improved conditions, based on the improvements described above. For any existing roads scheduled for improvement, the roadway service volumes in the improved condition use the Collier County AUIR unimproved condition service volume multiplied by the ratio of LOS 0 service volumes shown in FOOT 2020 Generalized Service Volume Table 7 (Urban Condition, Class I Arterial, Appendix 1) between the improved and unimproved cross sections (product rounded to the nearest hundred). Ex ratios: • 2 lanes to 4 = 2,000/880 = 2.27 • 2 lanes to 6 = 3,020/880 = 3.43 • 4 lanes to 6 = 3,020/2,000 = 1.51 That ratio isolates the effect of the additional lanes while keeping all other factors affecting service volumes constant. The effect of all those other factors K reflected in the County's published service volume in the unimproved condition and explains its relation to the average for all roads of like cross section. These ratios are similar enough for other area types that they are used here regardless of area type. FOOT 2023 Context Class Service Volume tables were not considered as a source because Collier County does not recognize context classes in its service volumes. For any roads that do not exist today, the projected peak hour peak direction service volumes assumed are 1000 for 2-lane roads, 2000 for 4-lane roads and 3000 for 6-lane roads, which represent rough averages for those facility types in the AUIR. The calculations that the table contains are performed with more decimal places than those displayed. Using only the displayed decimals will yield slightly different results. As shown in Table 6, the following significantly impacted roadway segments are projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard under 2048 background traffic conditions: - Immokalee Rd. from Camp Keais Rd. to Eustis Ave. - N. p t St. from SR 29/Main St. to New Market Rd. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 123 2048 2048 2048 2048 2048 Peak Hour Peak Level o Peak Hour Direction Serv- Future Peak Back- Back- ice Config- Direction ground ground Defic- AUIR uration Service Im- Traffic Traffic iency ID# Roadway Link From To (1) Volume (1) proved Volume (2) WC Yes/ No 46.0 Immokalee Road Camp Keais Road Eustis Ave 2U 900 No 1025 1.14 Yes 46.0 Immokalee Road Eustis Ave SR 29 4D 2000 No 1041 0.52 No 58.0 N. 1st Street New Market Road SR-29 (Main Street) 2U 900 No 1460 1.62 Yes Pope John Paul II iII 61.0 Camp Keais Immokalee Road 2U 1000 No 726 0.73 No Boulevard II 85.0 SR 29 9th Street CR 29A North 2U 900 No 823 0.91 No 86.0 SR 29 CR 29A North SR 82 4D 2000 Yes 1161 0.58 No 87.0 SR 29 Hendry County Line SR 82 2U 800 No 776 0.97 No Hendry County Line/ W 88.0 SR 82 Church Rd/ Entrance 2 4D 1850 Yes 1584 0.86 No Entrance 1 88.0 SR 82 Church Rd/ Entrance 2 Entrance 3 4D 1850 Yes 1596 0.86 No 88.0 SR 82 Entrance 3 Corkscrew Rd. 4D 1850 Yes 1596 0.86 No II88.0 SR 82 Corkscrew Rd. SR 29 4D 1850 Yes 1621 0.88 No II116.0 Westclox Road Carson Road SR 29 2U 800 I\b 516 0.65 No SR 29 Bypass SR 29 S SR 29 N 4D 2000 Yes 906 0.45 % Corkscrew Rd. Collier County Line W Project Entrance 1 2U 1110 Nb 480 0.43 No Corkscrew Rd. Entrance 2 Entrance 3 2U 1110 No 480 0.43 No Corkscrew Rd. Entrance 3 SR 82 2U 1110 No 480 0.43 No Notes: V 2024 AUIR and approved future roadway improvements 2} Table 5 -I Ig Cr 09 N O 00 ,m C�� m' ::0 O DI c.. m u pr o' C -I n•' n O c.. Cr Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Future Conditions with Project Table 7 adds the project traffic volumes developed n Table 4 to the 2045 background traffic volumes developed n Table 5. In most cases the peak direction of project traffic aligns with the peak direction of background traffic. In those cases, the background traffic portion of the total traffic is the peak hour peak direction volume from Table 5. In the cases where the two peak directions (background and project) are opposed, a D factor of 0.55 is assumed for the background traffic, consistent with guidance from the FOOT n their 2023 Quality /Level of Service Handbook (Appendix 1) and the Methodology Memo (Appendix B). This factor K used to estimate the background two-way volume, and hence the two directional components of that two-way volume. Directional project traffic volumes from Table 4 are added and the maximum of the resulting two total traffic directional volumes is used as the basis of analysis. The calculations that the table contains are performed with more decimal places than those displayed. Using only the displayed decimals will yield slightly different results. .Project Traffic Impacts As shown in Table 7, the following significantly impacted roadway segments are projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard under 2045 total (background plus project) traffic conditions: - Immokalee Rd. from Camp Keais Rd. to Eustis Ave. - N. p t St. from SR 29/Main St. to New Market Rd. — SR 29 from 91" St. to CR 29A North - SR 29 from Hendry County Line to SR 82 - SR 82 from Hendry County Line to SR 29 (displayed n separate segments due to changing project traffic volumes). The following roadway segments are adversely impacted: the 2048 background traffic meets the adopted LOS standard and the segment becomes deficient with the addition of project traffic: - SR 29 from 9t" St. to CR 29A North - SR 29 from Hendry County Line to SR 82 - SR 82 from Hendry County Line to SR 29 (displayed in separate segments due to changing project traffic volumes). Collier County designated hurricane evacuation routes are depicted in Collier County Transportation Element - Map TR - 7. For details refer to Appendix I Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Pa g e 1 25 TP T ra P D 2048 2048 2048 2048 Peak Hour Peak Peak Level Direct- Back- FM FM Back- Hour of ion Back ground Peak Peak ground Total Peak Service ground Traffic Hour Hour Traffic Back- Back- Traffic Direct- Defic- Traffic Peak Project Project Direct- ground ground Total Total Analy- ion Se Total iency AUIR Volume Direct- Traffic Traffic ional Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic sis Vol- ice Vol- Traffic Yes/ ID# Roadway Link From To (1) ion (1) N/E (2) S/W(2) Split (3) N/E S/W N/E S/W I ume ume(4) WC No 46.0 Immokalee Road Camp Keais Road Eustis Ave 1025 N/E 90 70 1115 900 1.24 Yes 46.0 Immokalee Road Eustis Ave SR 29 1041 N/E 108 84 1149 2000 0.57 No 58.0 N. 1st Street New Market Road SR-29 (Main Street) 1460 N/E 108 84 1568 900 1.74 Yes Pope John Paul II 61.0 Camp Keais Immokalee Road 726 S/W 64 50 0.550 594 726 658 776 776 1000 0.78 No Boulevard 85.0 SR 29 9th Street CR 29A North 823 S/W 202 157 0.550 673 823 875 980 980 900 1.09 Yes 86.0 SR 29 CR 29A North SR 82 1161 S/W 837 649 0.550 950 1 1161 1787 1 1810 1810 2000 0.91 No 87.0 SR 29 Hendry County line SR 82 776 S/W 102 133 909 800 1.14 Yes Hendry County line/ W 88.0 SR 82 Church Rd/ Entrance 2 1584 S/W 1382 1070 0.550 1296 1584 2678 2654 2678 1850 1.45 Yes Entrance 1 SR 82 Church Rd/ Entrance 2 Entrance 3 1596 S/W 1606 1244 0.550 1306 1596 2912 2840 2912 1850 1.57 Yes WEI SR 82 Entrance 3 Corkscrew Rd. 1596 S/W 813 630 0.550 1306 1596 2119 2226 2226 1850 1.20 Yes 88.0 SR 82 Corkscrew Rd. SR 29 1621 S/W 758 980 2601 1850 1.41 Yes 116.0 Westclox Road Carson Road SR 29 516 S/W 140 109 0.550 422 516 562 625 625 800 0.78 No SR 29 Bypass SR 29 S SR 29 N 906 N/E 275 354 0.550 906 741 1181 1095 1181 2000 0.59 No Corkscrew Rd. Collier County line W Project Entrance 1 480 N/E 242 188 722 1110 0.65 No Corkscrew Rd. Entrance 2 Entrance 3 480 N/E 52 40 532 1110 0.48 No Corkscrew Rd. Entrance 3 SR 82 480 N/E 224 174 704 1110 0.63 No Notes: 1) Table 5 2) Table 4 3) Appendix I - Background and project praffic directional components are developed only when needed. Iftheir peak directions align, directional volume cells are empty. 4) Table 6 t III e r rko ' Q I a N i1 R::0 fl) n� C� ID ),• o C1 .1 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Impacts to Agricultural Products Transport Agriculture is the number two industry n Florida behind tourism. With population growth, the urban site development is expected to encroach upon existing agricultural land. This will cause a shift in the land use and influence property decisions for the producers of agricultural goods. This shift in production location will result in a reconfiguration of transportation and freight logistics for agricultural products. Collier County is part of FOOT District One, which represents 12 counties in Southwestern Florida. The FOOT District One conducted a study to analyze the impact of agricultural development on the transportation network for the 2017 - 2035 period ("Agricultural Growth and Development h District One and the Impacts to Transportation and Freight Logistics- FOOT District One 2017"). This report concluded that encroachment is anticipated to have a small impact on total volume of agricultural goods produced in District One due to internal shifts within the District One counties. In addition, the report illustrates that Collier County is anticipated to be the recipient of some shifted agricultural production from other counties, but its truck volumes are primarily anticipated to decrease slightly due to a net reduction in agricultural production because of urban growth in the county. The project's site -related improvements (access turn lanes) will accommodate efficient operations of agricultural related transportation. Improvement Analysis Based on the results illustrated within this traffic analysis, the proposed project is a significant traffic generator for the roadway network at this location, and adversely impacts the following roadway segment: - SR 29 from 91h St. to CR 29A North - SR 29 from Hendry County Line to SR 82 - SR 82 from Hendry County Line to SR 29. Policy 5.1 of the Collier County Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) states that "the County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved." The Developer proposes to provide a transportation mitigation plan to stay consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Collier County's GMP. The Developer may be required to assist the County with potential capacity/operational improvements for the roadway segments that are significantly impacted by the project. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 27 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 A detailed evaluation of applicable access points will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting to determine turn lane requirements, as more accurate parameters will be made available. The estimated net new increase in external trips at project buildout conditions of both the East and West Villages is 7,108 PM peak hour two-way trips (adjusted). The maximum total daily trip generation for the Corkscrew Groves East Village SRA shall not exceed 4,092 two-way PM peak hour net trips (see final section) 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, or other trip generation rates approved by the County. Mitigation of Impact The developer proposes to pay the applicable Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project. The developer proposes to provide transportation commitments that will be incorporated into the Development Document for the project. The mitigation plan will include specific improvements to be undertaken, fair share contribution commitments where appropriate, and site related improvements. The specific offsite improvements and their cost estimates are discussed n detail in a companion Fair Share Mitigation report. Site -related improvements are addressed as development occurs. Appendix L contains the roadway concurrency proportionate share calculation. The project traffic's consumption of the projected added capacity is the total traffic volume with project (Table 7) minus the unimproved service volume. The estimated roadway service volume in the improved condition uses the Collier County AUIR unimproved condition service volume multiplied by the ratio of LOS D service volumes shown n FOOT Generalized Service Volume Table 7 (Urban Condition, Class I Arterial, Appendix I) between the improved and unimproved cross sections (product rounded to the nearest hundred). Ex ratios: • 2 lanes to 4 = 2,000/880 = 2.27 • 2 lanes to 6 = 3,020/880 = 3.43 • 4 lanes to 6 = 3,020/2,000 = 1.51 That ratio isolates the effect of the additional lanes while keeping all other factors affecting service volumes constant. The effect of all those other factors is reflected in the County's published service volume in the unimproved condition and explains its relation to the average for all roads of like cross section. These ratios are similar enough for other area types that they are used here regardless of area type. FOOT 2023 Context Class Service Volume tables were not considered as a source because Collier County does not recognize context classes in its service volumes. The cost per lane -mile assumes construction and design costs consistent with the most recent Collier County impact fee study, and a slightly conservative estimate of CEI (11% of construction cost) compared to the impact fee study (9% of construction cost). Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 28 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - 71S Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 The resulting roadway concurrency proportionate fair share estimate is $50.384 million. The projected impact fees consistent with the December 1 2024 Impact Fee Schedule and the project development program described in the first section is $71.661 million (Appendix L). The project impact fair share estimate is approximately 70.3% of the impact fees to be collected. The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project, as applicable. East Village without West Village This report has analyzed the cumulative impact of the East and West Villages together n a buildout/analysis year 2048. If the West Village were never developed, Appendix M contains the relevant tables and exhibits examining the impact of the East Village alone. Its highlights: • The buildout/analysis year is 2038. • Its development program is half the combined uses. 375 Affordable Housing Units were used in the model set up. The current estimate is 362 units. • The 01RPM estimates an internal capture rate of 19.3%, lower due to the lack of trip interaction with the West Village. • The pass -by capture volume estimate is limited to 101/o of the adjacent 2038 background traffic volumes. • The PM net -new two-way volume is 4,092 trips. • The project traffic causes SR 82 to become deficient from the Hendry County line to SR 29. • The estimated concurrency proportionate share contribution is $6.91 M • The estimated impact fees are $35.8 M • A separate Exhibit B is required to support Appendix M due only to the different project traffic distribution pattern; the 2015 and 2045 AADT volumes used to estimate 2038 background traffic are the same. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 29 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Appendix A: Project Conceptual Site Plan Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 30 I C ORKSCREWGROVES EASTVILLAGE- S RA LAND USE SUMMARY FOOT WATER 20? TYPE - MANAGEMENTAREA 1 BUFFER HErypJ�YCOUNTY 09CWIDtN ACRES 'LOPGNSPACE OPEN SPACE IAQ M9ROA LE HOUSING !CONTEXT ZONE A H 1 31522 BUFHRLAKES s.1.0 OAAR+'CdCARAS U7e 32m E&SEHT CES •�• r•y,ls •' '' (. --7 NEIGHHBBBBII:SSSIAAL (AMCNRY)HOONTEI(I ZONE NG (� f L �rCC ��5 �- HGMLSAO 11-. +. NEIGHBOAH000GENERAL (COMDIR ZSL;,E N G 1 2'i9.2i POD N INA) POD 2 OPEN SPACE ROAD RKMETIO I' � T t � ...✓ O� _ * . FT MANAGEMENTARTEA N m POO] i PDDI * (A H.1 (A.M) . —10BUF BUFFER BUFFER 21G • 0.0.W RESERRAVATION (CORKSCREW RBl • • • ELONEMMY SCHOOL IPLIBUc) MB En uT&In EARENPM {vxrnw FW low '259 VILUfE CFHIER IGONTEXTZOPE VC.I 1':IISB '1- UA BOUNDARY TIDY. I NIU 8 saA 22 tPANTHek CORRIDDRI 1.ZI'SI 129"i1 SGA 7J NALAI �1 (Z0WAfG•A-MNORLS40)PODS "'LyR'F^SKS[•n_ 3868; 1 1.I&u0 SSA BOONDUV TOIAL t�U.UI POTENTIAL GUARDHOUSE /'J N ,)W ENTRY FEATURE ! J Pool �t',i•Y�A�i' OPEN SPACE TABLE AAE.+(Acl • RiOUIREO SOB PROVIDED U71 LEGEND INTERNAL CONNECT ON LOCATION C> IxttRNAL CONNECTKKN OCAl' A ��QPTIONALCdNNECTON LOCArKKJ PROJECT ACCESS POINTS ALONG SR T /41GN WTHI PROPOSED MEOIAN BREAKS N FOOT IMPROVEMENT PLANS 0 S RA CROSS SECT,ON IOCAT ON IOEW)FIER 1 22x SCALE 1•=600' 1 F 17 SCALE i = 1200 NO BUFFER REQUIRED CROSSING FPL EASEMENT POTENTIAL FUTURE CONNECTION 20'TYPE "D BUFFER AG (LONa1i` 141li4R/S40) NO BUFFER REQUIRED ADJACENT TO SSA 122 S.R.A. BOUNDARY FUTURE CONNECTION i 2 POO 1! fN.0.1 RIELOCATED CABBAGE ROADCR05NNO SLOUGH GNAL Q PODII ,..,. _ .. •4.. POTENTIAL GUARDHOUSE I _ ENTRY FEATURE POD 1] � - AMENITY (N.O.) POD IS IN 0) POD is (we) POD14 POTENTFIAL RDHOUSE P ENTRYEATUE (t�ao,11) POTENTIAL REGIONAL -" TREATMENT MARSH LOCATIONS (OUTSIDE c0lF�gFa MASTER SWP11S) �F�cgF C.R.EW yA (ZONING AAWV) S.R.A. oy o BOUNDARY w= jPAYNIO7C.1R> oOR: NO:as FE? A`EOUINER I +WCENI' TOiiA ra hTU11E J XM WM - VJTK*THE IS R AI CARSONOULI Y . zzz (ZON/NG A4004 LSA0) ry 0/ mc.) .2srs. R A POD ?0 1 (V.C.) RO ELEMENTARY a ScN,50L PODS IN.G.I POTENTIAL GUARDHOUSE / ENTRY FEATURE 0 O POD _ (N.G) ,1 CARBON CANAL PODS (NAIL) GEN ERAL NOTES: NO BUFFER REQUIRED I MASTFIt RAN IS CONCEPTUAL INTERNAL R7Y] ADJACENT TO SSA 022 AUGNMENIS, LAID: Sil NG AND CONFIGURATION ff DEVELOPMENT AREAS ARE SUBJECT TO MOORGATDN WRFiN THE RLSA GUIDELINES X THE ff FINAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER 2 SEE MOBILITY PINK FOR PATHWAYS 0 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Appendix 8: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 32 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a works heetto ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply, or N/A (not applicable). Dates: November 6. 2024 Location: N/A -Via Email People Attending: Name, Organization, and Telephone Numbers 1) ,Michael Sawyer. Collier County GMO 2) ,Norman Trebilcock. TCS 3) .Gavin Jones. TCS 4) Ciprian Malaescu. TCS 5) _Lorraine Lantz. Collier County 6) Greg Root. AIM Engineering Study Preparer: Preparers Name and Title: ,Norman Trebilcock. AICP. PTOE. PE Organization: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions. PA Address &Telephone Number:2800 Davis Boulevard. Suite 200. Naples. FL 34104: ph 239-566-9551 Revlewer(s): Reviewer's Name & Title: Michael Sawyer. Project Manager Organization: Collier County Transportation Planning Department Telephone Number:239-252-2926 Applicant Applicant's Name: Alica. IncfAttn: Mitch Hutchcraft) Address:.10070 Daniels Interstate Court. Suite 200. Fort Myers. FL 33913 Telephone Number: 239-226-2000 ,Proposed Development: Name: Corkscrew Groves. a pair of villages tentatively called East Village and West Village. Location: —In Collier County. predominantly south of SR 82 and west of Corkscrew Rd. with small portions ,north of SR 82 and east of Corkscrew Rd fsee Figure 1 and site plan on pg. 111. Pag.: 1 o f 12 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 33 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Figure 1- Project location Felda —.� La<ry sr-9 •� �J A Project Location 144i, SR 82 r x ■ rA. CaPt • P•CSC,.. � O Land Use Type: Mixed -Use Residential ITE Code#: Per ITE Trip Generation Manual. 11`h Edition. as applicable.. Description: Corkscrew Groves is a proposed master planned mixed use residential community. At buildout it may contain up to: • 8.253 dwelling units (mix of types. not including affordable housing), • 750 affordable housing units (not included in project traffic distribution or trip generation). • 567.000 square feet (SF) mixed retail. • 140,000 SF civic uses. zonine Corkscrew Groves will be developed as a pair of Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) villages. Page 2 of12 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 134 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Wridings of the PreliminalVStudy: The purpose ofthe study is to provide a reasonable estimate ofthe cost to mitigate the proiect's impact as Provided by the county's proportionate share calculation method, and to verify that impact fees will provide the fiscal amount needed. It thus establishes a nexus between the amount of impact caused, and the mitigation contribution provided, in order to preserve public health. safety and welfare. This is a PLANNING LEVEL study. It is NOT a desian study. The applicant is not required to replace public funding for intersection design studies, or corridor studies of arterial or collector roadways. The proposed analysis will be based on information contained in the 2023 AUIR, the 2045 LRTP, and the ITE I I thed. Service volumes and LOS standards are from 2023 AUIR. ,Proportionate share costs are based on unit costs in the current adopted impact fee study. The Traffic Impact Study (TISI will be consistent with Collier County Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and Procedures. Study type: Since projected net external AM or PM project traffic is greater than 100 two-way peak hour trips, this studvgualifies as a Major TIS - significant roadway and/or operational impacts. Proposed TIS will include trip generation, traffic distribution and assignments. significance test (based on 2%/2%/3% criteria). Trip Generation - based on Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures. Institute of Transportation ,EngineersllTEITripGeneration Manual.11th Edition and ITE Trip Generation Handbook,3rd Edition. Internal capture and the proiect's trip interaction with other nearby developments will be estimated using the adopted FSUTMS model. The TIS will determine if -there is consistency with Policy 5.1 ofthe Transportation Element. The report will Provide existing level of Service/LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on designated arterial and collector roads. Roadway concurrence analysis - based on estimated net new external PM traffic. The analyzed development is not located within the Countv's Transportation Concurrence Exception Area (TCEAI or within the County's designated Transportation Concurrence Management Areas ITCMAs). The TCEAs' and TCMAs' designations are provided in Policy 5.4 and 5.6 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Roadway Committed Improvements - per adopted County's 5-year TIP and cost feasible road projects per adopted 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan ILRTPI Update. Pagi:: 3 of 12 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 35 Corkscrew Groves East Village -Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis-December2025 Study Type: (if not net increase, operational study) Small Scale TIS Q Minor TIS ❑ Major TIS (g� Study Area: Boundaries: AI significantly impacted road segments. Additional intersections to be analyzed: ,Intersection locations will be agreed upon after the internal capture is finalized and initial model runs have been completed. Analyses will reflect peak season existing conditions. future buildout conditions (2048) without proiect and future buildout conditions with project. Build Out Year: IQ.i§. Analysis Years: ,Four, in five-year increments from proposed opening: 2033. 2038, 2041 2048. Analysis Time Period(s):.FM Peak Hour Future Off -Site Developments: lian Grove and Kingston are added to the 2045 LRTP model. Source of Trip Generation Rates: ,fTE Trip Generation Manual, 111" Edition, ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3d Edition. Reductions in TOP Generation Rates: None:!:JiA Pass -by trips:.Retail - County allowable maximum MS Guidelines Section 6.) - 259a reduction -AM/PM peak hour; M. reduction - daily traffic. or FM peak hour pass -by volume limited to 101/o of adjacent background traffic. If the last .conditicon_governs, the resulting deduction can change due to any changes n the estimation of future background traffic. While this does not affect the total proiect traffic entering and exiting volumes at the driveways, it does change the total net -new pro iect traffic (net of pass -by) that is distributed to all the analyzed road segments. Compared tp the magnitude of the net new traffic used in the link LOS and intersection analyses. the effect of such a change is negligible. but requires miniscule adjustments to a large number of link LOS and intersection analysis proiect traffic inputs. For this reason. the applicant recommends addressing ONE comment. in the first comment round. an the estimate of adjacent future background volumes. ff that background volume governs the allowable total pass - by volume, that result -should be used unchanged throughout all subsequent comment rounds, regardless of any further adjustments to background traffic volumes. Internal trips:.FSIITMS (see below). Transit use: Other: Pagl! 4 of 12 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1 36 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - 71S Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Analysis Year Roadway Network Improvements: for each analysis year. all the programmed improvements to the end of the planning period shown in the Long -Range Transportation Plan that contains the analysis year. Methodology & Assumptions: Non -site traffic estimates: Collier County traffic counts and FSUTMS. Site -trip generation: rTE n•h Edition Trip Generation Manual.. The project will be represented by six zones numbered 3001 to 3006 as shown in Figure 2. Zones 3001 to 3004 compose the East Village: 3005 and 3006 compose the West Village. Zones 3009 through 3011 contain the affordable housing units located in zones 3001. 3003 and 3005 respectively. Their trips are not included for trip distribution purposes or trip generation. Trip distribution method: based on FSUTMS (FOOT District One Regional Planning Model) -example: Figure 2. The distribution percentages shown are subject to change with any change to model inputs. Highlighted percentages sum to 99.99. The project traffic distribution pattern will be modeled four times. once in each of the analysis years. The contents of the traffic analysis zone (TAZsl containing the project will be adiusted to reflect the cumulative development plan to that analysis year. The remainingTAZs will contain adopted 2045 contents or those adjusted as described above. The network will include all cost feasible improvements through the end of the planning period in which the analysis year falls. On each roadway segment. the model's project traffic volume will be expressed as a percentage of the pro(ect's total net external (after removing intra-zonal and inter -zonal trips) traffic volume. and that percentage will be applied to the PM Peak net new external traffic estimate developed separately: rTE based .generation. with the internal capture rate from FSUTMS. retail pass -by capture from the Trip Generation Handbook. limited by County standards (TIS Guidelines Section 6). On each road segment. the project traffic percentage used will be the average of the values at the segment endpoints. This provides a reasonable overall estimate ofproiect impact. Inspectingall the percentages alonga segment to find minimum and maximum rarelyproduces a different result. and never produces a superior result. only a different one. There is no nexus between the cost of the effort needed to compare endpoint percentages with possible minimums and maximums within the segment. and any quantifiable improvement in public ,health. safety and welfare. Pam 5of12 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1 37 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TZS Section I - Road SegmentAnalysis -December 2025 Figure 2 - Project Traffic Distribution Percentages Julian Grove "or >• ar SR g1 *nr e�4 3011 �# 0i V. 4 a titi� Corkscrew Groves �' pa 1� Page 6 of 12 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Pa g e 1 38 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Internal Capture: The FSUTMS model will be used to estimate the percentage of project trip making that stays within the project (a combination of intra-zonal capture within TAZs and inter -zonal trips between proiect TAZsI. and the percentage that uses the collector/arterial road network to reach desired destinations. The preliminary estimate of protect internal capture is 30.3 percent Cat buildout). This "Pro!ect" capture rate produced by FSUTMS will be developed four times, once in each of the analvsis years. It will be produced in the same model run used to develop the project traffic distribution pattern for that year: cumulative development n the project zones. 2045 socio-economic (SE) data in the remaining zones, network with cost feasible improvements through the end of the respective planning period. Traffic assignment method: project trip generation with background growth. Background Traffic: Future background traffic (without the project) will be developed for each of the analysis years using the contents in the adopted 2045 model. adjusted as described above. ,n each analysis year, the network used will include all cost feasible improvements through the end of the planning period in which the analysis year falls. Thus. the 2038. 2043. and 2048 networks will be the 2045 cosifeasible. network since the last planning period spans 2036 to 2045. The 2033 network will include all cost feasible improvements through the end of 2035. .For each road segment, the observed exponential rate of change necessary to adjust the 2015 Base Year model AADT volume to the 2045 model AADT volume will be used to adjust the 2023 AUIR peak hour peak direction volume to the analysis year. That annual exponential rate may be negative. This is typical when network improvements in the future provide paths superior to the ones available to traffic in 2015, so trip makers abandon a segment in favor of the superior path. This method is consistent with Collier County TIS Guidelines Section 12.c. The model volumes used will be the averages of those at the segment endpoints. This provides a reasonable estimate of average traffic on the segment. Inspecting all the volumes along a .segment to find minimum and maximum rarely produces a different result. and never produces a superior result, only a different one. There is no nexus between the cost of the effort needed to compare endpoint volumes with possible minimums and maximums within the segment, and anvouantifiable improvement in Public healthr safety and welfare. This background traffic estimation method overcomes any concern about the degree to which the model is over -estimating or under -estimating (when compared with actual traffic counts) the volumes on road segments in the base year model. Typical reactions to this situation can include either model adjustments (to both base and forecast year models) or post processing adjustments to the forecast volumes commensurate with the adiustment needed to correct the observed discrepancy in the base year volume. Both methods Pagl! 7 o f 12 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 39 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - 71S Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 would raise or lower the endpoints of the line between base year and forecast year model volumes. but not affect the line's slope, which is the only model insight used for future background traffic estimation. For roads without an AUIR peak hour volume to adjust, the 2045 model AADT volume will bead austed to the analysis year (forward or backward) at the exponential rate described above (observed 2015 model to 2045 model). If the road is not in the 2015 model, the rate used (to inflate or deflate) the 2045 AADT will be 2%. which is the minimum growth rate used by Collier County for short term forecasts. On all segments requiring this method, the resulting analysis year AADT will be factored to peak hour. peak direction using K=0.09 and D=0.55. These are reasonable estimates given this is a planning level study. The K factor was used by FOOT in their 2020 Generalized Service Volume Tables. The D factor is suggested in the 2023 Muldmodol Quality/level of Service Handbook pg. 42. This D factor will be used in other parts of the analysis (converting peak hour peak direction volumes to 2-way volumes) as needed. D factors that change from facilityto facility and year to year are not relevant to a study of this type. given its purpose and forecast horizon. Analysis Summary: The County FSUTMS model will be run twice for each analysis year: 1. With cumulative project contents to that analysis year included to determine expected project internal capture and project traffic distribution pattern: and 2. With all project contents removed to determine background traffic growth rates to a 2045 without- proiect condition. An each analysis year the network used will include all cost feasible improvements published to the end of the planning period in which the analysis year falls. Thus. one network with all improvements through 2045 will be used for the 2038.2043 and 2048 analyses. ,In each analysis year. the net -new external project traffic will be based on ITE using the cumulative development program to that analysis year. reduced by the internal capture rate for that year as described above. This external traffic total will be distributed to road segments using the distribution pattern for that analysis year as described above. The background traffic on each segment will be the 2023 AUIR peak hour peak direction volume adjusted to the analysis year at the rate of change for that segment derived from comparing the 2015 Base Year model AADT to the 2045 model AADT volume described above. Intersections: To be agreed upon after the internal capture is finalized and preliminary model runs have ,been completed. Intersection Turning movements _To be collected in 15-minute intervals from 7-9 AM and 4-6 PM on a mid- week (Tuess Wed.. orThurs.) day. Special Features: (from preliminary study or prior experience) Accident locations: P.*-' 8 of12 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 140 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Sight distance: Queuing: Access location & configuration: To be examined during site development. Traffic control: MUTCD Signal system location & progression needs: On -site parking needs: Data Sources: Collier County 2023 AUIR: Collier CountvTraffic Counts Base maps: Prior study reports: Access policy and jurisdiction: Collier County Access Management Resolution. latest adopted. Review process: Requirements: Miscellaneous: Small Scale Study- No Fee Minor Study - S 750.00 Major Study - $1,500.00 X Methodology Fee $500 X Includes O intersections TBD Additional Intersections - $500.00 each All fees will be agreed to during the Methodology meeting and must be paid to Transportation prior to our sign -elf a► the application. TBD = To Be Determined. SIGNATURES f/{oryuz f- JreSi/coc f Study Preparer-Norman Trebilcock Reviewer(s) Applicant Pagl! 9 of 12 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 41 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - 11S Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Collier County Traffic Impact Study Review Fee Schedule Fees will be paid incrementally as the development proceeds: Methodology Review, Analysis Review, and Sufficiency Reviews. Fees for additional meetings or other optional services are also provided below. Methodology Review -$500 Fee Methodology Review includes review of a submitted methodology statement, including review of submitted trip generation estimate(s), distribution, assignment, and review of a "Small Scale Study" determination, written approval/comments on a proposed methodology statement, and written confirmation of a re- submitted, amended methodology statement, and one meeting in Collier County, if needed. "Small Scale Study" Review - No Additional Fee Qndudes one sufficiency review) Upon approval of the methodology review, the applicant may submit the study. The review includes: a concurrency determination, site access inspection and confirmation of the study compliance with trip generation, distribution, and maximum threshold compliance. "Minor Study Review" -$750 Fee (Includes one sufficiency review) Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes: optional field visit to site, confirmation of trip generation, distribution, and assignment, concurrency determination, confirmation of committed improvements, review of traffic volume data collected/assembled, review of off -site improvements within the right-of-way, review of site access and circulation, and preparation and review of "sufficiency" comments/questions. "Malor Study Review"-$1.500 Fee (Includes two Intersection analysis and two sufficiency reviews) Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes: field visit to site, confirmation of trip generation, special trip generation and/or trip length study, distribution and assignment, concurrency determination, confirmation of committed improvements, review of traffic volume data collected/assembled, review of traffic growth analysis, review ofoff-site roadway operations and capacity analysis, review of site access and circulation, neighborhood traffic intrusion issues, any necessary improvement proposals and associated cost estimates, and preparation and review of up to two rounds of "sufficiency" comments/questions and/or recommended conditions of approval. "Additional Intersection Review" -$500 Fee The review of additional intersections shall include the same parameters as outlined in the "Major Study Review" and shall apply to each intersection above the first two intersections included in the "Major Study Review" "Additional Sufficiency Reviews" -$500 Fee Additional sufficiency reviews beyond those initially included in the appropriate study shall require the additional Fee prior to the completion of the review. Pag.: 10 of 12 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P age 1 42 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - 71S Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 IVVIC: aim rumm IJ%-um cr I I JHL-.JVDJL%-I I V Lnmivur F mu RCrIIVCIVICIYI Page 11 of 12 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 43 2: ti' n g S a i7 -0 0 i91 Year 2048 Indurt- Com- Employ rN merdal Service ees per Employ- Employ Employ - land Use 3001 3002 3003 3004 3005 3006 3009 3010 3011 Total Sito Units KSF SF MF 004 • oe • Students Siegle Familv Detached (DUs) 325 823 733 966 48S 2.363 S.69S DUs 5695 Single Family "'nached (DUsI 100 206 240 238 215 S69 1.568 DUs 1568 Multi Family IDUsI 1S0 60 1S0 135 345 ISO 990 DUs 990 fforcable Ilousiog (DUs) 200 175 375 - 750 140,000 567,000 DUs SF 4 750 Civic (SF) 20,000 5.000 40,000 5,000 60,000 10,000 560 Retail (SF) 5,000 273.500 5,000 273,500 10,000 SF 3 1701 Total 6445 2558 0 1701 560 0 Guidance or, ratios ano employee type: FOOT 2023 Multimodal Transportation Site lmpocr Handbook Table 9 Sinrle Famlly Detached (DUs) 5,69, Single Family Attached (DUsj 1,568 Multi Family (DUsI 990 Affordable !lousing (DUsj 750 Tot•I Dwelllog Units 9,003 Civic (SF) 140,000 Retail (SF) 567.000 V, Q 5 3 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Appendix G Project Trip Generation Calculations Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, IA Pa g e 145 b.-LandUse Shopping Plana 40K-150K- Supermarket Yes 11 821Y 111 1000 SF 567.000 MIMI, 1 1 2 Total 57,511 2562 2667 5229 1204 803 1 2007 Internal 10,581 30.9 448 1166 1614 5.9 1 67 52 119 Retail 1 External 46,930 2114 1501 3615 1137 751 Pass -By 574 10.4 220 157 377 10.4 119 78[1�888 197 NetNew, 46,356 1894 1344 3238 1018 673 1691 Single -Family Detached Housing 210 Dwelling Units 5,695 2 2 2 46,224 2459 1507 3966 1032 2789 3821 Single -Family Attached Housing 215 Dwelling Units 1,568 2 2 2 10,242 505 391 886 228 682 910 Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit 220 Dwelling Units 990 2 2 2 5,694 299 184 483 86 273 359 8,253 Total 62,160 3263 2072 5335 1346 3744 5090 109 4981 Residential Total Internal 9,987 30.0 1162 438 1600 21 43 66 External 52,173 2101 1634 3735 1303 3678 Office Park 750 1000 SF 140.000 2 2 1 Total Internal 1,805 25 144 169 156 19 175 Office/Industrial Total 305 20.1 14 20 34 13.7 16 8 24 Extema I 1,500 11 124 135 110 11 151 Total Internal 121.476 5850 1624 4883 1624 10733 3.5 2706 126 4566 126 7272 252 20,873F3O.3 3248 Total Extemal 100,6034226 3259 7485 2580 4440 7020 Pass -By 574 5.0 220 157 377 2.8 119 78 197 Net New 100,029 4006 3102 7108 2461 4362 6823 Trip Generation Ralos flan ffE Trip Generation Manual 12ilh Ed Internal Caphlre Rale flan FSUTMS Pass -by Caphlre volume based (n lesser of A) Ralo per ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3d Ed; q County ma m rn allowable rage; or A 1U)/u of future background traffic. Daly Internal Capture Ralo is average of 1he PM and FM rages. Daily Passby Caphle Vokrne 's srn of to PM and Rvl volumes. Civic Uses ae represented by Office Pak Dialy traffic fora -da from the 111h ed. m 5. n- N ♦ c� a N N_ C Cr x2 qh ♦ Cr 4 F s b no u) R h a G; Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 AM Internal Capture - FSUTMS Based Internal Capture Rate Unconstrained Internal Trip Capture Rates for Origins c 3 5 Use I ; Office 28 63 0 1 0 Retail 29 13 0 14 0 Restaurant 31 14 0 4 3 Cinema/ Entertain- 0 0 0 0 0 ment Residential 2 1 20 0 0 Hotel 75 14 9 0 0 Source: RE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Ed. Table 6.1 Internal Exiting Trips Use d 0 'ti c 'm « ° \ J y y � c w m & ° Total Exiting Trips Office 8.5 19.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 19 Retail 372.6 167.0 0.0 179.9 0.0 803 Restaurant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Cinema/ Entertain- rnent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Residential 119.8 59.9 1198.1 0.0 0.0 3744 Hotel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Constrained Internal Trips n gg ar Use r c L Office 8 0 0 0 0 8 Retail 3 0 0 43 0 52 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/ Entertain- 0 0 0 0 0 0 ment Residential 7 59 0 0 0 66 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal 16 67 0 0 43 0 126 Entering Unconstrained Internal Trip Capture Rates for Destinations Use - r E i ' Office 32 23 0 0 0 Retail 4 so 0 2 0 Restaurant 14 8 0 S 4 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 3 17 20 0 0 Hotel 3 4 6 0 0 Source: RE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Ed. Table 6.2 Internal Entering Trips S h •• c' d Use 1r ttl c Office 616.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Retail 10.0 0.0 0.0 43.1 0.0 Restaurant 34.9 154.1 0.0 107.7 0.0 Cinema/ Entertain- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ment Residential 7.5 327.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hotel 7.5 77.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Entering 156 1204 0 0 1346 0 Use Total Enter- ing Total biting Internal Enter. ing Internal Exiting Internal Cap-turE Rate Office 156 19 16 8 13.7 Retail 1204 803 67 52 5.9 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0.0 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 0 0 0 0 0.0 Residential 1346 3744 43 66 2.1 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0.0 Total 2706 M4.6 126 126 "31 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 47 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 PM Internal Capture - FSUTMS Based Internal Capture Rate Unconstrained Internal Trip Capture Rates for Origins c II.,..,..E, J c ' 3 C, ] Use T 15 Office 20 4 0 2 0 Retail 2 29 4 26 S Restaurant 3 41 8 18 7 Cinema/ Entertain- 2 21 31 8 2 ment Residential 4 42 21 0 3 Hotel 0 16 68 0 2 Source: rrE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Ed. Table 6.1 Internal Exiting Trips Use 11 3� 3 li .5 .E C b " ]I Total Exiting Trips Office 19.3 3.9 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.44 Retail 89.3 1295.5 178.7 1161.5 223.4 2667 Restaurant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Residential 138.8 1457.7 728.8 0.0 104.1 2072 Hotel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Constrained Internal Trips v Use Office 19 0 0 1 0 20 Retail 5 0 0 1161 0 1166 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/ Entertain- 0 0 0 0 0 0 ment Residential 9 429 0 0 0 438 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 nal LEn:ter,n 14 448 0 0 1162 0 1624 Unconstrained Internal Trip Capture Rates for Destinations !• _ s C •c t: -.. Use Office 8 2 1 4 0 Retail 31 29 26 46 17 Restaurant 30 50 32 16 71 Cinema/ Entertain* 6 4 3 4 1 ment Residential 57 10 14 0 12 Hotel 0 2 S 0 0 Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Ed. Table 6.2 Internal Entering Trips •€�E�c �T t• 1 I Use 1 Pi Office 343.3 0.0 0.0 218.6 0.0 Retail 5.2 0.0 0.0 2514.1 0.0 Restaurant 5.0 2145.7 0.0 874.5 0.0 Cinema/ Entertain- 1.0 171.7 0.0 218.6 0.0 ment Residential 9.5 429.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hotel 0.0 85.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Enterin 25 2562 0 0 3263 0 Use Total Enter- ing Total Exiting Internal Enter- ing Internal Exiting Internal Cap-tur Rate Office 25 144 14 20 20.1 Retail 2562 2667 448 1166 30.9 Restaurant 0 0 0 0.0 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 0 0 0 0.0 Residential J3263 2072 1162 438 30.0 Hotel 0 0 0 0.0 Total 4883 1624 1624 30.3 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 148 (_ mt A i Pmmra Shopping Plaza 40K-150K- ISupermarket Yes Retail 821Y 1000 SF 567.000 1 1 2 !Total 57,511 2562 2667 5229 1204 803 2001 Internal 6,471 18.8 284 100 984 3.7 42 32 74 External 51,040 2210 1967 4245 1162 771 1933 Pass -By 549 8.9 202 175 377 8.9 103 69 172 Net New 50,491 2076 1792 3868 1059 102 1761 Single -Family Detached Housing 210 Dwelling Units 5,695 2 2 2 46,224 2459 1507 3966 1032 1 27891 3821 Single -Family Attached Housing 215 Dwelling Units 1,568 2 2 2 10,242 505 381 886 228 682 910 Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit 220 Dwelling Units 990 2 2 2 5,694 299 184 483 86 273 359 8,253 Total 62,160 3263 2012 5335 1346 3744 5090 Residential Total Internal 18.1 695 1 210 965 13 26 41 67 External 2568 1002 4370 1320 37tXi 5023 Office Park 750 1000 SF 140.000 2 2 1 1,805 25 144 169 156 19 175 Office/industrial Total Internal 30.2 21 30 51 8.6 10 5 15 External 4 114 118 146 14 160 Total 121,476 5850 14883 10733 2706 4566 17272 Internal 12,621 18.6 11000 11000 2000 21 78 78 156 Total External 108,855 4850 3883 1 8733 2628 4488 7116 Pass -By 549 4.3 202 175 377 2.4 103 69 172 Net New 108,306 4648 3708 8356 2525 4419 6944 Trip Generation Rates from fTE Trip Generation Manual 121h Ed Internal Capture Rate from fTE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd ed. Pass -by Capture volume based on lesser of. A) Rate per 1TE Tip Generation Handbook 3rd Ed.; B) County maximum allowable rate; or C) 101% of future background traffic. Daily Internal Capture Rate is average of the AvI and FM rates. Daily Pass -by Capture Volume is sun of the AM and FM volumes. Civic Uses are represented by Office Park. Diay traffic formula from the 11th ed. V vi, ♦ @k Q Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 AM Internal Capture - ITE Based Internal Capture Rate Unconstrained Internal Trip Capture Rates for Origins Use 31 ' f• c C S U ]I Office 28 63 0 1 0 Retail 29 13 0 14 0 Restaurant 31 14 0 4 3 Cinema/ Entertain- 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 2 1 20 0 0 Hotel 75 14 9 0 0 Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Ed. Table 6.1 Internal Exiting Trips Use 31 ° 5 i Total Exiting Trips Office S.3 12.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 19 Retail 232.9 104.4 0.0 112.4 0.0 803 Restaurant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Residential 74.9 37.4 748.8 0.0 0.0 3744 Hotel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Constrained Internal Trips _3� Use Office S 0 0 0 0 S Retail 6 0 0 26 0 32 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/ Entertain- 0 0 0 0 0 0 ment Residential 4 37 0 0 0 41 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal 10 42 0 0 26 0 78 Entering Unconstrained Internal Trip Capture Rates for Destinations Use V 4 _ r I.._ S i5 �• a I Office 32 23 0 0 0 Retail 4 50 0 2 0 Restaurant 14 8 0 5 4 Cinema/ Entertain* ment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 3 17 20 0 0 Hotel 3 1 4 1 6 0 0 Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Ed. Table 6.2 Internal Entering Trips Use ! E 5 - i 1• :!! 0i Office 38S.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Retail 6.2 0.0 0.0 26.9 0.0 Restaurant 21.8 96.3 0.0 67.3 0.0 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Residential 4.7 204.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hotel 4.7 48.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Entering 156 1204 0 0 1346 0 Use Total Enter- ing Total Exiting Internal Enter- Ing Internal Exiting Internal Cap-tur Rate Office 1S6 19 17 S 8.6 Retail 1204 803 42 32 3.7 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0.0 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 0 0 0 0 0.0 Residential 1346 3744 26 41 1.3 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0.0 Total 2706 4S66 78 78 2.1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page ISO Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 PM Internal Capture - ITE Based Internal Capture Rate Unconstrained Internal Trip Capture Rates for Origins Use tt a 5 lit Office 20 4 0 2 0 Retail 2 29 4 26 5 Restaurant 3 41 8 18 7 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 2 21 31 8 2 Residential 4 42 21 0 3 Hotel 0 16 68 0 2 Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Ed. Table 6.1 Internal Exiting Trips 5 Ti jr r Total T E �.«i 1 Exiting Use 1 S la a Trips Office 28.8 5.8 0.0 2.9 0.0 144 Retail 53.3 773.4 106.7 693.4 133.4 2667 Restaurant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Cinema/ Entertain- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 ment Residential 82.9 870.2 435.1 0.0 62.2 2072 Hotel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Constrained Internal Trips 7i rr lit Use e, LE Office 28 0 0 2 0 30 Retail 7 0 0 693 0 700 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/ Entertain- 0 0 0 0 0 0 ment Residential 14 256 0 0 0 270 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal Enteri 21 284 0 0 695 0 1000 Unconstrained Internal Trip Capture Rates for Destinations Use 9 r 5 E :s I iI Office 8 2 1 4 0 Retail 31 29 26 46 17 Restaurant 30 50 32 16 71 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 6 4 3 4 1 Residential 57 10 14 0 12 Hotel 0 2 5 0 0 Source: RE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Ed. Table 6.2 Internal Entering Trips l: 5 • si E n Use Office 205.0 0.0 0.0 130.s 0.0 Retail 7.8 0.0 0.0 1501.0 0.0 Restaurant 7.5 1281.0 0.0 522.1 0.0 Cinema/ Entertain- 1.5 102.5 0.0 130.5 0.0 ment Residential 14.3 256.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hotel 0.0 51.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Enterint 25 2562 0 0 3263 0 Use Total Enter- ing Total Exiting Internal Enter- ing Internal Exiting Internal Cap -tun Rate Office 25 144 21 30 30.2 Retail 2562 2667 284 700 18.8 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0.0 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 0 0 0 0 0.0 Residential 3263 2072 695 270 18.1 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0.0 Total 5850 4883 1000 1000 18.6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 151 ®'�kwtvd we Iling2,2�& i Units 9.091 1 8.07 265.45 o.70 1 o.67 5.59 0.27 o.93 2 o.92 o.33 o.62 le -Family Attached Housing sling 6.571 1 6.53 3.25 o.47 1 o.59 1-15.251 0.25 o.51 1 o.57 -7.84 o.57 RFUM14, ifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Dwe Iling 621 1 5.63 120.45 0.41 1 o.35 12.93 0.24 o.52 1 o.48 7.35 o.62 Close to Rail Transit Units e Park 1000 SF 11.07 2 0.89 31 1.03 2 0.91 0.67 0.89 121 1 1.40 -251.41 0.15 821y I9ho. inOOIA:? 40K-150K- 1000 SF 101.43 1 136A1 -2680.5 3.54 1 3.89 -27.40 0.60 8.58 1 9.34 -66.48 0.49 fl �:S j ti v Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Land Use: 210 Single -Family Detached Housing Description Asingle-family detached housing site includes any single-famlly detached home on an individual lot Atypical site surveyed Is a suburban subdlvlslon. Specialized Land Use Data have been submitted for several single-family detached housing developments with homes that are commonly referred to as patio homes. A patio home is a detached housing unit that Is located on a small lot with little (or no) front or back yard. In some subdivisions, communal maintenance of outside grounds Is provided for the patio homes. The three patio home sites total 299 dwelling units with overall weighted average trip generation rates of 5 35 vehicle trips per dwelling unit for weekday, 0 26 for the PM adjacent street peak hour, and 0.47 for the PM adjacent street peak hour. These patio home rates, based on a small sample of sites, are lower than those for single-family detached housing (Land Use 210), lower than those for single-family attached housing (Land Use 215), and higher than those for senior adult housl ng-single- family (Land Use 251) (Source 1008) Additional Data The sites were surveyed in the 1990s, the 2000s, the 2010s, and the 2020s in Alabama, Arizona, British Columbia (CAN), California, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ontario (CAN), Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia. Source Numbers 356,357,367,384,387,407,435,522,550,552,579,598,601,603,614,637,711,716,720,728,735, 868,869,903,925,936, 1005, 1007, 1008, 1010. 1033, 1066, 1077, 1078, 1079, 1204, 1221, 1225, 1236, 1251, 1265, 1267 230 Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition • Volume 3 MEW Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 53 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Single -Family Detached Housing (210) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a Weekday Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 155 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 261 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 9.09 3.47 - 23.80 2.29 uata Plot ana tauation 30000 20000 n 10000 X X X X 00 X X X X X�. 1000 2000 3000 X=Nrrba d Dnfg Uts X %* SVB - - - Filled CL Me - - - - - Average Rate Filled QAe EWaft: T=8A7Qa +2ffi45 R= 094 + General UrbanlSuburban and Rural (land Uses 000-399) 231 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 154 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Single -Family Detached Housing (210) 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: 153 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 239 Directional Distribution: 27% entering, 73% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.70 0.22-2.27 0.26 Uaxa riot ana rquatlon X X r' X X X X X X X X X XX X X� °o EM X =Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site - - - Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T=0.67()) +5.59 - - - - - Average Rate R'= 0.89 3000 232 Trip Generation Manual, 121h Edition- Volume 3 NOW Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Pa g e 1 55 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Single -Family Detached Housing (210) 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: 166 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 266 Directional Distribution: 62% entering, 38% exiting Jehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.93 0.35 - 2.98 0.33 Uaia Yloi ana tauailon r i® �X X X .' X X X 'X X X X X X X X X EM 2000 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site - - - Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.92 Ln(X) + 0.33 - - - - Average Rate R'=0.90 M ,ice' General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 000-399) 233 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 56 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 - Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Land Use: 215 Single -Family Attached Housing Description Single-family attached housing includes any single-family housing unit that shares a wall with an adjoining dwelling unit, whether the walls are for living space, a vehicle garage, or storage space. This land use includes duplexes (defined as a single structure with two distinct dwelling units, typically Joined side -by -side and each with at least one outside entrance) and townhouses/rowhouses (defined as a single structure with three or more distinct dwelling units, joined side -by -side in a row and each with an outside entrance) Additional Data The sites were surveyed in the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s n British Columbia (CAN), California, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ontario (CAN), Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, and Wisconsin Source Numbers 357,390,418,525,571,583,638,868,869,870 896,912,959, 1009, 1046, 1056, 1058, 1077 N=-- General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 000-399) 249 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 57 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 - Road Segment Analysis -December 1025 Single -Family Attached Housing (215) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 11 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 84 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 6.57 4.80 - 8.45 128 Data Plot and Equation 2000 X 1000 W x x x 0 0 100 200 D X = Number or Dwelling Units X Study Site --- Fitted curve - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T=6.53(X) • 3.25 R=0,01 250 Trip Generation Manual, 12h Edition- Volume 3 N — Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Pa g e 1 58 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Single -Family Attached Housing (215) 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: 26 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 129 Directional Distribution: 25% entering, 75% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.47 0.12- 0.74 0.16 uaia riot ana tquation 500 M X X �X� X X X X X X X X 200 400 600 800 X = Number or Dwelling Units x Study sne - - - Fitted Curve - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.59()0 -15.25 R2=0.94 ,RIB General UrbarVSuburban and Rural (land Uses 000-399) 251 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 59 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Single -Family Attached Housing (215) 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: 131 Directional Distribution: 57% entering, 43% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range d Rates Standard Deviation 051 0.17 • 125 0.16 Data Plot and Equation 500 4 300 w M- �X X X X X X X XX X 0 200 400 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site - - -- Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.57jX). 7.84 x 600 - - - - - Average Rate R'=0.92 "I 252 Trip Generation Manual, 121h Edition- Volume 3 N'— Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, Fig, Page 160 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Areo - 75 Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Land Use: 220 Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Description Low-nse multifamily housing Is a reslder,tlal building with two or three floors (levels) of residences. Vanous configurations fit this description. including the following • Walk-up apartment or multiplex -access to the 111dw1d d dWelling units is typically internal to the structure and provided through a shared entry stairway and hallway • Mansion apartment with several ane111ng units within what appears from the Ot;tside to be a single- famlly dwelling unit • Stacked townhouse designed to match the external appearance of a townholJse but which has dwelling units that share both floors and walls and with access through a central entry and stairway 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 trans,! station entrance ,s'/z mile or less Additional Data For the three sites for which both the number of residents and the number of occupied dwelling units were available, there was an average of 2 72 residents per occupied dwelling unit. For the do sites for which the numbers of both total dwelling units and occupied dwelling units were available an average of 96 2 percent of the total o.velhng units were occupied It is expected that the number ofbedrooms and number ofresidents are likely correlated to the trips generated by a residential sne. To assist In future analysis, trip generation studies of all multifamily housing should attempt to obtain information on occupancy rate and on the mar of residential unit sizes (Le- number of units by number ofbedrooms at the site complex). The sites were surveyed ,n the 1990s, the 2000s, the 2010s, and the 2020s in Arizona, British Columbia (CAN), Cahfomla. Delaware. Florida, 111b1$ Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota. New Jersey, New York. Ontario (CAN) Oregon Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota Tennessee Utah and Washington Source Numbers 357,390,412,525 530,579,583,638,864 866,896,901 903 904 936,939,944 946,947 948 963, 964,966,967, 1012, 1013, 1014 1036, 1047, 1056, 1071 1076 1219, 1236, 1265, 1267 ,E— General Urban/Subulban and Rural (Land Uses 000-399) 261 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 161 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit (220) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 28 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 208 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting ifemcle l rip veneration per Uweuing unit Average Rate Rarge of Rates Standard Deviation 621 2.46 -12.50 1.87 Data Plot and Equation 4000 x X X X X X X, ' + X X XX X'. X X X X X X X 'X X X'' # 100 ..n. 300 400 500 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site - - - Fitted curve - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T=5.63(X) • 120.45 W= 0.70 262 Trip Generation Manual, 12ih Edition- Volume 3 ' v Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Pa g e 1 62 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 - Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit (220) 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: 51 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 219 Directional Distribution. 24% entering, 76% exiting /ehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.41 0.13 - 0.73 0.10 Data Plot and Equation x x x' x x x K ' x " YX x x x x x XX x x x X ,X X 'X x 0 0 :'(:0 400 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.35(x) + 12.93 R2= 0.81 07 General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 000-399) 263 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 163 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - T/S Section 1— Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit (220) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. SettinglLocation: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 61 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 215 Directional Distribution: 62% entering, 38% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.52 0.08 - 1.04 0.13 Data Plot and Equation 400 300 ............................ c w 200 n F 100 ..... x X XX XXK01 -C X�` X X X - Y � X X X ,- X ,' X X 400 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.48(X) + 7.35 264 Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition • Volume 3 - - - - - Average Rate R'= 0.83 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 164 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - T/S Section 1 - Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Land Use: 760 Office Park Description An office park is typically a suburban subdivision or planned unit development that contains general office buildings and support services, such as banks, restaurants. and service stations, arranged In a park- or campus -like atmosphere Additional Data The sites were surveyed in the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s in Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, and New Jersey Source Numbers 356, 419, 550, 618, 912 ■`E General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 400-799) 789 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 165 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 — Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 Office Park (750) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA On a: Weekday SetbnglLocation: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies 10 Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA: 479 Directional Distribution: 50% entering. 50% exiting ehicle Trip Generation per 1170U Sq. Ft. GFA Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 11.07 7.56 - 14.50 2.14 uata riot ana P 10000 11 400 600 800 k, = 1000 Sq Ft GFA X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: LnM = 0 89 Ln()Q + 3.10 R'= 0 93 IW- General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 400-799) 839 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 166 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - T/S Section 1 — Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 Office Park (750) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA 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: 5 Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA: 1053 Directional Distribution. 89% entering, 11%exiting /ehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.03 0.60 - 1.69 0.30 Data Plot and Equation 300 x x F H x �x J X = 1000 Sq, Ft. GFA X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.91 Ln(X) + 0.67 R'= 0.89 790 Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition • Volume 4 Wz Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 167 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 — Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 Office Park (750) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA 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: 4 Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA: 1286 Directional Distribution: 15% entering, 85% exiting /ehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.21 0.64 - 1.32 0.20 uata riot ana tquatlon X WNN ♦� C H I I� 1000 2000 3000 X = 1000 Sq. Ft, GFA X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 1.40(X) - 251.41 R2= 1.00 W= General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 400-799) 791 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 168 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - T/S Section 1 — Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 Land Use: 821 Shopping Plaza (40-150k) Description A shopping plaza is an integrated group of commercial establishments planned, developed, owned, and managed as a unit. Each study site in this land use has between 40,000 and 150,000 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA) The term "plaza" in the land use name rather than "center" is simply a distinction between the different shopping center size ranges Various other names are commonly used to categorize a shopping plaza within this size range depending on its specific size and tenants, such as neighborhood center, community center, and fashion center A supermarket is often the major tenant of a shopping plaza, but many shopping centers are anchored by home improvement, discount, or other stores A shopping plaza typically contains more than retail merchandising facilities Common tenants include office space, a movie theater restaurants, a post office, banks, a health club, and recreational facilities. A shopping plaza is almost always open-air and the GLA is the same as the gross floor area of the building. The 150,000-square-foot GLA threshold value between a shopping plaza and a shopping center (Land Use 820) is based on an examination of trip generation data. For a shopping plaza that is smaller than the threshold value, the presence or absence of a supermarket within the plaza has a measurable effect on site trip generation For a shopping center that is larger than the threshold value. the trips generated by its other major tenants mask any effects of the presence or absence of an on -site supermarket. The 40 000-square-foot GFA threshold between a shopping plaza and a strip retail plaza (Land Use 822) was selected based on an examination of the overall shopping center/plaza database. All shopping plazas in the database with a supermarket as their anchor are larger than 40,000 square feet GLA Land Use Subcategory The presence or absence of a supermarket in a shopping plaza has a measurable effect on -site trip generation. Therefore, data are presented for two subcategories for this land use (1) sites with a supermarket anchor and (2) sites without a supermarket. Additional Data The sites were surveyed in the 1990s, the 2000s, the 2010s, and the 2020s in Alberta (CAN), British Columbia (CAN), California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, Ontario (CAN), Oregon, Pennsylvania South Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin Source Numbers 358, 390, 404, 437, 444, 446, 507, 580, 598, 658, 728, 908, 926, 944, 946, 960, 974, 1004, 1009, 1025, 1069 1219 110 Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition • Volume 5 LL"L�FA_ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 169 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 — Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 Shopping Plaza (40-150k) - Supermarket - Yes (821) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA On a: Weekday Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 4 Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA: 77 Directional Distribution: 50% entering. 50% exiting ienicie i rip Generation per iuuv Sq. rt. GLA Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 101.43 76.93 - 113.46 17.91 Data Plot and Equation 20000 X w for u X r X iDD 200 X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - - Average mate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 136.411X) - 2680.46 R'= 0.96 W� General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 800-999) 111 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 170 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 — Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 Shopping Plaza (40-150k) - Supermarket - Yes (821) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. SettinglLocation: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 6 Avg. 1000 Sq, Ft, GL.A. 77 Directional Distribution: 60% entering, 40% exiting 'ehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 3.54 2.37 - 4.99 1.10 Data Plot and Equation 500 .................._.................x.__.... X X w F n F X X r� i i X 100 200 X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 3.88(X) - 27.40 W= 0.51 112 Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition • Volume 5 rt`= Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 171 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 — Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 Shopping Plaza (40-150k) - Supermarket - Yes (821) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. SettinglLocation: General UrbanlSuburban Number of Studies: 17 Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA: 88 Directional Distribution. 49% entering, 51%exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 8.58 4.43 - 14.67 2.43 Data Plot and Equation x x Z W x x x 11 H xx x x yy��x ' Xx x x x 0 1W X = 1000 Sq. Ft GLA X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 9.341X) -66.48 R'= 0.67 "9 General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 800-999) 113 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA I I I 1 172 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1— Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 Appendix D: FSUTMS Inputs and Outputs Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 173 o m N Q a) 0 N � � N (D (DD N n O (=Ar 3 c O � .; o (D o C N N Q O (D -{ (D =' aC (D 7 O Q a) v 0-0 N � v -n O DN 0LA D� rn r. (D (� m a v 3 b ((DD G) O 5 O (D a 0 7g 4 (DT 0- (a (D = o c� S (D O CO 0 r °' (D (DD 70 o N o (n _ O -a 0' c ,< D (A 5 71 3 — (D O = (O D. C (0 C r-r Q C 41 (D 3 0 (D (D N O O 0 W'- IN .z �' w n O 3 (D 0 5, m 3 W m 0 0 0 N w cn (D n� (D O 0 l< (D (D cn (D 1 0 a 0 cn n • rP O O O (D I m !li O O (D a n O 7 C 070 0 c 0 S v S rD n rD a+ v o m v n y 3 md ° 3 C C N < < v < N o N w -i m o D < o O O V1 O NJ 0.-n F+ O O O O to n w 1 rn O N O 00 N C N < 0 01 o am w NJ N w O O N In O I--+ N V W O O O O In O A O W UW w ul 0 o D < O Vwi 0w0 0)O 00) A A N CC G w O O D 00 OO A FN-+ 000 lA tt w o O Ln Ln Ln 0 o n, {5 o D 0 0 Ul m m G Im 61 0 0 o c w D N o D < 2 o � ,. ;• F+ N N C 2 N O n w 3 T V O f+ In 6r O O Lntwo Ln 0) L N O O O O 00 In H (D -n -n C N C C N C N N m m W N 9 Ol rn 0 O V U L rn Ln N ul V1 00 O Q1 00 m 3 0 m v_y _ N O N V V m 3 M p O O O O fD 3 m yr 3 A m 9 2 O O t ry o .�i C a m N G1 z n m D D �! O �! c O_ N (D N = n' � C O �Q C c N K of Do S fD 'T ti4 (D (D 3 3 d N = O_ N w a ° o 3 3 c a c � 0 m d L 0 w m o D C 3 O O In O N I.. a ►- O O O O Ln O (D (D O N N :m N o D < 0 0 w r w 0 N O N C G A it A 3 n a w � a w a D�D O N C p 01 7C p� M < 13 _ w � O N 3 Q � m G O' v (D n O N w W O O O In O N N Ol O O O O In o o v o c T T C N C N C IA C Uf N c m x N 3 s 0)T 'C W W T N Ln N N Ln f NO In O O O T m m 3 c. N 0 N m m 3 c '° v, v+ 0 3 N � � d m m 3 m � 2 0o O O O ^ O n < N c a m N n O N 1 F G�1 0 0 C a rb rb K m a a zy- a' z (D rb G Z3 tQ lz a �i n O i z 0 0 Q Ln kQ ii (D 7 n a �c N� r Q' NJ (D N O Lnn D < N O v7 O v+ O Ln O Z m m :)o c c c c rD m A W N r w A A A A D O A A N N N O r w A w w w OLn N r F+ to V w 00 w 00 rn m A fV = >D = m Ln 0rn lD Oo m p v r r 00 Nuj r r O N Ul A W v O N N N N N = 0 O Ln r O Ilir r W N lD m O y A A A A A to n S J N Ox A A O O O VO 3 2 A A V V A 00 to r O r O O 02 o 2 _ uVi Ln W W w X 2 n N N N N r N to = 2 W N W N 0) N r V W 00 A m r O A A N N Ln lf7 r x O A IV+ A m 0) W m O w 00 J 00 lO Vf 7C o w N o 0 m 3 0 v n LnO V O V 00 0 r r 00 m O V 0) O C tD w A r N m In 01 Ol r V 0 0 0 0 0 0 = c $ O O O O O O O O O O O 3 v n O O O O O = O O r _ < C O O O O 0 N Z N O O O O O A O x A O 0 0 0 0 o a Z x ci D V) Ln N Z mn E/I O 0 0 0 m i ;a o c c m c c C) CD m (D A W N r D O O A W A W N W N N N f+ A w OLn r 0 0 V V D N O 00 0 J N 00 r lD F 00 w w lD w n n n Z n m m m m m m m D C r m m 3 Z m O A A N N O O r W A W W W O N r Z m r N 0 r N 0 r N 0 r N 0 r N C Z r r r r r W N W A W 00 Q m W w v+ T In N V 00 W C N 0 N O N V r U1 J W O D-C N T n N N 00 V V A T zLA V v 00 w00 00 r U.)O r A T O W N W N W N Ol N r N O N V O p H C O T '� lD iD r r 1D m D W W lJl In O C � O W W w W In w C T 00 co O O w 00 -i O ~ D T O O In In V N 1 O N o A A N o w w O c 3 ID lD V v O O ^ n < 3 r N r N N r N r O CY) .a n Ln N N N W N N G C � � T D N N O 0 00 0 c 0 c D T O O w LO w 00 O r D ONO T 00 00 r r lD O N n 0 N rf o'o 0 c o' N G) n x D O D Y'. O vn c m c o C c w OQ^ ago CL v T of 00 m 0 _ = c 0 0 o 3 a° n w 3 n c N N N m 0 m o, n p D rD —1 m < m m Ln O N 00 C < < OO ' 0) N it N _0O Ol w fD rn O N < O w w at 0 N A N < O ti 7 a 0 0 o' < 2 D u r w m D o O D < x 2 0 o u w o- O N 2 b+ f N �• O Q (D O N 00 N 0 O N m w p 0 Ol w N O O O O c T T 1/Ci 1/Ci N N N c m x N 3 w A m *+ p O 000 w H T co w p1 01 T o m m 3 N Q — N m m 3 m p^ v 00 m o 3 � m 3 m N < N O H C m m 3 .e N Q 0 F n 0 070 0 0 rCr O Z) N DLA m0 0 0 0 0 z c c c I I D R m (D " m m r) rD m A w N F D N O N W A W W W O N N vi W 00 00 m N m = lD Ol l0 00 Q1 LA v v 00 '9 A Ln O A W V O N N N N N = 0 A m N O 1 r 01 W N l0 01 v A A O O V N O S to LO O O O J A A v v A W m? 0 0 rn o p to to W W O W X Z f1 N N N N 1--� N !/2 = = W N w N 01 N ~ V W 00 A m r v r O NJ A A N N 00 In Ln v LO 00 V 00 w o w N O O m z n 0 0 -j 0 N m 3 c 3 O 00 m �+ n g O V 0) O W m O a)rQ 0 O O O O 0 = C 0 0 0 0 0 3 O O O O O O y A O O O O O 0 O r _ G C O O O O O m Z to - O O O O O O x 1 v Q O O O O O = Z A cl mD N 0 0 0 0 Z m z c c c c f C) m m 0 (D m A w N O N A W O �' N D N O O N + 00 l! 00 lD ~ O 00 lD 1D �o n ri r) Z (1 r r r r D C �- m m m rn m m 3 Z m O A A N N O ON A w O N m 1-+ N 0 N 0 NJ N 0 N 0 N 0 Z vs NJ N a T W A N W V Oi 00 lD w v C NJ O N O N V i— Ln v W O {/f N N Nj W v A G v v T I-+ LO 00 00 W w A 0 N W N W N Ol N F+ N O N V C y N C 0 T lD lD F+ F-� lD Ol a W W Ul V1 0 O 1 T o 00 00 O O W 00 - T O ~ D O O Ln V7 -! N - T N O NJ T A A N O w W v C-n LO lD V V O O > 1 3 G 3 N N r-j O z v O w ' 3 00 A m N N N W N N v p C00 N T D N N O O 00 O 1 3 O O w W N N A 1-' C 3 O O lD lD w 00 O �+ D N m 00 00 F-� F-� to O N G1 ;10 n 2 D 0 D v? O N c d o v m 36 d 3 Q 3 C. c a � � o' N O_ O N fD 3 U r 3t r O < O O N < ° N m O o o D C) O trn A W w N N O p O O w O N 41 O N C C A 3C A 3 s7 N 0 O Ln 0 ° a o D a m v a N < x ^. o it. w 0 O N < 2 0 O r 7s In 7 c(i N O O' (D W O In O O O r In N A V W Vf H O O O O W ry m O W W T w L. A D O 0 O O T m v '• a o m N N Q yCj 00 00 m 3 3 0 a A N NJm fD n• < 0! m 0 3 m m� O O N < N C o °L A N n 0 �o F G�1 0 m a �0 I Ln O Q 3- a �0 ro tQ n a mD N 0 0 O O Z 0 x C c 1 c 1 c 1 c Z Cm m A W N D N O W W A W W W O N 1- u' ul W W 0) A x m U.)m l.0 00 m G Ln 00 lip O A W Ili p N N N N N A O> N O J 00 W N lD 01 p S A O O v N x A Ox 0 A A O O O 0 O mZ A A J J A 00 O r-j o NJ O o Z 2 _ tJn uvi w w W m Z A W W 0) 00 (A = iq N N N ~ V U.) A m r p N 00 r A A N Lnn v >D w Pb -j 00 W O w nN.1 O O m 'O z n N O V O 3 3 00 O V 00 M H Obi 00 w n1 m 3 0 N 1 v 1 0 o O o o = c $ 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 3 M N f1 O O O O O x O O r _ G C O O O O O A Z v (^ O 0 0 0 0 0 � 1 � O 0 0 0 0 o a Z Z Z iG 0 � N 0 c O c 0 c rp z c c m A w fJ N D N OW A W O N f+ w A A w w -A D N O 00 O V N 00 1D ~ O 00 lD lD �D LD n n r) Z f1 Om m m m :10 O A A N NJ O O w W A w w w O N Z m O O O O O rl Z z N V V V V J U.) w A W 00 01 0 W T p W N J 000 w W C 0 0 v Ln J O G v n T h1 N 00 V J A G z T V N 00 ~ 00 w O A T O W N W N w N a) N F+ N O N J p C 0 T LD (D N r ID rn D W W Ln I_n O O 1 T O C `^ w 00 w 00 w O w O ul W w 00 O T N D O O vi Ln V N -i " N O A W p C 3 lD lD o o a 3 n G 3 F� N 1� NJ N N O a) z 0 Ow A 01 O W 0 O T V w N 3 C m C) Nj � T D N N O O 00 O c 3 O a 3 O O lD lD W 00 O T f+ a 3 00 00 N T O N 7 w n x D v K D v p v c S. w c �' c o C c — v oao aao N 00 ...- w N — (D W rD T — 11 p m 3 3 0 c c � 0 m a n o D G ro 3 r N f, w -i m 0 ID O N C N N 7t w -1 rn N v o < 0 nDi w as w v N a o D < 3 O O UWi w Q�i A it A n a v�i a � 1 a 0 o D 2 < �D v o D < ? c W w 0 U N < 2 Fes+ � o d v 0 (D O O O w v+ W 00 m am m N L. vi 0 v 0 3 T T C N C C m O ci w N O 0 Ql H T D Ql LU W w Ln w 00 $ T m 3 o o m ,c 7 ul � m 3 o < m m y, 3 M 2 0 0 N CC 0. m LLO .. N m t f H I A fD a n A 3 N f uu n 0 0 i O Co rb ro 3 o• �o -i CT n O 0 O C: D a0 0 C O N D 0 O v, O cn O "n O Z m C C C C fcp .Z7 C G G) N m N A (D w (D N (D r D O w w w NJN A A w O r Ln W w w 00 w 00 O) Ol A N S r m l0 m lD 00 m O 0 W w r O 00 N r w r F -0 70 O M O r r ur A LD w V V v+ fl 0 N N N N N = M A cr) r O v V w N LD m v v AA O O V N 2 0 lD A lD A O N O N O r V 0 m Z A A V V A 00 LO r I-r Z 2 LnUl a O O (D m Z n N N N N r N In = 2 W N W N Q) N r V w 00 A r m v N N A 00 X A A NJN Ln O c to A In 00 m m C 0 00 J 00 tD to m � O f1 Ln O V O m p 3 N O r r 00 3 m 0 G w In W A Ol r m m 0 0 0 0 0 = c 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 O O O O O O 3 'D N A O O O O O = 0 1 O r _ G C O O O O O N Z ,9 N O 0 0 0 0 0 -I v o O O C)O o Z � V1 DLp Z m 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c CA C A C (D (D fD (D G) rD m A w N r D O A A N N N A A w O N ~ Ln A A w w D N O 00 O V N 00 lD F' 0 00 UD VD �o �o ^ n n Z n O m m m m m Z A m O A A N N O A A W O N m N O N O N O N O N O n Z N r V r V r V r V r lD w W � O w Ln T c Ol N 00 w C N 0 N o N V r v, V W o D a to �+ N N N N N 00 r V V W A G V T N w co00 r 00 r r 00 T M O kDD W A M N W N U.)01 N N r N O N V C O T lD lD r r w m M D W W In In O O 1 T o O D N W W w W In w C T 00 00 O O w W O D O O In In V N 1 T (" O V W A A N 0 W W O C 3 D lD lD V J O O n � G 3 r N N N r N F-' O Q1 z D w r N 0, O lD w O N A O �' Ol Dl 00 W N 00 C 0 Ql a) NJ N 'v D N N O O 00 O O o D 3 O 0 LD w w 00 O T f+ D 3 00O T 00 00 r r lD N r) O i G1 O Q O rb rp I ft i ° O, S a' A n (D 3 ° c m 0 T rD S m T — o° 3 d N 3 Q 3 a O c <' �. C � a c c o' _ v m o. O D m O P 3 a w m O (D o D < N i N m m T CD D < O p O N w :m w N N A o D < A tt A C Q N �fj G a w Q1 0 w o v 0 O A D y O O O lJi FN-� In 0.V' to ti cC O O D < < p O fV C1 ik Q O w 1 m D O D < 2 a ^y o D < x a Q 0 o D < x � 3' rp w N W O » O W N A V CD o O O O A In r lfl 0o Vl N ep Ut V+ O N N. o m 3 w A LAR C m O c � T 00 � m A N 3 O VI W m m 7a o m v d c N O � 00 N 00 N m 3 m 3 m m 3 ^. r p 3 'm < m u A A 3 m fmD m 2 O O ut C o a m LL N mD� 0 o O o Z 0 c C C c D n m G) n fD (nD N fnD m A W N I D N O to W A W W W O N N �' N ~ A00 W W 00 01 0) A N r un m1O 00 O1 ym� o v F N O tAD o A W V V v N N N N N 0 W W N lD Ol v � A O v N A0 A O x A A O O O O mZ A A V V A 00 lD lD ~ ~ O V ~' Z x Ln VI O m Z n N w N w N N 1--I N 00 Nn x x N N 0) N ~ V W A �N r v O �, x A A N N In r G � N In A OVl In 01 m 00 00 LD N O W N O O m— 3 0 n °N�° m 3 M 00 M O V 01 O v < W 001 01 0 0 o O O O x c � O O O O O 3 O O O O O 0 3 .9 H A O O O O O x O O r _ < C O O O O O m Z v+ x 0 0 0 0 0 O FT r O O O O x G1 Z m oo N Ln 0 Ln 0 L/I 0 m z c c c c c 0 0 0 0 m A w N 1- w A A A A D O w W W N N In A W O r �' Ln D N O 00 O V N 00 F+ 1D ~ O 00 lD lD lD n n 0 Z 0 r r r r D C r m m m m m z 0o m O A A N N O O r A W O N m N O N O N O N O Nei O n Z A W w 01 W T Ln N W 00 W v C N O N O N V F+ to V W D M 11 N N N N 00 00 1--A W < p Vf F-� Ln ~ 0000 O D w A M N w N w N 01 N N O N V O m C 0 m lD lD H-+ f+ lD Ol D w W In In O O c m O D N 00 00 O O w 00 1 O D O O In In V N 1 m ^' O o A N o w C 3 tD tD V v O O > 3 < F+ N F+ N N N Cl) LAD .4b 01 O W O m O w N 3 C m al N N m D N N O O 00 O ,C.{ 3 O c D 3 m O O lD lD w 00 0 r+ D N m 00 00 N N lD 0 N m N r! QQ (D Ln D W O O Ch G1 : n x a o a c < o c 5 C2 m �' y as rc F d 00 N 0 v = p m 3 �- N 3 o_ N 3 a c n, N C m 0 N wo D m � Ol Q C 3 v " rm 0 ID fD T O 00 N G O N A A tt A O d 0 ti c D un N n O O N C 0 p O D to Oi a, Oi Oi zi CDO O l0 1 _O O N 7 Q tt m < w 2 O 7 o � N O m G O N G 2 h0+ u �+ O O N 0 d w O O O w 0 0 0 o c T T C N C N C N C N N m 3 w Ol O w Q1 H T W W G m 3 �O O lD m o m m v �• �a t � w w meD 3 n A 9_ O O N Q n 3 m H 3 m 0 0 •Q 2 N < A' N o C a m N D < N N p cn O O v+ O Z m c c D n rD rD m (DD N N m m A W N N D N O rn W A W W W O N r �' VI W 0 W 00 W 00 O) C) A N = A = NJ C) -.0 00 01Ln jf {m00 0 G o A w v O N N N N N = 0 lli W N lD 01 G y A V Ln A O O N 0 2 � A O O O J O m? A A V V A 00 lJD lJD o ~O ~O G to to w NJ w O w X Z A N W N W N N F-� N LA = S PI) NJ a) NJ~ J W 00 A m r O v A A N N w O W to A to m m N 00 00 �D kA 7C o w N O o M 9 0 M P1 0 m 0 O O M L+ O J C) < --AA W N M O Qi O)o O O O O O = C � 0� 0 O 0 0 0 f1 3 O O O O O 0 3 � ei A O O O O 0 = 0 0 r _ < C O O O O O N Z O 0 0 0 0 0 -i r O O O O O p Z x ai Z m< Ln 0 0 0 0 0 C C c f C) rrD 0 m rrDD r(DD m A W hi r W A A A A D NJ OOi A w O ~ D N O 00 O V N OD lD ~ O 00 lD LO tO lO n Or 0 r r r r D r m m m m m m m m m 3 z :O m O A A N iv 0 T A w O N m kA N O N O N O N O N O n z N V V V V w W W 01 W LA W N 14 W 00 WNJ C O O NJ V Ln V w O G LA n T r.J N N N 00 00 W V1 Ln W 00 00 °° A O _ w N N N N N N O y N C T tD lD 1-+ lD O� M D W W Ln In O O a T 0CD C `^ w OD w 00 w O W O u� W w 00 1 T " O D O O Ul V1 V N -1 T N O A W � D-n lD tO v V O O n O 0) N m O w 0 w A � T N in N in N co W N N bo C7 c 0 3 Ol Q1 N N D N N O O 00 O 1 3 0 O D O O w W W 0000 3 O T f+ D 3 N T 00 00 O N G1 7o fn m D O D Li O V! C CL " c O c c N on ^ OD 7 ID r ID 0 o ro 3 3 3 c 7 N [ C: c 0 N w 7 m o c D m 3 o S 0 rrDD w m N K m O N 7t N T p o D < N O W A a, A O D m < C O N A 3i A 3' o D 0 o U, u Ln N a O � c G O N < No o D m D_ ^ 0 0 f+ D 7 O 'N m O x o D _ D, N 0 N — O O O O c T T N N tI� to A VI rb m N M w A DJ _ T M p t N O O T N O O O O o m m 3 a N O — N m 3 m 'o f93 03 0 o N Q � m 3 � 0 o m fl 2 N o N C CL �o N C7 0 n 0 c 7 00 O 5 0 D a 00 fD 00 LO Z m i D G m ;)o � m 0 N p c A N O c m w N O c m NJ Ln 0 c r"0 f+ O A A N N 1 a N 0 00 � m rn 000 o v A V N O N N uw N N -V A O m Lnn A W V N N N N N = 0 W Q1 F-' O V r M LD W N lD m p A A O O v N S 0 w A lD A O N O N O N V O 3 Z A A V V A 00 lD lD O O O Z S Ln Lnn X 2 A N N N N N " S iz S W N w N m NJ~ V W 00 A m r O = N A N A A N N 00 to p :0 A A a)C) w m O 00 00 V 00 w H �c O W N O O m 3 O v n 0 o V o � m O 3 g � 3 00 3 m V Dl O < o m3 0 N v � O O O O O c 3 On 0 0 o O o n 3 O O O O O O H (1 O O O O O S O O r _ < c O O O O O N Z � N O O O O O p O x 1 �-_ 0 O O O O O x D Z N m e o 0 c 0 c 0 c m w f G)(D M m A m w 0 N rD N W O A A A A A N A N D N O lO W A W w W O N O O V V N 00 oV 00 � 0 00 lD iD LO lD n n Z 0 r r r r D r m m m m m m m m m 9 Z 0<7 m O A A N N 0 O to w A W to W O N Z m N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O !1 Z N V V V V N O W A w 00 Q1 O1 w lD T p O N V OD w c W o < V1 n �+ N N N N N 00 li V V W A < v V m zLA V 00 00 LO f+ 00 oo F W w F O 00 m M O a M N w N w N 01 N 1 N O N V O ' N C D T lD lD F- N lD O, V a W w Vl In O O c T O c �^ w 00 w 00 w O w O to W w 00 - T " O a Ol O O U1 V1 V N c T O N O A N O W c m lO l0 V V o o n 3 < 3 F+ NJ F+ N N O O1 z M O A m O W O 3 N N N w N N bo c 3 C m „ a N N O O 00 Oct 3 O o a3 O O �D to w 00 O T r a 3 00 00 F-� F-� lD ONO m O N w \ / \\ \� \� m I A�� j a � \ k(§ 0 )§i \ { 0�f \ (§2 - �> } §»� ) °`<7 C ) ƒ ' § & . . . u 2 §§2§ \ @ y 2 2 �s ® ( m]0 ° .J;E 0 ® 2 2 ° _ Mf(7 c c \\ § h 0 CL fu � I 0 � w m fu < R m Q D � 0 0 1 m Q O F n 0 D C 3 00 O c 0 a N m N O O LA O Ln O 2 D fD (p rD m rn m A W N 1 O A A N N DD O A W O N FI F+ N li 00 w = m LA rn a v o 00 X 0000 Ln a w lii G N N N N N 0 W Q1 I--' O V r tD W N tD a) G y A A O O V N 0 S A A O O O VO A A V V A 00 m? flo O 2 = Ul L'ii r-jO 0 w m n N N N N F-� N LA _ N N N W A m v boF-t _ PO A A N N In Ul O � 0 V 0000 V 00 wN ;a A O W NJO O m a .d ? m 3 3 v 3 0 0'-i rn o m m c o w m p a o o o o = °c K O O O O O A 3 O O O O O T = 0 3 A 0 0 0 0 o x O r _ { C O O O O O p Z (n T ( 2 O O O O O p O >t � 9 0 O O O O O O Z D N m 0 C cn c to c Ln c c� :10 m A W N F+ O A A N N F+ W W W N O A W O F+ NN N 000 VO 00 0 00 to to W tD fn'1 Or r r m r- m (- D C r m m m Z A m O A A N N O A w O N m O O O r- O CA A (O N r+ N F+ V A 000 Obi W T to N V 00 W C N O N O N V F+ In V w O { "a N( n �+ N N 00 V V A { y y q T 0000 00 w 00 0000 ~' W w ~ O A IAA O v N W N W N Ql N N N p y N T to tD lD m D `^ W W In ll1 4 4 c 1 T � o D w 00 O O VI w w 00 - T ~ O D O O LnLn v N T N O O N O W C 3 lD tD v V O O A { O A m O w O 01 O� DO w N 00 C 0 Qt Qt N N D N N O O 00 O 3 O � D O O w tD W 00 O T D 3 00 00 N n O CL 0! O C IA 010 S' m m VI rt C m w U w 0 1� DO O a Q (o n 7 O `C N 0 R rb (0 a- �o N O Ln C) w n 2 D D L/! v vi S. O_ M C1 < P, O 0 C O C H - 7 N 00 fD 3 N w 41 0 o ro 3. v 3 a d 3 a c p < c < N v < N m 6 a O D < rD 3 a `+ ~ 0 O rD N < ,< N O N 3! N O -i p N W W ftNJ O T N A c D C A 2 A o g o D Ln u 0 o D a ° o a b, o' D a a < o w D_ 0 2 > 7 7 a O N im T < o 0 x w D W h+ N < 2 N a' ro , H � N M V r T N C C c - N T p LA N .fl N N m O V U O m V 0 0 0 3 T m A 3 a N O N 0 o m ro 3 r3o c ro v 3 N O A T H 3 � H C a ro o N D < N O cn O v7 O v, O Z m m 0 � c c c c '2 GDl m (D CD m m m A w N N O A A N N D 1--� W W W N N N A W O N � V, W V U) 00 W 00 Ol 01 A N x A x m Ul (3) lO 00 m r U1 v v 00 O 00 N r w ~ ;o O N ul A W v v N N N N N x l0 W N l0 01 O � O x l0 A t0 A O N O N O V O m Z A A V V A 00 lD l0 ~ ~ V ~ Z 2 VVi UVi W w O w X 2 n N N N N F-` N " S S w N U.1 N 01 N V W 00 A m r O A A N W In >D N O A OA1 A OAl (3) U.)m O Ln 00 V 00 lD tA 0D x O w N O O m 3 n 0 0 0 m O 3 � 3 m m O O N V N Q1 00 0 m O w m O O O O O O C � 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 3 'CIA f'1 O O O O O S O O r < C C) C)O O C:)N Z � N x O O O O O A O X o O O O O O A Z A Gl Z D N G m 0 Ln O (A O c v) O c v+ O c m f s C m C m C) m rD A (D w N N W O A A A A A N A N D N F+ W W W r1i N 00 VO 00 lD O 00 iD LD LO LD n Or r r r r a C r m m m m m m m m m 3 m AAO N N O F+ w A w w W O N Z m r N O N O r N O r N O N O LA f1 Z N V V V V W W W com w T G Un N 00 W C N O N O N V F+ In V W O a N T n NJ N Ili Ili 00 00 F+ V V W < '9 Z u> co m co co 0000 F w F co T O A v w w m O V C O T w w )-A w Ql a W W U1 Lm O O 1 T o a 00 00 O O w 00 -4 T ~ O a O O Ul In V N i T N O O A N O W C 3 w LD V v CDO n < 3 O 01 z O N A 0) O W 0 3 � N D7 N N 00 w N N 00 � 'p C 0 3 O 01 N N a N N O 0 00 O 1 3 O O a 3 O O w lD W 00 -i T O a 1--� lD N L-I0000 O w 7 = 7 ƒ k' / / / ® ? E E e a _ E § n' R w CD CE —n R aE-o @ ? §\' §-'d a 0 \ J EL ƒ } ro \ / o 00 gg awe -- a §/E§ƒ /§ ) cr § W % ■ 0 \ » « \ o 2 q n 0 // w//.=� ® / E n c 8 2 / [ E q ® @ � Q �2/�B o ° E w= j / FL q C K $ ƒ 3 # o e w \©p7 8 R @ e \ k)E 9 a 0 0 n 0 000 0 K 0 D `n D Ln m 0 C �+ Lq �' Ln A D Unn = C Unn Ln A N 00 N G) N W N W A N N OD N D m 1--� W w N W A N ') m m 00 p 0000 2 m w w 4 o n N 00 N �I Ql O GI Q1 Ul 00 Ln w Ul va m m m 2 p ~' N O 9 p p Z Z Z z m m D C m W 2 0 C) W v W v w 00 w w w � C w i.n w Ln w W w W A O n 2 O S v A A 3 N A m O O O O NO .�.� A A 00 00 -1 m? Z= O 00 O to w O p 0000 0000 N N N N N N N w m 2 O w to N T C W W A W N t� W Ul w Ul w N I--� N �N C7 rn � J = y A Ol A A Ln N A p a rn r m m F+ w N oo C y N v �+ N 00 LD 00 j F, m 00 00 to 0 O 00 N W m W W w N N G H O N O n 3 0 N N 00 00 In n c C D -n m Ln w U1 w m cn m Ln w O C T Q r O M C Ili n H O vNi l�D W m 9 O O O v v�i O N o N 000 0 to N A C -n O O O O 2 C 3 Ln p to a � w � W -4 C o n 3 O o oLn 3 C Ln m w w r r z S O d d d O $ fli N W W N I� cn F+ N A S O 3 T -rl V W O O O O W N N p y 0 W W LoI_n rIj W 00 N C 0 0 0 0 0 c a z 0 o � 0 a 3 1 T 'n T v+ p o = n 3 0 0 0 0 000 00 -4 � n o d O O CD M o n Z N N 00 00 FA O N w %i O C m X m Q m N N Ln OD N 3 c a - o_ c ci' v nu L m = n a aj d m 3 0 = 7 C cu v m fD 0 En ni O � Q (p Ql N N Gi 3 Ln o O O O o A o 0 o O 0 0 0 co m -< C N l/I l/) 3 ;D T TI -n ri T � O m N O 0 N ? W C H 3 Nj w r: O O N O Q O 3 O orn o o tA� d N O m n m `D rn 0 0)m 0 _ O �'. � O d a � m '* 2 3 m 3 0 0 < c o o o fD n) a C) a m m D < to O N N N !L A 4Jb 4P- o. a) G) m Ln A A 1 D t~i, NAi N 00 W W O W W W N �' to 0 rn m w 00 Ln V = m r 00 tD N v o O w Lk) N M O m w A A LA G 0 N N N = tD N lD r M v M O N W N to V O O O 0 0 0 t.n Ol tll a) A N V N V m Z 1-2 w tD V O O 2 twit vwi O w w m Z n 00 00 w Lr, m r v _ A A A 00 Ln N m p 0 o In 00 A aV, m L z Auj 7c O O N O p o O O V O n m 3 000 3 0o H H W m �+ m m V N < N m O O O rn rn N O O O O = C 3 00 V 0 0 0 0 3 O O O O O= M H f'1 O O O 0 = O O r _ < C O O O 0 Z ,Q N 0 0 0 0 o p o 0 0 00 Z x � < to A C N O N O N O m D n m o m tul ul F+ Ln A N A A A A to O w N 0. N W A A y NJ o o �+ O to �D �o �o Z r m r m r m D C 0 2 z G m UUi N A A O 00 tU w O w W w N Z m O O O O O O a) 00 Lrl T 00 V FV.. C Ni N v " Ln Ul < o to n T < en A A V V V V �+ O 1� W 00 W W A T O N N ~ N N N 0 "0 N C T F+ lD H+ <o V D w W O W Ln 1 T O C w 00 w 00 U, w w o w o �O D lD lD V U• U1 -i T N O O O N O C 3 O V V < 3 n < A A O r n V n -31 O O 0) 0 0 N N N W 1--` v C O T D W W 00 O O .C,� O O a 3 A A w ko � G a 3 A A tAD N N O N -1 (D p1 N N 0 0 v � 3 O (D 0 a a rr O (D fD (D j N 3 N N 01 O O O �. C O O ^ N D/ C (D II II II II II lNfl O In In 1-0 m m O O V m N W W F� i--' m Ln Ln N X 0 A A A O O (D A A A N N n W w w m m (D w w ao II II II II II m 11 m W N N In lD O A Vn In lO tD m 00 m O O O O O O O O d O O O O O � O w NJ v A N 00 V1 00 A N p A N U1 A m U7 A lD V f+ W lD Ul m I Up O m V lD N Z f+ 00 A l0 �I m N 0NJ D I D F� 00 Ul 00 A N D W U7 m A V W In W r w m I p w O m V lD N OD V m Ln V N A W O T N V N N m V 00 i r 1 N O F+ U1 V O V 00 In j A W I A W A m On O N W m Iv W W O 0 CA /1 0 (D N O l0 O W O O p C m A O m A D CDy \ o \ \ o 0X_ N C N O A 00 N N W N 0 O F+ LO w 00 N V In ID 3 3 m m A N m O m 00 In rn O D X a Ir 00 O N V Ln m r N U7 V 00 V In O I A Ln N F+ F m _ z w Z o m VI a m O D V A In W A m m Un 00 W 00 W W 00 W O I W W W W W W W W W W W N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O u 3 01 Ol m W {n A W W N I•+ !+ m VI m m m In In A W W N 0 M. (D 3 W A O LO m O Lo O V m 0000 O N N O 3 Ol O N tD O N V In A w 00 W O N I--� O N O W O A V N 00 O P� W O l0 V F+ W 00 R w OO fD O � O O O O N � O � A m 3 3 re fD .9 N .� V lD U7 N2. O O O O O O v M 0 ONi N N 00 V Ul N N 0 C O O O T OWi W W N N W O W O 00 W U'I F+ N O C O ui 3 N A IN+ O N V A ~ V m Appendix E: Collier County 2024 AUIR Attachment F - Significantly Impacted Roadway Segments Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1— Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 Y c .0C W N O M O C toV a} CL x d N N N N N x H W � W c u (p 7 d d O N ~ U x d W W a m o f -r O u) 0 0 0 0 0 M LL M N N + Y V W A V o 0 0 0 0 0 o C N C m N O a> M W N CO (D N Q100 O M M O M U U H u rn + c c H a t 10 E C m 'R W n o o CD 0O to N o� W � o N 9 0 N C a E W M v �..- 0 Y C O + Y c N m r W p C m O n (y G G p H > co CO r M (0 N CO n M V) m 00 N (/1 U O J wo G , M 0 d F~ m N NCL N O O Q� W O C at Y N W O Y 7 O N O CO 000 O W 000 N 4= y 6 0 ^ M W (0 M CO N a > ii N Y'� O 2 O O m c to E d O 1 Z O N 00i � 00i M ON 000 000 R Q d= 01 m>° a Q 1 Y 0 'c w Z (n W (n to (n 3: c •° � y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N R N N N N N N N N > C W V C A N � ACL N N V O !n C O L O 7 d Z Q Q N N O E N ONO OND N N c ((n (0U(0 U) I U) U) O U N d c C U E m O m C J 'E c y C -o lL 0' Y W Z ) c O o C ?r N N G 0 U N (� 0 Z O rn U S_j U m o o J M U) Y x E E N N N co N — Z U l0 V) V) V) a04 K U U U U v) o 0q 0 0 0 0 0 Ln CO I CO CO CO (o Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 100 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 — Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 Appendix F: Collier County FY25 - FY29 Five Year Work Program/CIE Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 101 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 — Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 7 tP tq -0 N M N N tq n r P.- to M N N O O M O 0 ! N df O to 00 w C. O M O O O O O O m O 0 0 O 0 0 00 O 0 W N G N N r N tp lt) N N 110 ti r tP r tP 11'1 M tt} to 0 N O O N Q1 1(} O 1n 7 1ti N O 00 tq M1 N ti tD N O t[, rvr CO tD W pp N t, tP N V Q r N 'Y N N tD 4 r^ M W 0 Of W to tq CD pp N r r r t0 CO P 0 N M V r N CV N r r r N to LL � U N ® to U V to 3 OMi. ti N LO to N 4 } O LL E d N CV r r 45 OC U Q U Vl U U U m LO n tD 11 N t0 o 0 mo O o O O O 0 00 O 6 6 q +t N N r N LL 'p OCR U U UU N U UU U O C N7 W) i CO h t0 N N N N Iff 1f1 �•'! n t[J V d O O O O 8� O O O f` n N N i W V et V to M tq N N r N LP LL 8 to 10 W tl1 U U U B OC U lY OC 0' U OC U U 13 N U U O N7 CP1 Iq tq n tp h � O0 N pOp O 8 1 SO R Op0 W)C �'100 :W t0 N P N >- O N N w 0�0 tC tP lA N r- a r !V eM- N 0 O r tP Y7 t7 O 4' r N M 7 N V P: r r r W a1 OI U UU �U�O�C U UU M LO 00 V N tt) 0 0 C. N R c I-- O N ' 000 O CO in O O O M M r KY = O eh IC!r tq -1 0 tI_ N U)N t p LL � a fV r 0 t- W LO M W r C7 r r q1 07 z a d do JC to en ` +�r3 a d t°E N W d�>,mpff« oC ° ` IL •W0 m m°n C dIS EW9 N W N> Actl Z r3 O Ol 0 �_ auo o13 vu oE 00020 0 o dam=a, �dy px n�9 °�'yc��oC m,d3LL`M 0 >o= ° Qet_W C J a 'D ;o 15 v v m R ° N 9 c M (� R' V V 0 ;ll en J D n �' W=„ � z iP a LL o m`0'cMmwC°ulvw OC m W z a _>H t9 a4, cv«_>a «O. y •..- m In O d d � m 'L" to ovvcrNc to U 0 U M�� W ._ >, tva ri OdEVz��zy a/to�r a£iW> yC yeseSY�.3d C GU°' O�NaC rd a_W d mZ d `x Q Q to m _gyp V > �m U O tOg� �'0 17J md' - O eE «� y� O n vy RU -R'm W C i0L'Q to N;c o 't_°�od`tu_oi41 �s�o d ,r��udid�tP o oCV 0 u�a�a� �y»$OUw ��>C9 tin Ea »> O a ��c"vOr= C1 tan h O N N N N N N cd CO 0) M to M m Cfl Qt O CD M ui eJ 6 m Ov� Q�T ntCCD �C O©OD ��Ou?�r O�OOer •0 ii N N N N N N N O N N N N m (Q [p q7 C7 N N 000 [p (� N� 0000 OOt-70 00 000000000040 i- F�F- O 0F-F a` t° w to to to to to to sa m to to to c° to to to co to to co w to to to to cD Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 102 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 — Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 Appendix G: Collier 2045 LRTP Tables 6-2 and 6-3 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 103 Corkscrew Groves East Village- s!_r &P@c A«+m-p&kmm!-Do Segment Analysis -Decemberz3 } \ |§ ! k I'i | � / � 2 . � �k f � § 2 !§ 3: � 77 \} ) ) )} ) ) \ \ .;§ ; ; ;±_ \ § aelea Consulting Solutions, PA Page|S4 Corkscrew Groves East Village- s!_rhipReceiving Area -p!Section !- Road Segment aoA-December 2025 B p^ }2 | b k, }% | ■ �. &" AL �B n | ; % ■ a m q \ `■ '§ �;�$ \ \ \ { 7�� - �/ 3 ; .\ • ,$!��[I�||(}� /|!('all^t�$lt kf}ƒ 2 tail ■ � �\ �4 § k }�� , � } � ; ■ |� i � � �k; »; ; • 7�}\§{! G0, S � e � k \ � ■ � ae lock Deumq Solutions, PA Page 1 105 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 — Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 YN C 4 �1 w 7 tl V = .'7 ,eru 41 V! 91N :A q�Yt V1 H v1 N 11 e 5�` b96�ry��,e 2Q �Q , aE1^ a 2 a x y ay �j 1 A n S Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 106 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 —Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 Appendix H: Collier County 2024 AUIR Attachments H-1 and H-2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA - 1 107 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - T/S Section 1 — Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 sz aS a J 0 ON SIV3N dWMJ ez aS 06e08i9QaMN0 O aM8 o1o83a 1S�OV w 2 w aM8 S3aV102l3A3 12 i T> a m a c7 t a o 3N Is .4% ♦ a 0 3N IS we 0 �U. t a N oAIS NOSIVA . NOSH= aM8 kfSM00 W rc J O W N aAIS NVOOI N 0AlB NV901 aAIB tll Q o SL-I a SLI V m SL-I W — $ da NOISSNIALU 11 d Q� J gJJ Y 0 " aniaodaro 0 a ¢ s 01ISNvaa31131a000 i 7 NIUIIAVIWVI� � 1 � UO 1l18iJ30NVA GULF OF �I:�CO �y OMB tl311100 m �Nti80 � a`qP � c e le aAlB 21311100 /WJ. 14 O 0 �N Z 4. �N W� J J O t� E E � S = 3 v Q WL yC E NTTT yNyii o m $ c 3 mO tiy ��I I Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 108 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 - Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 ATTACHMENT H-2 Hendry County line t 29 q9 R 8? � cue 5 001 z- N: U) �r Westclox ST . Lake Trafford RD @li-�i er CR 846 E f d4B Q46 N ##I ## i� I# ## ##i 29 Immokalee RD O J� m io t71 N O W�E IL S _N 1° Qf Legend aCNI E N Existing Deficiency V P,w h- Projected Deficiency < 5 Years Pun Go Projected Deficiency 5 tol0 Years C:ul' Oil Well RD Itttttttttttt/ Capacity Improvement Project PROJECTED COLLIER COUNTY DEFICIENT ROADS *uANSPURTATION MANAGEN ENT SERV CES TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 0 OS 1 2 3 FY 2024 - FY 2034 m Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA - 1 109 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - T/S Section 1 — Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 Appendix I: MOT Sources Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 110 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 — Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 w v a I n a a t4 [4 a a a a Of w Gc1 a a 44 k. 41 M N l0 O Oo M M m m m rl m d• O co co F w O F F II . [n M I c U II l0 01 0 M -0 O In zr co M M l0 Ill , m M W O H [4 II H rl rl H II r4 r4 [4 G4 W W W W W C4 G. [4 W 44 W W W II a II � a a " a w V c cr sr i a a a a �+ - F itsr A U it r r r r r r r r r r r r r t` r r- x c r4 n W W W W W W 0 Ln In In ui ut ut u) In u) q II a d D O w R 'Ex, n In o 0 0 o In In o 0 0 0 o In In o In 11 o, m m m m m o, m m m m m m m m m fU4 py 3 � W II I N a W N F z Io F o r u E..a IX Q4 I4 N. [4 f4 a a G4 [4 W x W W F r� u it a 3 II o 0 o O o 0 0 0 o O o o O o o o Pd 3 O F Il o o o o o o o o o o o o o co o o Q a O 11 0 a In N r- a o w co 0 tD M w o a) W ^ W 3 11 t` W 1` M v N r- M M o r- Ir N m R'. F II M H M rl M N A P: FS N II W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W H G4 F II o 0 0 0 o o o 0 o o o o o o 0 o x W 0: z II o o o o o o o o o o o o o -o o u) F Q z 0 O n co M M W a N w Ir m o I, o V o o a H It M M co H N H M W H In co 1` H v 11 W H W F 11 H H H rl F Q E- a W II rl •^ 3 FU 0; 11 HE, W O w A 11 m En 3 3 3 m 3 cn 3 3 cn U) 3 cn 3 3 tov w `n rl 11 W w w W W W W W w w w w W W w W F Ito o o o o o o o o o o 0 o o o o W W 11 z n o o o o o o o o o o o o o a o to r W E+ %1 O II N H O W M N N I, m In m u) v o sN j H II r" M m H N H M t0 H In co r- rl to EF Q Dry' U n H H H rt �O Fti OW FQ a ii U>1 0U' W Q it z z W W W z W z W W z z W z W W a vl Ex+ 0 H En W a� n w w a s ^0aH 04 u w m Ix a u F w u x F a F z Um n o a H W H zPwya A] 11 a � H a H n O u O x .H-1 a Q a CH.7 FG 11 WWDCU w O Ix II U FI O H M >+ rj a a0 Q \I n\i A U F FBI .] tL F E+ 44 14 N Il p: 0G u) Oo a rl \ E-F Q Rt a 1:0 o En W O N 11 A 11 m I i x O In m -I a \ H 7 .7 W H E-I ud W F UUH II F U) a H u Q it U \ N F In U) [4 PG GG Ul U) '.7 U) a H A G4 Q W 11 W II A z 44 O O 04 rx,� ] W U H IX 14 WIQI 11 H 3 W' U W H w U) O O [L 0 W 0H CI F ry 0 '^ x IIIt F H m 3 W O F4 2 Wxo II L4 u 0 G4 o W 4 \ m E. P4 E \ N F E. W 44 3 F F Z m WAWHF 142 04 II Q N H N m W W F RC N W FC U u N U] O I o a I t4 ?. \ � I E F n II 0 a o I H 6L' O u) 0. U) tD %0 Ix u H (9 U) IT U) U In r o E+ H G4 U) 11 O II £ a A u) ao to k. ,.] O F A •^ F n A C4 [4 Q U. N W W W F U n o O O Q W PS O o Ul 3 O ^ E+ m RC 11 Q a o A o H p wa11 w[4 3 z ac Q r1 H F w 11 0 W n o W O M W r7 x H W N. 11 a n H H U Gd 'n too E KC �C Q44 W u [4 Q � F U 0; U r1 o r4 F A W H n Q PG py' W M A H W av z x In a F W > W w ul bG w a o 0 z E+ a W 7 o O 11 H u 3 pq c� o z o o aC o a F a A s P o p x 2: U F u W w A [� U 0 H O 4 U) A n E+ f a 11 a \ H M \ r.� \ pq \ M 0 a 4C O H U a I -I 11 U a II U) M u) IX %0 a \ N m o In W N u) a W r- m ID a O oo 0 ��yj W u 154 a' Fy a •• co U II ?4 m W 00 m N 00 Q m A 00 W m H � I--77 W II 11 II -vM o W 11 W W n 0 1 a z H I lC 1 a I a I a 1 a I a u o a 0 x I a pq Q U p 9 •• rl Q 11 u V a u u u u as u� u a a u u •• •• •• •• r1 EQ EQ LO E. W W II W P.S C7 U' N BH ' II %H E+ N O U)F a FU[4 G4 U W W E+ W II W Ir W m H r m ao Ib m N u) Ir u) 10 N F F F II N N N N M M M V w v u) u) u) t0 w r- H e \ H II rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl UI .Y. A H En II V a a a IT c Ir a a a " a• o o - - H Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 1111 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 - Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 0 } OO 0 gW G V W N J f� 3 a N O a ci 07 n 0) N } 8 0 0I 0 d 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 Nf o a rn of g �i 0 O n UDD N � W O W N to CO w O I th, N O O O O O O O O O i I Li LI 0 0 o IC _o +o 0 o io _ i L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) o 0) m " Qppopp L I� O' I i1 CF O -67 0. 0 00 W00 000 O lD O W N LO O On N LO 00 Ln I .— .- 1. �o o ;� 0) 0) o o o CO 00 N rN- n LO r- N N of m I ci rl' CO Ln I i }} 1 i cap 7 > , % CI cc U W cc U w d cc bA i J � U J i N LL� = z iz z z z o t O. O LL LL u. _— LL I AL a a 0 CO O 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 112 Corkscrew Grote East Village- Stewardship @c Ag+u-T3� Section 2-Road Segment AnalyA- «e wry £ ■ (0 o 0 Vj § $ 6 / w / 2 & A 3 2 $ 2 / 0 \ / & W § ■ o 0 0) ƒ 0 CC)e 0 0 � a 1 ■ / n 11 k N § ■ -i 0 o ■ § \ = M ] 04 LO q m 0 o 0 o 0 c 0 0 CD 0 � z S » z 46 / E \ C: e § / z ) K § o 0 0 0 0 g § 1 m / \ \ \ ® k \ 2 \ ? 0 A a ? a 2 = 2 m % * E k @ 0 o & g r o @ Q ( o a ca / K t � k 2 CD -1 ■_= a \ ƒ § ƒ h e § § \ e> / ƒ K _ 91 S 0 0 0 0 7I § / #elect aaumq wean PA Page|!S Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - T/S Section 1 — Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 . ^ W Op O O O O O E 0 O O p v M sNt N M LA �D 1i1 �f^+f 8 o § U a m a U_ �> `n� M e m L = V) m Y Y R Y M r r Y = Ncc = 1C9 N d to ao N IT W N — ra LL' x r • R i x r �L e Q% c I Q CO N ON 1D t0 - ON1 00 p O M (3 .ti M I R V1 nl M V ,Q ;I. L M OJe 4J p Q 3 m r r �! r CO l C _ C C C C C o Y ��Cpp �C�pp J -10 J J J 10 N a. k 00 N �t W a Y r R Y Y x r O O O', O O O - - I..L FU • M U N O `^ f O 00 ( - C e1 N M N UC M CO r x x r Cc r r r -' U o vCCC (U (U v rr)Y J J J J J J J U N N M d r4 N M a _ c C C m m -e 0 N I E Lu1 'V_r• E N M U U v Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 114 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 - Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 TABLE 7 Generalized Peak Hour Directional Volumes for Florida's . Ii.--:--J .._« STATE SIGNALIZED ARTERLAI S Class 1: (40 mom Ivy posted speed limi* lanes Media B C D E Laws Di 1 t inmvWed * 830 880 ' * 2 2,230 2 IAvxW t 1,910 2.000 '* 3 3,280 3 Atvdded ' 2,940 3,020 " 4 4.310 4 DiVided 3,970 4,040 ** 5 5.390 Class Q (35 no or slower posted speed hind) 6 6.380 Um Median B C D E l thidivided * 370 750 800 Lauer B 2 Divided ' 730 1.630 1,700 2 2,270 3 Divided * 1,170 2.520 2,560 3 3,410 4 Divided • 1.610 3.390 3.426 4 4,550 Na Stbtt Sigaagzed Readway Adjustw o" Glider VARWORdw g& tiuloma by do m ead pia--.) Non. State 5iiEna =d lawfi rays - 10% Median & Turn Lane Adjustments Eschme Eatcbusiaiv AcVvtatent Laces Nlbd= Laft Lame. RVht Lam Fact= 1 Divided Ye. No +5V. 1 UU&Vided No No -�/. Unit Undkided Yes Nv -5% 6da13a Uodnided NO No -251A - - _ Yes +5% are-11'a2• Facility Adjust u r M&flP17 tia "spoati;ng dimcdon d VQh=*s in Ibis table try 1-: MCV CLE MODE? (muRpty svbKk talmm sLVM belm by ef tbnecdood madwry hem b two -wry ® sake votmm ) Paved ShvuhlerMicycle Lane Cavnmge B C D it 049% 0 150 390 1,000 50-845<a 110 340 1.000 .1,000 85-1000% 470 1.000 :-1.000 as PEDESTRIAN Map£ O bd Vy u0nde volmoes sbosm bdou by awe at *tt3Cli>J w roadow huff m daaeomme mo-wa} MMUMMM sense VAXMS.) Sidewalk Coverage B C D4 E 0.49% ; ' 140 480 50-84119 * 80 44D $00 85-100°e ?00 540 S80 11.000 HUS MODE (Scbedtded Hued Reure)a 0 as pent hdmr is P-k SWewa& Coverage B C D E 0-84% 5 _> 4 - 3 12 85-1W0 4 ? 3 7,) 1 5 5,690 FREEWAYS Corn Urbaaiaed C D E 3,100 3,740 4,080 4,570 5,620 6,130 6,030 7,490 8,170 7.430 9.370 10,220 1,990 l 1,3I0 12,760 1:'xhanited C D E 3,100 3-M 4,230 4.650 5,780 6,340 6,200 1,690 8,460 7,760 9,520 10,370 Fremay Adjustments Amy R_V Laos W114*1119 +1A00 +5% U2rTgTD^:DiR1TPTED FLOW HIGHWAYS Lanes lvlediass E C 1D E 1 Undivided 580 990 1,200 1,610 ? Divided 1.$% 2.00 3,28+0 3,730 3 Divided 2,700 3.900 4,920 5,600 Ltnistct-raptefl Flogs High a.•.Ildjwstmesls Leon hks&an E=lwm 6A lawn A4w m mt fwi= 1 Dihidcd Yes +5% Math UatIaded Yes 4% 3 kld Uadrvided Na li%. lv*om *oft W4 10glsaooad a.0*0 boa= &apaWl'WbW& fk imiL of tani=o ao a ao fQ $a �Yrs11 �a�. a.lwe apariFirtllY'emr.d tLf aJir toe; oa Of wum a Raod d atad *M bo tied 4W fa pwalp0ripm m"b= m+- FW o®� mrAd. d o • - al.. rile =c dasi.-.d aLoo►! ba d.t kr rlo=..pr.i6c piamms womb m ILr mbk aid A=mg modeh O"M mot ba mad for tomdar o<ana-I.tm. d� �t)rra atra _.... tta2w.pas aria CalemLoimt as haaad uo Plaao.aq appbc�au of du $17d and 3a rranitl Crarnr cod Ocd$• of SEVica Z1 'Lid of lasaro ie W "r.6 and padaatiaa madaa in thu obhl n bind m a®Lar of wbrlaL mataotobor uiLrcteban or Vadnmam aamt t5a FuRM • te.r 9abor Love aw ash• fv W Fro Lori: da•>ide of4aLioarU& • warm arrn.a atia5tablo � ti>tw ire. "Not WOM"Oh iin tbar h.d of .an in7.amMRAW Fu>ba naa.aab.7a anal.. 4vtma1ara11�tiaaYacaiof.grjp,p�Vaa*FMS.4+.�'+�4.atq �:1nc bma n4cled iar dfa WesW mods. dha Idled of %mica bw grWa tmcWftg F) t9 ne, l.aa..=.. H eo 404aivam #.keL V&.no. et.Aalw = QUA "Ut .a.6. t.6.rp Some: Fb zida t?apal>tioaml 61711114rvtloa SstpFPt�a a@ye+ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 115 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 - Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 TABLE 7 Generalized Peak Hour Directional volumes for Florida's (continued) Urbanized Areas jarewry aim RW TI VALVT ?1.5SU'111pTiO015 UntuemptedFlaw FaetLifies irate IedFlafrPacitiries Sute Areeftelf cuss I Fferways �� Hi�ways C1r�I Classll BtgT1e F'ede�iea RDADR°A1 C'1i4IL.s1Cilr M"1•IC5 Arm (-baw noal) ,abam tau Number of &Ywjo limes drrJ 4-10 4-11 2 2 4-9 2 4-8 4 4 Posted sYe4d (avo 70 6� 50 ID 45 50 30 30 45 45 Prey flaw spend ( 75 70 55 50 55 35 35 50 50 Aulimy Lam (tog) n n twit, a m. r) a a n r r : Tfcrain : 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 % no gams MOM 90 Esrl®ve left ttun 13ne rmpaet (R Y) [n] Y Y Y Y Y v v J uMhn 4 ri& ttun Lanes (m v) n n n m o n F (_0 3 3 5 5 2 2 1-9 1.9 2 2 TRAFFIC ('HARACTFInTICS bola factatt ($j 0.090 0.095 0 090 0.090 0-090 0-090 0.090 0.090 4.090 0-090 Directiaoal distnlmum EK=(1)) 0,55 0.55 0-55 0.55 0.550 0.560M12 0.560 0565 0.3d5 Pyah haar factor mff) 0.95 D 95 0.95 0.95 LOW LOW1.000 1.000 1.0D0 Bme Uftaftim &W me 2400 400 1,700 2 UO 1,950 1 01950 1 50 1950 Healy tvhwle patent 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.01.0 2.5 2.0 Speed Act^tment Faetor (SAF) 0.975 0.975 0-9 75 C'ap army Adjm� i�aclor tCAF) 0.966 0.968 0.968 12 1312 12 12 'lr nghtppaes 12 12 1 12 12 12 12 CON-MDL CEiAK C FF1 IS3�C5 Num6Q of Mg AL 4 4 10 10 4 6 type (s 3 4 4 4 4 &WW type (a, C_ p) C c c c c c }•r1g lei ( 1,20 ISO 120 120 120 120 Efficbve tip rasa WQ 0.43 0-45 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 A![ITIMOD,AL C'11.1XWTEtiI T10 Paved loulderkwycle 1att,e (a n, 501.4 Y 10 Ont" lava Wuhh (o. 1� w) t t P --- ant condit - (d, t, u ) t On-st—t Fps (A Y) suieffia (n. Y 4 Y SidcgiraMhaa&-y sep-jh*a, k w) t sidosr& protsmb" bonier (R Y) n LEVEL OF SERVICE THRFSHOLIIS [.pspl of Sen ice ee rV.*.9 Higliws R .iI'tN7a13 BiPrele Pad Bw D27Y ty m clam Clams Il �YE SCCTe BMESAI. +�=:17 B 17 = 933 31 mph > ' mpb c 2,75 2.75 <6 C .: 24 = 75.0 - 24 = 23 mph 17 alph 3-50 3.50 4 4 D c 31 = 66.7 <31 is ph 13 mph � 4_5 4.25 3 E j. 39 > 593 r 35 15 mph > 10 ®ph _ 5.0D 5.00 ' % ih = Percent tree flow speed ats S Avef.Ap ravel speed Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 116 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 — Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 Previously, generalized service volume thresholds for core urbanized area were determined by applying a different K factor to the urbanized design hourly volume (DHV) thresholds. After careful consideration, it was noted that additional factors such as speed and ramp density should be considered when analyzing core urbanized areas. As a result, new DHV, directional design hourly volume (DDHV), and AADT thresholds were developed for core urbanized areas based on a separate analysis from the urbanized area thresholds. The K factors used to develop the GSVTs for freeways and highways are consistent with FDOT's PTF Handbook (see Table 2). Table 2: Standard K Factors for Freeways Rural Urban Urban Core 8.5%- 10.5% -- 7.5%-9.5% 7.0% - 9.0% The K factors used to develop the GSVTs for arterials align with FDOT's PTK Handbook (see Table 3). Table 3: Standard K Factors for Arterials and Highways CI_ — Natural C2—Rural _ C2T — Rural Town C3C — Suburban Commercial C3R — Suburban Residential C4 — Urban General CS —Urban Center r6 — Urban Core The K factors for all state roads are available on the FDOT Florida Traffic Online (FTO) web application managed by FDOT's Transportation Data and Analytics (TDA) Office. 6.2 Peak Hour Directional Distribution Factor (D) The D factor is the proportion of a peak hour's total volume that occurs in the higher volume direction. The preferred approach for obtaining D factor data is from the Florida Traffic Online web application, which provides a D factor for all state roads. The web application reports the 41 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 117 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1— Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 average of measured D factors for the 200th highest hour from nearby and comparable roadway sites. The statewide minimum acceptable D factor is 0.51; however, this is not the default value and should only be used in an LOS analysis if adequate justification is provided for the specific roadway. The GSVTs for all facility and area types use a D factor of 0.55. This approach ensures statewide consistency and reasonably accurate results at a low cost. For additional guidance and recommended D factor ranges, see FDOT's PTF Handbook. 6.3 Peak Hour Factor (PHF) The PHF compares the traffic volume during the busiest 15-minutes of the peak hour with the total volume during the peak hour. The following equation calculates PHF: (Peak hour volume) PHF = 4 x peak 15 minute volume Freeway motorized vehicular service volumes were developed using freeway PHF based on area type (see Table 4). Table 4: Freeway Peak Hour Factor (PHF) Core Urbanized and Urbanized Areas _ 0.95 Transitioning 0.92 Rural 0.88 The GSVTs for highways and arterials use PHF values aligned with the HCM, Sixth Edition and FDOT's PTF Handbook. Each context classification has a PHF (see Table 5): Table 5: Highway and Arterial Peak Hour Factor (PHF) Cl — Natural 0.88 C2 — Rural 0.92 C2T — Rural Town 0.95 CK — Suburban Commercial 0.95 C3111 — Suburban Residential 0.92 C4 — Urban General 0.95 C5 — Urban Center 0.95 C6 — Urban Core 0.95 For more information on PHF, refer to FDOT's PTF Handbook. 42 ) . 3 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 118 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 — Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 Appel: Collier County Transportation Element Map TR-7 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 119 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1— Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 a i �m eE Qy $ O Ln c A F C.ca o t� F a, ii CV 0 Qy o Z ry C Z r�i� 1a✓ �1` a V G� a 5 0 m F f W S V r 0 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 120 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1— Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 Appendix K: 2045 - All Road Segments Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 121 �111��11111111�11��- Hangman IIII�:::C��ICIICII��■ e�eeeeaeeeaeee�eeeeee ■■a■e■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■■ate ■■e■e■�■�■■�e■■0■■■■ate see■eea■■■ee■eeaeaasaw eeoeoeeaeeeeeeo�eoeee■� s■era=■ate■=■■■tea■o �� Bunn a■aam■■■■■■■■■■eeeere■■mom �■�■��■■■�■�■ems■�■�� HBO a s0000s0000�0000munman ��1011 o�■oveaaeee■ee■sa■e■ao . ve■a000seeee■aooe�aoo■m Appendix L: Concurrency Proportionate Share Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 - Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 N Ln M IR � M 1H Q�1 0) (UolII!W$) aJeyS aleuolljodoJ - 1-1n ' ' M ri `° m o Ln of 0 U-) (suoJlms 00 -zr 0000 N 0000 00 rn O N M W ;so:);uawanadwlle;o r-z r_� 16 'n U^ (9) (SOW) 412ual;uawga 0 0 00m o Ln m N N O O O ui N aJ C (5) UOI;OeJ j c o o o\°\° o uol;dwnsuo:) :)l}je�l;�afo�d r, o 00 Ln m rn O a (b) A;!:)ede:) PaPP o, 00 N ;o uol;dwnsuo� S,3lj4e�l Palo�d 00 oNo M r, = o o U A;!�ede� PaPP o 0 Ln Ln Ln Ln rn m m 2 + V a C (£) awnlo 0 0 0 0 0 0 a�lAJaS;uawanojdwl pasodoJd oN °,° °N° m °N° °N° v Y 0 > o v r + awnloA a:)lnUaS panoadwlun ^ ^ O O O r1 o; panoidwl 10 of;ea N N o u�i c o N N .1 N -1 � y Y 3 2 - V (Z) uoliejn2quo� panoidwl 0 00 O v O O ao; A;!�ede� 0 Sol L algel loaj O O 0 v o 0 L o ` o 3 a D (Z) uol;ejn8l;uo:) panoadwlun o 0 0 0 0 0 ° m jol A;hedeJ 0 Sol L alge1104d 00 00 O O O o o an a c v o v v 0 ' sauel;o aagwnN ;uawanoadwl pasodoJd `D 00 1D D M c (U U d Cr 2 J 4 E (1) awnloA a3l/UaS u0113a10 O O O Ln O Ln O Ln O Lndead anOH dead panoJdwlun rn 00 00 00 0000 0000 L a 'D o ' o N E (i) uol;gas ssa� panojdwlun o N N v a ; v V ;( E C a, N a C 70 U x 4 C M 0 X Y o NM 3 Q C C a) U O a O E C U N �.., 00 7 N > N Uu Q a W O U Z Cr V) L C U w C w O -O U V) D" E X cu n a) U a, j j -c v O v -0a1 v M E a+ C 7 O C 7 O N M D Y o i Ln 00 D O a v U U a) z v v ai U a) a Z X 1i ' V) C aJ C C v L) C V C U Vf � V t`o (IJ V) M M Ln V_ v� L Oa L OA L V_ a=-+ Gl a1 C 2 J aJ C C 2 J LU L C I U W C W O U K - X D ~ J C J C ` ~ 3 Y CC 01 N 01 N N W N 00 N 00 N 00 a v a E C YO .v O E E .v O a 0 OC OC CrG: N .--. Q = H a` N N V) V) Ln V) cn N ry m v In W r, 00 Q 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 O Z Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 124 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1— Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 Projected Roadway Impact Fees 204877] Road Impact Road Impact Land Use Size Unit Fee per Unit Fees Single -Family 5,695 DU $ 8,090 $ 46,072,550 Detached (<4ksf) Multi- Family Housing (Low- 2,558 DU $ 6,950 $ 17,778,100 Rise, 1-2 floors) Governmental/ 140,000 SF $ - $ - Institutional Retail (>25 KSF) 567,000 SF $ 13.774 $ 7,809,858 TOTAL $ 71,660,508 SOURCE: Collier County Residential and Commercial impact Fees Effective December 1, 2024. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 125 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 — Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 t�V 1p M P r Oe G rp N M N M N p M N m n N � r e n O O fir+, e h T Oe r c IC b 4 N N N n e� O O O O O O O O O Om O Om O � O O O mO mO mO mO mO mO mO mO m� mm? ? < C O ? 7 R C ? P Cpp 8 0 p? 4 pp7 G O O S O O 8 0 e T O c C c 7 7 7 C 7 Y c C `C pO 16 w f r N N fl' CD r r pp n pp �<7q Qr� N �1 TN yN CN N M N r '�Op CI i �Q 'M ,rN� ry 11. M ,Nn N t+N� N �+Nf N nN N �Nn N tJ RMq 9g0000000000 000 .� OppDpp V 7 N o (p m Q� N pp N N C N N N N � 00 pppp N pp�� 00 OO r vi �c ec vi vi h vi r h ai � eri �^ O U 1a�W�` r Q rj M P 1r� U pmp N pmp N �3 N ��p fl ppp N h r� . QQ�en O r N M M N N N N N N N r R m voi rn a a m ao n r.4 �` >' Vi r o6 9 oC h M eri 4 ai 4 e��+{{i 4 C 7 c N -i A .4y P TT O 0 ? N � � vej vej vei v01 O O CI N r O � 1e0i�1 `s a a q ^I_ O CM UE y n O ii � v h s Z EE n � a G x�U O � � h a W C � F U QZ 0 z S Pia- �V m 3 F 7 O � a M r W a C G F � � e k 2 ri 6I ti r, - kk a d N R1 W y F F C, `a r Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 126 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 — Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 w w w w w w w m o 0 o w w w w w w a w 0 " h $> ws a ws a -ws -0 -ws a s > R0�lrnas�T ��sa kxMxa�4 o �3x b b t b b t b b t b t b b b b b b b b b b t t t b t b b t b b t b b b b (jai] wpp w w�pp 0, 1 � a�}{ w w w w a � a�p! w w w a w w a a w yQ VMhlPONW nim�Ob00aa a a ap a��Gpp. a a a00 aO a w�wp a00d M 00 T !I O O N O ^ NI 0N P M C O N Y, R.a.N .aO Q eq ep � aq a0 W ph- a 1 O�N"q M OD O ar �� V N� .� m .-� �� O O O O O O b OG O. P r A P to N et c�i N oR c u2. c u u m ^1 Opr Q h ac V Y1 N Y, O M ..., 'O 9 Sxx 6 ffi a c 1 O,o O O h O N y Q 1a ^ nvet N n' O M N P ,O 00 O o. � h p 0 P N Ih G OG „Q,i C G C O G O N N .r P 00 h h O O O O O N O O O fl N O O O O O N 00 h Q CO �O N h 1 1� l�i M d P N O Q N N P P h N N N 10 QQ �O b N h ID eh W W 4., h M P h N M P P N N b 10 YI �O O P� P �O P O Q IN C O O M �rj 000 Y c0O w V a q t� q O O O V rz O OO OO OO OO O N N � O � O C Gl C C G G Q o a o u u u ' a Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 127 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 — Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 o w w w w w w w w w w w w !.a _ w w PO rA ffi ffi u� ffi rgi ffi r ffi X ffi h ffi vq ffi vq ffi W ffi vg ffi vei ffi vt ffi v� ffi ffi ffi uPi ffi vet ffi of ffi vie ffi ffi ti ffi riPi ffi �i ffi ffi �t vi ffi ffi bS ffi v4 ffi fA ffi x ffi r V zg a A ey .por a 8 �' a QO� O e� P O. N O V R R OrC 00 M �O �O �O V �O V V 10 ODD 0o r N p •-� H {tFyy °z a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 c 0 o o 0 O 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 o 0 c 0 c c o o 0 c 0 c 0 o a .. OG OD OG CO OGM M to 00 P P !tv! OM1 Q r !O M vQOi y O vP�i N P � O Q P Q Q P CR P Ca P yy P CQ P PVy N Q �G O R 1p 00 r P O O �00000000M �� 0000000000��aao a 00 00 y O r Q !O W O 00 r � h M N H N O G O O O O G O M N N fV O O O O O O C O 0 0 G M C jb Q O„� N M FGi Q �n O vlVi Q Q O P O r y Y, P y �O ti b b O O O O O P r O N p P N O JD GO VJ FWy~f N � CO r O O O! O O n O O �O V O O O V O O P O ID O M '+ O M .+ G P 00 P b O Iti JO P b O 00 P b O N O N P �-+ O N O N O N P O 00 O .+ O JO -+ O O r '+ O Q V C Q O~ O O O � y _ L 4 � �cL0.g$$g$ $ u 8$$ a13 E o $$ $ 9 0 �8 '�8 e w wgg w uQiT g g g o 8 o S g. 5 c � � � $ ':1 z Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 128 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1— Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 Appendix M: East Village Alone Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 129 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1— Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 N CLL V7 LL N 0 0 0 0 r` M O O N Ln Ln O O0 DO Ol n TT M N r, 0 00 n � rn LLr, W r- 14 .-I M Ln o Ln M N p M N ct O t+9 4. 0 ^ N ^ N Ln H N V) V) V) j_✓ LL_ LL Q 3 M u = o v T uo tin to a v— c c C M N aOi LnU U A 7 3 N �' M> Q o ;° ° LL 0 0 3 Q L++ H M _ = O Q Q T 5 v v C ei N 01 00 L� r N 1 Q LU N M li O O (V w Q ,$ Q LO N E O C O > C Ln tit 3 m C a N *t Ln v HMCD � O ft a to M m 00 N W Q C Ql N .--4 O O M Lri Lit 6. OV 6! ry� 7k M rn Ln 00 } r N � Lr > Q O W M r N N ft N N p M W W ' O Q NN W M V1 Ln O O O O N O m Ln OO O W cL M Q Ln N 'a Lv LL Q)LL m to LL LL LO N V N in in Q O Q = U cc Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 130 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 — Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 oo m ao N m N M 7 Ln -1 M O N Ln O O O O O Ln -1 E LO H f9 C 0 N N 6J M M L.o Tr f\ O N Ln O M Ln M M M O to 00 O c-1 m rn N O Ln O -1 00 M rn rl Ln O 0000 n O) C -1 -4 N M M V L1) Lf) Lo W to V O N N rl ri N M M In In O In0 O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O N M M M M M M M M M M M I Z 0 0 LO 0 LA 0 r, 0 \ > \ > o M W a xz xx Q 0 00 O V 00 N Z Z _ M ro v N W I rI N JI Q p M o O v � o c 00 o W W II to 00 to O p a Law0 QI a) Ln O O f� O H H m LLn n r, v ri Z ri Lo N O C o 0 00 0 N 0\0\0 O \ O \ O 0 O a d H u .N-I NO N O O O O4 0 r4 rn m � M m rIj r, 0 0 NO �I Ln n 00 v ri rn O O r' r♦ H O n Lo Ln O IZ .-I M v LO Lo rl C l M 6 Ln '" I Q'I Lrr1 N V r CO 't, Ln N Q F- O ~ ri CO 0 Ln 14 0 LLrr1 N �T CO Ln a O Ln lD f0 O O O O O O H N of f\ Lr) o 0 0 '- c O M r` m 00 "; -4 00 It v 11 II II II II h C d fV N N u M ro M M M v rn rn m m m a Lr1 lf1 N N N � C L v Y X W N N M -1 N Lr1 00 ON u u u u n ` d ro ro iu v v ( ) Y O Y O -C U Y Y O. f0 O O O O U Y L o 0 f0 O_ v N C C v Y v O v c X I- D 7 _ W C u CI M M N o � c a O O N N L Y � C Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 131 Corkscrew Grote East Village- Stewardship Receiving+e-T!� Section 1-Road Segment AnalyG-December z z TrpGeneration -F UTMSlmema Capture LO 4 7m co CD m// ) =® S)/ k ® CO m G $ \ b ) F[ § 7 Cq= & _ c Cq a } a CO { » j CO° < A \ 3 r- 2 / ` 3 2 2§« ° a/ G § % m c n = m m / ( 4 ■ r4 CM Cq k ° _ 7 \ LO f 0 0 LO } to to _ m LO 7 z z\ § k k \ § % \ ) B 2(\ Q S e) \\ Cl)LO R r§ G E) 2% CO n m n r 10�� r m 5 7 G � § = to { \ ) ] - ] - 7 7 - f M } _ k Ea j _ \ j _ _ k j / ) } ) ) k j ) ) } m \ \ N � N \ \ m m N £ o ° w I- - C 0. Cq OD ` ~ \ \ LU \ \ \ e k § CO CD CM CM - k \ k M C14 to a) w ) } ƒ � ( k / \ 0 ) ƒ ) � i� E E ! ! } 2 S a E ) ) - 55 M / F- 2 ,_ \ ° - . «, k ) ) V 2 mf 0 ƒ f / k { ) \ E ] } {E £ $ 7 § 2 ( ] J b - - a e ° ° A ) - / } \ \ k 7 k ) } \ / r mlco a Consulting Solutions, PA Pa;e|S2 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 AM - FSUTMS Internal Capture Unconstrained Internal Trip Capture Rates for Origins Use k c A m c d N C E c 01 - 9 m W o Office 29 28 63 0 1 0 Retail 13 0 14 0 Restaurant 31 14 0 4 3 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 2 1 20 0 0 Hotel 75 14 9 0 0 Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Ed. Table 6.1 Internal Exiting Trips c c Total E d c a u Exiting Use 0^' " ° Trips Office 3.0 6.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 10 Retail 123.7 55.4 0.0 59.7 0.0 402 Restaurant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Cinema/ Entertain- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 ment Residential 39.7 19.9 397.2 0.0 0.0 1872 Hotel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 t 0 Constrained Internal Trips w = A A E C w p W C E P w u c d w o c x 2 0 0 0 0 2 FRestaurant 3 0 0 14 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ment Residential 2 19 0 0 0 21 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal Entering 5 21 0 0 14 0 40 Unconstrained Internal Trip Capture Rates for Destinations Use 0 d c A u C ECI N C `- c 01 A C V u W -0 Office 32 23 0 0 0 Retail 4 50 0 2 0 Restaurant 14 8 0 5 4 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 3 17 20 0 0 Hotel 1 3 4 6 0 0 Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Ed. Table 6.2 Internal Entering Trips Use - m u w m Office 204.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Retail 3.5 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 Restaurant 12.3 51.1 0.0 35.8 0.0 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Residential 2.6 108.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hotel 2.6 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Entering 83 602 0 0 674 0 Use Total Enter- ing Total Exiting Internal Enter- ing Internal Exiting Internal Cap- ture Rate Office 83 30 5 2 7.5 Retail 602 402 21 17 3.8 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0.0 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 0 0 0 0 0.0 Residential 674 1872 14 21 1.4 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0.0 Total 1359 2284 40 40 2.2 _j Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 133 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 - Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 PM - FSUTMS Internal Capture Unconstrained Internal Trip Capture Rates for Origins Use !E 'm q « C_ y y c m Office 20 4 0 2 0 Retail 2 29 4 26 5 Restaurant 3 41 8 18 7 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 2 21 31 8 2 Residential 4 42 21 0 3 Hotel 0 16 68 0 2 Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Ed. Table 6.1 Internal Exiting Trips c •- 0 A C Total E w c v 6 Exiting Use "' " `- E u m ° Trips Office 15.3 3.1 0.0 1.5 0.0 72 Retail 28.0 406.1 56.0 364.1 70.0 1316 Restaurant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Cinema/ Entertain- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 ment Residential 45.9 481.7 240.9 0.0 34.4 1078 Hotel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Constrained Internal Trips w = m Use w w 5 c °1 u o c x Office 15 0 0 1 0 16 Retail 4 0 0 364 0 368 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/ Entertain- 0 0 0 0 0 0 ment Residential 7 134 0 0 0 141 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal Entering 11 149 0 0 365 0 525 Unconstrained Internal Trip Capture Rates for Destinations Use d = w C q v C q q ` c °�' A C c m w o Office 8 2 1 4 0 Retail 31 29 26 46 17 Restaurant 30 so 32 16 71 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 6 4 3 4 1 Residential 57 10 14 0 12 Hotel 0 2 5 0 0 Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Ed. Table 6.2 Internal Entering Trips Use L - C m C A L Office 107.7 0.0 0.0 72.4 0.0 Retail 4.3 0.0 0.0 833.0 0.0 Restaurant 4.1 673.0 0.0 289.7 0.0 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 0.8 53.8 0.0 72.4 0.0 Residential 7.9 134.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hotel 0.0 26.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Enterin 13 1265 1 0 0 1702 0 Use Total Enter- ing Total Exiting Internal Enter- ing Internal Exiting Internal Cap-tur Rate Office 13 72 11 16 31.8 Retail 1265 1316 149 368 20.0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0.0 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 0 0 0 0 0.0 Residential 1702 1078 365 141 18.2 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0.0 Total 2980 2466 525 525 19.3 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 134 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 - Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Trip Generation - ITE Internal Capture CO (D � o O ONb m Q � M N M n M � M �' V co (O � (D V) 10 LOO n O uN] O N O W CO 0 V W CD W (,.) to M c,.) O N CO N N M N N to N U - C3 O COO ('n N (I5 M '0 N OD N M W N LO V LO (D (0 00� r-- M CD N _ (D M N Q1 C O M r` N CM Y cc d O _ W 0) 'O _ T 0) CO r- O (n O W V U) u] M CO V O ce) Cla C" V N I- d M C0 N to V' 00 Q) R CO M N N N N N U) V V O 0 m � rn GNo n °r oMi o rn v rn m N V `D N N N r M M N m (nCO V CN7 N N N N A - O 0 � w 17 CO 0 ai E 0 0 = U) LO Cl) N (V Cl) CO V r~ W C M N r` O r• Ir r• O O O t` O M <D V M 00 n N LQ M N -I 0) Cl! 0) O CD (D E Y 00 N M (A N N M N IA M O (/') (n W d E c cc c (6 C M (0 (0 C N C m N 0 m C 2 2N y Z N E O C y N Z U y w n- Z F°- w w w (L z m o r o W N N N N N M � Y K � N N N ry 00 y O G [1 N N N N n5 2 U O � N O CEO 'M N CD (n CD r- v o 0 c a COO N V p g. N n W y .0 ❑ ti N Cn o c_ c_ c_ CO o D 0 n a O O �° G C N V _ 0 O O 0 N N N N LO t- n O Y C [: d O m C7 C7 d rn C � r N d F F O > _ O 5 0 W a m = H N N A o'er A O ~ m o E a m m cc Y U U CD R N EE m 0 N N N (0 0 W y N d 'O 0 N V O N MO 0 0 O ? N o) O l� li 'E m a U U 0) m p U N T V cn U)0 rn i Z O mo d❑ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 135 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 - Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 AM - ITE Internal Capture Unconstrained Internal Trip Capture Rates for Origins Use L = m A V � C 2 E u c N C 9 � -y Office 28 63 0 1 0 Retail 29 13 0 14 0 Restaurant 31 14 0 4 3 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 2 1 20 0 0 Hotel 75 14 9 0 0 Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Ed. Table 6.1 Internal Exiting Trips Use °1 = c �^ \ -c E c c w n .c v ^' w o Total Exiting Trips Office 2.8 6.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 10 Retail 116.6 52.3 0.0 56.3 0.0 402 Restaurant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Residential 37.4 18.7 374.4 0.0 0.0 1872 Hotel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Constrained Internal Trips m - q ' « E c d Use w w u u 5 c °J a - p1 - Office 2 0 0 0 0 2 Retail 3 0 0 13 0 16 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/ Entertain- 0 0 0 0 0 0 ment Residential 2 18 0 0 0 20 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal 5 20 0 0 13 0 38 Entering Unconstrained Internal Trip Capture Rates for Destinations Use d q m C R! « d � C E W C E c °' N L 9 d d o Office 32 23 0 0 0 Retail 4 So 0 2 0 Restaurant 14 8 0 5 4 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 3 17 20 0 0 Hotel 3 4 6 0 0 Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Ed. Table 6.2 Internal Entering Trips Use c c 10 u \ 5 c w m c d o Office 192.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Retail 3.3 0.0 0.0 13.5 0.0 Restaurant 11.6 48.2 0.0 33.7 0.0 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Residential 2.5 102.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hotel 2.5 24.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Entering 83 602 0 0 674 0 Use Total Enter- ing Total Exiting Internal Enter- ing Internal Exiting Internal Cap-tur Rate Office 83 10 5 2 7.5 Retail 602 402 20 16 3.6 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0.0 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 0 0 0 0 0.0 Residential 674 1872 13 20 1.3 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0.0 Total 1359 2284 38 38 2.1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA F' e 136 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - T/S Section 1 - Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 PM- ITE Internal Capture Unconstrained Internal Trip Capture Rates for Origins - c , Y m a Use q 4! Office 20 4 0 2 0 Retail 2 29 4 26 5 Restaurant 3 41 8 18 7 Cinema/ Entertain- 2 21 31 8 2 ment Residential 4 42 21 0 3 Hotel 0 16 68 0 2 Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Ed. Table 6.1 Internal Exiting Trips Usei ° 414.42A m \ c .q 6 ° Total Exiting Trips Office 0.0 1.4 0.0 72 Retail 26.3 381.6 52.6 342.2 65.8 1316 Restaurant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Residential 43.1 452.8 226.4 0.0 32.3 1078 Hotel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Constrained Internal Trips N A \ C C N 9 N E 00 C Use d d L W Office 14 0 0 1 0 15 Retail 4 0 0 342 0 346 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/ Entertain- 0 0 0 0 0 0 ment Residential 7 126 0 0 0 133 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal Entering 11 140 0 0 343 0 494 Unconstrained Internal Trip Capture Rates for Destinations Use N C q C u N 9 y Office 8 2 1 4 0 Retail 31 29 26 46 17 Restaurant 30 50 32 16 71 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 6 4 3 4 1 Residential 57 10 14 0 12 Hotel 0 2 5 0 0 Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Ed. Table 6.2 Internal Entering Trips Use m A u \ c .q d W 5 c 01 m c w o Office 101.2 0.0 0.0 68.1 0.0 Retail 4.0 0.0 0.0 782.9 0.0 Restaurant 3.9 632.5 0.0 272.3 0.0 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 0.8 50.6 0.0 68.1 0.0 Residential 7.4 126.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hotel 0.0 25.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Entering 13 1265 0 0 1702 0 Use Total Enter- ing Total Exiting Internal Enter- ing Internal Exiting Internal Cap-tur Rate Office 13 72 11 15 30.6 Retail 1265 1316 140 346 18.8 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0.0 Cinema/ Entertain- ment 0 0 0 0 0.0 Residential 1702 1078 343 133 17.1 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0.0 Total 2980 2466 494 494 18.1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 137 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - PS Section 1— Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 Project Traffic Percentage Distribution N W E U W Q C N O C E m 2 N U -- L O C C O O O W M NQ W W W 1-LL UU T I I I I'� = h N Oi N N N N N g > m W 1u g a �Q F .02 OLD on 1� Sao °dro 6l 580 0 c� r rllr . ♦ N h N H 6 �6. W 6 W rd U d d a U_ l9 F U N 2 a` Z ZAM Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 138 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 2038 Project Traffic Distribution and PM Peak Hour Impact (Table 4) Peak Direct - Peak ion Hour Project PM PM Peak Traffic Percent Peak Peak LOS Direct- Signif- as Per - of Total Hour Hour Mini- ion icance centage Signif- Project Project Project Config- mum Service Thres- of icant AUIR Traffic Traffic Traffic uration Stan- Volume hold (%) Service Impact ID # Roadway Link From To (1) N/E (2) S/W (2) (3) dard 1 (3) (4) 1 Volume Y/N Immokalee Everglades Camp Keais 46.0 0.4 9 7 2U D 900 3 1.0 No Road Boulevard Road Immokalee 46.0 Camp Keais Road Eustis Ave 2.5 56 44 2U D 900 3 6.2 Yes Road Immokalee 46.0 Eustis Ave SR 29 3.0 68 53 4D D 2000 3 3.4 Yes Road SR-29 (MainStreet 58.0 N. 1st Street New Market Road 3.2 72 57 2U D 900 3 8.0 Yes New Market 59.0 Broward Street SR 29 0.4 6 8 2U D 900 3 0.9 No Road Pope John Paul II Immokalee 61.0 Camp Keais 1.7 39 31 2U D 1000 3 3.9 Yes Boulevard Road Pope John Paul 61.0 Camp Keais Oil Well Road 0.6 14 11 2U D 1000 3 1.4 No II Boulevard S of Agriculture 83.0 SR 29 CR 846 1.5 34 27 41) D 2000 3 1.7 No Way 84.0 SR 29 CR 846 New Market Rd 0.2 5 3 41) D 1700 3 0.3 No 84.0 SR 29 New Market Rd 9th Street 0.3 7 5 41) D 1700 3 0.4 No 85.0 SR 29 9th Street CR 29A North 4.0 92 72 2U D 900 3 10.2 Yes 86.0 SR 29 CR 29A North SR 82 25.0 573 450 4D D 2000 2 28.7 Yes Hendry County 87.0 SR 29 SR 82 3.7 67 84 2U D 800 2 10.5 Yes Line Hendry County Church Rd/ 88.0 SR 82 47.1 1079 848 4D D 1850 2 58.3 Yes Line/ W Entrance 1 Entrance 2 Church Rd/ 88.0 SR 82 Entrance 3 55.3 1267 996 41) D 1850 2 68.5 Yes Entrance 2 88.0 SR 82 Entrance 3 Corkscrew Rd. 23.7 543 427 4D D 1850 2 29.4 Yes 88.0 SR 82 Corkscrew Rd. SR 29 29.0 521 664 41) D 1850 2 35.9 Yes Westclox 116.0 Carson Road SR 29 4.4 101 79 2U D 800 3 12.6 Yes Road SR 29 Bypass SR 29 S SR 29 N 10.2 184 233 4D D 2000 3 11.7 Yes SR 29/SR 29 Hendry County CR 846 0.4 6 8 2U D 1000 3 0.8 No Bypass Line W Project Corkscrew Rd. Collier County Line 4.5 102 80 2U D 1110 2 9.2 Yes Entrance 1 W ProjectEntrance Corkscrew Rd. Entrance 2 0.8 18 15 2U D 1110 2 1.6 No 1 Corkscrew Rd. Entrance 2 Entrance 3 2.7 62 48 2U D 1110 2 5.6 Yes Corkscrew Rd. Entrance 3 SR 82 13.0 298 234 2U D 1110 2 26.8 Yes Notes: 1) Average of the endpoint values, East Village Exhibit A. 2) Percentage times PM peak hour net new external directional project traffic totals Table 1. 3) Collier 2024 AUIR and approved future roadway improvements. Corkscrew Rd. per FDOT, Class C311, LOS D. For roads that do not exist today, defaults are 1000 (2U), 2000 (41)), and 3000 (6D). 4) Collier County TIS Guidelines. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 139 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 — Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 2038 Background Traffic without Project (Table 5) 0 0 u - M i m• O W O r-00 0) O 0) N LO -4a O M 01 Q1 01 Ol ii E N N O N W N Na -4 N -4 N M N 4 `H .--1 N 0 ` � 2 ao CO 1-1u, rn -4 .I e, a a v v v o a cc � 0 N « W 00 W -4 O W LD 0) 0) O 00 00 00 00 > p ko r, '-4 Ln '-1 W V O O O 1-1 N O O O O O C M M to Ln '-1 M t` V V V V O N N N N ;.° « V _ dr v o 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 R U 0 fn fn O N oo cn O cr Ln Ln Lh lD O V V V V Q (7 Q d N N M M O N V N N N N N f V r4 .--1 �--1 � 4 n u � L � 2 In Lq O In o Ui o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lr! o 0 0 0 v o 0 r'n 0i v Lo 0 v r, Ln ui of of v LO N UI G Q 0 .... N Q r, N fV O 3 rn oo O VI V � Ln a-i r, � `� � � Ln v LL N N a--1 1-1 '-I N .--4 N N N N a--4 -4 O O 9O 2 ,n r N rn <n O O O O O O O O O O x r-:N ko r, v C)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 m H N ,Ovr V lD on �1 M N-1 N1 Ln O o0 00 00 00 * > cN1 cN1 O ]C {L 01 x W ` C W W Z V) VI V/ V1 N VI V1 V1 3 W W W W W > Q O O N m Q Ol Ln N Cr Y Y C V a C d d 2y O. a ti O O O O O 0 0 CD 0 0 O Q r\ r\ r'r" N a) N C £ N N C) C:, N V 00 00 O M 0) 0) 0) 00 \ I*V I:T LL R W ^ M W lD M 00 00 00 00 N Z M M M M O ` Ln 1 O~ G = O > ,1 > > o � cCq O M 7 o a n C7 Q N ci O N Vf m O) C CU V Q Y O 7 `1 6 0O ` C 1`o V M N F NO O H « L C W C N N C v O _ M OC 3 - N M N O Q O Z ~ Q CM L 10 Z V U V U 1� E w C)O 01 0) Y O Q 01 N N L C t`0 V 0) 01 Z M C t`0 C M N - -5rn N O ate+ N N N E N 00 00 O N N N D_ 00 ` C O 7 K 0: K L „ C O K CrV) Cr Y C C cc m N E W VI N U V1 V1 U W U V1 V) i W W Ln 00 C O O L O > O N V O v U W > N 01 U 0) H OD C D- C V C "O -p C C C O C U N y E N N E Ln 'x O f0 p = J > J T fL �, J C N f0 NN a (U bo ti ar of Ot0 L C C w +>' C '^ �^ O O1 IL -f0 N i C a• O O O '•1 m 3 m0 'O U N M vi aL+ p •N Y Q ^ f0 `1 Z U U U U i d' V1 U N U U N O i w 3 '^ N > a. Q �' i c (`a U -U c (� U c O 01 v c r`O c f` a v - N m O E H 3 Q 7 V7 N C C _ N O Y Y U F N M U 7 W OJ Z O O a m yL+ ai U O/ 2 0J C UM W L C W O U f0 U K ut O U 2i `C rC Y N W 0 N Q 'T ev E v > > Q o " 2 o o> 0 0 L Cr 0 Cr Ma N -O -6 -6 '2 '2 W N LL t A N W N LA Cr M CC CC K 0: O�0 K L v (Uv MCL 3 3 3 3>> 10 O 3 a, o Y Y ,� e o m v v v v Q Q- L o a O O h O- 0) CA O1 N N N N U 0) �^ 0 0 0 N N in O U tV E E cy E N N N 00 00 00 00 N Y Y Y Y N WM Q (7 N E E N K O O O IVO ' Z U N N V) V1 V1 (n V) V1 V V U V .--1 N M V Vf •- y O O O O O O O O O O O O O =� t0 l0 00 Vl tD t\ 00 00 00 00 0 Q v a In W 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 140 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - T/S Section 1— Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 2038 Future Roadway Background Traffic Conditions (Table 6) e 0 0o u z W 0 0 `^ 0 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O a L 4o a y z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 00 Y C v V 4a--1 a--1 Cn � Lo Ln r\ CO W W Ca r\ WW W CO G W 7 01 N Ln OR � LP LD LD LD 1D Ln M 'i Iq M M N Op to O O -4 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O W 2 +' Y C O1 O r- 00 M O 01 N O M 0 M M 0 C" rYp U v N 0 N N N lD N N In L11 tmD O tr e 1 -1 r-1 e-1 1Y0 d i m 5 00 CO Ln n 0) Ln ri ri a-i r-I 'a y p m ~ O a > v £ O O O O O ^ 0 ^ ^ '^ 0 ^ 0 O 0 0 oW z z z z Z} Z } y z Z Z Z Z o. 3 C 00 O Y 2 V y ''��' O O O O O O O O O O O O M = c0 . it £ O O O O O O O O O O O Ln u) u) Ln O O O 14 r1 rl e4 C .as: 4r G) N M a O N O �--I O N 00 o0 00 00 00 O -4 r-1 r 1 -4 C 1A G r_1 a. y C Cy C '�02 „1 � 0 � � � N 7 O " N N N N N � d' rV 'T N N rV N LL U N y � U y C U O1 f0 C N N ~ fY L w C CLU 0 m 3 N m Qm z U v N Uu 01 01 -lea O Q) N fV L C r0 U 'A 01 0) z 0) C r0 C r0 N N fV E N 00 00 O Y Nd N N N a Y 00 7 OC Of E cc Cr Cr- L C O Of a' CC G C CC C w Ln V) U V) V) U w U V) V1 V) w w (n G1 E N v o c c c u 0- E 0 ro = ro c c 0 ,. c c c LU 3 Li v c O 0 'O o � -0 rn 3 0 D Ui +, N M o w a v z U U W= W ar 0 U v Q) Y 0) " Q U " C U C U V) U U G1 of .Y 3 y v N N -p -0 R U M 1 O M N— N M M Y a 3 c c L O a w ro 0 O— ac G) aJ C c o O c C U w z a CO rn U = = w U w U U rn u Lu w 0 0 CL Y 2 J N M C cc rY a-� ra O v) CC C tY M 3 W m v GJ v1 M c_ ro O Y Y N Y COi) 0) G1 Q Ln O O _ an u u u Y u Y N 'r O E N N N 00 00 00 00 r^ N -Y r�0 E MOC OC CC Cr a' a' WO O O O N I-- Z U V) N CA V) V) V) V) U U U U N CC :M O O O O O O O O C'C' O O y p 6 U) 00 _4 Ln t.O n oo o6 od 00 ID "1I j Ln W 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ----I t Z -L—i Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 141 Corkscrew Groves East Village— Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1— Road Segment Analysis —December 2025 2038 Future Roadway Total Traffic Conditions (Table 7) W `-' �+ o O 0 0 o 0 0 o v v o w o 0 0 0 0 0 N J W y 2 N Z 2 } Z z Z z y y Z y Z Z Z Z 2 Z M N !E V C n Ln 0) 1D N 01 tD M '-L O O LD r` 0) M Ln N F F> O O O O O O '-I �'-� O O O O O O O co Y Y rj y 0 O O O O O O O O Ln Ln Ln O O O O O O In Iv O m` N W O O O O O O O O O Ln oo W r-I W c-1 W e-1 W O N ' q N 6 S d C W E 01 Ol Ol N 00 O W lD lA O N ^ <D 01 N r\ N N M oo e-1 ` A i F C 7 n Oo (n Oo lD Ln M W O LD N N N t0 m V m Ln v R t\ '-I eM-I E u o 3 o N ^ m n v Oo n 01 n oo F N l0 VI M oo NO N N lD �'-I C W N 'M-1 N W F F z N ^� V M N a) o N N Ln .4 01 u E CN a> O u 3 ai N o S a) N o O oo O Lv O LO N Ln t\ 01 .N-1 14 eNi C ` W 6 u Y C W M N O n M m 2 a tND n O O O m ^ V m c 9 u 7 ti A ID = u1 Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln q o N C Lb m H p Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln a Ln O V1 O V1 O v dY 7 W ... d= O` V V M V) n Ln r-I N n O V oo W ID r` a1 f` M N O W Ln .-i W V Q N 'D m M ,� V M V LD W a ti NOo O LD Oo N al N ^ f\ n t^D W Oo N a O W a 2 to lD n Ma) N LD O N V Ln N Li 1 O '-I '-I O 11 ~ mt+ L1 r Z r- m m a Q 2 _ Z Z Z ,� Ln N N N ,� ,� N Z Z Z Z Z c c L >� Y 9 V_ E OO Y Y �' C M N N LC 7 7 O n 0 Do a) 0 0) N ID ~ Ln ~ Ln M IDO O M Ol al al Q1 ` ei N 6 S d m ... N Oo N W 14 N Ln w n N MLn N .N-I ti N V V n '-I V '-I V ti V .-i V O O V a O W W W W O ~ W C o N N U C ` Cr r N V C w N 'fcCp y N O M N M CO Z Q H V M o U V N W O` U V N Cl u N N E N oo Oo 7 Y N N N O Oo 7 W OL V1 K V1 C U K Vf W Ln L U C W O U cc V1 d' Ln cc V) C W C W K Ln N C O u O W 3 O\ N U M o C_ C C W J W V V_ oO 7 >' >' ? Cr t L C C W C a ~ LL A W Y C "O O Z O U O U C M o K 7 W N a) M W > Q <T U `> C L U C v U CLn U O) C U C O a E H 3 a 7 t N a, 4/ M 7 W W Z O O o- m '5 w U W = W C S W L U C W O U M U OC Vf O U C W C W MU C O to m C_ A 'O M cc M m cc. y _O to o O_ K aC Ir W G W W N o x0 a X o jO 'Y �O Y O1 Y co U U U V W W W W O E O E V aL E D7 N Ol N al N N oo N oo N oo N Oo V al N 0 Y N Y N Y of Y a Q r F Q F E E Z M u of Ln w N Vi LY Ln w V) LY Ln cr Ln � VL O O O O .-. K# O O lD WLn L..6' lD r\ 06 00 Oo Oo ~ LD o0 00 00 W ao Co W z Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 142 Corkscrew Groves East Village- Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1 - Road Segment Analysis -December 2025 Concurrency Proportionate Share � v m (8) r^ (uolrlNO aaeyS a;euolljodOJd r ri M tM N O (L) (SUOIIIIWs N 00 00 01 M 1_0 ISO:);uawanoidwlle;o `° Ln v (9) (Sall-) 4;2ual;uaw2a 00 m m s 0 0 Ln a, c 0 (S) uol;oejj .'�i Oq o uol;dwnsuo:) :)lyeil;�afo�d r, 00 t N N 0 a ° (V) Alpedej PaPP oo -4 ;o uol;dwnsuo:) s,olj4eJl1oaroJd rry a` m O O U O A;nede:) PaPP DU) `^ 00 Ln M a) 7 u ° a ) v + C a (£) awnlOA 0 0 0 a:)lAJaS;uawanojdwl pasodOJd 0000 m 0000 v > o 4 + awnrOA aolnUaS panoadwlun o 0 0 ;e'; O; panojdwl bo ofa � c Q Y o (U C:O U N (Z) uol;eingi UO:) panOjdwl 0 0 o jo; A;loedej a SOl L algel ioaj oM L ? o ` 0 3 0- ° (Z) uol;ein8l;uo� pano�dwlu� 0 0 0 o u, jo; A;l3ede� a SOl L algel ioaj N N N 0 m `^ � C m W v 7 -0;uawanoidwl sauel;o jagwnN pasodOJd iD 00 1D a W C O °- La .� fu v ) E (T) awnlOA a:)uua5 uol;Dana o 0 0 ea jno ea anoidwlu lead H lead P n 00 00 °moo °moo v Ln a ' 0 Y ° E o v ~O E (T) u0113aS SSOJ� panoidwlun o v 0 v 0 v �CL > 0- o C (U V E C > C 0 x a H N m - O N to D 01 E a1 M, U C x a F t C I f0 C M al 'n al O O 2 O U C O ar to Q 7 ate+ C r+ C N K O LL x > a U a/ U Q u U U W W n W E i p -0 -a o v C 6 ° In > a -gyp E t�9 —0O \ N (U a• > °� L ° 0 v o Ua v a, u cc a u v v y n v x M U. C N -C U C � ` N aJ Ln n u_ L 00 aL- to s N V a) C C-C 2 J W C U W O () *� 0: Q X C j CL u H U y W y W w U M 3 Y 'p C J N 00 N 00 N 00C) oN a a Q E o .v O E on E o0 .v O 0 H a Ln va'i 0- !n In Ln ti y N M API lD nco W K� O O O Q 00 00 00 00 00 O Z Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 143 Transportation Impact Fees Land Use Size Unit Road Impact Road Impact Fee per Unit Fees Single -Family 2,847 DU $ 8,090 $ 23,032,230 Detached (<4ksf) Multi- Family Housing (Low- 1,279 DU $ 6,950 $ 8,889,050 Rise, 1-2 floors) Governmental/ 70,000 5F $ - $ - Institutional Retail (>25 KSF) 283,500 SF $ 13.774 $ 3,904,929 TOTAL $ 35,826,209 SOURCE: Collier County Residential and Commercial Impact Fees Effective December 1, 2024. o■aaaaa�eeeoeseeeeeeeee� a■■■�■tea■■a■■e■■■■■■■■ ■■■gee■�■■a■■a■aa■■■■■■� ■■■■■e■■■tea■■ease■■■e■ate ■■a■■■e■■tea■■ma■tea■■■Munn ems ■■asaa■e■■■m�a■a■■eaaesa ee■e■esseeeeeevawe■eee■� eeea�■seas■a■woseevaae ��■lea■■e� ■■n■e■ae■tee va°a■esa��a�eo�aao�� ■aea0�■��e�■■■■ate■■■■■� ■tea■■■■■■■■■��■�■■� o■■ose�eeaaaaom�s ■■aa■■■■■�aas■0000eo■■ ee�eeo■eon°a°�i°s°a°��a°a- ii■ii�ii��ei��"ii��ii��i ■■■a■■ae■eaaaa�en�■0s000 ■a■■■ass■aa■a■■■■■aevave End of Section 1 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) TRAFFIC IMPACTMENT STATEMENT SECTION 1, EXHIBIT A CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) TRAFFIC IMPACTMENT STATEMENT SECTION 1, EXHIBIT B CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) TRAFFIC IMPACTMENT STATEMENT - SECTION 2 0 TREBILCOCK CONSULTING SOLUTIONS Traffic Impact Statement Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area Section 2 - Intersection Analysis Collier County, Florida 12/22/2025 Prepared for: Alico, Inc. 10070 Daniels Interstate Court, Suite 200 Ft Myers, FL 33913 Phone: 239-226-2000 Prepared by: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-566-9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 1 Corkscrew Groves fast Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Statement of Certification I certify that this Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. ENSF''CO� 2: No 47116ir 0'. STATE OF /O E ,'INAI � .` Digitally signed by Norman Trebilcock DN: c=US, st=Florida, o=Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA, sn=Trebilcock, givenName=Norman, cn=Norman Trebilcock, email=ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Date: 2025.12.22 16:05:04-05'00' Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, PTOE, PE FL Registration No. 47116 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 PRINTED COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT ARE NOT CONSIDERED SIGNED AND SEALED AND THE SIGNATURE MUST BE VERIFIED ON ANY ELECTRONIC COPIES. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 12 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Table of Contents Description...................................................................................................................................... 4 Intersection Geometry — Improvement Considerations................................................................ 5 IntersectionTraffic Volumes........................................................................................................... 7 Intersection Capacity Analyses..................................................................................................... 12 Intersection LOS Impacts and Improvements.............................................................................. 15 SR 29/SR 29 Bypass and CR 846 Intersection.............................................................................. 20 Improvement Analysis and Mitigation......................................................................................... 23 Appendices Appendix A: Existing Intersection Lanes Configuration............................................................... 24 Appendix B: Intersection Traffic Counts...................................................................................... 33 Appendix C: Projected Traffic at Subject Intersections............................................................... 52 Appendix D: Existing Programmed Signal Timings (Excerpts) .................................................. 128 Appendix E: SR 82 Widening —Approved Contract Plans (Excerpts) ......................................... 135 Appendix F: Intersection Analyses — Synchro Reports.............................................................. 146 Appendix G: SR 29/CR 846 Intersection — Stage 1 + ICE Traffic Memorandum (Excerpts) ....... 249 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 13 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 1— Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Description The purpose of this report is to evaluate traffic operations for the following intersections located in Collier County: 1. Immokalee Rd (15` St) and SR 29 (Main St) 2. SR 82 and Church Rd 3. SR 82 and Corkscrew Rd 4. SR 29 and Westclox St/New Market Rd 5. Westclox St and Carson Rd 6. SR 29 (151h St) and Lake Trafford Rd 7. New Market Rd and Escambia St 8. SR 29 and CR 846 Consistent with the companion document titled Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) — Section 1, year 2048 is selected as the buildout analysis year to evaluate the potential transportation impacts. Traffic analyses are conducted at the subject intersections for the AM and PM peak hour average weekday traffic conditions based on the following scenarios: - Existing Traffic — 2025 for all but SR 29 & CR 846 (2024) - Future 2048 Background Traffic - Future 2048 with Project Traffic - Future 2048 with Project Traffic with Mitigation, as applicable This analysis utilizes data from two travel demand model (District 1 Regional Travel Model or D1RPM) runs: • One for 2045 background traffic volumes used to establish growth rates on road segments used to adjust current peak season peak hour turning movement counts to future conditions; and • One containing the project used to determine the distribution of project traffic. At the County's request, the two models used for this report are different from the ones used in the TIS Section 1 for this project. The difference is the replacement of two connectors between New Market Rd. and the future SR 29 By -Pass in Immokalee shown in the adopted 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) with a single one at Alachua Street. There is thus no consistency in either the distribution pattern of project traffic used in the two reports (Section 1 and this one) or in the growth rates used to estimate future road segment volumes. This effect is most noticeable near the network change and less so further from it. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 14 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Intersection Geometry - Improvement Considerations Intersection Geometry Configuration The existing intersection geometry configurations are depicted in this report based on field observations as illustrated in Appendix A. As an initial step, the intersection analyses for future traffic conditions reflect existing lane configuration. The future intersection geometry may be reconfigured to address committed roadway improvements and/or existing transportation deficiencies, as applicable. County and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Turn Lane Requirements Church Road is under Hendry County jurisdiction. The impacted segments along SR 82 and SR 29 are FDOT maintained facilities. The rest of the impacted roadways analyzed in this report are under Collier County jurisdiction. Without other guidance, the Lee County Turn Lane Policy AC-11-4 is used as the basis for turn lane warrant evaluation and recommendation for Church Road. For Collier County maintained facilities, turn lanes are required and must be constructed whenever the following conditions exist (Resolution 2016-136, Collier County Construction Standards Handbook, Section III A —Separate Turn Lane Requirements): a) Two-lane Roadways - Left -turn lanes must be provided whenever the left turn volume is 20 vehicles or more - Right -turn lanes must be provided whenever the right turn volume is 40 vehicles or more b) Multi -lane Divided Roadways - When new median openings are permitted, they shall always include left -turn lanes - Right -turn lanes shall always be provided For FDOT maintained facilities, the latest adopted FDOT Multimodal Access Management Guidebook is utilized to determine if turn lanes are warranted for unsignalized intersections. Turn lanes guidelines for signalized intersection are presented in the FDOT Design Manual (FDM), Chapter 232. These requirements are considered for the analyzed signalized intersections. As such, for a signalized intersection, double left -turn lanes are considered where the left -turn volumes exceed 300 vehicles per hour (vph). In addition, double right -turn lanes are considered appropriate at signalized intersections with significantly high right -turn volumes that cannot be adequately served in a single lane. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 15 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Non -Project Related Improvements Intersection Committed Improvements Consistent with the Collier County's Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and Procedures, roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the five- year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital Improvement Program (CIP) are considered committed improvements. Because the analysis year is 2048, all Long -Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Cost Feasible improvements through 2045 are considered committed. FY25 — FY29 Five -Year Work Program/CIE and FY 26 — FY 30 TIP - With potential impact to study intersections, the document depicts the following committed road improvements: — SR 82 — widening from 2-lane to 4-lane from Hendry County line to Gator Slough (#4308481 — CST FY23) — SR 29 — widening from 2-lane to 4-lane from north of New Market Rd to SR 82, including intersection improvements at New Market Rd/Westclox St (#417540-6 — CST FY 27) — SR 29 By-pass — new 4-lane road from CR 846E to north of New Market Rd (#417540-5 — CST FY 27) Collier 2045 LRTP — Highway Cost Feasible Plan — The adopted Collier County 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan LRTP (December 2020) Highway Cost Feasible Plan contains the following pertinent improvements: a) Highway Improvements 2026-2030 — not applicable b) Highway Improvements 2031-2035 — not applicable c) Highway Improvements 2036-2045 — Westclox St — extending west from Carson Rd. to Little League Rd Improvements to Address Transportation Deficiencies In agreement with Florida Statute, the developer is not responsible for addressing transportation deficiencies which occur regardless of the project's traffic. The improvement necessary to correct the transportation deficiency is the funding responsibility of the entity that has maintenance responsibility for the facility. Per Florida Statute, the term transportation deficiency means a facility or facilities on which the adopted level -of -service (LOS) standard is exceeded by the existing, committed, and vested trips, plus additional projected background trips from any source other than the development project under review, and trips that are forecast by established traffic standards, including traffic modeling. The improvements needed to restore subject intersections to a minimum acceptable LOS include the addition of geometric improvements such as turn or through lanes. The improvements proposed in this Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA r d g e 16 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 report are intended to address the minimum LOS requirement for a specific deficiency and are not intended to optimize the overall intersection performance. In addition, turn lane improvements that meet the adopted turn lane requirements under the projected background traffic are considered non -project -related improvements for the purpose of this report. Project Related Improvements Consistent with Florida Statute, the analysis of the project traffic impacts assume that turn lanes and other improvements needed to correct transportation deficiencies without the project traffic would be in place prior to the addition of project traffic. The analysis reflects applicable additional project -related improvements which meet the adopted turn lane requirements or are needed to restore the LOS to the adopted standard. Intersection Traffic Volumes 2025 Background Traffic Conditions To support the traffic analysis, at all but one intersection. turning movement counts were conducted on Thursday, June S, 2025. AM and PM peak period turning movement data were collected in 15-minute intervals from 7-9 AM, and from 4-6 PM. At the intersection of SR 29 and CR 846, turning movement count data were collected January 23, 2024 (also at Main St and New Market Rd., see below for explanation). A summary of the intersection turning movement counts is provided in Appendix B: Intersection Traffic Counts. Traffic count volumes collected are adjusted for peak season conditions by using the peak season conversion factor (PSCF) for the week of the count as illustrated in the latest FDOT Peak Season Factor Category Report (Appendix C). At any intersection involving either SR 82 or SR 29, a single PSCF from that report was used for all approaches consistent with the week of the counts (1.16). At other intersections, the countywide value was used (1.20). At SR 29 intersections with New Market Rd. and CR 846, the PSCF used was 1.04). 2048 Background Traffic Conditions In both TIS Section 1 and this report, future background traffic volumes are used to estimate the growth rate in roadway segment volumes. Appendix C contains a Growth Rates Table containing the segment growth rates used in this analysis, which are not consistent with those used in Section 1 as explained above. At each intersection, the growth rate for each leg was weighted by the total existing approach volume's share of the total intersection approach volume and the resulting products summed to produce a volume weighted average growth rate that was applied to all movements. This method results in an Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA r a g e 1 7 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 average rate that is most similar to the growth rate projected for the heaviest approach volumes, with more noticeable adjustments to the growth rates predicted for the minor approach volumes. Example: At the Immokalee Rd and SR 29 (Main St) intersection, the total existing PM peak season approach volume is 2,176 (Appendix C). For the four legs of the intersection, the corresponding approach volumes and projected annual growth rates are: • NB: 1,042 vehicles, 2.3% • SB: 328 vehicles, 0.9% • EB: 459 vehicles, 1.6% • WB: 347 vehicles, 1.6% The weighted average growth rate is 1,042/2,176 * 2.3% + 328/2,176 * 0.9% + 459/2,176 * 1.6% + 347/2,176 * 1.6% = 1.8%. The weighted average growth rate was calculated using the PM peak approach volumes as the basis for the weights given to each approach's growth rate. The resulting average growth rate is also used to adjust the existing AM peak turning movements into the future. While the different collection of AM volumes would produce a different set of weights and a different weighted average rate, the assumption here is that traffic will not grow at different rates in the two peak periods. This growth rate, compounded annually for 23 (for 2025 counts) or 24 (for 2024 counts) years, is used to estimate 2048 background traffic volumes. While all the growth rates, link and average, are shown to one decimal place, the calculations are done with all decimals, so using only the decimals shown will yield slightly different results. The Volume Development Tables in Appendix C contains the 2015 and 2045 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes from which the link growth rates are derived. In order to preserve consistency in background traffic directional volumes along SR 82, the growth rate used at the two intersections on it is the average of the two results at the Church Rd. and Corkscrew Rd. intersections. SR 29/ CR 846 Intersection On January 23, 2024, turning movements were counted at this intersection and also at the intersection of SR 29/Main St. at New Market Rd. By the analysis year, the intersection of SR 29 at CR 846 is assumed to include a north leg: a new SR 29 Bypass facility. New Market Rd. is the existing SR 29 Bypass route. Presently, the two intersections function together to provide all the connectivity to bypassing traffic that will in the future all occur at the CR 846 intersection. For this reason, the rate used to predict the growth in approach volumes at the CR 846 intersection was a weighted average of the SB and EB approaches at the New Market Rd. intersection, and the NB and WB approaches at the CR 846 intersection. The approach volumes on Main St. between the two intersections were ignored because they will change significantly when the bypassing traffic no longer uses that segment in either direction. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 18 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 All the page numbers below are within Appendix C. The table on page 77 develops existing peak season volumes for the currently configured intersection (#8) of SR 29 at CR 846. It sums the existing PM peak period volumes of the northbound and westbound approaches, and also the sums of the products of those volumes multiplied by the respective growth rates on the approach legs. Those sums (volumes and products) appear at the right-hand edge labeled "Total." The sums labeled "Twin" are from the intersection (#1) of New Market Rd. and Main St., from the table on page 76. At that intersection, the summing exercise is on the volumes and growth rates on only the eastbound and southbound approaches. At that intersection, those sums are labeled "Total," and the "Twin" sums are from the intersection SR 29 at CR 846 intersection. When the sum of four volume*growth rate products (EB and SB from New Market Rd., NB and WB from CR 846) is divided by the sum of the four approach volumes, the volume weighted average growth rate is 2.9%. When that growth rate is assumed to the analysis year 2048, the resulting PM peak period NB and WB approach volumes at the SR 29/CR 846 intersection are 1123 and 495 respectively. The SB and EB approach volumes from the Main St./ New Market Rd. intersection are 339 and 696 respectively. AM period turning movement volumes were grown to the analysis year using the same growth rate of 2.9%. To divide the future approach volumes into turning movements, the existing turning movement splits at either intersection are of limited usefulness. Instead, the apportionment of AADT in the 2045 D1RPM background traffic volumes was used to divide the future peak hour approach volumes. Appendix C contains four select link assignment plots showing the percentage split of each leg's traffic among the other three legs. Project Traffic at Subject Intersections For the intersections in the Immokalee area, the project traffic distribution pattern used to determine the turning movements is the pattern formed when all project zones' traffic is combined. The with -project D1RPM run included six traces of zonal trips: one for each of the TAZs representing the two villages (3001 - 3006). The six volumes from the new zones were summed and form the numerator of the distribution percentage. The denominator in the distribution percentage calculation for link attribute CG_EXT_PCT ensures that the highlighted percentages in Figure 1 sum to 100. At the perimeter of the project area and beyond they are suitable for multiplying by net new traffic totals, which have had internal capture trips removed. In this type of analysis, on any road segment approaching a subject intersection, all the entering trips are on one side of the road, and all the exiting trips are on the opposite side. In Appendix C the distribution percentages described above are applied to the total net new traffic at most of the subject intersections. The AM and PM total net new traffic due to the proposed amendment is shown in Appendix C. Close to the project, the method above breaks down because traffic entering some zones can occur on the same side of segments as trips exiting from other zones. At the intersections of SR 82 with Church Rd. and Corkscrew Rd., a different method was necessary. Exhibit A contains six exhibits, one for each of Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA F a g, 19 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 the new project zones showing the same perimeter distribution percentages highlighted in Figure 1. (Link attributes CG_01_EXT_PCT through CG_06_EXT_PCT). In each exhibit the sum of the highlighted percentages sum to 100.0% plus or minus 0.2% at most. Those distribution patterns are applied separately to the peak hour net new traffic estimates from the individual zones, and the results summed to estimate project traffic at the two intersections. Appendix C contains a pair of tables showing how the total net -new peak hour traffic from the entire project was apportioned to the six zones. The apportionment relies on the daily traffic information from the D1RPM used to determine the total project internal capture rate, a mix of intra-zonal and inter -zonal captures. All of these distribution patterns were produced on the network requested by the County. A companion PDF document (Exhibit A) contains, in order: the distribution pattern for the sum of all six zones in the Immokalee area, individual distribution pattern plots for the six zones, and plots of D1RPM 2015 and 2045 AADT volumes used to estimate segment growth rates. The combination of font size and page size is intended to keep needed information legible without overlap when viewed (sufficiently enlarged) in a PDF viewer but not when printed (page size 92" x 92"). Appendix C contains the turning movement volume development related data in this order: 1. MOT PSFC Report for 2024. 2. Table of segment growth rates 3. Net new trip estimates for total project and individual zones 4. Tables developing individual zone turning movements at the two SR 82 intersections 5. Volume Development Tables for all intersections 6. Exhibits for all intersections Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 10 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T/S Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Figure 1- External Net New Traffic Distribution — All Zones N l0 Uy CL E N N O C N � m U m a! O n J N O CD W O N 9, N � N � H I I ry N S � Z IL � Y o rQi Q 0 N M t 0 5n 01 J CO U»n4J fo J CO f h 0 0 Ep w ter - — —� In 'R 0 o � m¢ o � Ory 0 gg 8�rn 1. 9 N r.9 q) C N U U f0 H ti 0) O a r 0 z Trebileoek Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 11 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Intersection Capacity Analyses An assessment of the Level of Service (LOS) and volume to capacity (V/C) ratio analysis of the subject intersections are conducted using Synchro software, Version 11. Synchro computes the signalized intersection, unsignalized intersection, and arterial LOS according to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). For signalized intersections, Synchro provides the user with two additional LOS methods: Synchro's Percentile Delay Method and the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method. The Percentile Delay Method uses the same numerical delay thresholds as the HCM. In most situations, the delays calculated by the Synchro Percentile and HCM methodologies are similar and will be within a few seconds of each other. One of the key differences between the two methods (Synchro vs HCM) is the Right -Turn -On -Red (RTOR) operation. In the HCM methods, the RTOR is a volume input by the user and is used as a volume reduction (not a capacity increase). As illustrated in the HCM 6, Volume 4, Chapter 31, page 31-121, the treatment of RTOR operation in the motorized vehicle methodology is simplistic. In addition, HCM 6th Edition states that it may be preferable to use an alternative tool to evaluate RTOR operation. Based on these considerations, the subject signalized intersections are evaluated in this report based on the Synchro Percentile Method, while the unsignalized intersection operations are assessed based on HCM 61h Edition methodologies. LOS Criteria LOS is defined in terms of the average vehicle delay. Vehicle delay is a method of quantifying several intangible factors, including driver discomfort, frustration, and lost travel time. Specifically, LOS criteria are stated in terms of average delay per vehicle during a specified period (e.g. PM peak hour). Vehicle delay is a complex measure based on many variables, including signal phasing (i.e. progression of movements through the intersection), signal cycle length, and traffic volumes with respect to intersection capacity. The HCM control delay is used as the basis for determining LOS, ranging from LOS A to LOS F using the delay ranges for signalized intersections. Based on HCM guidelines, the general description of each LOS is as follows: LOS A — free flow; LOS B — stable flow with slight delays, LOS C — stable flow with acceptable delays, LOS D — approaching unstable flow with tolerable delay and unfavorable progression, LOS E — unstable flow with intolerable delay and poor progression to all movements, and LOS F — forced flow (congested and queues fail to clear) and poor progression to all movements. For the purposes of this report, an adequate LOS for each movement is considered when the LOS E is not exceeded. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 12 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 202S Signalized intersections Signalized intersection LOS is defined in terms of the average total vehicle delay of all movements through an intersection. Unsignalized Intersections All -way, stop -controlled intersection LOS is expressed in terms of the average vehicle delay of all the movements, much like that of a signalized intersection. For two-way stop -controlled intersections, the LOS is defined in terms of the average control delay for each minor -street movement (or shared movement) as well as major -street left -turns. This is because the performance of a two-way, stop -controlled intersection is more closely reflected in terms of its individual movements, rather than its performance overall. For this reason, LOS for a two-way, stop - controlled intersection is defined in terms of its individual movements. Volume to Capacity Ratio The volume to capacity ratio (V/C), also referred to as degree of saturation, represents the sufficiency of an intersection to accommodate the vehicular demand. A V/C ratio less than 0.85 generally indicates that adequate capacity is available and vehicles are not expected to experience significant queues and delays. As the V/C ratio approaches 1.0, traffic flow may become unstable, and delay and queuing conditions may occur. Once the demand exceeds the capacity (a V/C ratio greater than 1.0), traffic flow is unstable and excessive delay and queuing is expected. Under these conditions vehicles may require more than one signal cycle to pass through the intersection (known as cycle failure). For design purposes, a V/C ratio between 0.85 and 0.95 is generally utilized for the peak hour of the horizon year. As such, each intersection movement is analyzed to ensure that the threshold value of V/C failure (1.0) is not exceeded. HCM — Individual Traffic Movements — Control Delay and WC ratio Per HCM 61h Edition, Chapter 19/Signalized Intersections, page 19-15, LOS E for individual movements at signalized intersections describes operations with control delay between 55 and 80 s/veh and a volume - to -capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. The LOS criteria for Two -Way Stop -Controlled (TWSC) and All -Way Stop -Controlled (AWSC) intersections are presented in HCM 61h Edition, Exhibit 20-2 for TWSC intersections and Exhibit 21-8 for AWSC intersections. Per HCM 6th Edition, LOS E for individual movements at unsignalized intersections (TWSC and AWSC) describes operations with control delay between 35 and 50 s/veh and a volume -to -capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 13 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Collier County — Individual Traffic Movements — Control Delay and V/C ratio In agreement with Collier County Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and Procedures, Section 13, the average control delays up to 100 seconds are considered acceptable for individual turning movements and through movements where the corresponding V/C ratio is less than 0.8. Capacity Analysis Parameters Signal Timings The existing programmed signal timings at current signalized intersections were provided by Collier County Transportation staff. For details refer to Appendix D. Some of the analyzed intersections are currently unsignalized. Based on documentation provided in this report, signalization may be evaluated as the intersection control strategy that could provide adequate traffic operations. The intersection analyses for each scenario used signal timing adjustments aimed at eliminating or reducing operational deficiencies without requiring geometric improvements. Where operational deficiencies could not be avoided with signal optimization, geometric improvements were identified, and signal phasing and timing adjustments were made to accommodate the recommended improvement(s). When applicable, the proposed signal timings agree with the latest FDOT signal design and operations standards. In addition, the proposed signal phasing and timings are intended to address the minimum LOS requirement for a specific deficiency and are not intended to optimize the overall intersection performance. Percent Heavy Vehicle The Percent Heavy Vehicle (PHV) is the percentage of trucks expected to use the roadway segment during the peak hour. The intersection analyses reflect the 2025 counted peak hour truck percentages (Appendix B). Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor (PHF) is the ratio of the hourly volume to the peak 15-minute flow rate for that hour. The FDOT's Generalized Service Volume Tables utilize a PHF of 0.92 for the C2 (Rural) and C3R (Suburban Residential) context classifications, and a PHF of 0.95 for the C2T (Rural Town) and CK (Suburban Commercial) context classifications, as referenced in the 2023 Q/LOS Handbook, Section 6.3, Table 5. The intersection analyses for the existing 2025 traffic conditions reflect the 2025 counted PHF values calculated based on the traffic volumes collected (Appendix B). Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 14 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 According to the HCM data, the PHF generally increases as the traffic level increases. Based on the projected vehicular volumes and general increase in development growth in the analyzed area, current counted PHF data and engineering judgement, this intersection analysis utilizes the following minimum PHF values for all future 2048 analyses: 0.95 for the two intersections located on SR 82 and 0.92 for all other intersections. Synchro Analyses Results Traffic analyses are conducted at the subject intersections for the AM and PM peak hour, average weekday traffic conditions. Synchro intersection worksheets are provided in Appendix F: Intersection Analyses — Synchro Reports Intersection LOS Impacts and Improvements Delay and LOS are reported for the analyzed intersections as Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) used in evaluation. Intersection Analysis — Existing 2025 Traffic Table 1 summarizes the results of the intersection analyses for the existing year 2025 traffic conditions. The analysis reflects the existing intersection geometry configurations. Table 1 Existing 2025 Traffic — LOS Analysis Summary Study Intersection Control Type AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Immokalee Rd (15Y St) and SR 29 (Main St) Signal 25.9 C 25.8 C SR 82 and Church Rd TWSC 22.4 C 33.3 D SR 82 and Corkscrew Rd TWSC 97.1 F >300 F SR 29 and Westclox St/New Market Rd Signal 37.0 D 50.6 D Westclox St and Carson Rd AWSC 12.6 B 11.3 B SR 29 and Lake Trafford Rd Signal 24.0 C 31.6 C New Market Rd and Escambia St TWSC 17.7 C 20.8 C Note(s): 1. HCM 6`h Edition outputs are presented in this table for the unsignalized intersections. 2. Synchro Percentile Delay Method is utilized for the signalized intersections. 3. At TWSC intersections, the worst movement results (delay and LOS) are reported. 4.Overall intersection delay and LOS results are reported for the signalized and AWSC intersections. 5. TWSC = Two-way Stop Control; AWSC = All -Way Stop Control. Except for the intersection of SR 82 and Corkscrew Rd, the intersection analysis for the existing 2025 traffic shows that the study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 15 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Intersection Analysis — Future 2048 Background Traffic — Existing Geometry and Traffic Control Table 2 summarizes the results of the intersection analyses for the future 2048 background traffic conditions (without project). The analysis reflects the existing intersection geometry configurations. As previously mentioned in this report, the following intersections are not included in Table 2 as they are scheduled to be improved as part of the SR 82 widening project: - SR 82 and Church Rd - SR 82 and Corkscrew Rd Table 2 Future 2048 Background Traffic — without Non -Project -Related Improvements — LOS Analysis Summary Study Intersection Control Type AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Immokalee Rd (11t St) and SR 29 (Main St) Signal 38.9 D 43.3 D SR 29 and Westclox St/New Market Rd Signal 146.8 F 118.7 F Westclox St and Carson Rd AWSC 62.7 F 49.7 F SR 29 and Lake Trafford Rd Signal 26.7 C 62.4 E New Market Rd and Escambia St TWSC 14.5 B 15.8 C Note(s): 1. HCM 6th Edition outputs are presented in this table for the unsignalized intersections. 2. Synchro Percentile Delay Method is utilized for the signalized intersections. 3. At TWSC intersections, the worst movement results (delay and LOS) are reported. 4. Overall intersection delay and LOS results are reported for the signalized and AWSC intersections. 5. TWSC = Two-way Stop Control; AWSC = All -Way Stop Control. The intersection analyses for the future 2048 background traffic conditions (without project) show that the following intersections are anticipated to operate at a deficient LOS: - SR 29 and Westclox St/New Market Rd - Westclox St and Carson Rd Intersection Analysis — Future 2045 Background Traffic — with Non -Project -Related Improvements This analysis assumes that beyond committed improvements, code -required turn lane additions and/or other intersection control improvements needed to correct the existing transportation deficiencies detected would be in place prior to the addition of the project traffic. Immokalee Rd WL St) and SR 29 (Main St) Intersection The subject intersection is projected to operate at an acceptable LOS under the 2048 background traffic conditions. Based on the adopted turn lane standards for signalized intersections, a second northbound left -turn lane is considered on Immokalee Rd (northbound left -turns = 516 trips PM peak hour). Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 16 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 SR 82 and Church Rd For the purposes of this report, the approved roadway improvements depicted in the 2022 Phase IV Contract Plans associated with the SR 82 segment from Hendry County line to Gator Slough Lane are considered committed improvements. Consistent with the approved contract plans for the SR 82 widening project (reference Appendix E), the following committed roadway improvement are considered in place: - SR 82 — widening from 2-lane to 4-lane roadway, one eastbound left -turn lane and one westbound U-turn Lane Additional Improvement #1 - Based on the FDOT and County (Lee County Turn Lane Policy AC-11-4 is applied for Church Rd) turn lane standards, the following geometric improvements are considered warranted under the 2048 background traffic conditions: - SR 82 — add one westbound right -turn lane - Church Rd — add one southbound right -turn lane on Church Road Additional Improvement #2 - With the above intersection improvements in place, the intersection is projected to operate at a deficient LOS. A conventional traffic signal is considered to address the intersection 2048 LOS deficiency at this location. SR 82 and Corkscrew Rd Consistent with the approved contract plans for the SR 82 widening project (reference Appendix E), the following committed roadway improvement are considered in place: - SR 82 — widening from 2-lane to 4-lane roadway, one eastbound U-turn lane, one eastbound right -turn lane and one westbound left -turn lane - Intersection — signalization Additional Improvement — Based on the adopted turn lane standards for signalized intersections, the following intersection improvements are considered: - SR 82 - a second westbound left -turn lane (westbound left -turns = 353 trips AM peak hour) - Corkscrew Rd - a second northbound left -turn lane (northbound left -turns = 365 trips PM peak hour); one transition area south of SR 82 from two through lanes to one through lane SR 92 and Westclox/New Market Rd As previously shown in this report, intersection improvements are scheduled for this location. These improvements will provide widening from one lane to two lanes on each approach on SR 29. Additional Improvement - Based on the FDOT and Collier County turn lane standards, the following geometric improvements are considered: SR 92 — a second southbound left -turn lane (southbound left -turns = 884 trips AM peak hour) New Market Rd — a second westbound right -turn lane (westbound right -turns = 727 trips PM peak hour) Westclox St — add one eastbound right -turn lane Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 17 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Westclox St and Carson Rd A conventional traffic signal is considered to address the intersection 2048 LOS deficiency at this location. Based on the Collier County turn lane standards, the following intersection improvements are considered: - Westclox St - one westbound left -turn lane (westbound left -turns = 213 trips PM peak hour) and one eastbound left -turn lane (eastbound left -turns = 20 trips AM peak hour) - Carson Rd - one northbound left -turn lane (northbound left -turns = 276 trips AM peak hour) and one southbound left -turn lane (southbound left -turns = 56 trips AM peak hour) SR 29 and Lake Trafford Rd Intersection The subject intersection is projected to operate at an acceptable LOS under the 2048 background traffic conditions. It is noted that per TIS Section 1 findings, the subject SR 29 segments are adversely impacted by the project traffic. The developer proposes to mitigate the road impacts through the concurrency fair share commitments as described in the TIS Section 1. As previously shown in this report, intersection improvements are scheduled for this location. These improvements will provide widening from one lane to two lanes on each approach on SR 29. Based on the adopted turn lane standards for signalized intersections, a second northbound left -turn lane is considered on SR 29 (northbound left -turns = 396 trips PM peak hour). As a result, one transition area on Lake Trafford Rd, west of SR 29 from two through lanes to one through lane is required. Table 3 summarizes the results of the intersection analyses for the future 2048 background traffic conditions (without project) with non -project -related improvements in place. With the non -project - related improvements in place, the analyzed intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS under the future year 2048 traffic conditions. Table 3 Future 2048 Background Traffic — with Non -Project -Related Improvements — LOS Analysis Summary Study Intersection Control Type AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Immokalee Rd (15t St) and SR 29 (Main St) Signal 32.7 C 43.8 D SR 82 and Church Rd Signal 13.1 B 11.8 B SR 82 and Corkscrew Rd Signal 15.6 B 19.1 B SR 29 and Westclox St/New Market Rd Signal 32.0 C 27.0 C Westclox St and Carson Rd Signal 16.4 B 14.9 B SR 29 and Lake Trafford Rd Signal 20.1 C 25.2 C Note(s): 1. Synchro Percentile Delay Method is utilized for the signalized intersections. 2. Overall intersection delay and LOS results are reported for the signalized intersections. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 18 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Intersection Analysis — Future 2048 with Project Traffic Table 4 summarizes the results of the intersection analyses for the future 2048 with project traffic conditions, with non -project -related improvements in place as presented in the previous section of this report, as applicable. The following intersections are anticipated to operate at a deficient LOS: - SR 82 and Church Rd - SR 82 and Corkscrew Rd Table 4 Future 2048 with Project Traffic — LOS Analysis Summary Study Intersection Control Type AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Immokalee Rd (15t St) and SR 29 (Main St) Signal 34.9 C 47.9 D SR 82 and Church Rd Signal 151.5 F 119.9 F SR 82 and Corkscrew Rd Signal 108.8 F 95.4 F SR 29 and Westclox St/New Market Rd Signal 36.8 D 39.2 D Westclox St and Carson Rd Signal 19.3 B 20.7 C SR 29 and Lake Trafford Rd Signal 21.8 C 28.7 C New Market Rd and Escambia St TWSC 18.1 C 29.8 D Note(s): 1. HCM 6ch Edition outputs are presented in this table for the unsignalized intersections. 2. Synchro Percentile Delay Method is utilized for the signalized intersections. 3. At TWSC intersections, the worst movement results (delay and LOS) are reported. 4. Overall intersection delay and LOS results are reported for the signalized intersections. S. TWSC = Two-way Stop Control. Intersection Analysis— Future 2045 with Project Traffic —with Project -Related Improvements SR 82 and Church Rd As shown in the TIS Section 1, the SR 82 segment from Hendry County Line to SR 29 is projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard with the addition of the project traffic. To address the LOS deficiency on the impacted SR 82 segments, the intersection geometry will reflect three westbound and three eastbound through lanes on SR 82 and one transition area on each impacted approach from three through lanes to two through lanes on SR 82. With the addition of the project traffic, a dedicated eastbound right -turn lane on SR 82 is recommended. In addition, based on the adopted turn lane standards for signalized intersections, a second westbound left -turn lane is recommended on SR 82 (westbound left -turns = 334 trips PM peak hour). Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a 119 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 SR 82 and Corkscrew Rd As shown in the TIS Section 1, the SR 82 segment from Hendry County Line to SR 29 is projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard with the addition of the project traffic. To address the LOS deficiency on the impacted SR 82 segments, the intersection geometry will reflect three westbound and three eastbound through lanes on SR 82 and one transition area on each impacted approach from three through lanes to two through lanes on SR 82. With the addition of the project traffic, one westbound right -turn lane on SR 82 is recommended. Table 5 summarizes the results of the intersection analyses for the future 2048 with project traffic conditions, with project -related improvements in place, as applicable. Table 5 Future 2048 with Project Traffic — with Project -Related Improvements — LOS Analysis Summary Study Intersection Control Type AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS SR 82 and Church Rd Signal 34.3 C 29.1 C SR 82 and Corkscrew Rd Signal 39.1 D 37.9 D Note(s): 1. Synchro Percentile Delay Method is utilized for the signalized intersections. 2. Overall intersection delay and LOS results are reported for the signalized intersections. As illustrated in Table 5, the analyzed intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS. SR 29/SR 29 Bypass and CR 846 Intersection As documented in the 12/18/2023 Stage 1 + ICE Technical Memorandum prepared for the SR 29/ CR 846 intersection, a five -legged roundabout is the recommended intersection control strategy for the subject location. The 2023 Memorandum provides an intersection peak hour volume comparison of the 2017 peak hour volumes and 75% of the 2045 peak hour volumes (as referenced in Table 6 of the 2023 Technical Memorandum). Relevant excerpts from the subject Memorandum are provided in Appendix G. The 2023 Memorandum concluded that the proposed roundabout could accommodate approximately 75% of the 2045 AM and PM peak hour volumes. Table 6 illustrates a comparison of the 75% x 2045 peak hour volumes and movement percentages (as documented in the 2023 Memorandum) and the future 2048 with project total volumes and movement percentages calculated based on the methodology presented in this report (Appendix C). Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 120 Corkscrew Groves fast Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Table 6 SR 29/SR 29 Bypass at CR 846 - Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Comparison Study Intersection M AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 75% of 2045 Vol' Mvt / 2048 V012 Mvt / 75%of 2045 Vol' M 2048 Vol, Mvt SR 29 NB LT 345 40.5% 216 30.8% 391 39.7% 377 33.6% N B TH 363 42.6% 455 64.9% 520 52.7% 694 61.8% NB RT 144 16.9% 30 4.3% 75 7.6% 52 4.6% Approach NB 852 701 986 1,123 CR 846 WB LT 86 25.0% 29 12.9% 155 22.6% 66 13.4% WB TH 136 39.5% 109 48.7% 312 45.5% 253 51.2% WB RT 122 35.5% 86 38.4% 218 31.8% 175 35.4% Approach WB 344 224 685 494 SR 29 Bypass SB LT 218 25.4% 71 10.1% 122 20.0% 36 10.6% SB TH 496 57.8% 375 53.3% 330 54.1% 182 53.7% SB RT 144 16.8% 258 36.6% 158 25.9% 121 35.7% Approach SB 858 704 610 339 SR 29 EB LT 135 15.7% 541 46.6% 140 22.1% 311 44.7% EB TH 330 38.2% 212 18.3% 137 21.5% 132 19.0% EB RT 398 46.1% 407 35.1% 359 56.4% 253 36.3% Approach EB 863 1,160 636 696 Intersection ALL 2,917 2,789 2,917 2,652 Note(s): Mvt = Movement; Vol = Volume 1. As documented in the 12/18/2023 Stage 1 + ICE Technical Memorandum, Table 6 - reference Appendix G. 2. Per methodology described in this report and Appendix C. Based on the data presented in Table 6, the 2048 future with project AM and PM peak traffic volumes are approximately 5% and 9% lower than the 75% x 2045 AM and PM peak hour volumes, respectively (as documented in the 2023 Memorandum). As documented in the 2023 Memorandum, the 75% of the 2045 peak hour volumes are 203.36% and 139.48% higher than the 2017 AM and PM peak hour volumes, respectively. These 2045 future volumes represent AM and PM peak hour linear growth rates of 7.26% and 4.98%, respectively. Utilizing the same methodology for the year 2048, the documented 75% of the 2045 peak hour volumes (2,917 AM peak hour and 2,917 PM peak hour volumes) are 203.36% and 139.48% higher than the 2017 AM and PM peak hour volumes, respectively. These 2048 future volumes represent AM and PM peak hour linear growth rates of 6.57% and 4.51%, respectively. Based on our review of the projected 2048 future with project total traffic volumes (Appendix C) and the available 2017 volumes documented in the 2023 Memorandum (Appendix G), the AM and PM peak hour linear growth rates are calculated as follow: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 121 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Annual Growth Rate R = (2048 Vol/2017 Vol - 1) / (2048 - 2017). Year 2017 AM = 961; Year 2048 AM = 2,789 — R = 6.14% Year 2017 PM = 1,217; Year 2048 PM = 2,652 — R = 3.80% As such, the projected growth in 2048 future traffic is less intensive than the growth documented in the 2023 Memorandum. This analysis indicates that the subject roundabout provides adequate capacity to accommodate the future 2048 with project traffic conditions. Table 7 provides the adjusted 2048 future with project intersection peak hour movement volumes as determined by utilizing the 75% x 2045 peak hour turning movement percentages as documented in the 2023 Memorandum. Table 7 SR 29/SR 29 Bypass at CR 846 — 2048 Peak Hour Volumes Adjustments Study Intersection Mvt AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 75% of 2045 Voll Mvt % 2048 V012 2048 Vol Adjusted 75% of 2045 Vol' Mvt / 2048 V012 2048 Vol Adjusted SR 29 NB LT 345 40.5% 216 284 391 39.7% 377 446 NB TH 363 42.6% 455 299 520 52.7% 694 592 N B RT 144 16.9% 30 118 75 7.6% 52 85 Approach NB 852 701 701 986 1,123 1,123 CR 846 WB LT 86 25.0% 29 56 155 22.6% 66 112 WB TH 136 39.5% 109 89 312 45.5% 253 225 WB RT 122 35.5% 86 79 218 31.8% 175 157 Approach WB 344 224 224 685 494 494 SR 29 Bypass SB LT 218 25.4% 71 179 122 20.0% 36 68 SB TH 496 57.8% 375 407 330 54.1% 182 183 SB RT 144 16.8% 258 118 158 25.9% 121 88 Approach SB 858 704 704 610 339 339 SR 29 EB LT 135 15.7% 541 182 140 22.1% 311 154 EB TH 330 38.2% 212 443 137 21.5% 132 149 EB RT 398 46.1% 407 535 359 56.4% 253 393 Approach EB 863 1,160 1,160 636 696 696 Intersection ALL 2,917 2,789 2,789 1 2,917 1 1 2,652 2,652 Note(s): Mvt = Movement; Vol = Volume 1. As documented in the 12/18/2023 Stage 1 + ICE Technical Memorandum, Table 6 — reference Appendix G. 2. Per methodology described in this report and Appendix C. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA ,, 122 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Improvement Analysis and Mitigation This report presents intersection improvements needed to restore subject intersections to a minimum acceptable LOS. The developer is not responsible for correcting preexisting transportation deficiencies. Once the existing deficiencies are corrected, the developer is required to address additional deficiencies which occur with the addition of the project traffic. Operational impacts of the project traffic are mitigated for those intersections failing to achieve acceptable performance characteristics. The proposed intersection control is aimed at reducing the LOS impact. The ultimate intersection configuration will be determined at a time of a future development order application. The proposed internal roads, driveways, internal alleys, internal sidewalks/pathways and interconnections to adjacent developments are site related improvements and are not subject to impact fee credits. In addition, the landowner is required to provide appropriate intersection improvements at project entrances as required at the time of site development approval. These improvements are considered site related. It is noted that if turn lane improvements require the use of County's Right -of - Way (ROW) or easements, compensating ROW along the development frontage may need to be provided without cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement. Consistent with TIS Section 1 findings, the following roadway segments are adversely impacted by the project traffic: - SR 82 and Church Rd — SR 82 approaches - SR 82 and Corkscrew Rd — SR 82 approaches - SR 29 and Lake Trafford Rd — SR 29 approaches The developer proposes to mitigate the roadway impacts through the concurrency fair share commitments as described in the Mitigation of Impact section of the TIS Section 1. Potential future improvements to the following intersections are considered site related: SR 82 and Church Rd — add one eastbound right -turn lane, add a second westbound left -turn lane, signal timings adjustments; SR 82 and Corkscrew Rd — add one westbound right -turn lane, signal timings adjustments. A detailed evaluation of applicable access points will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting to determine traffic operational requirements, as more accurate parameters will be made available. The developer proposes paying the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project, as applicable. The developer proposes to provide transportation commitments that will be incorporated into the SRA Development Document for the project. The mitigation plan will include specific improvements to be undertaken, fair share contribution commitments where appropriate, and site -related improvements. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 23 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Appendix A: Existing Intersection Lanes Configuration Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 124 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 1— Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Immokalee Rd (11 SO and SR 29 (Main SO Intersection Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA ?aE,,e 125 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 1— Intersection Analysis — December 2025 SR 82 and Church St Intersection Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 126 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 SR 82 and Corkscrew Rd Intersection Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page 127 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 SR 29 and Westdox St Intersection Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 128 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Westdox St and Carson Rd Intersection Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Pagr 129 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 SR 29 and Lake Trafford Rd Intersection Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Pa ge 130 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 New Market St and Escambia St Intersection Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 31 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 202S SR 29 and CR 846 Intersection Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA F a _, e 1 32 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Appendix B: Intersection Traffic Counts Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 133 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Turning Movement Count Summary Location: 1st St & Main St (SR 29) TRENDS Date: 6/5/2025 Count Period: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM TRANSPORTATION DATA COLLECTION SERVICES 313 � � 346 % 0.0% 11.2% 4.8% 16 276 21 '& 248 Peak 15 Min 5.7% 35 // 7.45 AM % 27 3.7% 176 5.9% 170 �Q 7 Peak Hour Q 7:45 AM O 3 O� 90 10.0% 477 2.9% 272 PH Factor 93.5% 59 10.2% 282 2 O O�� 142 286 90 4.9% 10.1% 16.7% 606 1 518 "WIN a, IT" BTOT 7:t -------f-----t--- 7:0 75AMU 14 46 69 1 15 16 5 _0 19 55 _14_ 0 4 59 9 2 —1----t----r---- ---t----r------r---t----r--- 10 34 �_ 72 0 14 23 3 0 24 59 19 0 b 73 320 , t------ 339 _ 7:0i10t46� 67 0�-15-+-23 t-7 - -0 32--71+ _2 1 16-0+4+78{ 2 379 49 85 ]z 22 7 0 31 73 Z5 0 5 77 1 39 1427 8:00 AM__ -- 8:15 AM_ _ 0 8 43 60 -a---4----i---- 0—�— 9 34�- 60 C 19 27 7 -i--------�---- 1 0 35 69 28 ---- ----}-----a---- � 0_ 1 69 7 - - - 4---�---- ' 37_3 1480 +------ _ 6:30 AM _ -� _0 1 9 I 44 1 67 0—J-104-20—�-6 - 1 17 1 21 17 -_0-� 36 -� 72 0 1 40 1 72 17 1 20 -0_-�- b - -56�-4 19 174 14 33_0 - 1471— 3841 1484 _ 8:45 AM 1 1 10 1 38 1 70 _0 1 1 19 1 24 1 5 _ 0 1 27 1 68 1 23 _0 0 1 7 1 79 1 8 380 1 1467 Total 2 1 79 334 550 3 1 121 176 47 0 1 2441 5391 162 0 1 42 15651 30 2894 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA r a g e 134 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Turning Movement Count Summary Location: 1st St & Main St (SR 29) TRE DS Date: 6/5/2025 Count Period: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM TRANSPORrAMN DATA COu_EMON SERUICEs 283 � � 584 Qia% 0.0% 4.1% 14.3% 19 243 21 O O 9 Peak 15 Min 507 5.2% 58 // 4:00 PM % 18 22.2% 299 3.1% 130 Q 1 Peak Hour p 4:00 PM O 2 O 191 1.6% 396 2.9% 208 PH Factor V 93.6% 90 7.8% 244 7 ~— O O 292 513 93 alb% 2.7% 3.5% 6.5% 541 1 Alt 898 UP ,B '_ 2. ,. 4:15 PM _ 0 i 10 1 32 1 46 0 1 26 1 49 1 b 1 10 Ti 63 0 24 47 6 0 69 131 21 _ 70 ' 122 ' 26 0 7 67 6 _ 0 ' 1 50 ' 5 4— _ ' 458 ' __4:30_PM__ - 4:45 PM__ _ —a----4-----a---—a----+----�---- _ 2 17 27 '_ 43_ 0 20 45 1 —-----{-----a---------;---- _0 ---+--------t---- 0 83 ' 128 ' 24 -----�----}-----;---- -+---+---�--- 0 ' 5 48 ' 4 - -}------ --- +------ 447 ' --- }------ 5:00 PM__ -- 5:15 PM _i ' 9 33 49 0 28 60 14 -a----+----i----a--------E---- 2_j_12- 45 1 72 100 25 ----------i---- 0 7 69 7 --+---+---�--- 475 1850 +------ - _ 5:30PM -27-4- 0— —14--36—�_5 - - 0-� 59 -�102� 15 0 -�- 4 - -59�_4 38_4.- 1764- _ 2_1_19 32�I- 61 0_1_23--39_1_5 - 0- 73-1 129 1 16 0- -5- -31 1 6_ 441 1 1747` 5:45 PM 0 1 17 1 28 41 0 1 19 1 52 1 9 0 1 60 1 116 14 0 1 2 1 46 1 9 413 1 1713 Totat 10 1 110 1 2501 404 0 1 174 378 59 1 1 556 1 960 1 163 0 39 1 4481 45 3589 1 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 35 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Turning Movement Count Summary Location: Church Rd & SR 82 TRE/\FDS Date: 6/5/20 25 Count Period. 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM TRANSPORTATION DATA COLLECTION SERVICES 64 � � 54 IIM$% 64.3% 0.0% 75.0% 56 0 8 4 0 p� Peak 15Min 412 61.5% 52 7:15 AM Al z 50.0% 358 6.9% 911 O D Peak Hour p 7:00 AM o v D O 356 11.5% 963 0.0% 0 PH Factor \v/ 95.4% 0 0.0% 919 0 14 00 0 0 0 i fi,% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0 1 0 too TUU 0 12 ; 228 ; 0 0 0 89 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 1 0; �14 7:15 AM O 1 16 1 257 1 0 0 1 0 1 79 1 1 O 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 9 363 _ 7:30 AM 7:45 AM__ _ D 13 ---237 —a------1---- _.L189�--0— 0 _0 D 92 i 1 —-----+----�---- 0—�— 0 U LL 0 - _0 0 0 0 ------------+-- -_0- —0 -�- 0- —0— 0 0 0 14 -+---+----+--- -0 - - 0 - - 0- 19 35_7 +------ 315 _ 1385- 8:00 AM -- 0 13 ' 199 ' -a---a-----i---- 9 161�--0— 0 0 0 86 1 -i----+----�---- 0 0 0 ----+-------i--- 0 0 0 0 9 -----+----+--- 308 ' 1343 +------ - --- - 8:30 AM__ _ 0—�— -� 0— 152 0—�— 0 _�_78—�— 2 - 0-1 0_ __0-�-0 -�- 0- _0_-�- 1 -�- 0-�-6-1237— _ —14_1 10— 1 _79-1 1 _0 1 0 1 0 —0— 0 0 1 1 �- 0-- I 14 261 1 1141-- 8:45 AM 0 17 1 134 1 0 0 1 0 1 79 1 4 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 1 0 1 11 248 1 1074 Total Cj 105 115571 0 1 0 1 0 1 678 1 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 l 0 1 96 1 2459 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 36 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 1— Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Turning Movement Count Summary Location: Church Rd & SR 82 TRE DS Date: 6/5/2025 Count Period: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM TRANSPORrA1 OW DATA COUECrIONSERUICES 50 Ilk At 30 �6% 31.9% 0.0% 100.0% 47 0 3 '& 00 0 812 Af; % Peak 15 Min 35.7% 28 4:15 PM Q6% 2 50.0% 767 7.0% 503 Q 0 FPeak Hour O 4:00 PM O 0 O 765 4.6% 531 0.0% 0 PH Factor 83.6% 0 0.0% 506 0 �oo ~ 0 0 0 E86 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% olio 0 81 117 0 0! 0 230 ; 1 0; 0 0 Southboun 0 0 3 0 1270— 4:15 PM 0 1 6 140 1 0 1 O f 0 1 246 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 11122 ------ ___4 ' 0 ' 0 _0 0 154 ' 0 —a----+----1---- 0 0 135 ' 1 _0 0 0 0 ---+---------+--- 0 0 0 ' _0_ }------ _0_ 0 0 13a-----a---- -+---+----+------- 0_ 0 0 111348 ----------:0 PM 5:15 PM 0 51270-0� 0—j— 5 1084_00_�_ 0 166 ' 1 0 170 _0--0 -� 0--0— 0 -- 2 -+- 0 141292- PM__ 4 0_� 8 101 _� _ 1 _ 1 0-�-0 -- 0 _0_ -0 -�- 1 -�- 0 131187- -5:30 _ _11 1__0_ _ I_ 0 _ 169 1 _ 3 - 0- 1 0 _ _ 0_ _0_ 0 1 2118_6 _ 5.45 PM 0 1 8 1 102 1 0 0 1 0 1 171 1 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 1 0 1 6 301 1 1210 Total 0 54 941 0 1 0 1441 18 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 92 2558 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 37 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Turning Movement Count Summary Location: Corkscrew Rd & SR 82 TRENDS Date: 6/5/2025 Count Period: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM TRANSPORTATID N DATA COLLECTION SERVICES olio 1%% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 4 00 0 364 Peak 15 Min 0.0% 0 7.00 AM % 0 0.0% 530 • 92% 698 � O 0 FPeak Hour p 7:00 AM O 0 O � 350 11.1% 927 3.1% 229 PH Factor 95.0% 180 23.9% 782 0 14 00 14 0 84 14.3% 0.0% 23.8% 409 1 98 1 1 17 1 1 1 1 1 116 0 1 1 1 0 -7:15181 7:30 AM 1 1 1 I 67 —i----t---�---- 0 1 0 1 194 I 52 1 1 1 0 1 46 1 73 1 0 —i----t----t---- 0 1 42 1 89 1 0 1 I 1 _0 1 5 1 0 1 15 ------}--------- 0 1 2 1 0 1 25 0 --+---t----+--- 0 I 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1"-"-"- 387 1 +------ 40_4 1 -_ - --- - _ —a----�-----a---- - - —0 -� ---- - —a-- 3-+----t•---- -0—�-43-�-94—i-0 - _ --+---- ----4- i - 0-�-3 -�-0-� 28 - -+---+---4-0 0_�-0— +------ 35_5�-1555- 6:00 AM__ -- 8:15 AM 1 1 1 0 0 157 41 —-----— --�--- 0—�— 0 121�- 46 1 1 1 0 30 88 0 —i----�---- ---- 0—�-35-�-78— 1 0 3 0 pp 18 -----------i--- 0 ---�---+----�--- I 1 1 0 0 0 1 337 1483 +------ - 8:30 AM -� 0—�— 0 125y- 21 —0 - 0—�-25_ 70 _ 0-�-4 -�- 0-� 0 0 26 19 0 -�- 0_ 0 -�- 0-�0— 312 �- 1408— _ _ -� I 10 - 15 I I 10 1269 8:45 AM 0 1 0 1 113 1 28 0 1 20 76 0 0 1 3 I 0 I 24 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 264 1 1178 Total 0 1 0 112141 365 0 1 290 1 662 1 0 1 0 1 29 0 1 173 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2733 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 138 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Turning Movement Count Summary Location: Corkscrew Rd & SR 82 TREffDS Date: 6/5/2025 Count Period: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM TRANSPORTATION DATA COLLECTION SERVICES 0 4 It 0 MPS% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 00 0 0 4 NZZ> 00 0 773 Peak 15 Min 0.0% 0 415 PM 0 0.0% 671 w • 6.6% 471 ••—\O 0 Peak Hour 0 4:00 PM 0 j 587 4.3% r 508 13.5% 37 PH Factor 84 15.5% 691 85.2 �0 /1 O'O 186 0 220 I M16% 1.6% 0.0% 5.0% 121 1 406 T. '0 0; 0 1 107 ; 111 0 1 26 i 179 1 0 0 j 48 1 0 48 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 l 0 1 134 1 9 0 1 26 1 192 1 0 O 1 47 1 0 1 57 0 f 0 1 0 f 0 PM 0 1 0 i 110 i 7 0—a— 0 120�- 10 0 12 115 1 0 0 0 41 0 67 0- 50 0_ 48 0 0 0 014:30 0 0--0— 349-1585_ 5:00 PM -- - 0 0 120 ' 12 -a---i----I--- -0—a-20--101_i_ - 0 19 128 ' 0 -a----+----E---- _ -L- 0 43 0 51 ----,�----1---- _0 -- _- 0 0 0 0 --+----�---4--- 373 ' 1539 �------- - 5:15 PM 5:30 _ 0—J— 0 -t 100-1- 7— 0—J— 8— 0--25-� 1Z0 4_ 0 _ -_046 _�- 0- 84_ 0__0 0 0_ 382 1456— _ PM _ 0 _+_98 I_ 0— I-15 -� 102 F 0 - -_0_� 69 _I _ 0-� 76 0__ I _ 0 -�- 0 I 0— 36_8 { - 1472_ 5:45 PM 0 0 1 94 1 10 0 1 19 1 116 1 0 0 1 73 1 0 1 65 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 377 1 1500 Total 0 0 883 1 74 0 1 162 1053 0 0 1 417 1 0 1 496 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 3085 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 39 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Turning Movement Count Summary Location: SR 29 & Westclox St TRENDS Date: 6/5/2025 Count Period: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM TRANSPORTATION DATA COLLECTION SERVICES 960 4 572 �Pa% 2.5% 2.2% 7.0% 80 369 511 00 0 164 Peak 15Min 1.4% 73 7:45 AM 266 19.5% 313 0.0% 82 0 ' 0 Peak Hour p 7:00 AM o 0 47 8.5% 204 2.0% 44 PH Factor v 93.0°/ 0 0.0% 631 0 00 37 233 38 % 2.7% 4.3% 0.0% 418 1 At 308 _AM__ AM 17!5 _ 0 ; 11 ; 8 7 _0 0 8 74 0 ; 11 55 5 0_ 124 82 21 0 19 24�_70 11 59 0 13 66 6 0 131 22 40_6 , 427 AM- _69 - 01824� 17 00+16F71 - 0 7 62 14 0 +125+1. 96 22 472+------ A 25 26 18 0 0 12 62 50 f 13 0 131 i 122 1 1785 _8:00_AM AM__ 0 _8_ 16 7 0�_16- 13.4- 19 0 _ 1 10 _75 0 3 _ 0 _8 66 5 49 9_ _0_ 83 67 _15_ 0_. 125 8_ ,- — 361 1740_ 38_0 1693_ - --- 8:30AM _ 0_I_11 I_14 I_ 10_ _0—�— - _�_56 _ 0_I 6_I_69_ __0 _9 - -73 100�_64 I. 15_ - 35_3_1574- _ 1 1 _4_I_ 0 1 4 1 1 1 _0 I_7_I _42�_6 1 -01 8:45 AM 0 11 8 8 59 0 8 46 1 9 0 1 93 1 91 1 7 345 I 1439 Total 0 119 t 133 i 93 0 9 167 525 0 69 436 67 0 1 912 1 669 1 125 3224 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 140 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 1— Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Turning Movement Count Summary Location: SR 29 & Westclox St TRENDS Date: 6/5/2025 Count Period: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM TAANSPORiA'nON DATA COLLECTION SERVICES 615 � � 815 % 6.3% 4.3% 14.4% 95 305 215 4�'-e '& 0 179 IMF% Peak 15 Min 0.0% 76 4:15 PM 4 421 5.5% 468 0.0% 49 I o Peak Hour O 4:00 PM O 0 <:>-39 5.1% 161 0.0% 36 PH Factor v 76 4 8 0.0% 276 0 0 tvb -' 45 318 12 Aft % 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 349 1 At 375 •• A 1. 't. 0 1 14 1 14 8 0 , 1 ; 18 139 0 14 ; 110 1 TIl ; 3 0 ; 54 87 1,23 4:15 PM 0 1 21 1 13 1 9 0 1 5 1 14 1 149 O l 10 1 113 1 4 0 1 72 1 92 l 28 530 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM _ 0 20 10 10 0 21 12 9 ------=---�---- _0 2 4 73 0 0 3 60 -----=----=---- 0 12 50 4 _ 0 9 45 1 -------1----�--- _0_ 53 76 24 0 36 50 ' 20 ---1--------L--- 33_8 ' 266 ' 1619 --�------ 5:00_PM 5:15 PM__ 0 19 8 ' _11 0- 13 0 2 10 97 0-�- 0 5- _ 0 ' _4 59 4-6 0_ 0 47 ' 102 ' 26 38_5 ' 1519 _ 1 5:30 PM -18 -13�- 0-J-21.1 4 - - -64- 0_1 0 50 0 -36 -74 21 301 1290- - 5:45 PM _ 1 _6 1 1 35 1 4 1 6- _01 _ 1 _I_44_ 0 1 0 1 3 1 106 _ 0 1 _7__1 _4_9 O T 4 1 49 -L 1_ 1 1 _01 _14-23'-6- 0 1 58 1 112 1 46 22_6 I _ 117_8 1 425 I 1337 �—TQ—talj 1 1 169 1 78 1 72 0 10—i 56 8 0 1 66 1 525 1 15 0 1 370 1 616 1 194 1 2956 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 141 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Turning Movement Count Summary Location: Carson Rd & Westclox St TRE DS Date: 6/5/2025 Count Period: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM TRANSPORTATION DATA COLLECTION SERVICES 66 � � 35 AP.I% 6.7% 8.7% 3.6% 15 23 28 ♦ 00 2 Peak 15Min 242 0.0% 10 7:30 AM k A �r 13 0.0% 164 3.3% 91 O 4 Peak Hour O 7:15 AM 2 O � 87 4.6% 01 232 4.6% 131 PH Factor 86.5% 64 4.7% 204 3 00 140 12 85 2.9% 25.0% 0.0% 218 1 237 0 I 1; 10 �_ 11 0 14 .1 22 1 2� 0-1— 2 - fi 18 19 0-1 17 -t —30 t— 2 - 17:4r5i TAMC 0 I 13 i 5 17 0 119� 1 4 0 - 0 rt 33 -r 4 23 0 �122 108 1 1 2 1 _8:00_AM 8:15 AM__ —a_ 1 28 �_ 46 _ 0_'_ 5 15 31 0——13 -- 22—�— 4 - _0_'_ 16 14_' _ 3 _ 0-_41 -�- 3- 21 0 16 3 15_ _0 4 11-6 _0 6 3 200- 677 - 8:30 AM 0 I 1 1 12 1 13 0 1 15 1 11 1 3 26- 3 21_ 0 I 11 1 2 11 _ _0__�- 0 1 8 �- 2 1 ---- 0 89 1 540 -------- 8:45 AM 1 0 1 3 1 8 1 8 0 1 8 1 6 1 1 0 1 8 1 2 1 11 0 1 5 1 4 1 1 65 1 405 Total I 0 1 15 1 141 1180 0 1 1091 139 1 22 0 1 198 24 145 0 1 58 135 I 16 1082 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 42 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Turning Movement Count Summary Location: Carson Rd & Westclox St TRE/VDS Date: 6/5/2025 Count Period: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM TRANSPORTATION DATA COLLECTION SERVICES 52 � � 100 Qs% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 31 21 Z laid % Peak 15 Min 114 0.0% 6 515 PM AL M% 17 0.0% 152 0.0% 36 o 5 �11Peak Hour p 5:00 PM 0 3 027 0.0% 104 1.6% 42 PH Factor v 91.6% 108 1.9% 204 1 O O� 87 77 147 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 201 l T 311 �. * 1-. •� r . 4: 00 PM__ -_-4:15 PM__ _ 0 1_ 0_ 1 _ 9 {9_ 0_ 1_ 31 ; _ 12 ; _15_ 0 ; 10_ ; _12 0_� 4 -1 17 �_ 16_ 0 1 22-t 19—t 7 0 , 19 -r 12 21_ 0_ 1 _ 9 1 9 1 _1 rt 20 0 -t 3 -t 6 rt 1_t------ 13_8 4:30 PM__ 4:45 PM _ 0 1— 0 12� 15 0 1-26---- � —t— 6 - - ---13 -+-- 8-- 20 -� -+- -+- 8 —f-0 122 +------ - _ 5:00 PM _ 0 0 10 14 0_i_ 19 -�- 5 —�— 5 - _ 0-� 17 -�- 9- 0 3 6 12 0 30 8 5 0 28 ' 20 24 _0 -�-10 -�- 4-1 ' 27 0 4 9 0 118-�- 524 — 152 1- 538 5:15 PM 0 1 13 17 0 20 9 7 0 25 23 1 37 0 7 1 10 _ 169 1_ 56_1 5:30 PM 10 1 11 -y----�----y---- 1 20 0 1 12 11 I 3 0 1 16 1 20 1 43 1 4 1 4 I 0 _ 134 1 573 _ 5:45 PM Total -_0 0 1 2 1 6 0 1 10 1 84 1 13 11 116 -y----}----F---- 0 1 46 1 9 1 2 0" 1 206 70rt 50 _ ---y----�-----y---- 0 1 18 1 14 1 40 1 0 146 I 118 1 232 _0 ----------�--- 0 1 6 1 8 1 0 0 1 50 1 58 1 3 --�------ 164 1 619 1143 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 43 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Turning Movement Count Summary Location: SR 29 & Lake Trafford Rd TRE DS Date: 6/5/2025 Count Period: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM TRANSPORTATION DATA COLLECTION SERVICES 396 � � 321 IFA% 1.5% 5.6% 0.0% 66 302 26 00 13 307 IIIIIIIIA Peak 15 Min 2.2% 135 8:30 AM A �A% \[ 6 0.0% 101 +111111- 1.4% 143 �O 1 Peaic Hour p 7:30 AM o v 8 O 87 11% 524 2.4% 246 PH Factor B 0.0% 184 1 0�� 154 180 13 4.5% 6.7% 0.0% 556 1 347 •• i f27 i I 4A 1 1 7:00_AM 7:15 AM _ 0 1 26 1 1 52 0 37 21 59 0 0 1. 16 1 1 _0 ! 22 1 39 ; 4 011 5 ; 68 ; 13 0 0 9 0 0 28 40 2 0 4 51 16 273 267 _ 7:30 AM - -—i-34-t-44- 62 1 --i--� -+- 22 t— 2 - - -+ 38 ---48 —T— -- -+- 6 -t-64 1 16 337 +------ 5 A 0 35 39 73 0 3 9 5 0 6 3 23 9 1271 8:00 AM -- 8:15 AM _ 0 36 33 59 -a---4----l---- 0_�-30--27�- 52 _0 4 23 1 -a----+----E---- 0—�— 1 0 43 41 ---- -------�---- 4 0 7 69 14 - -+--- --- --- �- 33_4 1332 ------ - _ --- AM__ _ _ O—�I-25 --35 I_ - --24—�-1 - 0_ 1_ 1 _ _ 27—I _ 2 _ -_0-� 34 -1 341-4 __0 I 40__�_52 rt-3— 0_-�- 7 -�-76� 13 0__ I _ 5 -�-75 11 3_03�- 1368— 33_4 I _ 1365- 8:45 AM 0 28 1 22 1 44 0 1 3 1 28 1 4 0 1 30 1 34 3 0 1 6 1 100 1 10 312 1 1283 Total 0 1 251 1 2481 459 0 1 12 1-97-7 13 0 1 2741 345 25 0 1 48 1 5961 116 2554 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 44 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Turning Movement Count Summary Location: SR 29 & Lake Trafford Rd TREffDS Date: 6/5/2025 Count Period: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM TRANSPORrAMN DATA COLLECnON SERVICES 455 � � 436 QQ'16 1.4% 2.4% 4.8% 147 287 21 4 00 2 Peak 15 Min 649 1.8% 113 4:00 PM inA% 23 0.0% 258 0.9% 111 �O 5 FPeak Hour p 4:00 PM O 2 O 222 0.5% 406 2.7% 182 PH Factor v 92.2% 13 0.0% 174 1 000 280 300 42 izg % 1.8 % 2.3% 2.4% 482 1 622 .. late F T. let _4:15 PM - 4:30 PM__ _ 0 31 23 40 —i----i-----i---- 0 29 27 48 0 1 45 3 —i----t----t---- 0 2 55 4 _0 71 103 6 ---t----t-----i --- 0 61 79 8 0_ 5 86 37 --t---t----t--- 5 78 41 451 t------ 437 - _ 4:45 PM _ _ —a----+---�---- _ 0—�-16 _-33�- 42 -----+----�---- -0—a— 5 -- 57-1— 8 - _ --+---------+--- _ 0- 74 -� 39 25 _0 -+---+----+--- _0 -- 6 -1-47129 +------ 381- 1?41- 5:00 PM__ -- 5:15 PM _0_' 2 53 ' 48 a---4----I--- 0—�-12 5340 0 7 ' 73 2 -a----+----E---- 0—�— 7 0 40 12 ----+--------i---- 7 0 12 ' 72 41 - - ------�--- 369 ' 1638 +------ 5:30 PM 0 7 48 _�- 67—�— 6 _ -_0—y-12_-60—'-7 _ 0_4-19 -�_ 5_4-7— 0 _�_ 3 -�_70� 27 316-1503— I I _42y_ ---yr--- _ _ 0--12--4-�-0— _0 I 3-33 I 18 --�F--- -�--- 24_6 I 1312 - 1 1 12 — 5:45 PM L 0 1 0 1 51 1 39 0 1 9 1 55 1 3 0 1 8 1 6 1 0 0 1 9 1 74 I 37 291 1 1222 Total 1 0 1 134 11 310 1 357 1 0 1 48 1 477 41 0 359 r 327 1 56 0 i 48 1 5361 270 1 2963 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 145 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Turning Movement Count Summary Location: New Market Rd & Escambia St TRENDS Date: 6/5/2025 Count Period: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM TRANSPORTATION DATA COLLECTION SERVICES 646 Ilk At 337 l.'oli% 0.0% 6.7% 0.0% 5 640 1 00 0 Ali Peak 15 Min 10 0.0% 2 7.45 AM % 2 0.D% 8 0.0i 1 0 C Peak Hour O 7:00 AM O 4 03 0.0% 16 7-7% 13 PH Factor v 91.3% 3 0.0% 5 1 00 2 333 3 w�% 0.0% 18.0% 33.3% 656 1 4t 338 Wi 41 ATT ir 7:00 AM 7:15 AM _ 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 _0 1 79 1 0_ 1 151 1 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 74 0 0 0 156 1 23_8 237 7:30 AM-- _1 - 0—i--� -+- i- 4 —i--� -+- 2 —h— - - —� - -92 -i--z -0 -+- 0 -+ 155{ 1 257 +------ 5 A 0 11= 0 1 2 a 0 88 0 0 178 1 27 8:00 AM -- AM__ 03 ' 0 0 a----�----a- 0—�— 1 0-�--2 0 0 0 0-a----+---E---- 0—�-1 0 1 81 -----------i--- 2 ' 0 119 ' 1 -0 4---+----F-------- 207 ' 977 - --- 8:30 AM__ _ -�- 0 1 0 1 -�- Z —�-1 - 0 -_0-�-2 _� 74 0— _0_-�- 0 _� 142� 3— 22_8- - f 1 1 ---y— —��---'yam—�— 1 0 1 0 1 0 —y— —��— —►---� 0 1 1 1 85 --�.�----�--- 0 0 1 0 107 1 1 --�--- --�--- 196 I 907 96 .._ 9 7 845 AM 0 1 1 2 1 3 O I 1 1 0 t 0 0 1 3 1 83 1 0 0 1 0 1 131 1 0 224 1 855 Total 0 5 3 22 0 1 5 1 5 1 3 1 0 f 9 1 656 5 0 1 1 11391 10 1863 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 46 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Turning Movement Count Summary Location: New Market Rd & Escambia St TREAMS Date: 6/5/2025 Count Period: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM TRANSPORTAMN DATA COLLECTION SERVICES 326 Ilk t 677 Opp % 0.0% 8.2% 0.0% 16 306 4 1 INA% Peak 15 Min 32 0.0% 2 4:15 PM AA imR% C' 2 0.0% 22 �0 2 Peak Hour O 4:15 PM O v 7 0 13 0.0% 34 6.3% 16 PH Factor 88.9 % 7 0.0% 32 3 00 3 673 12 Ab% 0.0% 5.8% OA% 329 1 688 owl 0 1 0! 3 j 1 0= 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 62 1 0 0 18 1 88 ,_ 4:15 PM 0 1 0 1 4 1 4 0 1 2 1 5 1 0 0 I 0 1 179 1 3 0 1 1 1 101 1 2 301 4:30 PM _ _ 4:45 PM_ 0_�_ 0 35_ _ 0_a_ 3_�_ 5_ 0_�_ 1 _+_ 2 2 _ 0_�_ 2 1_ �_0 _ 00 _ 169_2 _0 00 _� 161_5_ 0 2 _+_782_ 0 57_3_ 266 237_ 892 _ 5:15 PM _- b_ ' 2 02 _�_ 0_ _ 5 0 2 _+_ 5 _F_ 0 - 0 _ 12 0 -_0__3 _� 164+_2_ _0_-' 0 94 11 0 _ 1 _+_70_9_ 1 63� 0_ 266+-1070_ 18_5 N. 954 5:30 PM 0 0 1 2 1 _0 1 4 I� 0 1 6 _ _ 1 0 _ _6 _ 0 19_ 1 _6_7 _34 _0 -1 1 _ _ 3 _28 I _i_ -1 1 _ 16_2 1 _ 85_0 _ 1 5:45 PM 0� 0 5 2 1 3 1 0 0 25 58 24 0 0 62� 1 184 797 Total 0 4 1 25 Ir 27 i 0 j 11 1 24 1 5 0 53 954 82 0 8 477 19 1689 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 147 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: SR 29 -- CR 846 QC JOB #: 16440813 CITY/STATE: Immokalee, FL DATE: Tue, Jan 23 2024 745 3e3 Peak -Hour: 7:15 AM — 8:15 AM 168 17.6 • . 12 503 230L Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM — 8:00 AM • • 167 169 165 L .14 t. 16 ♦ 3 J t 81 • 105 J ♦ �. IRS. 0 J t 173 • 23B 0 • R ♦ 2 0 • low ♦ 50 5. 2 7 r 22 • 262 0• 0 1 r 455 • 183 �♦ 77 �♦ 113129.4F •� 527 313 18 192 TRUE DATA TO IMPROVE MOBILITY 1411100110 L I 2 28 6 J { `• 13 t 2 L 0" O< 0 0 r ( • 0 0 7 r 0 0 9 1 WA L L « J N/A • .. • N/A 4- L ! t rylA • • N/A WA N/A � • 15-Min Count Period Beginning At SR 29 Northbound SR 29 Southbound CR 846 Eastbound CR 846 Westbound Total Hourly Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 7AS AM 0 51 5 0 41 6 0 0 54 59 126 1 136 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 16 0 1 19 0 259 271 7:30 AM 7.45 AM 2 69 7 0 93 13 0 0 55 74 105 1 136 S 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 14 0 0 26 0 257 336 1143 8:00 AM 0 74 8 0 40 126 4 1 0 0 2 0 6 1 22 0 284 1168 8:15 AM 0 71 4 0 38 109 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 18 0 247 1144 8:30AM 8:45 AM 0 58 5 0 38 4 0 0 36 36 88 3 94 1 1 0 2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 21 0 0 23 0 216 204 1103 1-951. Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles Heavy Trucks 0 372 52 0 52 8 0 296 56 544 20 92 4 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 24 0 104 0 0 16 1424 252 Buses Pedestrians Bicycles 4 0 4 4 12 0 28 4 0 16 0 0 0 4 0 0 24 52 Scooters Comments; Keport generated on 1/31/2U24 1: 12 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (nttp://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 148 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: SR 29 -- CR 846 QC JOB W 16440814 CITY/STATE: Immokalee, FL DATE: Tue, Jan 23 2024 419 745 Peak -Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM 13,4 344 • . 3 340 76 Peak 15 Min: 5:00 PM — 5:15 PM a 1 LD 1119 2L1 5 • 2 J J • L < 219 * 240 --] J • %. 80 ♦ 0 ! < 197 • 19.6 2 . F-1 ♦ 2 50 ♦ ♦ 50 5 ♦ 1 1 r 19 . 95 * r- 0 521 20 � 20 r 0 1 f 263 ♦ 294 � a 127 50 F- 360 541 117 14 TRUE DATA TO IMPROVE MOBILITY 0L 1414 —10 13 0 L t 2 l� 00t 0 8 0 r#A L WA L • ! N/A r < ♦ .. • WA • 4- ! < WA ♦ • N/A !!�� ♦ 1 f ♦ I 1 f WA WA 15-Min Count Period Beginning At SR 29 Northbound SR 29 Southbound CR 846 Eastbound CR 846 Westbound Total Hourly Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Lek Thru Ri t U 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 1 105 7 0 106 3 0 0 23 21 68 2 70 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 3 0 51 0 1 38 0 265 2" 430 PM 4:45 PM 0 115 0 0 116 6 1 0 17 18 78 0 71 3 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 53 0 1 45 0 274 264 1047 5:00 PM 0 160 8 0 19 84 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 51 0 327 1 1109 :15 PM 0 125 4 0 19 110 0 0 1 1 0 0 8 0 58 0 326 1191 5:30 PM 0 120 2 0 17 75 0 1 0 1 1 0 5 1 65 0 288 1205 5:45 PM 0 113 5 0 15 96 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 23 0 254 1200 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles Heavy Trucks 0 640 32 0 44 16 0 76 8 336 0 32 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 4 0 204 0 0 40 1308 144 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles Scooters 0 24 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 Comments: Report generated on 1/31/2024 1:32 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 149 Corkscrew Groves fast Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: SR 29 -- New Market Rd E QC JOB #: 16440817 CITY/STATE: Immokalee, FL DATE: Tue, Jan 23 2024 538 243 Peak -Hour: 7:15 AM -- 8:15 AM 121 16s ♦ • 10 513 15 Peak 15 Min: 7:45 AM — 8:00 AM • • 0 117 333 14 • 1 J J ♦ 6 t 15 • 247 d ♦ �. 7.1 • 0 ! l 267 • 23I 2 + Faml • 3 0 • • 333 6. 3 '1 f 229 • 150 � 227 cc 0 r 0 1 4r 227 • 20 � 0 1S9 18H� .3� 745 361 15 1" TRUE DATA TO IMPROVE MOBILITV L 1 20 3 0 L L 7 J t 0 n �0 1 , � 2 ,.� 0 0 1 IVA L vA L N/A ♦ • • WA r ® WA •<4> • N/A r 1 f • I 1 f WA � � w WA � ♦ • 15-Min Count Period SR 29 Northbound SR 29 Southbound New Market Rd E Eastbound New Market Rd E Westbound Total Hourly Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Beginning At 7:15 AM 7:30AM 0 42 27 0 40 21 0 50 33 0 0 0 5 122 3 2 119 3 5 118 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 57 74 48 1 0 4 0 0 3 0 264 259 7:45 AM 0 73 47 0 7 167 5 0 0 0 6 0 45 2 2 0 348 1132 8:00 AM 1 64 32 0 1 109 2 0 0 1 2 0 62 1 6 0 281 1152 8:15 AM 8:30AM 0 51 42 0 55 30 0 0 12 81 3 7 73 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 62 54 2 1 0 0 8 0 255 231 1143 1115 1 8:45 AM 0 38 25 0 7 69 3 0 0 0 3 0 61 7 2 0 215 982 Peak 15-Min Flowrates Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right I A e i ees Heavy Trucks 0 292 188 0 12 36 0 28 669 20 8 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 56 8 8 0 4 4 1392 204 Buses Pedestrians Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 28 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 40 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 1/31/2024 1:32 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 150 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: SR 29 -- New Market Rd E QC JOB #: 16440818 CITY/STATE: Immokalee, FL DATE: Tue, Jan 23 2024 M5 379 Peak -Hour: 5:00 PM -- 6:00 PM M4 in • * 1 289 45 Peak 15 Min: 5:00 PM — 5:15 PM a • 0 1r14 1L1 2 ♦ 2 J J ♦ 4 < 17 ♦ 163 J ♦ �. 50 r 0 J ! 17.6 ♦ 184 1 . Fol ♦ 1 0 r ♦ 100 6 r 3 '1 f 145 r 421()C 3W 375� 0♦ 0-4 r 179 r 128 a 728 .1F a 438 736 us U9 TRUE DATA TO IMPROVE MOBILITV L 12 0 J A L s 1 t 0 1 Y 6 J 0 0 r ♦ 0 n 2 l C 3 0 1 1 J •A L J aA L N/A r .. ♦ N/A Y 1 T J ♦ N/A N/A ♦<4> • 1 f + 1 C WA WA 15-Min Count Period SR 29 Northbound SR 29 Sorthbound New Market Rd E Eastbound New Market Rd E Westbound Total Hourly Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Beginning At 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 1 82 76 0 72 77 1 0 10 24 59 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 30 36 0 6 0 0 4 0 =2 273 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 0 67 103 0 76 77 1 0 11 12 64 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 29 32 1 6 0 0 4 0 292 266 1093 5:00 PIN 1 0 la 121 0 12 77 0 0 2 1 1 0 24 0 4 0 343 1i64 5:15 PM 530 PM 0 97 90 0 89 97 1 0 13 11 86 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 41 25 1 7 0 0 3 0 338 290 2229 1237 5A5 PM 0 73 67 0 9 61 1 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 3 0 269 1240 Peak IS -Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles Heavy Trucks 0 404 484 0 40 40 0 48 4 308 0 0 24 0 8 0 4 4 0 0 0 96 12 0 16 0 0 8 1372 128 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles Scooters 0 4 0 0 4 4 16 0 0 4 0 0 32 Comments: Keport generated on 1/31/2024 1:32 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 151 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Appendix C: Projected Traffic at Subject Intersections Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 152 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 2024 PEAK SEASON FACTOR CATEGORY REPORT - REPORT TYPE: ALL CATEGORY: 0300 COLLIER COUNTYWIDE MOCF: 0.91 WEEK DATES SF PSCF ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- 1 01/01/2024 - 01/06/2024 0.97 1.07 2 01/07/2024 - 01/13/2024 0.96 1.05 3 01/14/2024 - 01/20/2024 0.95 1.04 * 4 01/21/2024 - 01/27/2024 0.94 1.03 * 5 01/28/2024 - 02/03/2024 0.92 1.01 * 6 02/04/2024 - 02/10/2024 0.91 1.00 * 7 02/11/2024 - 02/17/2024 0.89 0.98 * 8 02/18/2024 - 02/24/2024 0.89 0.98 * 9 02/25/2024 - 03/02/2024 0.89 0.98 *10 03/03/2024 - 03/09/2024 0.89 0.98 *11 03/10/2024 - 03/16/2024 0.89 0.98 *12 03/17/2024 - 03/23/2024 0.90 0.99 *13 03/24/2024 - 03/30/2024 0.91 1.00 *14 03/31/2024 - 04/06/2024 0.91 1.00 *15 04/07/2024 - 04/13/2024 0.92 1.01 *16 04/14/2024 - 04/20/2024 0.93 1.02 17 04/21/2024 - 04/27/2024 0.95 1.04 18 04/28/2024 - 05/04/2024 0.96 1.05 19 05/05/2024 - 05/11/2024 0.99 1.08 20 05/12/2024 - 05/18/2024 1.00 1.10 21 05/19/2024 - 05/25/2024 1.03 1.13 22 05/26/2024 - 06/01/2024 1.06 1.16 23 06/02/2024 - 06/08/2024 1.09 1.20 24 06/09/2024 - 06/15/2024 1.12 1.23 25 06/16/2024 - 06/22/2024 1.10 1.21 26 06/23/2024 - 06/29/2024 1.09 1.20 27 06/30/2024 - 07/06/2024 1.08 1.19 28 07/07/2024 - 07/13/2024 1.07 1.18 29 07/14/2024 - 07/20/2024 1.06 1.16 30 07/21/2024 - 07/27/2024 1.06 1.16 31 07/28/2024 - 08/03/2024 1.07 1.18 32 08/04/2024 - 08/10/2024 1.07 1.18 33 08/11/2024 - 08/17/2024 1.07 1.18 34 08/18/2024 - 08/24/2024 1.09 1.20 35 08/25/2024 - 08/31/2024 1.11 1.22 36 09/01/2024 - 09/07/2024 1.12 1.23 37 09/08/2024 - 09/14/2024 1.14 1.25 38 09/15/2024 - 09/21/2024 1.16 1.27 39 09/22/2024 - 09/28/2024 1.14 1.25 40 09/29/2024 - 10/05/2024 1.12 1.23 41 10/06/2024 - 10/12/2024 1.10 1.21 42 10/13/2024 - 10/19/2024 1.08 1.19 43 10/20/2024 - 10/26/2024 1.07 1.18 44 10/27/2024 - 11/02/2024 1.05 1.15 45 11/03/2024 - 11/09/2024 1.04 1.14 46 11/10/2024 - 11/16/2024 1.03 1.13 47 11/17/2024 - 11/23/2024 1.01 1.11 48 11/24/2024 - 11/30/2024 1.00 1.10 49 12/01/2024 - 12/07/2024 0.99 1.09 50 12/08/2024 - 12/14/2024 0.98 1.08 51 12/15/2024 - 12/21/2024 0.97 1.07 52 12/22/2024 - 12/28/2024 0.96 1.05 53 12/29/2024 - 12/31/2024 0.95 1.04 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 53 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 2024 PEAK SEASON FACTOR CATEGORY REPORT - REPORT TYPE: ALL CATEGORY: 0302 SR82 & 29, N OF I-75 MOCF: 0.92 WEEK DATES SF PSCF -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 01/01/2024 - 01/06/2024 0.97 1.05 2 01/07/2024 - 01/13/2024 0.98 1.07 3 01/14/2024 - 01/20/2024 0.98 1.07 4 01/21/2024 - 01/27/2024 0.96 1,04 * 5 01/28/2024 - 02/03/2024 0.95 1.03 * 6 02/04/2024 - 02/10/2024 0.93 1.01 * 7 02/11/2024 - 02/17/2024 0.91 0.99 * 8 02/18/2024 - 02/24/2024 0.91 0.99 * 9 02/25/2024 - 03/02/2024 0.91 0.99 *10 03/03/2024 - 03/09/2024 0.90 0.98 *11 03/10/2024 - 03/16/2024 0.90 0.98 *12 03/17/2024 - 03/23/2024 0.91 0.99 *13 03/24/2024 - 03/30/2024 0.92 1.00 *14 03/31/2024 - 04/06/2024 0.92 1.00 *15 04/07/2024 - 04/13/2024 0.93 1.01 *16 04/14/2024 - 04/20/2024 0.94 1.02 *17 04/21/2024 - 04/27/2024 0.95 1.03 18 04/28/2024 - 05/04/2024 0.96 1.04 19 05/05/2024 - 05/11/2024 0.97 1.05 20 05/12/2024 - 05/18/2024 0.98 1.07 21 05/19/2024 - 05/25/2024 1.01 1.10 22 05/26/2024 - 06/01/2024 1.04 1.13 23 06/02/2024 - 06/08/2024 1.07 1.16 24 06/09/2024 - 06/15/2024 1.11 1.21 25 06/16/2024 - 06/22/2024 1.09 1.18 26 06/23/2024 - 06/29/2024 1.07 1.16 27 06/30/2024 - 07/06/2024 1.05 1.14 28 07/07/2024 - 07/13/2024 1.03 1.12 29 07/14/2024 - 07/20/2024 1.01 1.10 30 07/21/2024 - 07/27/2024 1.02 1.11 31 07/28/2024 - 08/03/2024 1.03 1.12 32 08/04/2024 - 08/10/2024 1.04 1.13 33 08/11/2024 - 08/17/2024 1.05 1.14 34 08/18/2024 - 08/24/2024 1.07 1.16 35 08/25/2024 - 08/31/2024 1.09 1.18 36 09/01/2024 - 09/07/2024 1.11 1.21 37 09/08/2024 - 09/14/2024 1.14 1.24 38 09/15/2024 - 09/21/2024 1.16 1.26 39 09/22/2024 - 09/28/2024 1.14 1.24 40 09/29/2024 - 10/05/2024 1.12 1.22 41 10/06/2024 - 10/12/2024 1.10 1.20 42 10/13/2024 - 10/19/2024 1.08 1.17 43 10/20/2024 - 10/26/2024 1.07 1.16 44 10/27/2024 - 11/02/2024 1.07 1.16 45 11/03/2024 - 11/09/2024 1.07 1.16 46 11/10/2024 - 11/16/2024 1.07 1.16 47 11/17/2024 - 11/23/2024 1.05 1.14 48 11/24/2024 - 11/30/2024 1.03 1.12 49 12/01/2024 - 12/07/2024 1.01 1.10 50 12/08/2024 - 12/14/2024 0.99 1.08 51 12/15/2024 - 12/21/2024 0.97 1.05 52 12/22/2024 - 12/28/2024 0.98 1.07 53 12/29/2024 - 12/31/2024 0.98 1.07 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a a e 1 54 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 202S 2015 V1 2015 V2 2045 V1 2045 V2 Annual (S or W (N or E (S or W (N or E Growth seg- seg- 2015 V seg- seg- 2045 V Rate ment ment Aver- ment ment Aver- (Expo- AUIR ID end)in end)in age end)in end)in age vent- # Roadway Link From To 100s (1) 100s (1) (100s) 100s (2) 100s (2) (300s) ial) (3) Immokalee 46.0 Eustis Ave SR 29 121 104 112.5 236 212 224.0 2.3% Road SR-29 (Main 58.0 N. 1st Street New Market Road 43 45 44.0 57 58 57.5 0.9% Street) New Market 59.0 Broward Street SR 29 58 73 65.5 32 52 42.0 -1.5% Road New Market 59.0 Broward Street Main Street 48 54 51.0 151 151 151.0 3.7% Road S o Agriculture 83.0 SR 29 CR 846 39 59 49.0 70 131 100.5 2.4% Y 84.0 SR 29 CR 846 New Market Rd 68 68 68.0 121 121 121.0 1.9% 84.0 SR 29 New Market Rd 9th Street 121 54 87.5 169 113 141.0 1.6% 85.0 SR 29 9th Street CR 29A North 143 69 106.0 187 112 149.5 1.2% Hendry County Church Rd/ 88.0 SR 82 Line/ W Entrance 1 Entrance 2 124 124 124.0 255 255 255.0 2.4% Church Rd/ 88.0 SR 82 Entrance 3 120 120 120.0 249 249 249.0 2.5% Entrance 2 88.0 SR 82 Entrance 3 Corkscrew Rd. 120 120 120.0 249 249 249.0 2.5% 88.0 SR 82 Corkscrew Rd. SR 29 124 116 120.0 260 248 254.0 2.5% Westclox 116.0 Carson Road SR 29 54 54 54.0 115 115 115.0 2.6% Road Westclox SR 29 (N 15th St) New Market Rd 20 20 20.0 45 45 45.0 2.7% East Leg Westclox West End Carson Rd 26 26 26.0 1 77 39.0 1.4% West End Hendry County CR 846 SR 29/SR 29 Bypass 13 2 7.5 45 27 36.0 o 5.4/° Line Corkscrew Entrance 3 SR 82 8 8 8.0 12 12 12.0 1.4% Rd. Church Rd SR 82 Cross Rd 7 7 7.0 30 11 10.5 1.4% Carson Rd Lake Trafford Rd Westclox St SO 43 46.5 79 85 82.0 1.9% Carson Rd Westclox St End 4 5 4.5 15 17 16.0 4.3% LRadke Trafford 29 (N 15th Carson Rd S i 101.0 118 109.5 141 159 150 1.1% Lake Trafford SR 29 (N 15th St) N 9th St 19.0 21 20 15 18 16.5 -0.6% Rd Escambia St Jefferson Ave New Market Rd 17.0 17 17 25 25 25 1.3% Notes: 1) D1RPM 2015 Base Year Model -Exhibit A 2) D1RPM 2045 Year Model - Exhibit A 3)(V45/V15)^(1/30)-1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 155 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 SRA Amendment Trips at Buildout O O O 00 LO n N N CO 0) N M M O V U r O N O CO 00 CO O M O N O) V N N � N O r- CO (O I M M T N M CO (O O O N O IA O t` r CO 1� M _ CO O N t0 N M (OD (^O M V V U O M O 10 M N O On CO V M N N to N V N p C (n GO O O A N M N U m a rn V n r` CO CO o (� In o n rn u� CO CO u' CO �� N N T CO M co M M N CO O w (n (D (O M CO M M (n CO t• M M n M r 16 t• (O n V r` V N CO V co V M N (O (O (O O V O M O h O M V M O � O N N O CO N (O O N O_ N N V M M (j O N O O N O N N N IOn V N N oOD ! N In N M N CO (n (NO � V N CDN V m ui N 0 rn V, o Cl? a E co M N M O O O> N �2 a E y _ O O Cl) V Ln (O V N N V V O) O (D r O M r a (n O O CDr (D Cl) r M O V t• OI N C (n O) (A M M N N (O OW O M LQ V GO (O (n O E E G7 � O O O) N O O (n V V (NO (N ^ E Q T L C- 0 `o 5 ;: 3 m m m 3 m m m G> U_ E z z W to O 2y X @ N A O d X W O 2 X G7 O � N X y M m W a z f- I W F w w M z w N N N N M O Y � O N � N N N N U 7 c a m � O L M, y O CO O CO O O O LO O O e- (n N GO OV G O. T to W W � ai IA N N t (n � 0o c c CM �a d O c o O 1 10 M O K o m } o (n o o to o y N N N t` C N O l0 N a N N @ U _ > 0 Y = O _ G F LL a m a o 2:_ 3 r F E 2 ( � N J (A C F NV. `- U O) A j d 7 r O I W C N .O-. W O l0 } d 0 Q 7 l6 M F N N >' T d C m O M = U FL E E > m m m w rn m C m m .E m OC a d U U d m EL mU C N c 0 'M L 7 C C j �- m 3cn (n in in 2 z O a o 01 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 56 Corkscrew Groves fast Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 D1RPM Daily Volumes and Internal Capture Rates Among Zones d a e 4 g g 9 G N N T FO S H N M INIf IOIf N O of � ID Zy Z OD m lD Q is I!1 00 l0 fT n l0 10 01 Q n C � .O. ; M OMO V O^1 Obi N ry /J e d e o M a oo a ui o n C c o C M > �o �D Q rQi m c In m Q o N roi ry OCi tOvf O H E O W > > ^ LiN o m 0 m 0 m m o m 0 m E oil N OO 0 NtNIlkW N O M E A O C d Go` w M o N o m o o o G o. M tp ap I� M N G t0 N Q � Vl N y � N N C y G iR N O N N N M M Q of of �p �D 10 �~ N (O�1 M 8 M 8 M 8 M 0 m 8 m S m g m 8 m 8 m o M ivl u�i N N lO+1 W Q U F- n M .q 00 N e-1 l0 M M M �O W 00 M If1 11 u n II u z Q p Z 2 cc I W v ry uO1i o l m c o ry ry eN.l o N I O 1� CO !� V1 ry 40 N M M M W Q. f CO � O l0 N OI N N OQO OQO 00 I � n N M n 1� rl N N OD N m Ol t0 01 N N N \ \ \ ~ N N 0 a y f f rf N Mm N N H n N N N II 11 II II II � 1 A A A Z O ► „Ny O ~ Yl N t � « � N N V c m m c al m n a b N 4 H > > = Q N W A a u f M M N N N o n m N V O A O N ni of M v oo �c vi c0 Lq .rv-I p c a O O w c — N m O M O O O A Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 157 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Amendment Trips from Individual Zones AM Trips per Zone Name Zone FSUTMS Total Vol ume Percent- age ITE Total Peak Hour Town Capture Rate Peak Hour Town Capt- ure Ext- ernal To Town Pass -by External to Town, Excluding Pass -by Percent age Vol - ume Total Enter Exit EV-1 3001 6.0% 440 2.8% 12 428 6.0% 12 416 150 266 EV-2 3002 10.4% 755 3.1% 23 732 10.4% 20 712 257 4S5 EV-3 3003 20.6% 1,496 3.6% 55 1,441 20.6% 41 1,400 505 895 EV-4 3004 13.0% 943 3.3% 31 912 13.0% 26 886 320 566 WV-5 3005 20.4% 1,485 3.8% 56 1,429 20.4% 40 1,389 501 888 WV-6 3006 29.6% 2,153 3.5% 75 2,078 29.6% 58 2,020 729 1,291 100.0% 1 7,272 3.5% 252 7,020 100.0% 197 6,823 1 2,462 4,361 PM Trips per Zone Name Zone FSUTMS Total Vol ume Percent- age ITE Total Peak Hour Town Capture Rate Peak Hour Town Capt- ure Ext- ernal To Town Pass -by External to Town, Excluding Pass -by Percent age Vol - ume Total Enter Exit EV-1 3001 6.0% 649 24.1% 156 493 6.0% 23 470 265 205 EV-2 3002 10.4% 1,114 27.1% 301 813 10.4% 39 774 436 338 EV-3 3003 20.6% 2,208 31.8% 701 1,507 20.6% 78 1,430 806 624 EV-4 3004 13.0% 1,392 29.1% 405 987 13.0% 49 938 529 409 WV-5 3005 20.4% 2,191 32.9% 721 1,470 20.4% 77 1,393 785 608 WV 6 3006 29.6% 3,178 30.3% 963 2,215 29.6% 112 2,104 1,186 918 100.0% 1 10,733 30.3% 3,247 7,485 1 100.0% 377 7,109 1 4,007 13,1702 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 58 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Northbound Approach Volume Percent Splits Number of Lanes 1 4 6 8 - 10 Facility Type TON FacrLdes Freeways 6 Ramps CIA Minor 6 Major Arterials Collectors Centroid Connectors 11/2/2025 3:29PM G: IDl RPMv2.0_1-29-11\YR2015\YR2045CF\Corkscrew Groves' WOP 2045 WOP-320451HWYL0A0 45A.NET Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 159 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Southbound Approach Volume Percent Splits Numher of Lanes 2 a � 6 � 8 - 10 FaWy Type i Tt9l Facdams Freeways & Ramps Minor & Major Anenais Collectors Centrord Connectors 12,2(2025k 3:29 PM G:1DlRPMv2 0_I-29Q1\YR2015\YR2045CF\Codtscrew Groves\WOP 2045 WOP-3 2045 HWYLOAD-45A.NET Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 160 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Eastbound Approach Volume Percent Splits Number of Lanes 2 4 6 8 - to Facility Type r_ Tos Faalmes r_ Freeways & Ramps Minor & Major Arler,als aaaaaa_ Collectors Centrood Connectors 122/2025 3 30 PM GADIRPMv2.0_1-294I\YR2015\YR2045CF\CorkScrew GrovestWOP 2045� WOP-3 2045 MWYLOAD 45A.NET Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 161 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Westbound Approach Volume Percent Splits Number of Lanes 2 4 4� ti � 8 - 10 Faalry, Type Toll Facilities d- Freeways & Ramps fit+ Minor & Major Anenais Collectors Centroid Connectors 12 2/2025 3:31 PM G:�D1RPMv2.0_1-29-21\YR2015\YR2045CF\COrkscrew GroveslWOP 2045 WOP-3 2045 HWYLOAD 45A.NET LP - Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 162 a G A S j F P 0 S 0 x Q A �n 3 S c R R R a ai a a a a a a _ o o. a a 33 n is e o m n S 2 3 c a o m m m m m m E z z z I yG _ 2 Z C i N I I i N m C qq�� pq� yy I w �o m r � I mm m A I m C i W A � ' � F m c N N � I V V y �o g . Z$ w N •J ig r- ^' m a a a a a a a a a a - n ^ ^ 2 2 2 2 Z Z rz4 2 2 Z Z z z 2 Z f X' - E F £ F � Cb z m C Z P r A p a c V m I N N p � I C I I � a m V p I� C P P V J V V I IE m N J m p pp P T H ? ft vi O N N S y N a N 9 J1 y N 1• 9 'O V N T - N ,/� 30 V1 ? r S 9 9n D , a,, D ]0 N N a N V N v N a a a G < G C < < C < G K 3 a I n n c v < � -• v < � � v < v < s � c � � v < < � � n < o v v < � < v c � < -o v `n' �3 � �' � m b K � m � 3' ^ '76 � A � ^ � A � 3 � •a 3 ^q i. F 3' B' � 1`e _ n ^ �. � .J -1 � •� -1 � .1 .a -� �1 -1 •' -1 -1 � H � �1 -� �1 3 ^ o A ^ ° ° A A ° •f z •a O 2 �e z ru z z R I f N z n n n n z n n n n z n n n z n n n 3 E f £ E I Z m c z m z D m C i I m A m C m O O ;° i• L1 r: W Ol �p w m �1 m r F m c f cm ti D o s N .a u a � 3 O O W b OD a pa� '3" as a O) m A � � OU t oo ao JO d L � � v N� N N N N � N N N N w o w A x N N R •+ N i o TO oT p T n � n D n d n° n n A n' i ^ � ^ � N 2 � 3 N r ni � .i E f E £ E £ E £ F E o a a a a a s a o \ m _ m _ _ v � 3A � s Bt a a � aa B A q o a �� ' a a 2 � � `. A a 3 A z 2 2 r2� z z z z z o q Z m n Z m n m .n z n n m n z n l F F £ £ a N a I w � � z m c w W 7 a 1 P N z N C N I i I N m r I I W C I I r N V w N m S C N y yy C a p A I N ym D ✓ w A p t � 3 m m t o N N N R rmi a ^ n nT n k i 'l n n fa^d ri el ei i T z E E £ E £ £ E £ E E a3 a a a a O _p _a _D > a > > > v n < S 7 C S S S G S < S a 7 S G V S S a < o ? 0 2 0 _. A ^ Z O A Z A z Z ! t1 O Z N Z z z Z z Z Z z Z tDF z Z q £ 7 � A z w i i a e '3 z ,a 3 ' ^m ' n a z ' ' z 'D z :4 - E ' 3 o E F F E co Z [ I Z � i o � I lw � I � N m N I N m A I I II � p p N N T a I I I C V m P ll� 30 OO N y y m i I p I 3 s a" w " w w w x a w' s r_ O � ¢ i ' � ° A R A £ £ E E E F £ O s v 9 I r D > D ? ➢ v v v s � > ➢ > > ? n 1 y r9 2 Z Z n G z Z Z z I 1 Z C I I Z W N W C I N � N y I � 1 m a I 1 C w W N L ^ s Im m p U m y a C b ur N o w A F m a 0o O W O I A A A E $ 3 3$ 3$ 3 3 3$ 3$ 3$ 3 3 3$ 3'I$ 3 3 3 3 3; 3 3; 3 3 3$ 3 3 3; 3$ 3 3 3; 9 _ 31' 3 3 =. 3 3 3 3 G 3 3 3 3 3_ 3 3 3= 3 3. 3 G 3 3 3 3 3 G 3 313 Ti G I�i '4�^nI�3-n o3 G a�a y b .wi d o5 w b o9'0 w G w w of H W» 1!;k�RS 031010 w » N 2 G oS oS .S G y w �So oS°S G N m >-a"-m SIB ti�I'o�S�3—n�m—IS=IS��-F�IS�3—'T .fir 3 D n a A D A A A m A D A AI n to D A m D m n A A ° le n A D D n le n A A� A o m o A A D a a A D a a a S A S a A D a S a D D A AI D A D 3 Z $ T 3 7 $ 3 V $ c T $ $ o $ 9 T 3 $ 9 $ D > $ $ > > > 3 $ 3 D > q 3 $ $ D > D $ $ 3 9 e a. ++ N C� '° T 'O � T 3 r v A N 7 •p y 9 a a 9 � T a T! S Z,2 T. n Ti - E F E u - o f E E o a o < A 3 � 3 n v o• :. a .. °� p N N �• i s z JI U� N r r r p N _ p N ~ o w 9 V V -.jt a m W 9u0 .+ ]0 � P � I N O� � •p m � j{ � O P I pp�jp _ L° N m W W W .., W W W y W W .0 +• W w Njr+ » A� VI aI m N A7 m N m DI� A7 m N A m ylrm � P{7 N m N V, D» ,", ,n A� N m N A� D» m tHm N m N A� D� P^ m N Pti m N A^ S� m r m ,w m U1 P� A� S� m N m Nm :II A� PG P� m N m .nm N m N,"1 N p� Pia Pa OD` 'rJD; Pa rN 10iib aG (DG Iv Na P� m� ao" 00. OD, W Oo� Oo" ao" m" Co 'r Oo" !L" P" N_ W A, N N > i� N > iP N > W N n Sk (n' 4e P. ^ {R N A n ¢� n V. GN = ¢e n Oo n {k ' QD n W pl n Oo n W n Oo n 90 9 A n Qe�n WA n pa pei�n A ral' -i �• n n� T' r n' n n' n" n n n n �n n n n n n � T' nn n• nn n n a a D D P P P A D D A P D P P D D D D PI P P S a PI D 9 D D a°,a a a a _a a a a a a a a _a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a, I 9 1 9 9 3 3 3 3 K 3 3 S "• � N N 1 N N � C � � � (> � ^S M O N N I N N N N 7 M r• _. O I � .1� N � � 0.Gi ► G n• G '.� O C � O• N A m � v r I f A I ^ P N n \ he OD J] a uNi P � � �p O• � Y rj Z N WW W W v .n w `,;2 & P .0 JO V V I p � � C• y N � N V N i1 W N •^ N 4., N = A � �• t. P I.i 00 � N r• N N ,D 1- M N m N � a g a• :E c• N -� tNr W r- > � V O• N N �Z N � � P I �! Q• P N N N � .Ni ram• � iw a N ~ m ao y `D N .. T +, u A G lIr N r • I fu u, N w N N ^ N y G T W m JGjj� A JD �Ap 9, A 4 � V N J yy� N P � � � J '? r• ti ^A Oo Or Vp S 00 r � W � L � �• � Qp. 7 O� � � g t! a P a p P a a a F a a a a F P o P P P P o o P o P P a P l o w a m Nan N m {n m N n N fA N` m O A] N n � Oe l" N� N � 00I1l� y ro� 9•' W w W � N, 00" 00" 9� N � �, N, fD� 70 •' � N � �D, N, rOD..'I1r r�i m f+ 'a R IA! ie n W 'i n io io ] ion m n io � Qa n 90 n ion Qo n ion A'n Qoin An 7o n 9ejn 70 � x�n 70 S O J O G J o m n J O � O O n m A m n m a A m A o < < < G < < < < G <I G < < < < < a II L � 9 tom. N N N N Z N # Z N W N � N N M ' � ?2 7'• a � rn m W 14+ N N P Q N N N r N r G m C V • � p '"' y r r.. u w N a �"' � '� 'S U U - N - .n R A A A A D .7N A A A A A A A A A D A A D A S A D D N » 0� I Qo � Po N T N fio U Qo w A w W P� T U Qo 7� n Qo + Oo Qo H -^ N Oo Yo {F N 10 iP 4e iP R+ Ro m R R R Ft R n n R R n F � n R .�• •• 'n` � c o a n y w Z Z n Z A Z n > > ` _ ^ 2 Z Z A T m Z n > n z E f f E o i s a=? A A n ° i m a G G I O O f -� 2 tP0 O� 00 O OD oho ae a 3F a A w yc a V p N u � N � �p _ N N y A V .D p0 OD u N P ol CC m O x P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P T P T ... P . P 4 E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E » ae » sie » ae a » ne » Ix P » » w Ik » w I » » P. x » R » » a a » » » P. 2' a » » » 2� x w » » » 2. w d .Ci d i s s s z s s a s s s s s z z s s s s s s s s s a 0 3 13 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 9 e a 3 c ELI ^ ^ n n n l 3 z - J Z Z 3 o a ' r Z z a g z' �, » z' rza E n E r'. ry m n E E E E n f 9t R Q !l C C A O O � b N P �0 O N �' ✓• p� N U �C9 I N N H N r N N r 7. P N P r {n P N N a pp N u 0 'A at I N P N W W ZR O O T P P L V V J J J V J v v i v V V J v v v v 4 A A A A A 9 A 70 A A A A A A P S A A S A S A A S 2 c u m u m u e 7e ie W R A> ?� i� Go R P• W R Ro R R R R R+ R W A R ?+ P+ I Po o i� n n` m a •`a n .� m =a n � •i m m a m m m n n m is ¢�— L N L it Y L W G 1 W W Y Y O O O O O O O O O O O O D O O O O O a a a a a [! a a 6 n a G a R a a a a a a a a a a 0 n " a 3Oo a S V '$ 3 r f� 9 A +� N r• � T ++ T T A Z Z z a$ q z £ £ £ £ n c Gl OD Ti. Q n 7 A D Q � Q N T m N P P O� OG N P N N b n �. T l v T ow m IJO p. 00 J 4 a P O �. ' M I ]P pA u2 ONE� O m G G N O O O � a2 P u O• f- 4 N :y pp P � •' m 00 �2 N ie P C m Jo .o G P ~ ��•, l00 �C S .n � Lp -- N N A In �' y m a r is -: � Z '. Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z- Z Z Z l Z n n n £ I E £ n £ n E n E m £ n n E E m e n £ £ £ m E o A £ £ n m n £ E £ m m n m n Q� R @e ff> P. A Qo 7o Qo k ?+ A 2- 2- W 'A P. vGo A r. n RIP c l o c v o• v v o v c c vv n ti I - v o - n o c a n - v o � n w - v o 0 3 3 3 3 3 i 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 13 g 1 n � o � 1 n R n Z a Zg z o e a N Z p g z A a v ?z:? P S n a i n o. i P � d 2 H I Y✓ W r A .-. " � � 4 N ot ~O 02 C A I A ~ � r III l � ✓ A �- 1+ W ~ � a ' ae r o o a c � � � r � � N ✓ A •- I - m r r O Y '- r ✓ ✓ ✓ -iD f o # o c T T ~ ti O l p r -� W r A ✓ 0 N Q T W W s A w .X i O N ✓ � II p . , O ✓ w � N rN.� A k � O Li bV O T a W p N O OC d ` | f f | | f | ( f ( f ( ( f z 2 \ } { } \ { \ 11- } i Z 2 / E F / | £ ! ! \ ! ! ! / ! ! ! [ £ ! ! ! ! I ! £ I £ ! ! 17■ E i E;7 | ! ! 2 o ! ¢ i } � � % ) ; .�; ~ k � k - ■ § : -1 - } ` § ` § ) - �� } ■ ir ; ) :�; ; _ - - ' - ■ § _ &�; ` } ® E ® ■ ) : .�; - � � ; ■ $ �k ) k 3 | � If Q � W W F S I 2 W a Wy W O• !t 2 W F I W 5 6 W W S F F m a0 VW Ix VWr yW /x a w x 01 ¢ a r a Z F w a a a P T. n n a n z a P ae s ? G" m r ? n � P r a n z s n � n r n n n n r �F 4C 4> Q> 1-v 4^ ¢^ i� (F P $ 2' 4� 9c el 2> is != a is ie i- is 1� -2 9 G - W W _ _ T 6 a . W A W C �_ W m C C_z W 6 0o A aD z A z W C W - C m F 6 a z A a G a A P i w 0 3 r' 9qZ = � c 3 > 9y S M1 F F a >��' gg E 7 f E = G� - � § a• f E e r - - f a _ I x x z � P P ^ % � �7Qr. V V P N _ �' - a V •• O W jY ► 1 I I i s .rr S zp I y „ I m i o 3 00 N V A N D N V Ou 5 n istStN � .-r N Ir W N W W 1st St S T V 0-0 rD o- n O n n 0 5' ao 0 c 0 m D 4 T N W N '' t m Church 4m Rd � S n4, t r S. o W O� Project Entrance Im iA A CO IV CO 4 00 N , V v A L EV•1 Project 40 Entrance N CO 0 CO f O u C c 00 W _ W v A O O Corkscrew Rd CO W W N 0 � N J� L 00 V w A 7+ A N N L� Carson Rd y W i �A 00 c G n 1Lou r W w V � N pp g Carson ..No Rd (n N co H ^ lA Q x pN W A O v ODD A A w. a o m SR 29 FTSR 29 a (N 15th Str ° w (15th St) N r W A Q1 V V CA SR 29 (N 15th g SR 29 w (N 15th rZo a i St I St W 00 r Go . N G Oo m w w %O r P New W w m Market vW Rd T W d 00 N o V W r W w to w Oe D Z N 7 1O L SR 29 By- Pass n N� N 0 O Q 1LOUc l,l*, r -�l V SR 29 � w a QO A O� N c P r+ W o m W V W N x ID y N 1st St N Oq o V m qJ A Oi V N W w p t r* A W 1st St S ti y N � N lO A T VNi I W pNe co W N P N V W LChurch Rd J 0� A 0) w NI Project j Entrance d A e� H A � � r 00 A N a N cc N L 4m N 00 o+ O A 1 LA S Corkscrew Rd EV-1 Project Entrance A O 17 o 0ID 0 I m 61 N N N 7) 7 fD 00 Ln us O,00 1 Y1 Nto N 00 OD O L Carson 4 Rd D 00 m X V l0 N A N N 1 U c o. N �n�,�rA� A N yp� m O1 0�0 v A N Carson a Rd r n A N X N A tl� V V N W W V fry+ C CL 0 ; v w o SR 29CL 2 w (N 15th X 0 5t) In O� V N N V %n to W L�u C LD U, tm�u c SR 29 g SR 29 o rZo (N 15th (N 15th a St) Stl A fD W SR 29 (15th St) V V 00 A 3 o; a 0 F+ a New Ao 0 Market Rd A 3 w 00 m a, a, X V 10 v V oa A 1 P P N f1 m V, d 3 C/ M n 0 n 0 0 c oa 0 0 c 0 v D m SR 29 N' By- Pass 7 00 w ao 40 SR 29 n m w A O� — I N w V C 00 V 0 0 0 c as 0 0 c 0 N D 0 00 Oo a D 1+ 9; 1st St N W A v 0 C wCL A24 n N V a 1st St S a � N F+ lD m in m w --A o. T. 00 N 00 00 N m o w to Church Rd s A D 3 In r A V fu A � 3 Project Entrance a A tD Q �Npp N M 00 oo rn v L EV-1 Project Entrance o v o a Corkscrew Rd 1 COwa 0 f+ V I ~ A � O w V, v m L� Carson � Rd v A T T D G L O 1LOU c N n r0 cr, N a Carson W Rd ITO cn X A w V C N N N W {R cu N w n %n L o SR 29 9 � Cl- A (N 15th 4 St) 4m ~ 00 N v co A N 00 1 �c a w iI ua. - N IN+ r N 1D N Q. 00 OL W N A N SR 29 SR 29 czo (N 15th (N 15th a St) St j d � � 1 OA N D W N LO SR 29 (15th St) N N 0 N OI 3 Q a' cc New Market Rd to N �^ C A N O ln*, r a a� A D gr N O L T i 1O p SR 29 C CA By- Pass 40 e� O � u C tU w fl. In V t r w N ON p.� SR 29 n z o a o+ D Q1 N L r.J v g 1st St N C f0 ti � A rr SI •� u C a 00 A nl, I f v ~ � J A 1st St SEi. v, a � N t0 nai w m N A � vo A N LD .+ N W 00 A A LChurch Rd `o 3 1 u� 0 r r w 0, o, g N W I* N O 0000 P W CU m Project et Entrance W w N I A V N V1 �1 r N C rn A � 00 W L Ev-1 Project Entrance A w 00 00 1 LOUC w Q, V N 00 O Corkscrew Rd e+ W W OCh m 00 A N a nn kD N LCarson Rd D 3 P P o O Olt d P 1 U � o , P r a 1 d ry � A K C Carson Rd G �o `^ P N Ln n Q o 1 4 x s a 4 m to w �, ,c It rl ►. 00 c 3 1 a a m SR 29 kn Q. LN SR 29 �0 In a (N 15th St) ° N N (15th St) n 9 N i w W m n n 0 1Nn N A O v 0 lb Q' �0 t SR 29 (N 15th St) SR 29 (N 15th a d NJ St) x- m 0 0 0 O V V CD LT 0 0 0 N C 7 0O 0 O C O 7 N D � N A N n A Q O! V p¢ r 0 t� C ~ U r a ro 10 New ti Market m Rd 3 d 0 0 0 rn SR 29 By- Pass — O !D pW O I"� 1 �y J r A r N r o SR 29 00 N a V, V m pw C, a D a N N Lw m 1st St N --I O ~� r N g rt N Y Y a 1st St S o w OI N �O 1~Q —J to I w i0 V N VI N N W O lC C-11 LChurch Rd o` In N D w= r Project Entrance W w Ln A 00 N OD A A 1O A V, L Ev-1 Project Entrance A W N CO �. 1 UC N � ~ A ' 9 g 01C o Corkscrew Rd W V fb o- 0 rl x 0 0 ao V1 O C ti O v D L. V, O O vn T v L Carson Rd D A T In c �s fu Carson N W Rd N fl X r N coo P r A A V A 0o O W 00 w y r a o m w SR 29N' FDD n L N SR 29 (N 15th St) X o (15th St ) W N N r O N Ol A r A N V ko m 1 uC s I LIOUC r cc m�� r— a, �i LA N 00 r 00 «+ N lD W a% a N N OD SR 29 (N 15th SR 29 o (N 15th m a i St) St) N N LA D A g w N N $ O N New N Market T 0/ Rd a V ' V Z rD C7 FT 0 pr n 0 c c ao 0 O C O 7 D of T N O 1° SR 29 % C By- Pass A w O r V+ O r A V con, mow, W 1 U c N � � SR 29 n w � 0 00 A Op tN in `+ N W w L V A co w Goo G� I o ti N � W n 4 w 1stStN = 7 fr � N cc N W r cc 1st St S w w W � N w T ~ N W W r w WN P V Church Rd 00 r 00 1 �c n4l I r c 7 T N Project Entrance Corkscrew Rd N N EV-1 Project Entrance A O C O �N A cc m A A LCarson Rd .� T W N 01 M F+ tA N W N 1 I s G ro� 3 N N Carson Rd v v O x N W N 4A N U N V n o W V SR 29 5 n SR 29 (N 15th St) ° (15th St) r 0 N j Uc j Uc ~ 8 N 00 0 W N N W SR 29 (N 15th g SR 29 (N 15th 00 m a f St) t, St) of N N � fD r+ V A VN+ W m N v p m w O rb A 'o' N j R r1 Z3 n 0 0 rb Q' rb 1 N N M 0 V C) 5, 5, New w m Market '^ n Rd "' o, 3 N � 0) Ch a, � o+ a o oe a � N � � 'R SR 29 By- Pass n 7 w A N �O S SR 29 U C I fo n N A T lo'%D N W Oo a ti N O 00 .a 3 m x, 3 1st St N 0o AVA iY r � r � r H m � w N O t r 00 W N N ~ A 1stStS Ln a � N 1.0 m w I v 0 W m �c r A w V N N L� Church Rd w nd N 1 u� y n4, r P V pppp O 00 N v H m 2) W Project Entrance ...� V N OD gyppm' W L 4m o �^ w a C J C1 N r r m Corkscrew Rd N w A EV-1 Project Entrance 17 O f1~111* O Q` V � L Carson Rd V 9 m x N lD W A O N O C Carson N Rd o x pN A P N � N wV.. W v+ A A 1 l � or 5 N` n c m «. SR 29 � '" n SR 29 a w (N 15th St) ° A (15th St) :. W 6 W A N :, DO 00 a `o uuvi 00 i cc 00 SR 29 (N 15th St) SR 29 a (N 15th a m St) o m m N 0 �11 N w O U1 ti N -I rb cr 0 x 0 0 a C rr an 00 0 O C _K O 7 N D m n N m .. 3 cr � ~ N �O �G w A F+ N � O New o 00 Market Rd a o � 3 m « w 4 x ^ r o 3 w V r N 0 Oc N n m N 0/ N C. a o W W n> > SR 29 X H 8y- Pass fD A A j Uc o 0 t r wLOU �n V O �ti SR 29 cr n O n 0 0 c oc 0 0 c o' D a 0. N W Q �A rn ao VI %D 00 v W V A 1st St N A U w OR w � O C � Q. 4� n w W 0000 N 10 1st St S W � N tD A G ' U1 Q '+ 00 (� rb CT 0 n n 0 9' 00 V, 0 5 o' D N .. N W 10 ao 00 0 Church Rd 4m LD CD O N A W In 1 tm*u LD C 0 r� A O � w C 3 a Project Entrance A N N � a � L EV-1 Project Entrance V � W � � W 1 UC 1�1 n*1 r N N L 1p Corkscrew Rd A O W - QOW F+ W A N C N T V W A L Carson Rd .� TI C 1LOU c cu n r �o ~ 1+ N Q In W cm : W W W O- Carson Rd N f1 X A N v Y � Q Ato N P 00 V 000 I @r a o m N Im Do SR 29 F FT L P SR 29 o A m (N 15th St) o 00 (15th St ) Q, N N On 00 W - v r A j Uc8 AJ 1 LOUc w ��, r ��,1 r 00 M) U, 1+ 00 u1 w A w N V {/� 00 W W 01 N V V SR 29 (N 15th p tA SR 29 o (N 15th z ro a St) o St) PQ v p� � N r Q N a rn IA � of 3 cr O 0 m c L� 3 a T o w New Market Rd 0 ca 00 N V r^� L 1 a r .4 � n dQ O A N ' a Oo U^ V o+ T1 '.S SR 29 By- Pass 4 ° W IV A O C 4u c W' C a 0 W N F+ v W v+ SR 29cn n N 00 A O� N A J O a p N O N -A e 0 m 0 W rt 1st St N C ir fD A W ln*i I fo C 15tStS v, fu to 00 , v m W r 00 C O A 0 0 as 0 c cl 0 D w Project Entrance N Il ID A rw-H Church Rd W rN �3 C 00 e. wo� w o. v� O t� I Is O A t EV-1 Project Entrance rn `0 m '- O ? M Jl LOU C Ln r w 6P1 P � Do V J� Corkscrew Rd A Q V CO V O� LO N LCarson Rd V N o O w� W zi nn r A I In N W T A Carson Rd � N Q1 m p X p pp N V W N D A ID A O O ID v d oL m v� SR 29 fD `D SR 29 a (N 15th G St) (15th St ) IwD P r W W � �D N SR 29 (N 15th St) � SR 29 (N 15th O z /D a St) m G O r N Of w 0 New N m Market n Rd 3 m o 0 0 0 8� N MJ1t..UC7 SR 29 By- Pass — O m N -�Ilnti t fo ol h� W SR 29 N N n m w A m 0 w N W r �O 1stStS d N N � N N v m A In poppp � " O V1wi� N w r � w L� w Church Rd r N P r �4co r N � 3 1 uC In w V � C r 0 0 N W V A w A w W N Project Entrance w N 01 tD N pP� N 00 W W W N ;7 00 N W W A W Oo to rNw. to + L EV-1 40 z Project Entrance w v� " P U C OD 00 4, r W W N 4� �$ro � Corkscrew Rd V $ a .• N {� N N LCarson Rd V TI C IN co 1 V� o r U N Y N Y w N ."+ m M w A v Carson Rd w � X �n A 10 A O O Y 00 1� 0% N O O rn O A v Oo A V �D A 00 r- N N a o m A SR 29 kn n^ SR 29 a (N 15th X (15th St ) St) A .! V N INb Y1 r w 03 N w w io j Uc A o 1 Uc rD C7 n O n F n 0 3 N C K 3 OC V, O 5 O 3 N D 40 N � V N m L °� r V 5 �+ 3 T cr w 04 r O Pf i � c W a o New a 0o m Market '^ n Rd o ,a� N I - a Go U V Y . 00 � a m N L `� C > SR 29 c By- Pass � N w G r+ cc W Y Go V In tp V w ►' SR 29 co n ti 00 A N V+ V w Y a N O N Appendix D: Existing Programmed Signal Timings (Excerpts) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 128 Corkscrew Groves fast Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Oil Well Rd and Everi"lades Blvd Intersection Phase Parameters Phases 1 2 1 3 4 5 1 6 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Walk Time 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clear Time 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Don't Walk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Green 5 21 5 10 5 12 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Passage 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-1 20 30 20 30 20 30 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Max-2 15 25 15 25 15 125 25 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yel Change 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 48 48 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Red Clear 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 35 3.5 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Red Revert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Max Initial 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Time B4 Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cars B4 Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduce By 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Gap 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dyn Max Limit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dyn Max Step 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delayed Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delay Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alt Walk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 At Ped Clr Pre Green 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pre Clearance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Add Red Clear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phases 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Walk Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clear Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Don't Walk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Passage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yel Change 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Red Clear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Red Revert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time B4 Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cars B4 Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduce By 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Gap 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dyn Max Limit 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dyn Max Step 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delayed Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delay Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alt Walk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alt Ped Clr Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 129 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 B m f ��$ 4 r O 4 a " p}ee 1 E; A P t sm � � " i� �D.r �.•: 4 ti CaU-I ag rd " r •—� W iii _..—. — 11 • � a w� � _+ c� d © I h I v � ti W�N yam+—�-�• g � � � 0 � � © e � K� y 7 tot: Q 11 Q i] ti ti ti ti V C N •x � I ♦ r 1 it{ 9+¢ a n P.7p nr' r U t� sti 77 U gg n W is g y,�y� I Tt g I l l y� ¢� ® �y x qd h 9 tr4 J w ~ it n 85i Na II W�i 09R� Q` a N A a B a C nn Rn6t � 1+.Y(a �a ti Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page � 130 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Main St (SR 291 and V St (Immokalee Rd) Intersection Phase Parameters Phases 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Walk Time 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clear Time 0 16 0 26 0 20 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Don't Welk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Green 5 20 5 7 5 20 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Passage 3 5 1 3 3 1 3 5 1 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Max-1 10 30 10 20 10 30 10 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yel Change 4.1 4.1 4 4 4.1 4.1 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Red Clear 2 2 2.7 2.7 2 2 2.4 2.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Red Revert 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time B4 Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cars B4 Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduce By 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Gap 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dyn Max Limit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dyn Max Step 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delayed Green 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Delay Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alt Walk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alt Ped Clr Pre Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pre Clearance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Add Red Clear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phases 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Walk Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clear Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Don't Walk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Passage 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Max-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yel Change 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Red Clear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Red Revert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Max Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time B4 Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Cars 64 Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduce By 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Gap 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dyn Max Limit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dyn Max Step 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delayed Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Delay Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 At Walk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LW 0 0 0F Alt Ped Clr Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a „ 1 131 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 1 1 C� ti � N Q � Q V 4 � 2 Q 2 u _ w 3 . . a c .s. .... ............. . . .--. . . .--. .--. D.-'+. LJ L.J L J L J L J LJ LJ I.J L1 LJ L J L J meB mpg ti Q Cr 0 O O J In O O O O Q oI ' T g $ KUOo `a 8sw„ hrco¢ g z o O C7y W _ WirvZ r Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 132 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Everglades Blvd & Randall Blvd Intersection Phase Parameters Phases 1 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Walk Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clear Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Don't Walk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Green 5 18 5 18 5 18 5 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Passage 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Max-1 30 40 30 50 30 40 30 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yel Change 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Red Clear 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Red Revert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Added Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time B4 Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cars B4 Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduce By 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Gap 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dyn Max Limit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dyn Max Step 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delayed Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delay Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 At Walk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 At Ped Clr Pre Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pre Clearance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Add Red Clear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phases 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Walk Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clear Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Don't Walk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min Green 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Passage 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Max-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yel Change 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Red Clear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Red Revert 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Max Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time B4 Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cars B4 Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Reduce By 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Min Gap 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dyn Max Limit 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dyn Max Step 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delayed Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delay Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alt Walk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alt Ped Gr Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 133 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 - dN " O~¢ O O o O J'¢ NSF= _ s' W 6 •• j C��T vl ' - �o>� ¢ 00 YJ - �pW`Ino O h SWCaOU ii0 � ^1 y mood3 - x_____ _____._____�__ u,xz¢r=w w S'a i�n uQi m - N ¢WSv"oF O alw C tiF22 ey ¢n is �eW h 4�CWn iti�nm�vo 1 'C') Qn 1' �OOyO _ F- o O m n m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o z' S _ ___ _ _ _ G`2G a C W W W W W W W- g T U N _ CLI Cr J m W a Q 2 U W C � cc W N N a Wo o _ TT v N C _ a � Uzi tc. a J n h z z� oQ C _ U u Y K 2 iYlw� WO 2 NOIIJNnJ W ONIWII Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 134 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Appendix E: SR 82 Widening - Approved Contract Plans (Excerpts) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 135 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Y 3 '100EC-91919 31IItl tl30911 431Y35 OW -3 I5 11-101. all. llw. 3313 W, 51 L33115 51N 30 O3,OJ3tl 1.131330 3- ~ ... 4 CCi j O O ? tn e e i G j M N �- C O LU 9°0 Q N h N a U, Wp uiv"� W WC )W imtn z 4z y n V l�W �=°°W� U° pO W V U 6 ¢ 2z :3�oZ�w1 kL •............ Vo% W \ �4prrn tur P`�� ,, CO CL Q >< N o � � s e u�j I 3-ez-a-a Q I U O CL, W O a w o o U W W ti E,M ¢ Q Q O OY c o i v =E �uViU W E N S W _ 3-9Z-tl ZU �keq, u O_ y >W',S U 2 ^le2 Q4N ud = nNo z-a2 o= N� mCi N ti =0 to° ¢N 2 � W �002W VU Q O WI-1- 2N0 NSSn�N W= 2 Q N 1WeFFVOVN Ul ? W O m k IU z N h W W � J' 97• a N NNN NY1 VI Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 136 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 v -&" tr tr9n Jlro CAWJ Vj.M M' 04"" tlmm" J,I J'lmadLJJTJ lm 5, IJ"B Sul, m (MIN NgrJM AL m dow►PI vr5 dolt'Pidu w� I h j •rr Qyyi6 �) m� I � i y & t 8 qyyqu If IbT Q • O � � h � W 4 rr nn F W 4 I I I I p W; i` J41�1 � J y rps, w O Ail . r i WIKI '•n full wnN Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 137 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 fi '�ofi rr.rren .. m 9 as arms rl tF IWO rllr 21`M1147r 1M1 it JJAV 91111 p OY & WIXOM All ul VI �1 pplcxl'1 wrs evil N�»N i W I I n N N 11 ! I Z a p� r aq I Cx g s g �p j"y g �' b• ri1 I �w�n S DNulp5l fiD 9W \Itp • V� 4� I � `�. n �� 3i s: �jao ol; I 1 I pa „+ I 1K 25' " e ! I " AX �wlrt I�I , 6 101 r ' I � e •ry m _ i W \ � N I Sr AVM = K ^ o e b � M • it O e! n el r! el WWI 'fits 81117 01901 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 138 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 h �.1-1761AINO 'l I'J '/00 LC L[OII J1IM VANlI O//IVb' A1I OJM916' ATTIJIOlO J111 )lVIMUJTJ J11J ,1 IJ ills {Illl AOYOJIY TII.l11J0 JIII W.fpfl 'Ig Own 4-WM � u I I !/� �i DM VYI/• � �e� 1 01 I11 rl N �I 1I 2 W I R42 yI �1�yy - I 1 M al e .m. - • e � I � ~° tSN alllY llll wl, W I k�a /v I I b Ls• ar � AI rr G W#5511 al5 OW VJWN h h Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 139 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 '! •'! 'r0/ 1t K1011 I'm UjW 00W.OMI 0JK•JIS AlTIJ/010 1+I4 11000I o"i WIJ II Jim YIIII A vioxPa IIfJI Id0 M 00�/Ait sls Iun WIeN h N 1M <1.0p r . !P T ai II ° ° 4 �I I �' i �Q •� e be 1°• • o e � L J � e • � �[ORKS[flE�W RD, �� zo El.N. N 'VVww�'ww�n^ ii'i` t C ON VO %Q� Wow ImAlGuW • n i I ta�sM i oe a e• • .I �Y t~ m° %IT ~ � • W 4 � u a:as� es nI �i I a i 00106C1 '015 •ull 413IIN Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 140 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — T/S Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 '] /' I 'Ipp rt rfPrr lUIU "SM, Pi— PM PJMJ6 A+IYJIPlO /+1I lrrgluYTa !NJ rr 1J.INr rlllt A PYP]d mil uP ml F H ODHDiI 'Y15 /un y]ley h I •- BI'FFc Eti li I rr• w' w 1IM17 60 b ` 45�� SOY r1TYJSMYOJr IMY m i IG b ♦ � R S n •1 8 Y ry � �� I ; � n R rw11W +? ,.♦ ' `• _ EAST �e pif �I t2 h n ^ � I Ib � g � �h I I q�'�� IP:i 1 �O ♦� ^' i 8 rNrca ; LLLI S i Gelrlau Noij y g n • r j _,1 f FIN' Yit3vibl j r - n ei , LJ_ 11 11 11 .1NLL I I y M q � v n � I \ � M.IY]3iliBwl 00416C1 p15 YUII Y]IrN Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 141 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship &c Ag+m-a&Section 2-Intersection AnalyA-December 203 }uj � e��■; ■ > ! m ` RR| �■ _` | C @ % §■`�. k a in Ln cL ) § § k { §� \ � ( §} LLJ (v) k CO ---mom: � § $ \ \ƒ | 2 k \ 2 k k j ix / ) . . \ \ * G . ..� : \� § 3 /— --- -- ©- — u . A \ ((! 2 !�•§■ /a-�.. / \ §\}\ § § 2�|�a,E§.�2 &&■�!&- f u, = 2 k r @lco a Consulting Solutions, PA Page1&z Corkscrew Groves as Village Stewardship Receiving +m-TSSection 2-Intersection Analy+-December 2025 § § } --.. ."ir.A-�. ;L m. , ee _I .29 A'Pft a �r � � \ , ! , 92 � m . ! $ � m 2 � ■"� | !`| §��%■§®|■ � | ` | E | � ■' f � , r we6cGumm Solutions, PA Raae1ka Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 r J WO it .1810 JMW )MAM .0&1% MW 040#6 0 Wur,9 111, I "Lai, JNJ f, WINE *,I. %aMm" ir1y14M1 JW r•qr I y I I I w _ M► 1 ancrre rJ.a a I JMf10.7JYN � a r • N y +� y 5 V I p10 li I h kE C. B ��yyll „ 1, I i 04 8 Hl- M-OW VJS < 1 WIIN;11rM �• N I i t i I e ~ S w _ I I � nn R� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 144 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 IV ♦ Wo If 1t➢lv lift MJ *" .0&" wr 010114 OW-06 410 nM 'W ll JNJ SI U Na -.A "I" buuM Jilt 4' R sng a o O O O F. T µd k n W ti :- i O W W .yy. 4 U I 2 W y i 1a la N 9 S MMM U a 4 QQ 5 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 145 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Appendix F: Intersection Analyses - Synchro Reports Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 146 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Immokalee Rd (V St) and SR 29 (Main SO Intersection Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1, 1 sl St & Main St 121I6025 t `► 1 .� one G"p EBL EBT EAR WBL 'INjTT WBR N L NBT KBR. BBL SQT 12 Lane Configurations ►j tt r ¢¢ r Traffic Volume "h) 41 197 316 68 104 31 165 332 104 24 320 19 Future Volume (Th) 41 197 316 68 104 31 165 332 104 24 320 19 Ideal Flow "hpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1906 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 260 125 260 225 175 0 250 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Taper Length Qt) 50 50 50 50 Lane Ekil . Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.992 Fit Protected "60 0.950 4.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1703 3406 150 1641 3282 1553 1719 1727 13N 1 719 1707 0 Fit Permitted 0.682 0.684 0.267 0.520 Satd.Flow (perm) 1222 3406 1568 1009 3282 1553 483 1727 1380 941 1707 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes ?es Said. Flow (RTO R) 336 167 116 2 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 30 30 Link Distance 0) 2390 1967 1479 1442 Travel Time (s) 46.6 38.3 33.6 32.E Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles Pk) 6% 60/6 3% 10% 10% 40A 5% 10% 17% 5% 11°r5 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 44 210 336 72 ill 33 176 353 ill 26 34 0 20 Shared Lane Traffic (°r6) Lane Group Flow (vph) 44 210 336 72 ill 33 176 353 ill 26 360 0 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Penn pm-V NA Perm pm+pt NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 $ Perm fitted Phases 6 6 2 2 4 4 8 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 7 4 4 3 $ Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 30.0 30.0 10.0 30.0 30.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 20.0 Minimum Spld (s) 16.1 36.1 36.1 16.1 36.1 36.1 16.4 40.0 40.0 161 420 Total Spll (s) 17.0 42.0 42.0 17.0 42.0 42.0 26.0 73.0 73.0 18.0 66.0 Total Split (%) 11.3% 28.00A 28.0% 11.3% 2$.0% 2$.0% 17.31A 48.7% 48.7% 12.0% 43.3% Ma)amum Green (s) 10.9 35.9 35.9 10.9 35.9 35.9 19.6 66.3 06.3 11.3 58 3 Yellow Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 A.1 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Lost Time Adjust (s) 00 0.0 00 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time 0) 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.4 6.7 6.7 67 6 7 Leadhag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Dead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle E)dension (s) 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.Q Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 9.0 Flash Dort Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 16.0 16.0 26.0 26.0 260 Pedestrian Calls (Ohr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Eflct Green 0) 38.2 30.5 30.5 39.4 33.9 33.9 44.6 39.1 39.1 36.5 26.3 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.n 0.30 0.30 0.39 0.34 0.34 0.44 0.39 0.39 0.36 026 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.20 0.47 0.16 0.10 0.05 0.48 0.53 0.18 0.06 0.81 Control Delay 19,1s 29.7 6.1 202 2$.0 0.2 22.3 301 5.4 17.0 506 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 E)asting 2025 Background - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 147 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1. 1 st St & Main St 12n612025 Lane GroupaL EBT aR WBL W83 WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SOT BBR Total Delay 19.8 29.7 6.1 20.3 2$.0 02 22.3 30.1 6.4 17.0 60.6 LOS B C A C C A C C A B D Approach Delay 15.5 21.2 23.7 48.3 Approach LO S B C C D Queue Length50th (1t) 16 54 0 27 28 0 72 163 0 10 227 Queue Length 95th fit) 45 101 74 66 58 0 115 314 36 25 346 lrrternal Link Dist Qt) 2310 1887 1399 1362 Turn Bay Length fit) 250 125 250 226 175 250 Base Capacity "h) 623 1232 781 468 1265 07 461 1153 960 441 1004 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vk Ratio 0.09 0.17 0.43 0.15 0.09 0.05 0.38 0,31 0.12 0.06 0.36 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length,160 Actuated Cycle Length:101 Natural Cycle:116 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v1t Ratio:0.81 Intersection Signal Delay.25-9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81 6% Analysis Period itnin)15 and Phases: 1:1 st St & Main St 4-- • 05 I --006 14N 07 Intersection LOS: C ICU Level of Service D 08 Existing 2026 Background - AM Peak Hour Synchrol l Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 148 Corkscrew Groves fast Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1. 1 st St & Main St I2A6r2025 Lane Group QBL EBT E9R WBL WBT bUBR NBL NBT NBR 5BL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ►j ++ r ++ r + r Vii T. Traffic Volume (uph) 67 151 241 104 222 21 339 595 108 24 282 22 Future Volume (Uph) 67 151 241 104 222 21 339 595 108 24 282 22 Ideal Flow (Thpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ff) 250 125 250 226 175 0 250 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (t) 50 50 50 50 Lane Lgil. Factor 1.00 0.96 1-00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0 850 0.850 0 989 Rt Protected 10960 0.960 0.950 0.960 Said. Flow (prot) 1719 3505 1668 1671 3539 1324 1752 1827 1509 1583 1912 0 Flt Permitted 0.605 0.611 0.305 0.305 Sat& Flow (perm) 1095 3505 1568 1075 3539 1324 563 1827 1609 508 U12 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 256 167 116 3 link Speed (mph) 35 35 30 30 Link Distance 0) 2390 1%7 1479 1442 Travel Time (s) 46.6 38.3 33.6 32.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5°% 3% 3°% 8°% 2°% 22°% 3°% 4°% 7°% 14% 4°% 0°% Adj. Flow �ph) 71 161 256 ill 236 22 361 633 115 26 300 23 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 71 161 256 ill 236 22 361 633 115 26 323 0 Turn Type pm v KA Perm pm V NA Perm pm4pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 4 4 8 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 7 4 4 3 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 200 20.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 60 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 X0 34.0 12.0 34.0 34.0 12.0 40.0 40.0 12.0 42.0 Total Split (s) 12.0 34.0 34.0 12.0 34.0 34.0 47.0 92.0 92.0 12.0 67.0 Total Split (%) 8.0°% 22.7°% 227°% $.0°% 22.7°% 22.70k 31.3°% 61.3°% 61.3°% 8.0°% 38.0°% Maximum Green (s) 5.9 27.9 27.9 6.9 27.9 27.9 40.6 85.3 85.3 5.3 50.3 Yellow Time (s) 4.1 41 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.7 2 7 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0-0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time {s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.4 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 LeadlLag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Exdenston (s) 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None None Walk Time () 7.0 7.0 7A 7.0 7.0 7.0 9.0 Flash Dort Walk (s) 200 20.0 16.0 16.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Pedestrian Calls (#khr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 25.9 20.3 20.3 27.8 23.2 23.2 467 42.2 42.2 27.2 22.0 Actuated 91C Ratio 028, 0.22 0.22 030 0.25 025 0.51 0.46 0.46 0.30 024 vrc Ratio 0.20 0.21 0.47 0.31 0.26 0.05 0.70 0.75 0.15 0.12 0.74 Control Delay 26-1 32.9 8.0 27.8 32.6 02 21.1 27.8 16 14.0 42.4 Queue Delay 0.0 00 0.0 0 0 00 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Emsting 2026 Background - PM Peak Hour Sync hro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 149 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1. 1 st St & Main St 12n612025 Lane Group E9L r13.t %ffR W- BL W07 WBR NEL NBT N8R. 8BL SST bTR Total Delay 26.1 32.9 8.0 27.8 32.6 0.2 21.1 27.3 3.6 14.0 42.4 LOS C C A C C A C C A B D Approach Delay 18.9 29.2 23-1 40-2 Approach LOS B C C D Queue Length50th (it) 27 39 0 43 58 0 12� 261 0 7 174 Queue Length 95th fit) 73 83 69 106 115 0 180 483 29 19 276 Internal Link Dist fit) 2'310 1887 1399 1362 Turn Bay Length (11) 250 125 260 225 175 250 Base Capacity (uph) 355 1083 661 364 1125 534 835 1677 1395 215 1011 Starvation Cap Reducin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vk Ratio 0.20 0.15 0.39 0Z0 0.21 0.04 0.43 0.38 0% 0.12 0.32 fersectPon Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:160 Actuated Cycle Length: 91.7 Natural Cycle,100 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated MaArnum vk Ratio:0.76 Intersection Sign9l Delay 25.8 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period Pin)16 ilit, nd Phases: 1:1st St &Main St 1 02 0304 5 --0476 07 • 08 EAsting 2026 Background - PM Peak Hour 8ynchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 150 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1- 1st St & Main St 12A 612025 Lane Group E9L 58T UR WBL WRT 'VBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT S.BR Lane Configurations ++ r ++ r + r T. Traffic Volume "h) 62 300 481 103 15% 47 251 505 158 37 487 29 Future Volume (Th) 62 300 481 103 158 47 251 506 158 37 487 29 ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1900 190Q 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 250 125 260 225 175 0 250 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Taper Length fit) 50 50 50 50 Lane Util, Factor 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.860 0 850 0.850 0 992 Fit Protected 0.950 0:950 v.960 0.960 Satd. Flow (prat) 1703 3406 150 1641 3282 1663 1719 1727 1380 1719 1708 0 Fit Permitted 0 646 0.464 0.133 0.288 Said. Flow (perm) 1158 3406 1568 784 3282 1553 241 1727 1380 521 1708 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 374 167 148 2 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 30 30 Link Distance (ff) 2390 1%7 1479 1442 Travel Time (s) 46.6 38.3 33.6 32.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 6% 3-OA 10% 1OOA 40R 5% 10°A 179/6 5PA 11% 0% Adj. Flow �ph) 66 319 512 110 168 50 267 537 168 39 51% 31 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 66 319 512 110 168 50 267 537 168 39 549 0 Turn Type pm 40 NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm-V NA Perm pm+pt NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Pet•mitted Phases 6 6 2 2 4 4 8 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 7 4 4 3 % Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 30.0 30.0 10.0 30.0 30.0 100 20.0 20.0 10.0 20.0 Minimum Split (s) 16.1 361 36.1 16.1 36.1 36.1 16.4 40.0 40.0 16.7 42.0 Total Split (s) 17.0 42.0 42.0 17.0 42.0 42.0 26.0 73.0 73.0 1$.0 66.0 Total Split (%) 11.3% 28.0% 28.0% 11.3% 28.0% 28.0% 17.3% 48.7% 48.7% 12.0% 43.3% Maximum Green (s) 10.9 359 35.9 10.9 35.9 35.9 19.6 66.3 66.3 11.3 58.3 Yellow lime (s) 4.1 41 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time () 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.4 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 1-sad/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle EMension (s) 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 9.0 Flash Dent Walk 0) 20.0 20.0 16.0 16.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Pedestrian Calls (Ahr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act EffA Green (s) 41.7 31.5 31.5 43.6 35.5 35.5 67.2 64.4 54.4 64.4 44.3 Actuated 91C Ratio 042 0.25 0.26 0.34 0.28 028 0.52 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.34 vlc Ratio 0.16 0.38 0.77 0.33 0.19 0.09 0.84 0.73 0.25 0.12 0.93 Control Delay 312 44.2 22.0 33.3 40.7 0.3 47.6 38.6 5.9 16.0 642 Queue Delay 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 Future 2048 Background -AM Peak Hour Sync hro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 151 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1. 1 st St & Main St 121162025 -A -• 4 '- *�- 4N T 1* 1 1 -V Lane Group ESL EBT M WBL WBT *131 'NBL NBT NBR. S.BL S$T E Total Delay 31.2 44.E 22.0 33.3 40.7 0.3 47.6 38.6 5.9 16.0 642 LOS C D C C D A D D A E E Approach Delay 30.5 32.1 35.4 61.0 Approach LOS C C D E Queue Length50th Qt) 36 117 1(6 62 58 0 126 377 10 15 42$ Queue Length 95th (t) 80 187 2" 125 104 0 407 556 55 35 646 Internal Link Dist Qt) 2310 1887 1399 1362 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 125 260 225 175 260 Base Capacty "h) 429 %6 712 342 994 58E 355 907 795 332 797 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Redudn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 deducedvic Ratio 0.15 0.33 0.72 0.32 0.17 0,09 0.75 0.69 0.21 0.12 0.70 lritersectlon Summary' Area Type: Other Cycle Length,150 Actuated Cycle Length:128.5 Natural Cycle:115 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vt Ratio: 0.93 Intersection Signal Delay38.9 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 95 7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period Pin)15 40 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown Is maArnum after two cycles. jinand Phases : 1:1 st 5t & Main 5t s32 F33 ®4 —'#rho 4\ 07 � 08 Future 2048 Background -AM Peak Hour Sync hro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 152 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1. 1 St St & Main St -A --I. z 4\ T `► 1 12A 6t2025 Lane Group E9L 5BT UR WB.L V1BT WOR NBL NBT NBR S.BL SBT M Lane Configurations ++ r ++ r I + r I T. Traffic Volume (vph) 102 230 367 158 338 32 516 905 164 37 429 33 Future Volume (vph) 102 230 367 168 338 32 516 906 164 37 429 33 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 000 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 250 125 260 225 175 0 250 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (t) 50 50 50 50 Lane Utl_ Factor 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0 850 0.860 0 989 Fit Protected 10.950 0.9510 `0.960 0.960 Satd Flow (prot) 1719 3505 1568 1671 3539 1324 1752 1827 1509 1583 1812 0 Fit Permitted 0.363 0.527 0.157 0.125 Satd Flow (perm) 657 3505 1568 927 3539 1324 290 1827 1609 208 1812 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flaw (RTO R) 390 167 116 3 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 30 30 Link Distance fit) 2390 1%7 1479 1442 Travel Time (s) 466 38.3 33.6 32.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0 94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles 5% 3% 3% 8% 2% 22% 3% 4°% 7% 14% 4% 0% Adj. Flow kph) 109 245 390 168 360 34 649 963 174 39 466 35 Shared Wine Traffic (76) Lane Group Flow (Wh) 109 245 390 168 360 34 549 963 174 39 491 0 Turn Type pm-V NA Perm pm4pt NA Perm pm-V NA Perm pmV NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 4 4 .8 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 7 4 4 3 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 5 0 7.0 7.0 5.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 34.0 34.0 12.0 34.0 34.0 12.0 40.0 40.0 12.0 42.0 Total Split (s) 12.0 34.0 34.0 12.0 34.0 34.0 47.0 92.0 92.0 12.0 67.0 Total Split (%) 8.0% 22.7% 227% $.0% 22,7% 22.7% 31.3% 61.3% 61.3% 8.0% 38.0% Ma)amum Green (s) 5.9 27.9 27.9 5.9 27.9 27.9 40.6 85.3 85.3 6.3 50.3 Yellow Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Lost Time Adjust (s} 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time is) 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.4 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 LeadLag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Fidension (s) 10 2.0 20 1.0 2.0 20 1.0 2.0 2.0 10 2.0 Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None None Walk Time (5) 70 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 9.0 Flash Dord Walk (s) 20 0 20.0 16.0 16.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Pedestrian Calls (49hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 27.0 212 21.2 27.3 21.3 21.3 85 0 75.7 75.7 46.4 41.2 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.21 0.16 0.16 021 016 Q.16 0.65 058 0.58 0.36 0 31 vlc Ratio 0.60 0.43 0.67 0.74 0.63 0.10 0.92 0.91 0.19 0.31 0.% Control Delay 59,8 547 11.3 0.4 %8 0.5 50.2 39.1 5.3 22.6 57.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future 2048 Background - PM Peak Hour Sync hro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 153 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1. 1 st St & Main St 12n6r2025 0a eGroup El�t EBT EEIR WBL 111lR.T WBR NEL MBT NBR 68L HT &OR Total Delay 59.8 54.7 11.3 68.4 R.8 0.6 50.2 39.1 6.3 22.6 67.8 LOS E D B E E A D D A C E Approach Delay 32.7 582 39.2 55.2 Approach LOS C E D E queue Length 60th (fit) 81 107 0 130 163 0 352 715 21 11 399 Queue Length 96th (it) 141 157 101 4P40 226 0 43610 4A 107 58 26 563 Internal Link Dist g) 2310 1887 1399 1362 Turn Bay Length M) 250 126 250 225 175 250 Base Capacity (vph) 184 758 644 226 766 417 648 1207 1037 130 709 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vk Ratio 0.69 0.32 0.61 0.74 0.47 Oft 0.85 0.80 0.17 0.30 0.69 lriterse�l'on Summary' "' Area Type: Other Cycle Length:150 Actuated Cycle Length:131.1 Natural Cycle, 14 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vk Ratio: 0.92 Intersection Signal Delay: 43.3 Intersection LOS. D Intersection Capacity Utilization 99 7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period "in)16 4 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer Queue shown is maxdmum aftertwo cycles. S It and Phases: 1:1st St &Main St 4--- 01 02 413 04 I • 05 6 4N 07 • ©S Future 2048 Background - PM Peak Hour 8ynchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 154 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1. 1 st St & Main St 12A612025 � � � or '- T 1 Lane Group E�gL EBT. EgR WBL W5T WBR NBL NBT NER StL SOT Lane Configurations _ ++ ._• Traffic Volume (vph) 62 300 481 103 158 47 251 505 158 37 487 29 Future Volume (vph) 62 300 481 103 158 47 251 505 158 37 487 29 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19W 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 260 125 250 225 176 0 250 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 Taper Length S) 50 50 100 50 Lane Utl. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1-00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0 860 0 850 0.860 0 992 Rt Protected 0.950 0-.950 -0.950 0.960 Satd Flow (prot) 1703 3406 1568 1641 3282 1553 3335 1727 1380 1719 1708 0 Rt Permitted 0.646 0.409 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 1158 3406 1563 706 3282 1553 3335 1727 1380 1719 1708 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 510 167 135 2 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 30 30 Link Distance qt) 2390 1967 1479 1442 Travel Time (s) 46.6 38.3 33.6 32.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6°% 60/0 3% 100/o 10°% 4°% 5°% 10°% 17°% 5°% 11°% 0% Adj. Flow kph) 66 319 512 110 168 50 267 537 168 39 618 31 Shared Lane Traff c (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 66 319 512 110 168 50 267 537 168 39 649 0 Turn Type pm apt NA Perm pmapt NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 4 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 7 4 4 3 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 30.0 30.0 10.0 30.0 30.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 20.0 Minimum Split (s) 16.1 36.1 36.1 16.1 36.1 36.1 16.4 40.0 40.0 16.7 42.0 Total Split (s) 17.0 270 27.0 17.0 27.0 27.0 52.0 65.0 65.0 41.0 54.0 Total Split �%) 11.3% 18.0% 18.0% 11.3% 18.0% 18.0% 34.7% 43.3°% 43.a% 27.39h 36.0% MaAmum Green (s) 10.9 20.9 20.9 10.9 20.9 20.9 45.6 58.3 58.3 34.3 47.3 Yellow Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4A 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time () 2.0 20 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.4 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 LeadiLag Least Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle E)dension (s) 1.0 20 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 9.0 Flash Dort Walk (s) 200 20.0 16.0 16.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Pedestri an. Calls (Ohr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 30.9 20.9 20.9 32.9 24.6 24.6 13.2 67.0 57.0 10.0 47.2 ActuatedglCRatio 026 0.18 0.18 028 0.21 Q21 Oil 0.49 0.49 009 0.40 vlc Ratio 0.19 0.52 0.73 0.39 0.24 0.11 0.71 0.64 0.23 0.27 0.80 Control Delay 30.7 47.6 10.9 34.3 41.8 0.5 61.1 28.5 6.2 56.2 412 Queue Delay 00 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future 2048 Background Improved - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g � 1 155 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1. 1 st St & Main St 12r162025 --* --I. --t "(- *- -N T /". "W 1 -� Lane Group E-91L EBT E1I.R WBL WBT WRR N L NBT NBR 861- SBT Total Delay 30.7 47.6 10.9 34.3 41.8 0.5 61.1 28.5 6.2 66.2 412 LOS C D B C D A E C A E D Approach Delay 25 4 33.0 33.6 42.2 Approach LOS C C C D Queue Length 50th (t) 35 115 1 60 57 0 101 323 14 28 353 Queue Length 95th fit) 73 171 113 112 95 0 147 467 57 67 M74 Internal Link Dist S) 2310 1887 139.9 1362 Turn Bay Length fit) 250 125 260 226 175 250 Base Capacity "h) 366 608 699 287 689 469 1300 "5 780 504 692 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reducedvlc Ratio 0.18 0.52 0.73 0.38 0.24 0.11 0.21 0.60 0.22 0.08 0.79 I`rsectrorl summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:150 Actuated Cycle Length:117 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vk Ratio:0.80 Intersection Signal Delay.32,7 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.1 % ICU Level of Seance E Analysis Period Oin)15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after -two cycles. olits and Phases: 1:1 st St & Main St 01 02 '*}03 I 04 T G75 --*06 107 ■ 08 Future 2048 Background Improved - AM Peak Hour 8ynchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 156 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1. 1 st St & Main St 1211612025 Lane Croup >t9L 581 EAR WBL 1QiE '%R NBL NBT NBR 8B11- SBT t; Lane Configurations ¢+ r ++ r 111i + r T, Traffic Volume 4h) 102 230 367 16$ 338 32 516 906 164 37 429 33 Future Volume (vph) 102 230 367 158 338 32 516 905 164 37 429 33 Ideal Flow (Thpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length qt) 250 125 250 226 176 0 250 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 Taper Length 0) 50 50 100 50 Lane LAIL Factor 1.00 0.96 1-60 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0 950 0.850 0.989 Fit Protected 0.su 0.950 0.960 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3506 150 1671 3539 1324 3400 1827 1609 1583 1812 0 Fit Permitted 0374 0.530 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 677 3505 1568 932 3539 1324 3400 1827 1609 1583 1812 0 Right Tdtrr on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 390 167 116 3 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 30 30 Link Distance (It) 2390 1967 1479 1442 Travel Time (s) 46.6 38.3 33.6 32.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 094 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5°% 30% 3°% 8% 2°% 22°% 3°% 4% 7% 14°% 4% 00% Adj. Flow irph) 109 245 390 168 360 34 549 963 174 39 466 35 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 109 245 390 168 360 34 549 963 174 39 491 0 Turn Type pm apt NA Perm pmapt Nr1 Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NSA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 2 4 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 7 4 4 3 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 20 0 20.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 5 0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 34.0 34.0 12.0 34.0 34.0 12.0 40.0 40.0 12.0 42.0 Total Split (s) 12.0 34.0 34.0 12.0 34.0 34.0 470 92.0 92.0 12.0 57.0 Total Split (b) 8.0% 22.7°% 22.7°% $.0°% 22.7°% 22.7% 31.3% 61.3% 612 % $.0°% 38.0°% Mardmum Green (s) 5.9 279 27.9 5.9 27.9 27.9 406 85.3 85.3 5.3 50.3 Yellow Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 20 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 61 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 64 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 L.eadlLag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag tag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle EMension (s) 1.0 20 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1-0 2.0 Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 9.0 Flash Dort Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 16.0 16.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Pedestrian Calls (Ohr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 27.4 21 A 21.4 27.7 21.6 21.6 25.1 73.1 73.1 5.4 50.4 Actuated 91C Ratio 021 0.17 0.17 021 0.17 Q.17 0.1$ 0.57 0.57 004 0.39 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.42 0.67 0.72 0.61 0.09 0.83 0.93 0.19 0.60 0.69 Control Delay 58.1 54.2 11.2 65.$ 57.9 0.5 62.8 41.7 5.4 100.7 3$.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future 2048 Background Improved - PM Peak Hour Sync hro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 157 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1. 1 st St & Main St 12n 6f2025 'Lane Group UL EST EBR WBL 1/t♦`8.T WBR ► RL NB.T NBR 8131- SB`f 990 Total Delay 68.1 64.2 11.2 65.8 57.9 0.6 62.8 41.7 6.4 100.7 38.5 LOS E D B E E A E D A F D Approach DelAy 32.2 66.9 44.E 43.0 Approach LOS C E D D Queue Length 50th (ft) 81 1 % 0 131 164 0 248 719 21 36 333 Queue Length 96th (ft) 141 157 101 #239 226 0 316 #1I107 58 4103 518 Internal Link Dist fit) 2310 1887 139R9 1362 Turn Bay Length (fit) 250 125 260 225 175 250 Base Capacity "h? 193 780 662 234 788 424 1101 1243 1064 66 809 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spolback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Ratio 0.56 0.31 0.60 0.72 0.46 0.08 0.50 0.77 0.16 0.59 0.61 ji)l.erwvoh 3umma Area Type: other Cycle Length,150 Actuated Cycle Length:129.1 Natural Cycle:130 Cordrol Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vic Ratio: 0.93 Intersection Signal Delay,43.8 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 98 6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period fnin) 15 #3 96th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 1:1st St &Main 51 F 01 02 \*03 t04 4"05 1 —006 07 • 08 Future 2048 BacKground Improved - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 158 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes. Volumes, Timings 1. 1 st St & Main St t --* 4" 'or, ~ t `N T �' �► j 12r16f2025 Lane Group E9L EBT E9..13 WBL WB.T WBR NSL NBT NBR SBL SBT UA Lane Configurations ++ ++ + Traffic Volume (Wh) 64 300 481 177 169 47 251 530 200 37 531 33 Future Volume (vph) 64 300 481 177 158 47 251 530 200 37 531 33 tdeal Flow (Thpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ff) 250 125 250 226 175 0 250 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 Taper Length (t) 50 50 100 60 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0 850 0 850 0.850 0 991 Fit Protected '10.950 0.9m 10r.960 0.960 Said. Flow (prot) 1703 3406 1568 1641 3282 1553 3335 1727 1380 1719 1706 0 Fit Permitted 0.646 0.401 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 1158 3406 150 693 3282 1553 3335 1727 1380 1719 1706 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 505 167 163 2 link Speed (mph) 35 35 30 30 Link Distance (ff) 2390 1967 1479 1442 Travel Time (s) 46.6 38.3 33.6 32.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles C%) 6°% 6% 3% 1OD/C 10°% 40A 5°% 10°% 17% 5°% 11°% 0°% Adj. How �ph) 68 319 512 188 168 50 267 564 213 39 666 35 Shared Lane Traffic C/o) Lane Group Flow (uph) 68 319 512 188 168 50 267 564 213 39 600 0 Turn Type PM4M NA Perm pm-" NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 4 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 7 4 4 3 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 300 30.0 10.0 30.0 30.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 20.0 Minimum Split (s) 16.1 361 36.1 16.1 36.1 36.1 16.4 40.0 40.0 16.7 42.0 Total Split (s) 17.0 27.0 27.0 17.0 27.0 27.0 520 65.0 65.0 41.0 54.0 Total Split (°%) 11.3% 18.0°% 18.0°% 11.3°% 18.00A 18.0°% 34.7°% 43.3°% 43.3°% 27.3°% 36.0% Maximum Green (s) 10.9 20.9 20.9 10.9 20.9 20.9 46.6 58.3 58.3 34.3 47.3 Yellow Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Al -Red Time 0) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.7 2 7 Lost Time Must (s) 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.4 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 10 2.0 20 1.0 2.0 2.0 10 20 2.0 10 2.0 Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7,O 7.0 7.0 9.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 16.0 16.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Pedestrian Calls (Ohr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green 0) 30.9 20.9 20.9 33.8 25.1 25.1 13.3 67.6 67.6 10.0 47.8 Actuated giC Ratio 026 0.18 OU 0.29 0.21 Q21 0.11 0.49 0.49 0." 0.40 vic Ratio 0.19 0.53 0.74 0.66 0.24 0.11 0.71 0.67 0.28 0.27 0.87 Control Delay 312 48.3 11.6 45.1 42.1 0.5 61.7 29.7 6.7 57.0 47.5 Queue Delay 00 00 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future 2048 Background Improved with Project - AM Peak Hour Sync111 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 159 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: 1st St & Main St 1211612025 Lane Group E61- EBT EAR UUBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SIR Total Delay 31.2 43.3 11.5 45.1 42.1 0.6 61.7 29.7 6.7 67.0 47.5 LOS C D B D D A E C A E D Approach Delay 26.1 38.4 33.2 48.1 Approach LOS C D C D Queue Length 54th (t) 3� 116 4 108 57 0 102 357 22 28 411 Queue Length 95th (t) 76 174 121 #200 97 0 150 4" 71 67 W57 Internal Unk Dist;) 2310 1887 13" 1362 Turn Bay Length fit) 250 125 250 226 176 250 Base Capacity(vph) 361 602 693 285 697 461 1287 888 789 499 690 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap [Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced WE Ratio 0.19 0.53 0.74 0.66 0.24 0.11 0.21 0.64 0.27 0.08 0.87 Nersectlon Summate_ Area Type: Other Cycle Length:150 Actuated Cycle Length: 118.2 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated MaAmum vlc Ratio:0.87 Intersection Signal Delay-34.9 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 94 2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period Qmin)15 4 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer Queue shown Is maximum attertwo cycles. Future 2048 Background Improved with Project - AM Peak Hour Sync hro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 160 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings I- 1st St & Main St 12A612026 Lane Group E8L 58T U# WBL V8T WBR NEIL NBT NBR SBL SBT 89" Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 106 230 367 211 338 32 516 945 232 37 460 36 Future Volume (vph) 106 230 367 211 338 32 516 945 232 37 460 36 (deal Flow (uphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length M) 250 125 260 225 175 0 250 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 Taper Length Qt) 50 50 100 50 Lane Ail. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.60 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0 850 0.850 0 989 Fit Protected 0.9,60 0.950 0.950 0.960 Said Flow (prot) 1719 3505 1563 1671 3539 1324 3400 1827 1609 1583 1812 0 Rt Permitted 0350 0.522 0.950 0.950 Said Flow (perm) 633 3505 150 918 3539 1324 3400 1827 1509 1583 1812 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said Flow (RTO R) 390 167 150 3 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 30 30 Link Distance (t) 2390 1967 1479 1442 Travel Time (s) 466 38.3 33.6 321 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 3% 3w% 8% 2% 22% 3% 4% 7% 14% 4% 0% Adj. Flow kph) 113 245 390 224 360 34 549 1006 247 39 489 38 Shared lane Traffic CA) Lane Group Flow (vph) 113 245 390 224 360 34 549 1005 247 39 527 0 Turn Type pm-V NA Perm pm{pt NA Penn Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 E 2 2 4 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 7 4 4 3 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 50 20.0 20.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 60 7.0 7.0 5.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 34.0 34.0 12,0 34.0 34.0 12.0 40.0 40.0 12.0 42.0 Total Split (s) 12.0 34.0 34.0 12.0 34.0 34.0 47.0 92.0 92.0 12.0 67.0 Total Split (%) 8.0% 22.7% 22.7% 8.0% 22.7% 22.7% 31.3% 61.a% 61.3% 8.00A 38.0% Ma)amum Green (s) 5.9 27.9 27.9 6.9 27.9 27.9 40.6 85.3 85.3 6.3 50.3 Yellow Ttme (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 41 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2A 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time {s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.4 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 L.eadhq Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle E)dension (s) 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 20 10 2.0 2.0 1.0 20 Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 9.0 Rash Dort Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 16.0 16.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Pedestrian Calls (0hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 27.2 21.2 21.2 27.3 21.3 21.3 25.8 79.2 79.2 6.3 66.0 Actuated g1C Ratio 020 0.16 016 020 0.16 0.16 0:19 0.59 059 0.04 Q.42 vlc Ratio 0.66 0.44 0.68 1.02 0.65 0.10 0.84 0.94 0.26 0.63 0.70 Control Delay 65.0 56.6 11.6 117.9 61.3 0.6 660 42.2 6.0 107.4 38.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 Future 2048 Background Improved with Project - PM Peak Hour Sync hro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 161 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 : 1st St & Main St 12n 612025 Lane Group EDL EBT EgR WBL WBT 'WBR NBL NBr NBR BBL SBT SbR Total Delay 65.0 66.6 11.5 117.9 61.3 0.6 66.0 42.2 6.0 107.4 38.5 LOS E E B F E A E D A F D Approach Delay 34.4 78.4 44.5 43.3 Approach LOS C E D D Queue Length 50th (11t) 88 111 0 -215 170 0 256 788 37 36 367 Queue Length 95th (t) 4163 167 101 M86 226 0 316 M 194 84 003 569 Internal Link Dist F) 2310 1887 1399 1362 Turn Bay Length fit) 250 125 250 225 175 250 Base Capacity "h) 176 739 638 219 746 411 1043 1177 1025 63 $12 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spdiback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.64 0.33 0.61 1.02 0.48 M 0.53 0.85 0.24 0.62 0.65 Iritatsectforl Summary! Area Type: Other Cycle Length:150 Actuated Cycle Length,1344 Natural Cycle: 140 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio. 1.02 Intersection Signal Delay: 47.9 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 103.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period tnin)15 -- Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maAmurn after two cycles. #1 96th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may b, longer. Queue shown is maxdmum after two cycles. Future 2048 Background Improved with Project - PM Peak Hour Sync hro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 162 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 SR 82 and Church Rd Intersection HCM 6th TWSC 2: SR 82 & Church Rd 12/16/2025 liitersection Int Delay, slveh 1.4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations I ♦ T. Y Traffic Vd, veh/h 60 1057 413 2 9 65 Future Vol, vehlh 60 1057 413 2 9 65 Conflicting Peds, Nhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length 410 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles. % 62 7 12 50 75 64 Mvmt Flow 63 1101 430 2 9 68 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Row Al 432 0 0 1658 431 Stage 1 - - - 431 - Stage 2 - - 1227 - Chhcal Hdwy 4.72 - 7.15 684 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 6.15 - Cribcal Hdwy Stg 2 - - - 6.15 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.758 - 4.175 3.876 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 870 - 72 512 Stage 1 - - 525 - Stage 2 - - 199 - Platoon blocked % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 870 67 512 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 67 - Stage 1 487 Stage 2 199 roach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0 22.4 HCM LOS C Riinor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 870 283 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.072 0.272 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 22.4 HCM Lane LOS A C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 1.1 Existing 2025 - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Repod Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 163 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 HCM 6th TWSC 2: SR 82 & Church Rd 12/16/2025 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 15 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR , Lane Configurations + I. Y Traffic Vd, veh/h 32 583 887 2 3 55 Future Vol, veh/h 32 583 887 2 3 55 Conflicting Peds, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length 410 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 Grade % - 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 84 84 84 84 84 84 Heavy Vehicles. % 36 7 5 50 100 32 Mvmt Row 38 694 1056 2 4 65 Major/Minor Majorl M*r2 Minor2 Conflicting How Al 1058 0 0 1827 1057 Stage 1 - - 1057 - Stage 2 - 770 - Critical Hdwy 4,46 7.4 6.52 Cntical Hdwy Stg 1 - 6.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 6.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.524 4.4 3.588 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 545 - 48 239 Stage 1 - 223 - Stage 2 - 321 - Platoon docked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 545 - 45 239 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 45 - Stage 1 207 Stage 2 321 Approach EB _ WB SB - HCM Control Delay, s 0.6 0 33.3 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 545 195 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.07 0.354 HCM Control Delay (s) 121 33.3 HCM Lane LOS B D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 1.5 E)dsting 2025 - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 164 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 IHCM 6th TWSC : SR 82 & Church Rd Intersection 12/16/2025 Int Delay, slveh 58 Movement EBL EBT WBU WBT WBR SBL SBR �. Lane Configurations I ¢+ A 4k Y Traffic Vol, vehlh 101 1784 0 697 3 15 110 Future Vol, vehlh 101 1784 0 697 3 15 110 Conflicting Peds, Nhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 550 - 460 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - 0 0 Grade, % - 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 62 7 0 12 50 75 64 Mvmt Flow 105 1858 0 726 3 16 115 }!1+IajorlMinor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Row All 729 0 1858 0 1867 365 Stage 1 - - - - 728 - Stage 2 - - - 1139 - Critical Hdwy 534 6.4 - 8.3 8.18 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 7.3 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 7.3 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.82 2.5 425 3.94 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 568 94 28 484 Stage 1 - - 288 - Stage 2 - - 153 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap0 Maneuver 568 94 23 484 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 23 - Stage 1 - 235 Stage 2 153 Approach EB WB SB �. HCM Control Delay, s 07 0 115.6 HCM LOS F Minor LanelMajor Mvmt EBL EBT WBU WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (vehlh) 568 94 - 142 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0185 - 0.917 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.8 0 - 115.6 HCM Lane LOS B A F HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 0 63 Future 2048 Background Committed - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Pagel Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 165 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 HCM 6th TWSC 2: SR 82 & Church Rd 12/16/2025 WerseRon Int Delay, slveh 5.7 Movement EBL EBT WBU WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ) tt a ?T. Y Traffic Vol, veh/h 54 984 0 1497 3 5 93 Future Vol, veh/h 54 984 0 1497 3 5 93 Conflicting Peds, Nhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channdized - None - None - None Storage Length 550 - 460 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - 0 0 Grade, % - 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 36 7 0 5 50 100 32 Mvmt Flow 57 1036 0 1576 3 5 98 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Row Al 1579 0 1036 0 2210 790 Stage 1 - - - - 1578 - Stage 2 - 632 - Critical Hdwy 4.82 6.4 8.8 7.54 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 7.8 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 7.8 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.56 2.5 45 3.62 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 283 320 11 276 Stage 1 - - 60 - Stage 2 - - 294 Platoon docked % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 283 320 9 276 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 9 - Stage 1 48 Stage 2 294 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.1 0 142.1 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EST WBU WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 283 320 110 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0201 - 0 938 HCM Contrd Delay (s) 209 0 142.1 HCM Lane LOS C A F HCM 95th °/dile Q(veh) 0.7 - 0 5.8 Future 2048 Background Committed - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 166 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 HCM 6th TWSC 2: SR 82 & Church Rd Intersection 12/1612025 Int Delay, s/veh 29 Movement EBL EBT WBU WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations I ++ A ♦4 r r Traffic Vol, veh/h 101 1784 0 697 3 15 110 Future Vol, veh/h 101 1784 0 697 3 15 110 Conflicting Peds, #Nhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length 550 - 460 460 0 160 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 95 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 62 7 0 12 50 75 64 Mvmt Flow 105 1858 0 726 3 16 115 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minot r Conflicting How All 729 0 1858 0 1865 363 Stage 1 - - - - 726 - Stage 2 - - - 1139 - Critical Hdwy 5.34 6.4 - 8.3 8.18 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 73 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - 7.3 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.82 25 - 4.25 3.94 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 568 94 - 28 485 Stage 1 - - 289 - Stage 2 - - 153 - Platoon blocked. % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 568 94 23 485 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 23 - Stage 1 236 Stage 2 153 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.7 0 51.3 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBU WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 568 94 23 485 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0185 - 0.679 0.236 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.8 0 $ 319.7 14.7 HCM Lane LOS B A F B HCM 95th 0/able Q(veh) 0.7 0 2 0.9 Future 2048 Background Improved 1 - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 167 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 HCM 6th TWSC 2: SR 82 & Church Rd Intersection 12/16/2025 Int Delay, s/veh 2.5 Movement E8L EBT WBU WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ) tt A tt r r Traffic Vol, veh/h 54 984 0 1497 3 5 93 Future Vol, vehlh 54 984 0 1497 3 5 93 Conflicting Peds, Nhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 550 - 460 460 0 160 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles. % 36 7 0 5 50 100 32 Mvmt Flow 57 1036 0 1576 3 5 98 Ma]orlMinor Malorl Malor2 Minor2 Conflicting Row All 1579 0 1036 0 2208 788 Stage 1 - - - - 1576 - Stage 2 - - - 632 - Critical Hdwy 4,82 6.4 - 8.8 7.54 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 7.8 - Crttical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - 7.8 - Follow-up Hdwy 256 25 - 4.5 3.62 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 283 320 - - 11 276 Stage 1 - - - 60 - Stage 2 - - - 294 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 283 320 9 276 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 9 - Stage 1 - 48 - Stage 2 294 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.1 0 56.8 HCM LOS F Minor LanelMajor Mvmt EBL EBT WBU WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 283 320 9 276 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0201 - 0 585 0 355 HCM Control Delay (s) 209 0 -$649.2 25 HCM Lane LOS C A F D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 0 1.2 1.5 Future 2048 Background Improved 1 - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 168 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2. SR 82 & Church Rd � � r ~ L \4. 12I16t2025 LtatleGtotlp EBL EBT WSU WBT WBR SBL SBA y„ ; Lane Configurations tt A TT r i r Traffic Volume (uph) 101 1784 0 697 3 15 110 Future Volume (uph) 101 1784 0 697 3 15 110 Ideal Flow �phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1%0 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 560 460 460 0 160 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length Qt) 50 50 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.860 Fit Protected 0 950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1114 3374 1900 3223 1077 1031 985 Ftt Permttied 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1114 3374 1900 3223 1077 1031 985 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 3 115 Link Speed (mph) 60 60 45 Link Distance 0) 2182 1575 1004 Travel Time (s) 24.8 17.9 152 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.% Heavy Vehicles (%) 62% 7% 0% 120A 600A 75% 64% Adj Flow (vph) 106 1858 0 726 3 16 115 Shared Lane Traffic (96) Lane Group Flow (uph) 106 1858 0 726 3 16 115 Turn Type Prot NA Prat NA Perm Prot Peron Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 Permitted Phases 2 8 Detector Phase 1 6 5 2 2 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.1 26.9 12.1 25.9 26.9 11.0 11.0 Total Split (s) 20.0 69.0 13.0 62.0 62.0 28.0 29.0 Total Split C/o) 18.2% 623% 11.8% 66.4% 56.4% 25.5% 26.5% Ma)amum Green (s) 12.9 61.1 5.9 54.1 64.1 22.3 22.3 Yellow Time (s) 5.1 5.9 5.1 5.9 5.9 3.7 3.7 fill -Red Time () 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.1 7.9 7.1 7.9 7.9 5.7 5.7 Lead"g Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) U 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None Min None Min Min None None Act Eftct Green (s) 12.3 56.9 37.6 37.5 7.8 7:8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.73 0.48 0.48 0.10 0.10 vle Ratio 0.60 0.76 0.47 0.01 0.16 057 Cordrol Delay 48 3 96 156 83 362 19.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 02 9.6 155 8.3 36.2 19.0 LOS D A B A D B Approach Delay 11 7 154 21.1 Future 2049 Background Improved 2 - AM Peak Hour Synchm 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 169 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: SR 82 & Church Rd � --► rlr ~ 4- \4. 1211612026 Large ftup EB1_ EBT WSU WBT WBR SBL SBR Approach LOS B B C Queue Length 50th (ft) 44 216 117 0 7 0 Queue Length 96th (t) M 29 414 in 5 2� 48 Internal Link Dist [fit) 2102 105 924 Turn Bay Length (It) 560 460 160 Base Capacity (vph) 184 2645 2237 748 296 363 Starvaf on Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vk Ratio 0.57 0.70 0.32 0.00 0.05 0 32 lnterseotbrl°'-6-vmmary Area TypeOther Cycle Length:110 Actuated Cycle Length: 78A Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated MaAmurn v!c Ratio:0.76 Intersection Signal Delay:13.1 Intersection LOS. B Intersection Capacity Lti#zation74.1% ICU Level of Service D �. Analysis Period (min)16 ## 95th percentile volume eneeds capacity, queue maybe longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 2: SR82 &Church Rd 01 02 1*08 rr 'WO5 —006 Future 2048 Background Improved 2 - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 170 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2. SR 82 & Church Rd 12n612025 � � r � � \4. I" Gtbup EB1_ EBT W1W WBT WER SBL SBR �I Lane Configurations ►j tt A tt r ►j r Traffic Volume (vph) 54 984 0 1497 3 5 93 Future Volume (vph) 54 984 0 1497 3 5 93 Ideal Flow �phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 560 460 460 0 160 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length Qt) 50 50 25 Lane Uil . Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1,00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.860 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1327 3374 1900 3438 1077 902 1223 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1327 3374 1900 3438 1077 902 1223 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 3 98 Link Speed (mph) 60 60 46 Link Distance fit) 2182 1576 1004 Travel Time (s) 24.8 17,9 15.E Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles (°Iy) 36% 7% 09/0 5% 50% 100% 32°% Adj. Flow kph) 57 1036 0 1576 3 5 98 Shared Lane Traffic �/O) Lane Group Flow (vph) 57 1036 0 1576 3 5 98 Turn Type Prot. NA Prot NA Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 Permitted Phases 2 8 Detector Phase 1 6 5 2 2 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s} 12.9 23.5 12.1 23.5 23.5 11.0 11.0 Total Split (s) 19.0 83.0 15.0 80.0 80.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split ('!O) 15 0% 69.2% 12.5°% 66.7% 66.7% 18.3% 18.3% Ma)amum Green (s) 10.9 76.1 7.9 72.1 72.1 16.3 16.3 Yellow Time (s) 5.1 5.9 5.1 6.9 5.9 3,7 3.7 All -Red Time() 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ,1 Total Lost Time (s) 7.1 7.9 7.1 7.9 7.9 5.7 5.7 LeadlLag Lead Lag Lead Log Lag Lead -Leg Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle E)densian (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None Min None Min Min None None Act Effct Green 0) 9.0 66.6 54`3 64.3 7.6- 7.6 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.11 0.81 0.66 0.66 0.09 0.09 vh Ratio 0.39 0.38 0.69 0;00 0.06 0.49 Control Delay 49.5 3.7 153 57 442 18.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 49.5 3.7 15.3 5.7 44.2 18.5 LOS D A B A D B Approach Delay 6.1 15 3 19.7 Future 2048 Background Improved 2 - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 171 Corkscrew Groves fast Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: SR 82 & Church Rd 12A612025 .-A --► r► "'� 1► Lane Group E8L OT WBU WBT WBR SBL SBR Approach LOS A B B Queue Length 50th (tt) 28 74 317 0 3 0 Queue L tmgth 95th (t) 84 W 496 4. 16 51 Internal Link Dist fit) 2102 1495 924 Turn Bay Length (t) 550 460 160 Base Capacity (vph) 193 3028 2914 913 196 343 Starvation Cap Faductn 0 0 0 A 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vic Ratio 0.30 ON 0.54 0.00 0.03 029 intersection marnmary Area Type Other Cycle Lerrgth:120 Actuated Cycle Length: $2.1 Natural Qycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum VIc Mo: 0.69 Intersection Signal Delay:11.8 Intersection LOS B IntOrsection Capacity Ltilixation60.4°k. ORICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 Spits and Phases: 2: SR82 &Church Rd 01 02 IWO 5 —006 1*08 t Future 2048 Background Improved 2 - PM Peak Hour Sync hro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 172 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - T1S Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2. SR 82 & Church Rd 12J1U2025 i3roup EBL UT.. EBR WBL. WBT W.BR. NBL NB NBR SB,L SBT .5$Rf Lane Configurations tij t+ r I tt r 4 ilf 4T F Traffic Volume (vph) 101 2685 73 219 1921 16 130 18 353 23 10 110 Future Volume (vph) 101 2685 73 218 1921 16 130 18 353 23 10 110 Ideal Flow �phpD 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (t) 550 460 460 460 0 150 0 160 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length F) 50 50 25 25 Lane Util. F9ctor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.860 0.850 0.860 0.860 Fit Protected 0 950 095.0 0.95$ 0 967 Satd. Flow (prat) 1114 3374 1583 1770 3223 1077 0 1786 1583 0 12M 985 F1 Perm Itl ed 0.950 0.950 0.727 0.597 Satd. Flow (perm) 1114 3374 1583 1770 3223 1077 0 1354 1683 0 746 985 RigYrt Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 82 82 260 115 Lire Speed (mph) 60 60 30 45 Link Distance (t) 2182 1575 601 1004 Travel Time (s) 24.8 17.9 13,7 152 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.% 0.96 0.92 0.96 Heavy Vehicles (i6) 62% 7% 2% 2% 12% 50010 Z% 2% 2% 75% 2% 64% Adj Flow �ph) 106 2797 79 227 2001 17 135 19 368 24 11 116 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 105 2797 79 227 2001 17 0 154 368 0 35 115 Turn Type Prot. NA Perm Prot NA Pent Pemt NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 4 8 8 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 4 4 4 8 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 20.0 20.0 6.0 20.0 20.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.1 27.9 271 12.1 27.9 27.9 10.7 107 10.7 11.0 11.0 11.0 Total Split (s) 30.0 79.0 79.0 29.0 7$.0 78.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (A) 23.1 % 60 80r6 60.80/0 22-a% 60.0% 60.00r6 16.90rb 16.9% 16.9% 16.9% 16.9% 16.9% Ma)amum Green (s) 22.9 71.1 71.1 21.9 70.1 70.1 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 Yellow Time (s) 5.1 5.9 5.9 5.1 5.9 5.9 3.7 37 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 00 00 00 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0 -0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.1 7.9 7.9 7.1 7.9 7.9 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 LeadlLag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None None None Act Effct Green 0) 16.8 711 71.1 197 74.1 74.1 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.56 0.56 0.15 0.58 0.58 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 vk Ratio 0.72 1.49 0.09 0.83 1.07 0.03 0,91 0.87 0.38 0.61 Control Delay 79.0 248.2 3.0 76.9 69.5 0.1 104.6 37.5 64.8 17.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 79.0 248.2 3.0 76.9 69.5 0.1 104.6 37.5 64.8 17.7 LOS E F A E E A F D E B Approach Delay 235.7 69.8 57 3 287 Future 2048 Background Improved with PJ -AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 173 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2. SR 82 & Church Rd 12/16025 � -• � f- t 4\ t �► 1 !L, amup _ _ _EK U, T EBR WBL WBT WER NBL WB_T NRR 61B- SOT $BIB Approach LOS F E E C Queue Length 50th (ft) 86 -1726 0 185 -981 0 130 91 28 0 Queue Length 951h (H) 146 M $49 22 V01 M 179 0 IR63 4266 64 61 Internal Link Dist Qt) 2102 1495 521 924 Turn Bay Length (t) 550 460 460 460 150 160 Base Capacity (vph) 200 1880 918 304 1871 659 172 428 95 226 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.53 1 A9 0.09 0.75 1.07 0.03 0.90 0.86 0.37 0.51 oersedi'8 url tn'ary _ Area Type: Other Cycle Length:130 Actuated Cycle Length:127.6 Natural Cycle:150 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vk Ratio:1.49 Intersection Signal Delay:151 .5 Intersection LOS F Intgrsection Capacity Utilization 118.40A ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)16 - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 'uture 2048 Background Improved with PJ - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1174 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2. SR 82 & Church Rd 12A 6C2025 'Une r3toup EBL EC T EBR W SL WDT WBR NBL NB T NBR 513L SBT SBR Lane Configurations ff r ++ + r 4 r +T r Traffic Volume (vph) 54 2174 121 334 2532 13 94 13 269 17 16 93 Future Volume (vph) 54 2174 121 334 2532 13 94 13 269 17 16 93 Ideal Row �phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 550 460 460 460 0 150 0 160 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length C) 50 50 25 25 Lane Util. Fi ctor 1.00 0.95 1.06 J..00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fit 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.960 0 958 0 975 Satd. Flow (prot) 1327 3374 1583 1770 3438 1077 0 1785 1583 0 1216 1223 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.727 0.313 Satd. Flow (perm) 1327 3374 1583 1770 3438 1077 0 1354 1593 0 1020 1223 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTO R) 128 82 149 101 Nrds Speed (mph) 60 60 30 45 Link Distance 0) 2182 1575 601 1004 Travel Time (s) 24.8 11.9 137 162 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 092 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.95 Heavy Vehicles (n%J 36°/6 70,b 201G 2% 5% 500r6 20/6 2% 2% 100% 2% 32% Adj. Flow kph) 57 2288 132 363 2665 14 102 14 292 18 17 98 Shared Lane Traffic kw) Lane Group Flow (vph) 57 2288 132 363 2665 14 0 116 292 0 35 98 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 4 8 .8 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 4 4 4 8 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial 0) 5.0 20.0 20.0 6.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.9 27.9 27:9 12.1 27.9 27,9 23.7 23.7 23.7 11.0 11.0 11.0 Total Split (s) 19.0 78.0 78.0 25.0 85.0 86.0 27.0 270 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 Total Split (0,q) 13.8% 60.0% 60.0% 19.2% 66.4% 65.4% 20.80,h 20 8% 20.8% 20 A% 20.8% 20.8% Maramum Green (s) 10.9 70.1 70.1 17.9 77.1 77.1 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 Yellow Time (8) 5.1 5.9 5.' 5.1 5.9 5.9 3.7 37 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 00 Total Lost Time (s) 7.1 7.9 7.9 7.1 7.9 7.9 67 6.7 5.7 5.7 Leacill-ag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehide E)dension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 '3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 9.4 70.2 70.2 17,9 81 .5 81.5. 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 Actuated glC Ratio 0.07 0.66 0.66 0.14 0.65 0.65 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 vX Ratio 0.0 121 014 1.44 1,19 0.02 0.65 0.96 0.26 0.39 Control Delay 79.6 128.4 3.0 2575 115.9 0.1 68.3 49.8 53.1 13.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 79.6 128A 3.0 2575 115.9 0.1 68.3 49.8 53.1 1a.2 LOS F F A F F A E D D B Approach Delay 120.6 132.3 551 23.7 Future 2048 Background Improved with PJ - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 175 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes_ Volumes Timinns 2. SR 82 & Church Rd 12n6r2025 ---* -I. -t, f- t 4\ T �► 1 pnq K EBl_ EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NOT NBB SK MT I Approach LOS F F E C Queue Length 501h (t) 46 -1222 1 -408 -1468 0 91 118 26 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 94 #1402 32 *IS: *1641 0 156 #.245 59 49 Internal Link Dist M) 2102 1495 521 924 Turn Bay Length (ft) 550 460 460 460 150 160 Base Capacity (t+ph) 115 1886 941 252 2232 728 229 392 173 291 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 060 1.21 014 1.44 1.19 0.02 0.51 0.74 0.20 0.34 VAersection gu�*,aty Area Type Other Cycle LenglW 130 11 Actuated Cycle Length:125.6 Natural Cycle: 160 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vk R.atio:1.44 Intersection Signal Delay: 119.9 Intersection LOS F Intersection Capacity Ut lfzation 1(, .A% IOU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 - volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 2: SR82 &Church Rd 431 02 1 D4 ■ ©5 —bt�6 • 418 Future 204E Background Improved with PJ - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 176 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: SR 82 & Church Rd 12f1612026 Lane Gtnrip EBL EBT ERR W.BL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR „SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) ¢tt r M W r 4 r 4 r Traffic Volume (uph) 101 2685 73 218 1921 16 130 18 353 23 10 110 Future Volume (Th) 101 2685 73 218 1921 16 130 18 363 23 10 110 Ideal Flow (vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (R) 550 460 460 460 0 160 0 160 Storage Lanes 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length rft) 50 50 25 25 Lane W. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0 350 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.968 0.967 Satd. Flow (prot) 1114 4848 1583 3433 4631 1077 0 1785 1583 0 12N 985 Fit Permitted 0.960 0.960 0.727 0.626 Satd.Flow (perm) 1114 4848 1583 3433 4631 1077 0 1364 1683 0 781 985 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 82 82 260 115 Link Speed (mph) 60 60 30 45 Link Distance fit) 2182 1575 601 1004 Travel Time (s) 24.8 17.9 13.7 16.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.96 Heavy Vehicles (%) 620/0 7% 2% 2% 12% 60% 2% 2% 2% 75% 2% 64% Adj. Flow kph) 106 2797 79 227 2001 17 135 19 368 24 11 115 Shared Lane Traffic (°i6) Lane Group Flow (vph) 106 2797 79 227 2001 17 0 164 368 0 35 116 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 4 a 8 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 4 4 4 8 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 20.0 20.0 5 0 20.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 5 0 5.0 5 0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.1 27.9 27.9 12.1 27.9 27.9 10.7 10.7 10.7 11.0 11.0 11.0 Total Split (s) 30.0 79.0 79.0 29.0 78.0 78.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (016) 23.1 % 60.8% 60.8% 22.3% 60.0% 60.0% 16 9% 16.9% 16 9% 16.9% 16.9% 16.9% Ma)amum Green (s) 22.9 71.1 71.1 21.9 70.1 70.1 16.3 16.3 10 16.3 16.3 16.3 Yellow Time (s) 5.1 5.9 5.9 5.1 5.9 5.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3,7 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.1 7.9 7.9 7.1 7.9 7.9 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 Leadllag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehide Udension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 16.3 72.8 72.8 13.4 69.9 69,9 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.13 059 059 0.11 0 57 0.57 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 u!c Ratio 0.71 0.97 0.4$ 0.61 0.76 0.03 0.88 0.85 0.36 0.60 Control Delay 76.5 36.5 2.5 59.7 23.3 0.1 95.6 35.5 60.9 17.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 76.5 36.5 2.5 59.7 23.3 0.1 95.6 35.6 60.9 17.3 LOS E D A E C A F D E B Approach Delay 37.0 26.8 53.2 27.5 Future 2048 Background Improved with PJ Improved -AM Peak Hour Sync hro 11 Repod Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 177 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2. SR 82 & Church Rd 12AQ025 ---* --,, --t f- *-- *-- 4\ T /P. �► 1 41 OWWWWWLE_BL. EST FBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT 4RR SBIL SBT SBR Approach LOS D C _.D_ C Queue Length 50th (t) 80 745 0 88 426 0 120 83 25 0 Queue Length 951h (t) 146 0978 20 134 560 0 *63 #266 64 61 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2102 1496 521 924 Turn Bay Length (tt) 660 460 460 460 160 160 Base Capacity (Th) 207 2871 971 612 2657 653 179 435 103 230 Starvation Cap Reduetn 1D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reducln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cajo Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.61 0.97 00 0.37 0.75 0.03 0.86 0.85 0.34 0.60 .Oersection Summaty Area Type Other Cycle Length.130 Actuated Cycle Length:122.9 Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vk Ratio:0.97 Intersection Signal Delay:34.3 Intersection LOS C Intersection Capacity UiFiixabon94.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 0 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 2: 8R82 &Church Rd 01 ©2 1 04 '('05 006 � 08 Future 2043 Background Improved with PJ Improved -AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 178 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2- SR 82 & Church Rd 12t16QQ25 ,Lane Gtouk_ - EBt_ E6T- --EBR WVL V09T WBR NBL NBT NOR M SBT S3 Lane Configurations I fft F 11 ttt r 4 r 4 F Traffic Volume (vph) 54 2178 121 334 2532 13 94 13 269 17 16 93 Future Volume (vph) 54 2178 121 334 2532 13 94 13 269 17 16 93 Ideal Pow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 550 460 460 460 0 150 0 160 Storage Lanes 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length rft) 50 60 25 25 Lane Util _ Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 A0 1-00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Fft Protected 0.950 0.%0 0.958 0.975 Satd. Flow (prof) 1327 4848 1583 3433 4940 1077 0 1786 1583 0 1216 1223 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.727 0.919 Satd. Flow (perm) 1327 4848 1583 3433 4940 1077 0 1354 1583 0 1021 1223 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 132 82 149 101 Link Speed (mph) 60 60 30 45 Link Distance (tt) 2182 1576 601 1004 Travel Time (s) 24.8 17.9 13.7 15.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.95 Heavy Vehicles (°r6) 36% 7% 2% 2% 5% 50% 2% 2% 2% 100% 2% 32% Adj. Flow (vph) 57 2293 132 363 2665 14 102 14 292 18 17 98 Shared Lane Traffic (/o) Lane Group Flow (vph) 57 2293 132 363 2665 14 0 116 292 0 35 98 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 4 8 8 Detector Phase 1 6 6 6 2 2 4 4 4 8 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial 0) 5.0 20.0 20.0 6.0 20.0 20.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 50 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.9 27.9 27.9 12.1 27.9 27,9 23.7 23.7 23.7 11.0 11.0 11.0 Total Split (s) 18.0 78.0 78.0 25.0 85.0 85.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 Total Split (/o) 13.8% 60.0% 60.0% 19.2% 65.40A 66.4% 20 2% 20.8% 20.8% 20.8% 20.8% 20.8% Ma)amum Green (s) 10.9 70.1 70.1 17.9 77.1 77.1 21.3 212 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 Yellow Time (s) 5,1 5-9 5.9 5.1 5.9 5.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 37 3,7 All -Red Time () 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.1 7.9 7.9 71 7.9 7.9 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 LeadlLag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle E)denston (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None None None Act Etta Green (s) 9.3 60.0 66.0 16-5 76.6 76.6 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 Actuated 91C Ratio 0.08 0.55 0.55 0.14 0.64 0.64 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 v1c Ratio 0.56 0.86 0.14 0.77 0..86 0.02 0.63 0.85 0.26 0.39 Control Delay 77.3 27.8 2.8 63.2 22.6 0.1 66.0 47.6 52.7 13.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 77.3 27.8 2.8 63.2 22.6 0.1 66.0 47.5 52.7 13.2 LOS E C A E C A E D D B Approach Delay 27.6 27.4 52.8 23 6 Future 2048 Background Improved with PJ Improved - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 179 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: SR 22 & Church Rd 12M 6/2026 Lane a roup EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR 813L &BT 6BR Annroarh LdS C C n C Queue Length 50th (t� 46 664 0 160 646 0 91 118 26 0 Queue Length95th (t) 94 672 30 400 772 0 156 0245 59 49 Internal Link Dist M) 2102 1495 521 924 Turn Bay Length (ft) 550 460 460 460 150 160 Base Capacity (vph) 122 2882 994 521 3231 733 244 407 184 303 Starvation Cap Redudn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vic Ratio 0.47 0.80 0.13 0.70 0.82 0.02 0.48 0.72 0.19 0.32 'Area Type: Other Cycle Length:130 Actuated Cycle Length:119 9 Natural Qycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vk Ratio: OM Intersection Signal Delay. 291 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Ltilization 82.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 _ # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 2 8R82 &Church Rd �I — ©1 ©2 104 • O5 —*06 • 08 Future 2048 Background Improved with PJ Improved - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Repod Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 180 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 SR 82 and Corkscrew Rd Intersection HCM 6th TWSC 9: Corkscrew Rd & SR 82 12/17/2025 Wersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations + it ►j ♦ r Traffic Vol, veh/h 810 266 209 406 16 97 Future Vol, vehlh 810 266 209 406 16 97 Conflicting Peds, Xhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 450 660 - 0 480 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 9 3 24 11 14 24 Mvmt Flow 853 280 220 427 17 102 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow Al 0 0 1133 0 1720 853 Stage 1 - - - - 853 - Stage 2 - 867 - Critical Hdwy 4.34 6.54 6.44 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 554 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.416 3.626 3.516 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 543 92 328 Stage 1 - 398 - Stage 2 - 392 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 543 55 328 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 55 - Stage 1 398 Stage 2 233 A:proach_ ES WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 6.6 31.7 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (vehlh) 55 328 543 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0 306 0.311 0.405 HCM Control Delay (s) 97.1 20.9 - 16.1 HCM Lane LOS F C C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.1 1.3 1.9 Existing 2025 - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1181 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 HCM 6th TWSC 9: Corkscrew Rd & SR 82 12/17/2025 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 110.8 Movement EBT EBR W8L WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations t r ►j t r Traffic Vol, veh/h 546 43 97 681 216 255 Future Vd, veh/h 546 43 97 681 216 265 Conflicting Peds, ftr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 450 660 - 0 480 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 7 14 16 4 2 5 Mvmt Flow 642 51 114 801 254 300 MajcdMinor Majorl MMor2 Minorl Conflicting Row Al 0 0 693 0 1671 642 Stage 1 - - - - 642 - Stage 2 - 1029 - Critical Hdwy 4.26 6.42 6.25 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.42 - Fdlow-up Hdwy 2.344 3.518 3.345 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 840 - - 105 469 Stage 1 - - 524 - Stage 2 - - 345 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 840 - - 91 469 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - 91 - Stage 1 - 524 - Stage 2 - 298 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.2 $ 430.4 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Malor Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 91 469 840 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 2.793 0.64 0136 HCM Contrd Delay (s) $ 908 7 25.3 - 10 HCM Lane LOS F D A HCM 95th °%otile Q(veh) 24.3 4.4 - 05 Wes -: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +-. Computation Not Defined ': All major volume in platoon Existing 2025 - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 182 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9, Corkscrew Rd & SR 82 12/17/2025 :11 -♦ 't 4, ~ '\ 1* Lane Qrau E9J) £BT FOR WBL WBT NB_ Il Lane Configurations jj ++ r ++ R r Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1367 44$ 353 685 27 164 Future Volume (�ph) 0 1367 449 353 685 27 164 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 2100 1900 1900 2100 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 505 366 560 0 425 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length g) 50 50 0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.04 Fit 0 850 0.850 Ft Protected 0,950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prat) 1900 3661 1568 1456 3595 1583 1302 F8 Permitted 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 1900 3661 16U 1466 3595 1583 1302 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 456 173 Link Speed (mph) 60 60 45 Link Distance (tt) 958 2793 1423 Travel Time (s) 10.9 31.7 21.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 095 095 096 0.95 0.96 095 Heat'+ Vehicles (%) 0% 9% 3°% 24°% 11% 14% 24% Adj Flow (rph) 0 1439 473 372 721 28 173 Shared Lane Traffic (°%) Lane Group Flow (Th) 0 1439 473 372 721 28 173 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 8 4 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Split (s) 15.0 30.0 30.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 61.0 61.0 46.0 92.0 23.0 23.0 Total Split(%) 11.5°% 46.9% 46.9°% 35.4% 708% 177°% 17.7°% Maximum Green (s) 7.0 53.0 53.0 38.0 84.0 17.0 17.0 Yellow Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 All-Rqd Time () 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 OA 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 Recall Mode None Min Min None Min None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 Flash Lent Walk (s} 13.0 13.0 Pedestrian Calls (4hr) 0 0 Act Ell Green is) 51.4 51.4 33.9 93 3 8.6 8.6 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.44 0.44 029 0.80 0.07 0.07 We Ratio 0.89 0.50 0.88 0.25 0.24 0.68 Control Delay 38.7 4.6 62.0 3.2 67.4 21.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future 2048 Background Committed - AM Peak Hour 8ynchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 183 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: Corkscrew Rd & SR 82 :5 --► ~r '0'- ~ 4\ /P' 12r1772025 IraneGroup I BU EBT ESP, WBL WBT NBL NBR Total Delay 38.7 4.6 62.0 3.2 57.4 21.4 LOS D A E A E C Approach Delay 30.1 23.2 25A Approach LOS C C C Queue Length 50th M) 531 7 266 51 21 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) K60 79 0967 96 52 71 Internal fink Di§t (ft) 878 2713 1343 Turn Bay Length (ft) 365 560 425 Base Capacity (vph) 1688 968 491 2944 234 339 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Splllback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.86 0.49 0.77 024 0.12 0.51 ,Wtsettion sum m ary 19' Area Type: Other Cycle Length:130 Actuated Cycle Length.116.1 Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type- Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vic Ratio: 0.89 Intersection Signal Delay. 27.6 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 76 2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum aftertwo cycles iolits and Phases: 9: Corkscrew Rd &SR$2 61 * 62 4% p; �i f'©s --0'936 Future 200 Background Committed - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 184 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9-. Corkscrew Rd & SR 82 12n712025 t � � f- ~ '6\ /" Lane Group MV EBT EBB _" -. L WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations A ++ r ++ r Traffic Volume "h) 0 921 73 164 1149 365 4�O Future Volume (vph) 0 921 73 164 1149 365 430 Ideal Flow �phpl) 1900 2100 1500 1900 2100 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 505 365 560 0 425 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length 0) 50 50 0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Fit 0 960 0.850 F1 Protected 0.960 U.950 Said. Flow (Prot) 1900 3729 1417 1566 3837 1770 1538 Fit Permitted 0.960 0.960 Satd. Flow (perm) 1900 3729 1417 1566 3837 1770 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 77 J 280 Link Speed (mph) "' -` 60 60 45 9` Link Distance (ft) 958 2793 1423 Travel; Time (S) 10.9 31.7 21.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.96 0.96 095 Heavy Vehicles (°r6) 0% 7% 14% 16% 4% 2% 5°fo Adj. Flow �ph) 0 969 77 173 1209 384 453 Shared Lane Traffic C6) Lane Group Flow (Th) 0 969 77 173 1209 384 453 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 20.0 20.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 13.0 2$.0 23.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 55.0 55.0 30.0 700 35.0 35.0 Total Split Clo) 12.5% 45.8% 46.8°% 25`0% 58.3% 292% 29.20r6 Mammum Green (s) 7.0 47.0 470 22.0 620 29.0 29.0 Yellow Time (s) 6.0 61.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 All-RBd Time (s) 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.0 so 80 8.0 so 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Eidension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 U 3.0 Recall Mode None Min Min None Min None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 70 Flash Dont Walk (s) 13.0 13.0 Pedestrian Calls (#>9hr) 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 33.0 33.0 15.9 572 25.9 25.9 Actuated g/C Ratojff ARM 0.34 0.34 016 0.59 0.27 027 vic Ratio 0.77 0.15 0.68 0.54 0.82 0.74 Control Delay 33.9 6.2 56.2 13.1 51.0 21,.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future 2048 Background Committed - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 185 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9, Corkscrew Rd & SR 82 1217r2025 t2ne Group EBU EBT FOR WBL UUST NBL NER Total Delay 33.9 6.2 66.2 13.1 51.0 21.8 LOS C A E B D C Approach Delay 31.9 18.3 35.2 Approach LOS C B D Queue Length 50th M) 294 a 106 238 225 96 Queue Length 95th M) 394 31 199 288 #462 263 lntemaf Link Dist Qt) 878 2713 1343 Turn Bay Length (tt) 365 560 425 Base Capacity (vph) 1854 743 362 2634 542 666 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sp[Oback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reducedvk Ratio 0.62 0.10 0.48 0.46 0.71 0.68 Mrsection Sqmmary Area Type' Other Cycle Length:120 Actuated Cycle Length: 97.6 Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.82 Intersection Signal Delay; 27.Q Intersection LOS.- C Intersection Capacity Ltiiization 71.5% ICU Level of Service C Analyso Period (min)16 4 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown Is maximum aftertwo cydes_ Lan ses. 9. Corkscrew Pid &SR$2 6Z p4 —0'06 Future 200 Background Committed - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a c 1 186 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9 Corkscrew Rd & SR 82 12A712025 :�5 --p. "'* i-- LweGtoup JEBU EgT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Contigurations A +f r ++ M r Traffic Volume "h) 0 1367 449 353 "5 27 164 Future Volume (Th) 0 1367 449 353 685 27 164 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 2100 1900 1900 2100 1900 1900 Storage Length (ff) 505 365 560 400 425 Storage Lanes 1 1 2 1 1 Taper Length Qt) 50 100 50 Lane Uil. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.96 0.97 1.00 Fit 0.850 0 850 Fill: Protected 0.950 9.950 Satd. Flow (prat) 1900 3661 1568 2824 3595 3072 1302 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) I900 3661 1568 2824 3595 3072 1302 Right Turn on tied Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 473 173 Unk Speed (mph) 60 60 45 Link Distance 0) 958 2793 742 Travel. Time (t) 10.9 31.7 11.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 095 0.95 0.95 095 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0°% 9% 3% 24% 11 % t 4% 24% Adj. Flow (rph) 0 1439 473 372 721 28 173 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1439 473 372 721 28 173 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Over Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 5 Permitted Phases 6 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 4 5 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 15.0 32.0 32.0 13.0 2$.0 1a.0 13.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 76.0 76.0 31 .0 920 23.0 31.0 Total Split (%) 11.5°% 58.5°% 58.5°% 23.8% 701% 17.7°% 23.8% Maximum Green (s) 7.0 68.0 680 23.0 840 17.0 23.0 Yellow Time (s) 6.0 6.0 60 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.0 8.0 80 8.0 go 6.0 8.0 LeadlLag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Exdension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None Min Min None Min None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 Flash Dort Walk (s} 17.0 17.0 Pedestrian Calls (411hr) 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 48.1 48.1 18.2 799 6.9 18.2 Actuated 91C Ratio 0.63 0.53 0.20 0.88 II 08 020 v1c Ratio 0.74 0.45 0.65 0.23 0.12 0.43 Control Delay 19.7 2.6 42A 2.0 50.1 10.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future 2048 Background Improved - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 187 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: Corkscrew Rd & SR 82 12172025 Total Delay _ _19.7 2% 01 2.0 50.1 10.0 LOS B A D A D B Approach Delay 15.5 15.9 15.6 Approach LOS B B B Queue Length 50th (it) 359 A 112 47 8 0 Queue Length 95th (tt) 488 45 195 66 26 62 Internal Link Dist (ft) 878 2713 662 Turn Bay Length (ft) 365 560 400 425 Base Capacity "h) 2830 1319 787 3224 633 487 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spliiback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.61 0.36 0.47 022 0.04 0.36 �ersectiort_�G_mmary _ — ,,.� Area Type' Other Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle Length:90A Natural Cycle: 65 Codrol Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Ma)amum vlc Ratio 0.74 Intersection Signal Delay:1$.6 Intersection LOS: 8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 661% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (rnin)15 Spits and Phases 9: Corkscrew Rd &SR82 e!- 01 02 04 005 i06 Future 2048 Background Improved - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 188 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Tlmings 9: Corkscrew Rd & SR 82 12n712025 iahe 6roup EBU EBT ESE --WBL W81 NBL NBR Lane Configurations A ++ r QQ M r Traffic Volume "h) 0 921 73 164 1149 365 430 Future Volume (vph) 0 921 73 164 1149 365 430 Ideal Flow �phpl) 1900 2100 1900 1900 2100 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 605 365 560 400 425 Storage Lanes 1 1 2 1 1 Taper Length F) 50 100 50 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 `0.97 1.00 Fri: 0 850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 Satd. Flow (prat) 1900 3729 1417 301 9 3837 3433 1538 Fit Permitted 0.960 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1900 3729 1417 3019 3837 3433 I6U Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 77 433 Link Speed (mph) 60 60 45 Link Distance 0) 958 2793 742 Travel Time (s) 10.9 31.7 11.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 095 095 0.95 0.95 095 Heavy Vehicles (°rG) 0% 7% 14% 16% 4% 20A 6% Adj Flow (rph) 0 969 77 173 1209 384 453 Shared lane Traffic (/o) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 969 77 173 1209 384 453 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot h1A Prot Over Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 5 Permitted Phases E Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 4 5 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 20.0 20.0 3.4 160 6.0 3.4 Minimum Split js) 13.0 28.0 28.0 13.0 26.0 13.0 13.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 55.0 55.0 30.0 70.0 35.0 30.0 Total Split Clo) 125% 45.8% 45.8% 25.0% 58.a% 29.2% 25.00/6 Maximum Green (s) 7.0 47.0 47.0 22.0 62.0 28.2 22.0 Yellow Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.8 6.0 All-Fbd Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Q.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 6.8 8.0 LeadUg Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Erdension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None Min Min None Min None None Walk Time (s) 70 7.0 Flash Lent Walk (s) 13.0 13.0 Pedestrian Calls (Mhr) 0 0 Act Effc1 Green t5) 28.7 28.7 11.6 48.6 15.0 11.6 Actuated g!C Ratio _ 026 0.36 015 0.62 0.19 0.15 vX Ratio 0.72 0.14 0.39 0.51 0.59 0.76 Control Delay 26.6 6.6 36.2 9.4 35.0 14.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future 2048 Background Improved - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 189 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9, Corkscrew Rd & SR 82 12A72025 I --► -,* '0'- `\ /r 1-2ne Grog EBU EET EBR WBL V08T NBL NBR I Total Delay 26.6 5.6 36.2 9.4 35.0 14.0 _ LOS C A D A D B Approach Delay 242 12.6 216 Approach LOS C B C Queue Length 50th (tt) 1" 0 38 150 84 8 Queue Length 95th (R) 363 30 n 244 175 114 Intemal Link Dist 0) 878 2713 662 Turn Bay Length (It) 365 560 400 425 Base Capacity (vph) 2314 909 $77 3193 127$ 764 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spinback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced ulc Ratio 0.42 0.08 0.20 0.38 0.30 0.60 "Section SLIM Mary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:120 Actuated Cycle Length. 79 Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated MaArn urn vic Ratio: 0.76 Intersection Signal Delay,19.1 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 i Ids and Phases: 9: Corkscrew lad &SR82 01 02 � ©4 005 Future 2048 Background Improved - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 190 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9, Corkscrew Rd/Project Entrance & SR K 12n7i2025 ---* ---t f- ♦- *-- - t N► 1 41 Lam QMUp EBL EgT EBR 10.11L ANBT ON RK 49f. Af(3R SBL SBT to Lane Configurations t ++ r M ++ r M T+ I Traffic Volume "h) 0 2200 484 440 1166 50 S§ 16 317 88 14 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 2200 484 440 1156 50 89 16 317 88 14 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 2100 1900 1900 2100 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 505 365 560 460 400 425 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 Taper Length Q) 50 100 50 25 Lane Util . Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 097 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fit 0 850 0 850 0 867 F1 Protected 0.960 0.9510 0950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 3661 1568 2824 3696 1683 3072 1325 0 1770 1863 0 Fit Permitted 0.950 "50 0.960 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 3661 1568 2824 3595 1583 3072 1325 0 1770 1863 0 Right Turn an }zed Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTO R) 279 124 282 Link Speed (mph) GO 60 45 30 Link Distance fit) 963 2793 742 736 Travel Time 0) 10.9 31.7 11.2 16.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.95 0.95 095 0.95 0.92 095 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (°r6) 2% 9% 3% 24% 11 % 2% 14% 2% 24% 2% 2% 2% Adj. Flow kph) 0 2316 609 463 1217 54 94 17 334 96 15 0 Shared Lane Traffic Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2316 509 463 1217 54 94 351 0 96 15 0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 7 4 3 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.0 30.0 30.0 17.6 28.0 2$.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Total Split (s) 14.0 74.0 74.0 36.0 960 %.0 25.0 15.0 26.0 150 Taal Split (%) 9.3% 49.3% 49.3% 24.0% 64.0% 64.0% 16.7% 10.0% 16.7% 10.0% Ma)dmum Green (s) 6.0 66.0 660 28.0 88.0 $8.0 19.0 9.0 19.0 9.0 Yellow Time (s) 6.0 6:0 6.0 6,0 6.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.0 8.0 80 80 so 8.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 60 LeadlLag Lead Lag lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None Walk Tine (s) 7.0 7.0 7-0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 Pedestrian Calls (Ohr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 66.1 66.1 26.4 100.5 100.5 20A 9.0 13.0 9.0 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.46 0.46 019 070 0.70 0.14 0.06 0.09 0.06 v1c Ratio 1.36 0.53 0.89 0.48 0.05 0.21 1.01 0.60 0.13 Control Delay 200.2 16.3 76.6 10.4 0.1 692 66.3 77.8 65.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future 2048 Background Improved with PJ - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a 1 191 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: Corkscrew Rd/Project Entrance & SR 82 1247QQ25 Iyeamup EBL EBT EBR WBL W8T WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL S RT tBR Total Delay 200.2 16.3 76.6 10.4 0.1 69.2 66.3 77.8 66.0 LOS F B E B A E E E E Approach Delay 166A 27.8 64.0 76.0 Approach LOS F C E E Queue Length 50th 7) -1513 153 219 242 0 38 -74 88 14 Queue Length 95th S) 9730 287 0,C21 327 0 76 te93 151 38 Internal Link Dist qt) 878 2713 662 656 Turn Bay Length (ft) 365 560 460 400 Base Capacity(vph) 1697 876 555 2533 1152 498 347 236 142 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Splgback Cap Reductn 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vJc Ratio 1.36 0.58 0.83 0.48 0.06 0.19 1.01 0.41 0,11 Intersection $gmmary Area Type' Other Cycle Length,150 Attualed Cycle Length:142.6 Natural Cycle:160 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio 1 36 Intersection Signal Delay: 108.$ Intersection LOS. F Intersection Capacity Utilization 116.2% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum aftertwo cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases 9, Corkscrew Rd1Pro'ect Entrance &SR82 01 02 '*03 t04 • &35 --+06 07 • 08 Future 2048 Background Improved with PJ - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a a 192 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: Corkscrew Rd/Project Entrance & SR 82 12117r2025 ---* --I. --�* i * �- -L" t `► 1 W Lane Qroup EBL l EB_R )NBL WBT WBR. NBL NBT l SBL S;BT 913 Lane Configurations h tt r tt 1W ►j�j T. I. Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1505 133 311 1904 0 411 16 544 68 17 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 1506 133 all 1904 0 411 16 544 68 17 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 2100 1900 1900 2100 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length g) 605 365 560 460 400 425 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 Taper Length 0) 50 100 50 25 Lane iltil. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 Fit 0.850 0.854 Flt Protected 0950 0.960 107950 Satd. Flow (prof) 1863 3729 1417 3019 3837 1863 3433 1647 0 1770 1863 0 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 3729 1417 3019 3837 1863 3433 1547 0 1770 1863 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 210 401 Link Speed (mph) 60 60 45 30 Link Distance (ft) 958 2793 742 736 Travel. Time (s) 10.9 31.7 11,2 16.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 7% 14% 16% 4% 2% 20r6 2% 5% 2% 2% 2% Adj. Flow kph) 0 1584 140 327 2004 0 433 17 573 74 18 0 Shared Lane Traffic (/b) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1584 140 327 2004 0 433 590 0 74 18 0 Tum Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA, Perm Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 7 4 3 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 13.0 28.0 28.0 15.6 28.0 28.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Total Split (s) 150 40.0 40.0 30.0 55.0 65.0 25.0 35.0 25.0 35.0 Total Split C16) 11.5% 30.8% 30.80/b 23.1% 42.3% 42.3% 19.2% 26.9% 19.2% 26.9% Ma)amum Green (s) 7.0 32.0 32.0 22.0 47.0 47.0 19.0 29.0 19.0 29.0 Yellow Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.10 6.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 y> All -Fled Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 L,ead"g Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead tag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle E)dension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None Walk'Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 Pedestrian Calls (Ohr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 33.0 33.0 16 9 582 26.0 23.6 10.1 12.2 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.16 0.53 0.24 0.22 0.09 0.11 v/c Ratio 140 0.24 0.70 0.98 0.53 0.91 0.46 0.09 Control Delay 218.5 1.6 53.9 43.0 41.8 33.7 59.9 44.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future 2048 Background Improved with PJ - PM Peak Hour 8ynchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a P. 1 193 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9. Corkscrew Rd/Project Entrance & SR 82 12n7i2025 IWO8roup_ EBL EBT EBP WBL WBT IWOR, KK NOT NBR SBL SBT GOR Total Delay 218.5 1.6 53.9 43.0 41.8 33.7 69.9 44.5 LOS F A D D D C E D Approach Delay 200.9 44.6 37.1 56.9 Approach LOS F D D E Queue Length 60th (it) w888 0 122 ~874 116 147 54 13 Queue Length 95th (it) #A 126 6 178 M 076 0256 ADM 107 34 Internal Link Dist (ft) 878 2713 662 656 Turn Bay Length (tt) 365 660 400 Base Capacity (vph) 1129 576 628 2048 874 715 318 611 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SplflbacR Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v1c Patio 1.40 0.24 0.52 0.98 0 60 0.83 023 0.04 Wrsection _Sulminary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:130 ktuated Cycle Length:109 Natural Cycle 150 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vic Ratio: 1.40 Intersection Signal Delay:95.4 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 113.8% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. queue shown Is maximum after two cycles. Ids and Phases: 9: Corkscrew RilPro ect Entrance &SR82 01 07 \l--03 1 04 • EI5 �I'r76 � �77 • 08 Future 2048 Background Improved with PJ - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 194 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9. Corkscrew Rd/Project Entrance & SR 82 12117i2025 �� f*-- "\ t, b 1 d Wing Group EBL .E9T EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT N13R S13L 8.BT SB.F� Lane Contigurations I TT+ f )) +++ f ►j►j 1� Yj I. Traffic Volume (vph) 0 2200 484 440 1156 60 4 16 317 88 14 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 2200 484 440 1156 50 89 16 317 88 14 0 ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 2100 1900 1900 2100 1900 1900 1900 1900 1960 1900 1900 Storage Length (tt) 505 365 660 460 400 426 0 0 Storage lanes 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 Taper Length 0) 50 100 50 25 Lane U ll Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0:97 0.91 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 Fit 0.850 0.850 0.857 Fill Protected 0950 "SO 0.95.0 Said. Flow (prot) 1863 5260 1668 2824 5165 1583 3072 1325 0 1770 1863 0 Fit Permitted 0.950 0950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 5260 1568 2824 5165 1583 3072 1325 0 1770 1863 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 397 124 288 Link Speed (mph) 60 60 45 30 Link Distance fit) 958 1134 742 736 Travel Time (s) 10.9 12.9 11.2 16.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 9% 3% 24% 11% 2% 14% 2% 24% 2% 2% 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 2316 509 463 1217 54 94 17 334 96 15 0 Shared Lane Traffic (°r6) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2316 509 463 1217 54 94 351 0 96 15 0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 7 4 3 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 Minimum Splits) 14.0 30.0 30.0 17.F 28.0 28.0 11.0 11.0 11-0 11.0 Total Split (9 14.0 73.0 73.0 37.0 96.0 96.0 25.0 16.0 24.0 15.0 Total Split (0/6) 9.3% 48.7% 48.7% 24.7% 64.0% $4.0% 16.7% 10.7% 16.0% 10.0°A Ma)dmum Green (s) 6.0 65.0 65.0 29.0 88.0 89.0 19.0 10.0 18.0 9.0 Yellow Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 AJI-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 LeadiLag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle E>dension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dort Walk (s) 13.0 13.0 130 13.0 Pedestrian Calls (#iPhr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 65.1 65.1 26 8 99.9 99.9 21.1 10.0 13.0 9.3 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.46 0.46 0.19 0.70 0.70 0.15 0.07 0.09 0.07 vlc Ratio 0.97 0.55 0.88 0.34 0.05 0.21 0.97 0.60 0.12 Control Delay 502 9.7 75.0 9.0 0.1 59.0 56.0 78.5 64.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future 2048 Background Improved with PJ Improved - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 195 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: Corkscrew Rd/Project Entrance & SR 82 12/17/2025 LaneGrwp EBL EBT EBt3 WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NER SBt_ SBT SB Total Delay 50.2 8.7 75.0 �9.0 0.1 59.0 55.0 78.5 64.7 LOS D A E A A E D E E Approach Delay 42.$ 26.3 55.8 76.7 Approach LOS D C E E Queue Length 50 (It) 62 218 150 0 38 61 9 14 Queue Length 95th fit) *61 178 AIM 194 0 76 4Q77 152 38 Internal Link Dist (t) 878 1054 662 655 Turn Bay Length (It) 365 560 460 400 Base Capacity (vph) 2396 930 673 3610 1143 510 360 223 145 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap R.eductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vk Ratio 0 V 0.55 0.81 0.34 0.06 0.1$ 0.97 O A 3 010 IrdersecCuori Sumin Area Type: Other Cycle Length:150 Actuated Cycle Length:142.9 Natural Cycle 130 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.97 Intersection Signal Delay: 39.1 Irdersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Ltiliaation 99 7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 #€ 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 3 lits and Phases: 9: Corkscrew RdlProject Entrance &SR82 rl-- /�01 02 €73 109 • 05 —006 4\ 07 • 08 Future 2048 Background Improved with PJ Improved - AM Peak Hour 6ynchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA - e 1 196 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9. Corkscrew Rd/Project Entrance & SR 82 12M712025 Lanettoup ESL EBT EBR IN B L WBT 1NBR N.BL NBT NBR. 5Bi_ S,BT SBR Lane Configurations N +++ r M W r $. ►j T. Traffic Volume (Th) 0 1505 133 311 1904 87 411 16 544 68 17 0 Future Volume (tiph) 0 1505 133 all 1904 87 411 16 544 68 17 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 2100 1900 1900 2100 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 505 365 560 460 400 425 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 Taper Length V) 50 100 50 25 Lane Vil. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0 954 Flt Protected 0.950 0.95t7 t-.950 Satd. Flow (prat) 1863 5358 1417 3019 5512 1583 3433 1547 0 1770 1863 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.960 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 5358 1417 3019 6512 1583 3433 1547 0 1770 1863 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 210 143 345 Unk Speed (mph) 60 60 45 30 Link Distance (It) 958 1134 742 736 Travel Time (t) 10.9 12.9 11.2 16.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles 2% 7% 14% 16% 4°% 2% P6 2% 5°% 2% 2% 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1584 140 327 2004 95 433 17 573 74 18 0 Shared Lane Traffic (46) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1584 140 327 2004 95 433 590 0 74 18 0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Kk Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 7 4 3 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 13.0 28.0 M0 15.6 28.0 28.6 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Total Split (s) 150 44.0 44.0 30 0 59.0 59.0 27.0 35.0 21.0 29.0 Total Split �%) 11.5% 33.8% 3a,$% 23.1% 45.4% 45.4% 20.8% 25.9% 16.2% 22.30A Ma)amum Green (s) 7.0 36.0 36.0 22.0 51.0 61.0 21.0 29.0 15.0 23.0 Yellow Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 3.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 LeadUg Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle E)dension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 30 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dart Walk (s) 13.0 13.0 130 13.0 Pedestrian Calls (*br) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 36.6 36.6 17.5 623 62.3 30.4 27.2 10.3 11.7 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.15 0.53 0.53 0.26 0.23 0.09 0.10 vlc Ratio 094 0.24 0.72 0.68 0.10 0.49 0.96 0.47 0.10 Control Delay 53.2 1.5 619 5 22.9 0.9 42.0 442 63.8 48.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future 2048 Background Improved with PJ Improved - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA " a g e 1 197 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9. Corkscrew Rd/Projecl Entrance & SR 82 12/17/2025 --* ---0--`i 4 ~ 'I -I 4 LaneV'toup EBL EET EBK IMBL WBT WEIR N13L NBT NRR 5RL S.BT SBF� Total Delay 532 1.5 585 229 0.9 42.0 44.2 63.8 48.4 LOS D A E C A D D E D Approach Delay 49.0 26.8 43.3 60.8 Approach LOS D C D E Queue Length 50th (tt) 466 0 127 427 0 124 216 56 14 Queue Length 95th (ft) Ma6 5 186 620 7 242 404 109 3(S Internal Link Dist fit) 878 1054 662 656 Turn Bay Length (ftt) 365 560 460 400 Base Capacity (vph) 1677 588 677 2934 909 896 60 230 372 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Redudn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vie Patio 0.94 0.24 0.57 0.68 0.10 0.4$ 0.91 b.32 005 orbersectioh Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length, 130 Actuated Cycle Length:117 Natural Cycle.100 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maiamum vlc Ratio:O.96 Intersection Signal Delay: 37.9 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Uilization 99.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 4 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown ism aximum after two cydes. llts and Phases. 9: Corkscrew Rd1Proect Entrance &SR82 f 01 02 �f33 I �34 '1('05 —006 � 07 � 08 Future 2048 Background Improved with PJ Improved - PM Peak Hour 8ynchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a 7 1 198 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 SR 29 and Westclox St Intersection Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1, SR 29 & WestoloXST/NewMarkel Rd 0812772025 t' -♦ --v '0'- ~ 'I- `\ t �' r► 1 Lane Group EBL LET EBR MfBL IfVBT WBR N9L NET N9R SBi- 9BT EI Lane Configurations 1 $ f r I +___ Traffic Volume (vph) 85 95 57 0 55 309 43 270 44 593 428 93 Future Volume (Th) 85 95 57 0 55 309 43 270 44 593 428 93 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length [fit) 250 0 100 0 200 175 175 175 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length 0) 140 50 50 50 Lane L til _ Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0 944 0.873 0 850 0.860 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0 950 Satd Flow (prat) 1787 1780 0 1900 1402 0 1752 1827 1615 1687 1863 1568 Fit Permitted 0.209 0.4% 0.264 Satd Flow (perm) 393 1780 0 1900 1402 0 919 1827 1615 469 1863 15" Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd Flow (RTO R) 23 218 198 121 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 45 45 Link Distance fit) 950 949 621 610 Travel Time (s) 12.9 1.4.4 9.4 9.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0 93 0 93 0 93 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 0% 2% 0% g9% 20% 3°/O 4% 0% 7% 2% aOA Adi Flow (vph) 91 102 61 0 59 332 46 290 47 638 460 100 Shared Lane Traffic C.6) Lane Group Flow (.ph) 91 163 0 0 391 0 46 290 47 638 460 100 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm-V NA Perm pm-1A NA Perm Protected Phases 8 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 4 6 6 2 2 Detector Phase 8 8 4 4 1 6 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 $.0 $.0 7.0 16.0 15.0 7.0 16.0 15.0 Minimum SPlit (s) 30.0 30.0 27.0 27.0 15.5 29.4 29.4 15.5 314 31.4 Total Split (s) 36.0 36.0 35.0 35.0 16.0 37.0 37.0 48.0 69.0 69.0 Total Split C/6) 29.2% 292% 29.2% 29.2% 13.3% 30.$0/6 30.8% 40.0% 67.5% 57.60A Maximum Green (s) 27.2 27.2 27.2 272 7 5 28.5 28.5 39.5 60.5 60.5 Yellow Time (s) 4.8 41 4.8 4.9 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.5 AI -Red Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0-0 0.0 0.0 0 0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.8 7.8 7.8 7 8 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 Leadil-ag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag tag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VeNcle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.4 2.4 Recall Mode None None None None None Min Min None Min Min Actli Green (s) 27.3 27.3 27.3 28.9 21,$ 21.8 69.6 57.3 67.3 Actuated giC Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.24 026 019 0.19 0.61 0.51 0.51 vlc Ratio 0.97 0.37 0.78 0.16 0.83 0.10 0.90 0.49 0.12 Control Delay 129.5 34.5 299 17.3 63.5 0.4 37.5 21 4 2 0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.0 0.01 0.0 Total Delay 129.5 34.5 29.9 17.3 63.5 0.4 37.5 21.4 2.0 LOS F C C B E A D C A Approach Delay 68.5 29.9 50.2 28.3 Existing 2025 - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 199 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1, SR 29 & WestoloX St/New Market Rd 012712025 Approach LOS E C D G Queue Length 50 fit) 66 85 122 12 206 0 326 225 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #A 85 M *294 26 303 0 403 320 19 Internal Link Dist (ft) 770 $69 541 630 Tum Bay Length (t) 250 200 175 175 175 Base Capacity (Th) % 446 503 293 460 565 714 1002 09 Starvation Cap Recluctn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap R,eductn .0' 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.97 0.37 0.78 0.16 0.63 0.08 0.89 0.46 0.11 Area Type: Other Cycle Length_120 Actuated Cycle Length:113.2 Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vk Ratio: 0.97 Intersection Signal Delay:37.0 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 104.5°k ICU Level or Service Q Analysis Period (min? 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity; queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. ds and Phases: 1: SR29 &Westclox St)New Market Rd O1 ©2 ©4 05 t06 �t�8 e.� Existing 2025 - AM Peak Hour Sync hro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 200 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: SR 29 & Westclox St/New Market Rd o812712025 --,* 0- --v 4 .4--- *- -� T �► 1 Lane Group EBL rzRT BeRN-JR-OL *BT WBR AJBL NBT WR GBL SBT Lane Configurations I T. I il� f r t Traffic Volume (vph) 88 57 42 9 46 488 52 369 14 249 354 110 Future Volume (vph) 88 57 42 9 45 488 52 369 14 249 354 110 Ideal Flow (uphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (tt) 250 0 100 0 200 176 176 176 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (t) 140 50 50 50 Lane "il- Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.936 0."3 0.860 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0,950 0.950 Satd. Flow (Prot) 1805 1778 0 1805 1648 0 1805 1845 1615 1583 1827 1524 Fit Permitted 0.146 0.674 OA98 0.181 Said Flow (perm) 277 1778 0 1281 1548 0 946 1846 1615 302 1827 1524 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said Flow (RTO R) 29 375 198 143 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 46 46 Link Distance (it) 850 949 621 610 Travel Time (s) 112.9 14.4 9.4 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 Heavy Vehicles (a%) 00% 0°% 00% 0°% 6°% 6°% 0% 3% 0°% 14% 4°% 60A Adj. Flow (uph) 114 74 55 12 58 634 68 479 18 323 460 143 Shared Lane Traffic P%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 114 129 0 12 692 0 68 479 18 323 460 143 Turn Type Perm NA Perm M pmipt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 8 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 4 6 6 2 2 Detector Phase 8 8 4 4 1 6 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 15.0 15.0 7.0 15.0 15.0 Minimum Split (s) 30.0 30.0 270 27.0 15.5 29.4 29.4 15.5 31.4 31.4 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 16.0 69.0 69.0 26.0 69.0 69.0 Total Split (%) 29.2°% 292°% 29.2°% 29.2°% 13.3°% 49.2% 49.2°% 21.7°% 67.5°% 57.5°k MaAmum Green (s) 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 7.5 50.5 50.5 17.6 60.6 60.5 Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 5.5 5.5 6.5 5.6 5.6 5.6 AJI-Red Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 Leacill-ag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 34 3.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.4 2.4 Recall Mode None None None None None Min Min None Min Min Act Etfct Green (s) 27A 27.4 27.4 27-4 37.0 29.7 297 55.9 43.6 43.6 Actuated glC Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.37 0 30 0 30 066 044 0A4 vlc Ratio 1.62 0.25 0.03 0.99 0.16 0.87 0.03 0.82 0.68 0.19 Control Delay 317.6 26.1 30.6 51.0 12.2 49.9 0.1 34.7 25.4 3.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 317.6 26.1 30.6 51.0 12.2 49.9 0.1 34.7 25.4 3.6 LOS F C C D B D A C C A Approach Delay 162.4 50.6 43.3 25.3 Existing 2025 - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 6 e 1 201 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 I n n W—h.— Timi 1 : SR 29 & Westclox St/New Market Rd 0g127025 -' —0. ---* f- ',- -.,\ t Lane Group E_ BL EBT EBR W BL W BT WBR NBL NBT N$R SBL 99T SBI Approach LOS F D D C Queue Length Oh (ft) -101 49 6 235 18 285 0 113 227 0 Queue Length 96th (ft) #I9ii 91 19 C67 31 325 0 164 262 20 Internal Link Dist [fit) 770 %9 641 530 Turn Bay Length (it) 250 100 200 175 176 176 Base Capacity (Th) 75 609 351 697 418 940 920 395 1116 986 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vfc Ratio 1.52 0.25 0.03 0.99 0.16 0.61 0.02 0.82 0.41 0.15 IntersWion Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length :120 Actuated Cycle Length:99.7 N4ural Cycle: $0 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vic Ratio:1 .52 Intersection Signal Delay: 50.6 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Uilization 1012°A ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)16 - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically ir►firde. Queue shown is maximum alter two cycles. # 96thperceniilp volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. S Ids and Phases: SR29 &Westclox St1New Market Rd I1: 01 # 02 04 \11.05 t06 —38 Existing 2025 - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 202 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 : SR 29 & Westclox St/New Market Rd 12A7025 Lane Group EBL 1 IRT EBR WBL. WBT WSR NtL i N139 SBI_ 8 T SBR Lane Configurations I 'l T t F Yj t f Traffic Volume (vph) 127 142 85 0 82 461 64 402 66 884 638 13J Future Volume (Th) 127 142 85 0 82 461 64 402 66 884 638 139 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 19W 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (fit) 250 0 100 0 200 175 175 176 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length fit) 140 50 50 50 Lane Util- Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fri: 0.944 0.873 0.860 0.860 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 17H 0 1900 1402 0 1752 1827 1615 1687 1863 1568 Fit Permitted 0.147 0.404 0.130 Said Flow (perm) 277 1780 0 1900 1402 0 745 1827 1615 231 1863 1568 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said Flow (RTO R) 23 219 198 121 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 45 46 Link Distance (fit) 850 949 621 610 Travel Time (s) 12.E 14.4 9.4 9.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 0°% 2% 0°% 9°% 20% 3°% 4% 0°% 7% 2% 3% Adj. Flow kph) 137 153 91 0 88 496 69 432 71 951 686 149 Shared Lane Traffic C6) Lane Group Flow (vph) 137 244 0 0 594 0 69 432 71 951 686 149 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA prn-V NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 8 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 4 6 6 2 2 Detector Phase 8 8 4 4 1 6 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 15.0 15.0 7.0 15.0 15.0 Minimum Split (s) 30.0 30.0 27.0 27.0 15.5 29.4 29.4 15.5 31.4 31.4 i Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 16.0 37.0 37.0 48.0 69.0 69.0 Total Split (%) 29.2% 292°% 29.2% 29.2% 13.3°% 30.M 30.8°16 40.0°% 67.5°% 57.5% Maximum Green (s) 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 7.5 28.5 28.5 39.6 60.5 60.6 Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.9 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 6.6 6.6 Al -Red Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 LeacVLag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.4 2.4 Recall Mode None None None None None Min Min None Min Min Act Eftct Green (s) 272 27.2 27.2 35.7 28.5 28.5 76.6 63.9 63.9 Actuated g1C Ratio 023 0.23 0.23 0.30 0.24 024 064 0.53 0.53 vic Ratio 2.21 0.68 1.20 0.24 1.00 0.13 1.62 0.69 0.17 Control Delay 617.4 43.6 134.2 19.2 88.8 0.5 268.7 26.6 4.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 617.4 43.6 134.2 18.2 88.8 0.5 268.7 26.6 4.7 LOS F D F B F A F C A Approach Delay 249.9 134.2 69.3 153.6 Future 2048 Background -AM Peak Hour Srchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 203 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 : SR 29 & Westelox St/New Market Rd --* -• --* f '- 4- '\ t to It. 4 12A 712025 T"Y Lane Group EBL I IST EBR WUL INBT WBR RL Of k S$L t T SBR Approach LOS F F E F Queue Length 50th M) -170 153 -410 19 336 0 -977 401 11 Queue Length 95th (ft) Moll 241 A36 37 *48 0 MN2 557 45 Internal Link Dist (t) 770 969 541 630 Turn Bay Length (Tt) 250 200 175 175 175 Base Capacity (vph) 62 421 487 286 433 634 626 991 "1 Starvat(on Cap Rsductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vic Ratio 2.21 0.58 1.20 0.24 1.00 0.13 1.52 0.69 0.17 Oar-,%Iiipm Summary..� Area Type: Other Cycle Length _120 Actuated Cycle Length:120 Wural Cycle:160 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vie Ratio: 2,21 Intersection Signal Delay: 146.8 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 138.4% ICU Level of Service H g- Mal ysis Period (min) 15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Future 2048 Background -AM Peak Hour 3ynchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1204 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 : SR 29 & Westclox St/New Market Rd 12tl7025 � � � f- t 4\ t r' �► 1 Lane Group EBL FRT LBR WBL WBT WISR NBL IqBT Kit S Lane Configurations I 1 T. + r f F Traffic Volume (Uph) 131 85 63 13 67 727 78 650 21 371 528 164 Future Volume (Th) 131 85 63 13 67 727 78 550 21 371 528 164 Ideal Row (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (R) 250 0 100 0 200 175 175 175 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 a Taper Length fit) 140 50 50 50 Lane iltil- Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 Frt 0.936 0.863 0.850 0.860 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Sadd. Flow (prot) 1805 1778 0 1806 1548 0 1805 1845 1616 1583 1827 1524 Fit Permitted 0.146 0.649 0.374 0126 Said Flow (perm) 277 1778 0 1233 1548 0 711 1846 1615 210 1827 1624 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said Flow (RTO R) 29 308 198 150 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 45 45 Link Distance M) 850 949 621 610 Travel Time (s) t2.9 14.4 9.4 9.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (0k) 00/0 0% 0% 00/0 50r6 60r6 0% 3% 0% 14% 4.0,6 6% Adj. Flow kph) 142 92 68 14 73 790 85 598 23 403 574 178 Shared Lane Traffic C6) Lane Group Flow (vph) 142 160 0 14 863 0 85 598 23 403 574 178 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm-V NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 8 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 4 6 6 2 2 Detector Phase 8 8 4 4 1 6 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 15.0 16.0 7.0 15.0 16.0 Minimum Split (s) 30.0 30.0 27.0 27.0 15.5 29.4 29.4 16.5 31.4 31.4 Total Split (s) 35.0 36.0 35.0 35.0 16.0 69.0 59.0 26.0 69.0 69.0 Total Split (b) 29.2% 292% 29.2% 29.2% 13.3% 49.2% 49.2% 21.7% 67.6% 57.6% Maxi m um Green (s) 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 7.5 50.5 50.5 17.5 60.5 60.5 'Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4$ 4.8 5.5 5.6 6.6 5,5 6.5 6.5 All-F;bd Time (S) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 LeadtLag Lead tag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle E)dension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 '� 3.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.4 2.4 Recall Mode None None None None None Min Min None Min Min Act Eftct Green fl 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 45.7 38.4 38.4 64.5 52.2 52.2 Actuated giC Ratio 0.26 0.25 025 025 0.42 035 025 060 0.48 0 48 vlc Ratio 2.06 0.34 0.05 129 0.23 0.92 0.03 1.16 0.65 0.22 Control Delay 541.8 31.2 35.2 207.9 12.1 62.9 0.1 125.3 26.2 4.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 '0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 541.8 312 35.2 207.9 12.1 52.9 0.1 125.3 26.2 4.6 LOS F C D F B D A F C A Approach Delay 271.3 205.1 46.3 57.5 Future 2048 Background - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 205 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 : SR 29 & WestClox St/New Market Rd 12A7/2025 -� 4-_ t �► 1 Lane 0.mup EBL EBT EBR W81- WBT WBR NK NBT NBR 8BL S8T SBi' Approach LOS F F D E Queue length 50th 0) -156 74 7 -637 23 391 0 -266 311 11 Queue Length 95th (ft) Iftl0 151 27 M75 43 541 0 0198 433 4S Internal Link Dist (ft) 770 869 641 530 Turn Bay Length (ft) 260 100 200 175 176 176 Base Capacity (uph) 69 470 311 621 377 $65 %2 348 1026 922 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 2.06 0.34 0.05 1.39 0.23 0.69 0.03 1.16 0.56 0.19 ,lMer3WIon Summary Area Tppe: Other Cycle Length-120 p Actuated Cycle Length: 108.3 Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum Vic Ratio: 2.06 wow Intersection Signal Delay: 118.7 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity uilizEgion 133.4% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is iteoreticattyinfirds. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 1: SK29 &Westclox SUNew Market Rd ION 01 02 F04 1*05 1 d6 --10438 Future 2048 Background - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1206 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1. SR 29 & WestoloX St/New Market Rd 12A712025 lane draup EBL Q3T EBR W9L WT- ;. �t TY .Nl S8L `S y . „- Lane Configurations + r I + rr ++ Traffic Volume (vph) 127 142 85 0 $2 461 64 402 66 884 638 139 Future Volume (vph) 127 142 85 0 82 461 64 402 66 8$4 638 139 Ideal Row (vphpl) 1900 1900 1906 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length M) 250 200 100 500 200 176 500 175 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Taper Length Qt) 140 50 50 100 Lane L til- Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 F1 0.860 0.850 0.$50 0.$50 Fit -Protected 0.950 0.950 0 .%0 Said Flow (prat) 1787 1900 1583 1900 1743 2369 1762 3471 1616 3273 3539 1568 Flt Permitted 0A60 OS50 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) %5 1900 1583 1900 1743 2369 1762 3471 1616 3273 3539 1568 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes WWWmmkW, Yes Ye8 Satd. Flow (RTO R) 228 496 223 167 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 .� 45 45 Link Distance It) 860 949 621 610 Travel Time (s) 12.9 14A 9.4 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles (°r6) 1% 0% 2% 00/6 9% 20% 3% 4% 0% 7% 2% 3% Adj. Flow (rph) 137 163 91 0 88 496 69 432 71 951 686 149 Shared Lane Traffic C/o) Lane Group Flow (vph) 137 153 91 0 88 496 69 432 71 961 686 149 Turn Type pm-pt NA Perm pm+pt KA Prot Prot NA Perm Prat NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 6 2 Detector Phase 3 8 8 7 4 4 1 6 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 16.0 15.0 7.0 16.0 16.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.8 18.0 18.0 11.8 18.0 18.0 15.5 29.4 29.4 15.5 31.4 31.4 Total Split (s) 19.0 32.0 32 0 130 26.0 26.0 20.0 38.0 38.0 57.0 76.0 76 0 Total Split (/o) 13.6% 22.9% 22.9% 9.3% 18.6% 18.6% 14.3% 27.1% 274% 40.7% 63.6% 53.6% Maximum Green (s) 12.2 24.2 24.2 6.2 18.2 13.2 11.5 29.5 29.5 4$.5 66.5 66.5 Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.$ 4.8 5.5 5.6 6.5 6.5 5.5 6.5 Al -Red Time (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.8 7.8 7.8 6 8 7.8 7.8 8.5 8.5 8.5 8 5 8.5 8.5 LeadA.ag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.4 2.4 Recall Mode None None None None None None None Min Min None Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 31.9 30.9 30.9 12.9 12.9 9.7 20.0 20:0 43.4 67.6 57.5 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.36 0.4$ 0.48 vic Ratio 0.43 0.31 0.16 0.47 0.71 0.49 0.74 0.16 0.80 0.40 0.19 Control Delay 41 1 39.3 0.6 61.2 10.7 68.1 57.0 0.7 408 22 2 3.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 41.1 39.3 0.6 61.2 10.7 68.1 57.0 0.7 40.8 22.2 3.2 LOS D D A E B E E A D C A Approach Delay 30.7 18.3 51.3 30.6 Future 2048 Background Improved - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 207 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 - SR 29 & WestoloX St/New Market Rd 1211712025 --* -♦ --* 'r 4-- -4\ t �► 1 W Approach LOS C B D C Queue Length 50 (t) 88 99 0 68 0 54 176 0 337 188 0 Queue Length 95th (R) 166 171 0 129 56 112 247 0 482 261 34 Internal Link Dist fit) 770 869 641 530 Turn Bay Length (it) 250 200 500 200 175 600 175 Base Capacity(vph) 326 490 679 269 785 171 $70 572 1349 2001 954 Starvait(on Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti 0 0 a 0 Reduced vic Ratio 0.42 0.31 0.16 0.33 0.63 0.40 0.50 0.12 0.70 0.34 0.16 Area Type: Other Cycle Length, 140 Actuated Cycle Length:119.4 Natural Cycle: % Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maadmum vk Ratio: OA Intersection Signal Delay: 320 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Ltiliz4ion 72.1% IOU Level oT Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 S lifts Phases: 1: SR29 &Westclox St1New Market Rd 01 02 03 04 �05 t06 �437 �D8 Future 2048 Background Improved - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 208 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 SR 29 & WestcloX StlNew Market Rd 12117/2025 Lane Group EBL kBT EBR 1ft1131 WBT WBP N�T�- i ' : Bk '89T &BR Lane Configurations + r I + rilf ++ f ++ r Traffic Volume (vph) 131 85 63 13 67 727 78 660 21 371 628 1�4 Future Volume (vph) 131 85 63 13 67 727 78 560 21 371 528 164 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1800 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (t) 250 200 100 600 200 175 Soo 175 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Taper Length 41) 140 50 50 100 Lane kAil. Factor 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 FI-Protect ed 0.950 0.950 0,960 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 1900 1616 1805 1810 2682 1805 3605 1615 3072 3471 1524 F1 Permitted 0.531 0.697 0.950 0.960 Satd. Flow (perm) 1009 1900 1615 1324 1810 2682 1805 3606 1615 3072 3471 1624 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 205 679 199 178 Link Speed (mph) 46 45 45 45 Link Distance M) 850 949 621 610 Travel Time (s) 12.9 14.4 9.4 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (°r6) 0% 00/0 0% 0% 5% 6% 0% 1% 0% 14% 4% 6% Adj. Flow (vph) 142 92 68 14 73 790 85 698 23 403 674 178 Shared Lane Traffic i /o) Lane Group Flow (Th) 142 92 68 14 73 790 85 698 23 403 674 178 Turn Type pmV NA Perm pm+pt NA, Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perrn Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 6 2 Detector Phase 3 8 8 7 4 4 1 6 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 15.0 15.0 7.0 16.0 16.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.8 30.0 30.0 11.8 27:O 27.0 15.5 29.4 29.4 15.5 31.4 31-4 Total Split (s) 17.0 43.0 43.0 170 43.0 43.0 20.0 48.0 48.0 32.0 60.0 60.0 Total Split (%) 12.1 % 30.7% 30.70A 121 % 30.7% 30.7% 14.3% 34.3% 34.3% 22.9% 429% 42.9% Maximum Green (s) 10.2 36.2 36.2 10.2 36.2 36.2 12.5 40.5 40.6 24.6 52.5 52.5 Yellow Time (s) 4.8 41 4.8 4.8 4.8 41A 5-6 5.6 5.6 6.5 6.6 5.5 Al -Red Time 0) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adiust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 7.6 7.6 7.6 75 7.6 7.5 LeadALag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 60 2.4 2-4 Recall Mode None None None None None None None Min Min None Min Min Act Effct Green is) 30.2 2$,6 29.6 20.6 14.3 14.3 9.9 21.4 21.4 20.6 35.7 36.7 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.32 0.30 0 30 0.22 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.38 0.38 vlc Ratio US 016 0.11 0.04 027 0 81 0.46 076 0.04 0.61 0.44 026 Control Delay 27.8 29.3 0 3 251 405 13.8 62.2 42.4 0.1 39.6 25.6 4.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 27.8 29.3 0.3 25.1 40.5 13.8 52.2 42.4 0.1 39.6 26.6 4.9 LOS C G A C D B D D A D C A Approach Delay 22.1 16.2 42.2 27.3 Future 2048 Background Improved - PM Peak Hour Synchro l l Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1209 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 - SR 29 & WestcloX St/New Market Rd 1211712025 � y Approach 1-0� C B D C Queue Length 50th (ft) 62 39 0 6 40 34 47 174 0 108 137 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 127 104 0 22 89 114 116 2$1 0 202 231 47 Internal Link Dist fit) 770 869 641 530 Tian Bay Length (ft) 250 200 100 600 200 175 600 176 Base Capacity(vph) 408 741 754 397 705 1460 242 1629 816 810 1963 939 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti 0 it 00 0 Reduced vic Ratio 0.35 0.12 0.09 0.04 0.10 0.54 0.35 0.39 0.03 0.50 0.29 0.19 Area Type: Other Cycle Length-.140 Actuated Cycle Length: 95.2 Na#ural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vk Ratio: 0.$1 Intersection Signal Delay:27.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Uilizolon 65.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 S as and Phases: 1: SR29 &Westclox SUNew Market Rd 01 • 02 03 04 �05 106 • 07 Future 2048 Background Improved - PM Peak Hour Sync hro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 210 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1, SR 29 & WestcloX St/New Market Rd 121.1712025 � 4 � � 4 I /0- twe Group EBL F8T EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL N8T N139 SBL 011' O Lane Configurations Vj + r + rr +f r ++ r Traffic Volume (Th) 21� 142 85 0 U 618 64 650 66 %4 900 292 Future Volume (vph) 213 142 85 0 82 518 64 560 66 984 900 292 Ideal Row (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length S) 250 200 100 500 200 176 500 175 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Taper Length 0) 140 50 50 100 Lane I.Al. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.860 0.860 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd Flow (prat) 1797 1900 1583 1900 1743 2369 1752 3471 1616 3273 3539 160 Fit Permitted 0.463 0.960 0,950 Said. Flow (perm) 871 1900 1583 1900 1743 2369 1752 3471 1616 3273 3539 1668 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 228 557 223 242 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 45 45 Link Distance 0) 850 949 621 610 Travel Time (s) 12.9 14.4 9.4 92- Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles (°A) 1% 0% 2% OOA 9% 20% 3% 4% 0% 7% 2% 3°A Adj. Row (rph) 229 153 91 0 88 557 69 591 71 1058 968 314 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 229 153 91 0 88 557 69 691 71 1058 968 314 Tum Type pm-v NA Perm pm+pt NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 6 2 Detector Phase 3 8 8 7 4 4 1 6 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 15.0 15.0 7.0 15.0 15.0 Minlmum Split (s) 11.8 18A I8.O 11.8 18.0 18.0 15.5 29.4 29.4 15.5 31.4 31.4 Total Split (s) 19.0 32.0 32.0 13.0 26.0 26.0 20.0 38.0 380 670 750 76.0 Total Split C/o) 13.6% 22.9% 22.9% 9.3°A 18.6% 18.6% 14.3°% 271% 27'1% 40.7% 53.6% 53.60A Ma)amum Green (s) 12.2 24.2 24.2 6.2 18.2 18.2 11.5 29.5 29.5 48.5 66.5 66.5 Yellow Ttme (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 6.5 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.5 6.5 All -led Time 0) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 30 3.0 3.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.8 7.8 7.8 6.8 7.8 7.8 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 Leadl.ag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Edenslon (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.4 2.4 Recall Mode None None None None None None None Min Min None Min Min Act Effct Green 0) 33.4 32.4 32.4 13.3 13.3 98 25.7 25.7 4T.5 66.8 66.8 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.26 025 025 0.10 0.10 0.08 020 0.20 0.36 0.51 0.61 We Ratio 0.74 032 016 0.60 0.75 0.53 0.87 0.14 0.89 0.53 0.34 Control Delay 58.6 431 06 664 11 4 74.6 65.1 0.6 49.9 24.1 6.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 58.6 43.1 0.6 66.4 11.4 74.5 65.1 0.6 49.9 24.1 6.3 LOS E D A E B E E A D C A Approach Delay 42.4 18.9 69.7 33.4 Future 2048 Background Improved with Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro l l Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 211 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1, SR 29 & WesicloX St/New Market Rd 12l17025 * Approach LOS D B E C Queue Length 50th (R) 170 109 0 73 0 58 258 0 434 298 32 Queue Length 95th (t) i262 176 0 131 59 114 344 0 *612 396 98 Internal Link Dist (t) 770 $69 641 630 Tum Bay Length (t) 250 200 500 200 175 600 175 Base Capacity (vph) 308 471 664 244 $10 154 788 538 1221 1840 931 Starvatlon Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ralio 0.74 0.32 0.16 0.36 0.69 0.45 0.75 0.13 0.87 0.53 0.34 Area Type: Other Cycle Length'. 140 Actuated Cycle Length'. 1 a0.6 Natural Gycle_ 100 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vk Ratio: 0.89 Intersection Signal Delay: 36.8 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 82A% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity; queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum atter two cycles. S and Phases- 1 , SR29 &1Nestclox StlNew Market Rd �Ifts � 01 02 03 04 05 I06 Future 2048 Background Improved with Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro l l Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 212 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 SR 29 & Westclox St/New Market Rd 12A72025 iane Group EBL WT EBI*!. %8L ABT WBR N13L NET N13R `5Bt_ Lane Configurations rj + r + re tij ++ r 1) Traffic Volume (uph) 271 85 63 13 67 $19 78 790 21 442 714 273 Future Volume (vph) 271 85 63 13 67 $19 78 790 21 442 714 273 Ideal Row �phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 250 200 100 600 200 175 Soo 175 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Taper Length 0) 140 50 50 100 Lane Ltil_ Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 O.0 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 0.96 1.00 I'd 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Fit Protect ed 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (prat) 1805 1900 1615 1805 1810 2682 1805 3505 1615 3072 3471 1524 Fit Permuted 0.577 0.697 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 1096 1900 1615 1324 1810 2682 1805 3505 1615 3072 3471 1524 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 205 666 199 240 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 45 46 Link Distance (tt) 850 949 621 610 Travel Time (s) 12.9 14.4 9.4 9.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (°lo) 0% 0% 0% Oozy 5% 6% 0% 3% Oozy 14% 4% 6% Adj. Flow kph) 295 92 68 14 73 "0 85 859 23 480 776 297 Shared Lane Traffic M) Lane Group Flow (vph) 295 92 68 14 73 $90 85 859 23 480 776 297 Turn Type pm-v NA Perm pm+pt NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 6 2 Detector Phase 3 8 8 7 4 4 1 6 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 6.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 16.0 15.0 7.0 15.0 16.0 Minlmum Split (s) 11.8 30.0 30.0 11.8 27.6 27.0 16.6 29.4 29.4 15.5 31.4 31.4 Total Split (s) 17.0 43.0 43.0 17.0 43.0 43.0 20.0 48.0 48.0 32.0 60.0 60.0 Total Split >%6) 12.1 % 30.7% 30.711/a 12.1 % 30.7% 30.7% 14.3°,6 34.3% 34.3% 22:9% 42.9% 42.9% Ma)amum Green (s) 10.2 36.2 36.2 10.2 36.2 36.2 12.5 40.5 40.5 24.5 62.5 52.5 Yellow Time (s) 4.8 41 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 5.5 5.6 5.6 6.5 5.6 6.5 Al -Fed Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.6 7.6 7.6 LeadA-ag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle E)dension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 30 3.0 3.0 2.0 2,0 60 24 2.4 Recall Mode None None None None None None None Min Min None Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 412 37.7 37.7 31.4 252 26.2 10.4 34.0 34.0 23.9 512 51.2 Actuated giC Ratio 0.34 031 0.31 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.19 0.42 0.42 v1c Ratio 0.69 0.16 011 0.04 0.20 0.90 0.56 0 8$ 004 0.80 0.54 0.38 Control Delay 43.2 35.2 02 291 42.1 30.0 71.8 64.9 0.1 603 31 0 9.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 43.2 35.2 0.3 23.1 42.1 30.0 71.8 54.8 0.1 60.3 31.0 8.1 LOS D D A C D C E D A E C A Approach Delay 35.2 34.9 56.0 36.7 Future 2048 Background Improved with Project - PM Peak Hour Synchrol l Report i Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 213 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 - SR 29 $ WestcloX St/New Market Rd 1 2A 7025 _P.Morm_ Approach LOS [? C E D Queue Length 50th fit) 187 51 0 8 49 164 68 361 0 195 261 29 Queue Length 95th (ft) 283 111 0 24 95 272 134 473 0 4019 365 107 Internal Link Dist (ft) 770 869 541 630 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 200 100 500 200 175 600 175 Base Capacity(vph) 428 609 667 424 545 1196 187 1180 675 626 1515 800 Starvadon Cap Reductn 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vic Ratio 0.69 0.15 - 0.10 0.03 0.13 0.74 0.45 0.73 0.03 0.77 0.51 0.37 t Area Type. Other Cycle Length:140 Actuated Cycle Length:122.7 l4uraj Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum We Ratio. 0.90 Intersection Signal Delay, 392 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Uillzation $3.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 # 95th percerttils volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Its and Phases: 1: SR29 &Westclox SUNew Market Rd 01 ! 02 03 04 '*05 106 Future 2048 Background Improved with Project - PM Peak Hour Synchrol l Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 214 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Westclox St and Carson Rd Intersection HCM 6th AWSC 1: Carson Rd & Westclox St 08/25/2025 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 126 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41 *4 *T# 44 Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 109 157 77 104 16 168 14 102 34 28 18 Future Vol, veh/h 12 109 157 77 104 16 168 14 102 34 28 18 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 087 0.87 087 087 0.87 0,87 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 3 5 5 5 0 3 25 0 4 9 7 Mvmt Row 14 125 180 89 120 18 193 16 117 39 32 21 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 125 12 139 102 HCM LOS B B B B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 59% 4% 39% 42% Vol Thru, % 5% 39% 53% 35% Vol Right, % 36% 56% 8% 23% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 284 278 197 80 LT Vol 168 12 77 34 Through Vol 14 109 104 28 RT Vol 102 157 16 18 Lane Row Rate 326 320 226 92 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.498 0 458 0.36 0.153 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.497 5.163 5.726 6.007 Convergence, YIN Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 653 693 625 594 Service Time 3.549 3 216 3 785 4 079 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.499 0.462 0.362 0155 _. HCM Control Delay 139 12.5 12 10.2 HCM Lane LOS B B B B =:• HCM 95th-tile Q 2.8 2.4 1.6 0.5 Existing 2025 - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 215 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 HCM 6th AWSC 1: Carson Rd & Westclox St 08/25/2025 Intersection _ Intersection Delay, s/veh 113 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBA Lane Configurations *, .+ 44 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 43 74 130 32 20 104 92 176 25 37 0 Future Vol, veh/h 7 43 74 130 32 20 104 92 176 25 37 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 0,92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 8 47 80 141 35 22 113 100 191 27 40 0 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 App 00c - EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 9.2 10.7 12.6 9.1 HCM LOS A B B A Lane NBLnl EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 28% 6% 71 % 40% Vol Thru, % 25% 35% 18% 60% Vol Right, % 47% 60% 11% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 372 124 182 62 LT Vol 104 7 130 25 Through Vol 92 43 32 37 RT Vol 176 74 20 0 Lane Flow Rate 404 135 198 67 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.517 0.189 0.297 0.102 Departure Headway (Hd) 4 603 5.057 5.399 5.442 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 772 713 669 660 Service Time 2.696 3.068 3.407 3.464 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.523 0.189 0.296 0.102 HCM Control Delay 12.6 9.2 10.7 9.1 HCM Lane LOS B A B A HCM 95th-tile Q 3 07 12 03 Existing 2025 - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 216 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 HCM 6th AWSC 1: Carson Rd & Westclox St 12/17/2025 Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 627 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 + r+ 4+ Traffic Vd, vehm 20 179 258 126 171 26 276 23 167 56 46 30 Future Vol, vehlh 20 179 258 126 171 26 276 23 167 56 46 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 3 5 5 5 0 3 25 0 4 9 7 Mvmt Flow 22 195 280 137 186 28 300 25 182 61 50 33 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 &l5roacii 'F- EB WB NB SB AN Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 67 35.4 90.3 17.6 HCM LOS F E F C Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WB4nl SBLn1 Vol Left,% 59% 4% 39% 42% Vd Thru, % 5% 39% 63% 35% Vol Right, % 36% 56% 8% 23% Sign Contrd Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 466 457 323 132 LT Vol 276 20 126 56 Through Vol 23 179 171 46 RT Vol 167 258 26 30 Lane Flow Rate 507 497 351 143 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 1.074 0.993 0.781 036 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.631 7.53 8.379 9.381 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 481 487 435 386 Service Time 5.64 5.53 6.379 7.381 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 1.054 1.021 0.807 0.37 HCM Contrd Delay 90.3 67 35.4 17.6 HCM Lane LOS F F E C HCM 95th-tile Q 16.1 131 68 16 Future 2048 Background - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 217 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 HCM 6th AWSC 1: Carson Rd & Westelox St 12/17/2025 Intersection Intersection Delay, siveh 49.7 Intersection LOS E Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ �, r Traffic Vol, vehlh 11 71 121 213 53 33 171 151 289 41 61 0 Future Vol, vehlh 11 71 121 213 53 33 171 151 289 41 61 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 MvmtRow 12 77 132 232 58 36 186 164 314 45 66 0 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ,Approach EB WB NB SB Ml Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 14.6 20.7 81.8 125 HCM LOS B C F B MRTRw'" NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 28% 5% 71% 40% Vol Thru, % 25% 35% 18% 60% Vol Right, % 47% 60% 11% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 611 203 299 102 LT Vol 171 11 213 41 Through Vol 151 71 53 61 RT Vol 289 121 33 0 Lane Flow Rate 664 221 325 111 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1; Degree of Util (X) 1.076 0.408 0.615 022 Departure Headway (Hd) 5 834 6.919 7.053 7.45 Convergence, YIN Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 624 523 517 485 Service Time 3.834 4.919 5 053 5.45 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 1.064 0.423 0.629 0.229 HCM Control Delay 81.8 14.6 20.7 12.5 HCM Lane LOS F B C B HCM 95th-tile Q 19 2 4.1 0.8 Future 2048 Background - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 218 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Carson Rd & Westolox St t � � * ~ t 4\ t 12P 7,2026 1'veOroup EEL EBT EBR WBL INBT WBR NBL NBT WBR. S.BL SBT 8ER Lane Configurations rj 'l T. il� I. Traffic Volume (vph) 20 179 258 126 171 26 276 23 167 56 46 30 Future Volume (vph) 20 179 258 126 171 26 276 23 167 56 46 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 200 0 200 0 200 0 200 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length Qt) 50 50 50 50 Lane U11. Factor 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fri 0 912 0.980 0.869 0 940 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0_950 Said. Flow (prof) 1805 1663 0 1719 1784 0 1752 1601 0 1736 1661 0 Fit Permitted 0.624 0.378 0.703 0.628 Satd. Flow (perm) 11 % 1663 0 684 1784 0 1297 1601 0 1147 1651 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Md. Flow (RTOR) 77 8 182 33 Link Speed (mph) 25 45 25 25 Link Distance (it) 850 949 621 610 Travel Time (s) 232 14.4 16.9 16.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 0.92 092 092 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 3% 5% 5% 6% 00/0 3% 25% 0% 4% 9% 70A Adj. now kph) 22 195 280 137 186 28 300 25 182 61 50 33 Shared Lane Traffic (0r6) Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 475 0 137 214 0 300 207 0 61 83 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Detector Phase 6 6 2 2 4 4 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 25.8 25.9 25,8 25.8 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7 Total Split (s) 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 Total Split (°r6) 50.0% 60.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.00r6 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% M@Amum Green (s) 63.2 53.2 53.2 53.2 54.3 54.3 54.3 54.3 Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 41 48 3 7 3.7 3 7 3.7 Al -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 Leadug Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle E)3ension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.6 a.0 3:4 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min None None Wine None Walk Tithe (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.6 7,0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk 0) 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Pedestrian Calls (4hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 22.6 22.6 22.6 22.6 21.0 21.0 21 0 21.0 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 vlc Ratio 0.05 0.0 0.51 0.30 0.63 029 0.16 0.13 Control Delay 13.3 18.5 23.1 14.1 22A 4.7 10 9.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future 2048 Background Improved - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 219 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Carson Rd & Westolox St 12M7025 i ;Wei0rnuo EBL EBT EB OBT —*BR NBL NBT NBR 81BL----'T§T SBR Total Delay 133 18.5 23.1 14.1 22 d 47 141 9.4 LOS B B C B C A B A Approach Delay 18.3 17.6 16.2 11.4 Approach LOS B B B B Queue Length 50th fit) 4 98 32 43 73 5 12 10 Queue Length 95th fit) 21 271 109 121 201 48 45 43 Internal Link Dist fit) 770 869 541 530 Turn Bay Length (n) 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 1051 1483 606 1682 1167 140 1024 1477 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spiltback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vk Ratio 0.02 0.32 0.23 0.14 026 0.14 0.06 0.06 Enterse,ction Sr1m Mary - — Area Type: Other Cycle Length:120 Actuated Cycle Length: 57.2 Natural Cycle: 55 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Ma)amum v1c Ratio. 0.68 Intersection Signal Delay:16.4 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Ltilization 781 % ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 plits and Phases: 1: Carson Rd &Westclox St F --ft6 1 ♦ 08 Future 2048 Background Improved - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 220 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Carson Rd & Westolox St 1217f2025 Lweg up EBL F9T EBR f&1BL WBT WBR NBL NBT NEIR SBJ SBT Lane Configurations T. T. I T. Traffic Volume (vph) 11 71 121 213 53 33 171 151 M 41 61 0 Future Volume (vph) 11 71 121 213 53 33 171 161 289 41 61 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1906 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 200 0 200 0 200 0 200 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length It) 50 50 50 50 Lane utl. Factor 1.00 1'.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Frt 0 906 0.943 0.901 Fft Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0-950 Md. Flow (prot) 1805 1698 0 1770 1792 0 1805 1679 0 1805 1900 0 Fit Permitted 0.6% 0.627 0.714 0.345 Md. Flow (perm) 1322 1693 0 1168 1792 0 1357 1679 0 666 1900 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Md. Flow (RTOR) 92 33 106 Link Speed (mph) 25 45 25 25 Link Distance 0) 850 949 621 610 Travel Time (s) 23.2 14 A 16.9 16.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 0.92 092 0.92 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 00/0 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% OOA 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 12 77 132 232 58 36 186 164 314 45 66 0 Shared Lane Traffic (°r6) Lane Group Flow (vph) 12 209 0 232 94 0 186 478 0 45 66 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Detector Phase 6 6 2 2 4 4 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 15.0 15.0 16.0 16.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 25.8 25.9 25,8 25.8 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7 Total Split (s) 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 Total Spit (/b) 60.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 60.0% 50.0% 50.0% Maximum Green (s) 53.2 53.2 53.2 53.2 54.3 54.3 543 54.3 Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 41 4.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 �eadkag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.4 7.0 7.0 Flash Dort Walk (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Pedestrian Calls (#�hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0:37 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 vk Ratio 0.02 0.30 0 54 0.14 0.36 0.68 0.18 0.09 Control Delay 13.4 9.6 20.4 9.9 14.5 16.4 13.6 11.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future 2048 Background Improved - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 221 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Carson Rd & Westolox St � � N � ~ 4\ t 12n 7QO25 Lznebroup FOL EBT EBR_ WBL VUBT WBR N13L NBT NER BEL SBT 589 Total Delay 134 9.5 204 99 14.5 1 QA 136 11.3 LOS B A C A B B e B Approach Delay 9.7 17.4 15.8 12.3 Approach LOS A B B B Queue Length 50th (lt) 2 23 52 11 M 36 78 8 11 Queue Length 95th fit) 14 81 160 47 102 224 34 39 Internal Link Dist fit) 776 869 541 630 Turn Bay Length (M) 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity (Uph) 1212 1564 1070 1645 1252 1569 606 1754 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Wic Ratio 0.01 0.13 0.22 0.06 0.16 0.31 0.07 0.04 ,'OterseGuoh summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:120 Actuated Cycle Length: 53.2 Natural Cycle: 55 Control Type: Actuated Uncoordhated Maadmum vic Ratio.0.69 Intersection Signal Delay:14.9 Intersection LOS: B Irdersection Capacity Ltilization 75.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 and Phases: 1: Carson Rd &Westclox St *-02 1 104 —006 Future 2048 Background Improved - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 0 a e 1 222 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1'. Carson Rd & WestcloX St 12/17f2025 Larle:Q=p EBL E6T ERP WBL MI T WBR. N13L NBT NBR 9B1- 3BT SBA, Lane Configurations rj 'l ll� $. ►j T. Traffic Volume (vph) 20 223 258 200 250 26 276 23 209 56 49 30 Future Volume (Th) 20 223 258 200 250 26 276 23 209 56 46 30 Ideal Flow (vphpD 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1960 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 200 0 200 0 200 0 200 0 Storage Lanes 1- 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length 0) 50 50 50 50 Lane UP. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0 920 0.986 0 865 0 940 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0950 Md. Flow (prat) INS 100 0 1719 1792 0 1752 1604 0 1736 1651 0 Fit Permitted 0.563 0.375 0.703 0.518 Satd. Flow (perm) 1070 1680 0 679 1792 0 1297 1604 0 946 1661 0 Right Tutu on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTO R) 62 6 227 33 Link Speed (mph) 25 45 25 25 Link Distance (fit) 350 949 621 610 Travel Time (s) 232 14.4 16.9 16.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 Heavy Vehictes (%) 0% 3% 50/0 6% 5% 00/0 3% 25% 0% 4% 9% 7% Adj. Flow (vph) 22 242 280 217 272 28 300 25 227 61 50 33 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 622 0 217 300 0 300 262 0 61 83 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Detector Phase 6 6 2 2 4 4 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) ISO ISO 15.0 15.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.3 24.7 24.7 247 24.7 Total Split (s) 600 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 Total Split (°i6) 50.0% 50.0°/0 60.0% 50.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 50.0% Ma>dmum Green (s) 53.2 63.2 53.2 53.2 54.3 54.3 64.3 54.3 Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 All -Red Time (s) 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6 8 6.8 6.8 68 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 Lead"gi Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk 0) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Pedestrian Calls (Ar) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 46.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 26.9 26.9 26.9 26.9 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.53 0.2 0.53 0.63 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 vk Ratio 0.04 0.56 0 60 031 0.74 0 38 0.21 0.15 Control Delay 12.2 15.7 24.6 13.3 39A 6.2 24.7 15.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future 2048 Background Improved with PJ - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 223 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1, Carson Rd & WestcloX St 12n712025 ---* -• --,* "r *-- 4\ t �► 1 Lane amup BBL E8T EBR WBL )%BT WBR NSL NBT NBR SBI_ SBT SB1 Total Delay 122 157 24.6 13.3 391 62 247 15.4 LOS B B C B D A C B Approach Delay 15.6 13.1 24.1 19.3 Approach LOS B B C B Queue Length 50th (ft) 5 152 74 82 155 10 26 20 Queue Length 95th M) 21 329 203 180 257 62 58 54 Internal Link Dist (it) 770 869 541 530 Turn Bay Length It) 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity 4h) 698 1117 443 1171 863 1144 630 1110 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vk Ratio 0.03 0.47 0.49 0.26 0.35 0.22 0.10 0.07 01lersectlon Sum mart' f_ I Area Type: Other Cyc le Length :120 Actuated Cycle Length: 86.9 Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.74 Intersection Signal Delay:19.3 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Uilization 0.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 16 3olits and Phases: 1: Carson Rd & Westclox St i-- �2 m4 --*06 1 ©8 Future 2048 Background Improved with PJ - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 2 J Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 224 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1, Carson Rd & Westoiox St 12/17026 tweflroup 1=8L € .' $L ItIBT NBR 5BL SBT Lane Configurations _ Traffic Volume (vph) 11 143 121 266 109 33 171 151 357 41 61 0 Future Volume (vph) 11 143 121 266 109 33 171 161 357 41 61 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (t) 200 0 200 0 200 0 200 0 Storage Lands 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length 0) 50 50 50 50 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.931 0.965 0.896 Fft Protected fI.954 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prat) 1805 1753 0 1770 1834 0 1805 1665 0 1805 1900 0 FH Permitted 0.659 0.564 0.714 0254 Md. Flow (perm) 1252 1753 0 1051 1834 0 1357 1666 0 483 1900 0 Right Turn on Red Yet Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTO R) 48 17 124 Link Speed (mph) 25 45 25 25 Link Distance 0) 850 949 621 610 Travel Time (s) 232 14.4 16.9 16.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 00/0 2% 2% 0% ODA 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (rph) 12 155 132 289 118 36 186 164 388 45 66 0 Shared Lane Traffic (°.b) Lane Group Flow (vph) 12 287 0 289 154 0 186 662 0 45 66 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Detector Phase 6 6 2 2 4 4 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 15.0 15.0 16.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 25.8 251 25,8 25.8 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7 Total Split (s) 63.0 63.0 63.0 63.0 57.0 67.0 67.0 57.0 Total Split (%) 52.5% 62.5% 62.5% 52.6% 47.5% 47.6% 47.5% 47.5% Mammum Green (s) 56.2 56.2 66.2 56.2 51.3 51.3 51.3 51.3 Yellow Time (s) 48 4.8 4.8 4.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 All -Red Time () 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0,0 0.0 OA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 68 6.8 6.8 6.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min None None None None Walk Time (s) 70 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (S) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Pedestrian Calls (Ohr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 29.2 29.2 29.2 292 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.6 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 v1c Ratio 0.02 0 39 0 68 0.20 0.35 075 0.24 0.09 Control Delay 16..7 152 28.5 14.7 18.9 22.5 20.7 15.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future 2049 Background Improved with PJ - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 225 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1, Carson Rd & Westolox St 12CI71.2025 ; P,aioup ESL ERR ERR WBL V9BT WBR. NBL NBfi'-.MR 8B1_ 5BT 8B Total Delay 157 15.2 28.5 14.7 18.9 22.5 20.7 15.9 LOS B B C B B C C B Approach Delay 16.E 23.7 21.6 17.8 Approach LOS B C C B Queue Length 50th 01) 3 64 93 M 49 139 11 16 Queue Length 95th (fit) 17 179 259 102 146 391 49 56 Internal Link Dist (R) 770 M 541 630 Turn Bay Length qt) 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 1002 1412 841 1471 1038 1297 367 1446 Starvation Cap Rsductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spil[back Cap Reductn 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Redudn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vic Ratio 0.01 0.20 0.34 0.10 0,18 0.43 0.12 0.05 �hlersectioh Summ Area Type: Other Cycle Length,120 Actuated Cycle Length: 72.1 Natural Cycle: 55 Control Type: Actuated Uncoordinated Maximum vle Ratio:0 75 Intersection Signal Delay, 207 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 79 M ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 iglus and Phases: 1: Carson Rd &Westclox St *- 02 1 64 —1111,06 10e Future 2048 Background Improved with PJ - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 226 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 SR 29 and Lake Trafford Rd Intersection Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 : SR 29 & Lake Trafford Rd 081271'2025 Lane Group EBL EBT EEk_JIBL. WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL 'SBT 5BR _ Lane Configurations t r U t r + r Traffic Volume kph) 167 166 285 9 101 7 179 209 15 32 360 77 Future Volume (rph) 157 166 285 9 101 7 179 209 15 32 350 77 Ideal Flow (Vhpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 11900 1900 Storage Length fit) 350 400 250 0 275 226 526 325 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ff) 50 120 50 50 Lane Uhl. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0 990 0.850 0.860 Fit Protected 0.960 0.960 0.960 0.950 Satd. Flow prat) 1770 1881 1683 1806 1864 0 1719 1776 1616 1805 1792 1583 Fit Permitted O.d82 0.637 0.266 0.610 Satd. Flow [perm) 898 1881 1583 1210 1864 0 481 1776 1616 1159 1792 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 328 2 166 230 Link Speed (mph) 36 35 46 45 Link Distance Qt) no %9 621 610 Travel Time (s) 16.6 18.5 9.4 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 087 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Heavy Vehicles (°k) 2% 1°A 2% 0% 1% 0% 5% 7°,6 0% 0% 6% 20A Adj. Flow (Th) 180 191 328 10 116 8 206 240 17 37 402 89 Shared Lane Traffic (IN Lane Group Flow (vph) 180 191 328 10 124 0 206 240 17 37 402 89 Turn Type pm-pt NA Perm pm+pt NA pm-0 NA Perm pm -IA NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 Perrnitted Phases 8 8 4 6 6 2 2 Detector Phase 3 8 8 7 4 1 6 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Inflial (s) 5.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 Minimum Split 0) 12.0 37.0 37.0 11.4 44.0 16.6 39.3 39.3 16.6 46.3 46.3 Total Split (s) 20.0 25.0 25.0 22.0 27.0 270 67.0 57.0 16.0 46.0 46.0 Total Split (A) 16.7% 20.8% 20.$% 18.3% 22.6% 22.5% 47.5% 47.5% 13.3% 3 a%o 38 DA MaAmum Green (s) 13.0 13.0 18.0 16.6 20.0 200 49.7 49.7 8.7 38.7 38.7 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 All -Red Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.4 3.0 21 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.4 7.0 7.0 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 Leacillag Lead Lag tag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Min Min None Min Min Walk Time (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Flash Dort Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 27.0 22.0 22.0 28.0 28.0 Ped"fian Calls 0hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 30.2 28.1 28.1 UA 11.7 47.6 40.0 40.0 36A 28.7 28.7 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.33 0.30 0.30 020 0.13 0.51 0.43 0.43 0.38 0.31 0.31 vlc Ratio 0.45 0.34 0.46 0.04 0.52 0.51 0.31 0.02 0.08 0.72 0.14 Control Delay 29.1 30.5 6.2 25.2 48.2 17,3 21.3 0.1 13.1 37.8 0.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Existing 2025 - AM Peak Hour Sync hro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1227 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings SR 29 & Lake Trafford Rd 01272025 t-0. -,* i-~ 4-- 4\ t �► 1 Lade Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT IV BR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Delay 29.1 30.6 6.2 252 48.2 17.3 21.3 0.1 13.1 37.8 o.4 LOS C C A C D B C A B D A Approach Delay 18.8 46.4 9.7 29,8 Approach LOS B D B C Queue Length 50th Qt) 77 82 0 4 68 64 103 ,0 10 210 .0. Queue Length 95th Qt) 152 190 64 17 137 112 173 0 27 344 0 Internal link Dist (ftt) 770 969 $41 630 Turn Bay Length It) 350 Base Capacity � ph) 418 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 Spillback Cap R,educIn 0 Storage Cap Reducin o Reduced We Ratio 0.43 400 250 275 225 525 325 570 708 471 415 624 979 964 533 769 810 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.34 4.46 4.42 6.30 0.39 0.26 0.02 0.07 0.52 0.11 Intersection Surnmar Area Type: Other Cycle Length:120 Actuated Cycle Length 92.7 Natural Cycle:120 Control Type: Actuate"ncoordinated l vic Ratio: 0.72 Intersectiotj Signal Delay: 24.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 tits and Pnases: 1: SR 29 & Lake Trattord Rd } F 01 02 F 03 04 i; i \*05 t06 4-07 --*08 E)asting 2026 -AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 228 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 1- Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: SR 29 & Lake Trafford Rd OU27i2025 Lane Group EBL- EBT EBR W8L WET WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL 3BT 3B Lane Configurations I + r il, + r jr Traffic Volume �ph) 131 129 211 16 258 27 325 348 49 24 333 171 Future Volume (vph) 131 129 211 15 258 27 325 348 49 24 333 171 Ideal Row (vphp[) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length fit) 350 400 250 0 275 225 525 325 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length M) 50 120 50 50 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.986 0.860 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0,950 0.950 Said. Flow Prot) 1770 1881 1568 1805 1857 0 1770 1863 1583 1719 1863 1599 Fit Permitted 0.2% 0.60 0.304 0.491 Said. Flow Perm) 533 1881 15" 1269 1857 0 566 1863 1583 US 1863 1699 Right Turn on Iced Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 227 4 225 225 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 46 45 Link Distance fit) 950 949 621 610 Travel Time (s) 16.6 18.6 9.4 9.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2°% 1 % 3°% 0°% 1 % 0°% 2°% 2°% 2°% 5°% 2°% 1 °% Adj. Flow (vph) 141 139 227 16 277 29 349 374 53 26 358 184 Shared Lane Traffic �/o) Lane Group Flow (vph) 141 139 227 16 306 0 349 374 53 26 358 184 Turn Type pl NA Perm pm+pt NA pm-V NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 6 6 2 2 Detector Phase 3 8 8 7 4 1 6 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 7.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 Minimum Split 0) 12.0 37.0 37.0 11.4 44.0 15.6 393 39.3 13.0 45.3 45.3 Total Split 0) 17.0 30.0 30.0 27.0 40.0 16.0 50.0 60.0 13.0 47.0 47.0 Total Split f%) 14.2°% 25.0% 25.0% 22.5°% 33.3°% 13.3°% 41.7°% 41.7°% 10.8°% 39.2% 39 2°% Mammum Green (s) 10.0 23.0 23.0 20.6 33.0 9.0 42.7 42.7 5.7 39 7 39.7 Yellow Time 0) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4,9 All -Red Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.4 3.0 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.4 7.0 7.0 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 Leadill Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3A 3.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Min Min None Min Min Walk Time 0) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.6 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 27.0 22.0 22.0 28.0 28.0 Pedestrian Calls (4hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effot Green (s) 36 3 32.9 32.9 27.8 21.0 43.0 39.5 39.5 33.4 276 276 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.38 0.34 0.34 0.29 0.22 0.45 0.41 0.41 0.35 0.29 0.29 vk Ratio 0.44 0.22 0.33 0.04 0.75 0.95 0.49 0.07 0.07 0.67 0.30 Control Delay 24 9 26.8 5.5 19.9 47.4 60.3 26.4 0.2 17.0 37.7 2.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E)asting 2026 -P M Peak Hour Synchroll Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA - e 1 229 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1, SR 29 & Lake Trafford Rd M2712026 J i -* T ~ 'I- 4\ 1 /0� I 7 Lire Group EBL EBT EBR WBL VUBT WBR NBL NST NBR SBL 087 8t3.1 Total Delay 24.9 26.8 5.6 19.9 47A 60.3 26.4 0.2 17.0 37,7 29 LOS C C A B D E C A B D A Approach Delay 167 46.1 39.8 25.6 Approach LOS B D D C Queue Length 50th It) 54 53 0 6 171 139 150 0 8 191 0 Queue Length 96th 0) 113 136 58 21 301 AM 329 0 27 326 27 Intemal Link Dist (Tt) 770 869 $41 630 Turn Bay Length It) 350 400 250 275 225 525 325 Base Capacity kph) 333 643 685 620 666 368 847 842 359 788 806 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 b 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vk Ratio 0.42 022 0.33 0.03 0.47 0.95 0.44 0.06 0.07 0.45 0.23 Intersection Summar Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length 96.1 Natural Cycle,120 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Ma)amum vk Ratio:0.95 Intersection Signal Delay:31.6 Intersection LOS; C Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 4 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer Queue shown ismaAhumaftertwocycles. litsand Phases: 1: SR29 &Lake Trafford Rd 01 02 03 04 Ikm 1 06 fo'© 7 �f�8 EAsting 2026 - P M Peak -bur Synchro11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 230 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1, SR 29 & Lake Trafford Rd 12tl 026 Lam Group EBL EBT EBR W:BL WRT WB.R NBL NOT NBR SOL SB1' Lane Configurations + r 1� '� + r + Traffic Volume (vph) 191 202 347 11 123 9 218 255 1$ 39 427 94 Future Volume (vph) 191 202 347 11 123 9 218 256 18 39 427 94 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length 0) 350 400 250 0 276 225 526 325 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length fit) 50 120 50 50 Lane Uhl. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 Fri: 0.860 0."0 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.960 0.960 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow Prot) 1770 18$1 1683 1805 IIN4 0 1719 1776 1615 1806 1792 1683 Fit Permitted 0.465 0.621 0.209 0 689 Satd. Flow Perm) 866 1Ull 1683 11$0 1864 0 378 1776 1615 1119 1792 1683 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 377 3 166 230 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 46 45 Link Distance 0) 950 949 $21 610 Travel Time (s) 16.6 18.5 9.4 9.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 1 % 2% 0% 1 % 0% 6% 7% 0% 0% 6% 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 208 220 377 12 134 10 237 277 20 42 464 102 Shand Lane Traffic (Nq) Lane Group Flow (vph) 208 220 377 12 144 0 237 277 20 42 464 102 Turn Type p -0 NA Perm pm+pt NA pm_V NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 6 6 2 2 Detector Phase 3 8 8 7 4 1 6 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 7.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 6.0 20 0 200 Minimum Split {s) 12.0 37.0 37.0 11.4 44.0 16.6 39.3 39.3 16.6 46.3 46.3 Total Split (s) 20.0 25.0 25.0 22.0 27.0 27.0 57.0 57.0 16.0 46 A 46.0 Total Split Pi6) 16.7% 20.8% 20 8% 18.3% 22.5% 22.5% 47.6% 47.5% 13.3% 38.3% 38 3% Ma)amum Green (s) 13.0 18.0 18.0 16.6 20.0 20.0 49.7 49.7 8.7 38.7 38.7 Yellow Tiime0) 40 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.9 b 4.9 49 4.9 All -Red Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.4 3.0 21 2.4 2.4 2.4 2 4 2.4 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.4 7.0 7.0 7.3 7.3 7.3 7 3 7.3 LeadlLag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Min Min None Min Min Walk Time 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 100 10.0 Flash Dorm Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 27.0 22 0 220 28 0 28.0 Pedestrian Calls (Ohr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 32.2 30.0 30.0 19.9 13.1 52.6 44.6 44.6 38.9 32.1 32.1 Actuated giC Ratio JO.32 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.13 0.53 0.46 0.45 0.39 0.32 0.32 vlc Ratio 0.63 0.39 0.61 0.04 0.58 0.63 0.35 002 0.09 0.80 0.16 Control Delay 33.1 33.2 6.4 26.6 61.9 20.9 21.9 0.1 13.6 43.6 0.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 Future 2048 Background - AM Peak Hour Sync hro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 231 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: SR 29 & Lake Trafford Rd 12tlU2025 Lame droup EBL FBT EBR WI3L WBT WBR NOL NOT NBR SBL 99T Total Delay 33.1 33.2 6.4 26.6 51 9 209 21.9 01 13.6 436 0.6 LOS C C A C D C C A B D A Approach belay 20.6 49.9 20.6 34.3 Approach LOS C D C C Queue Length 50th F) 104 110 0 6 89 79 127 0 12 269 .0 Queue Length 95th V) 187 231 83 20 165 139 216 0 32 4961 0 Internal Link Dist (It) 770 869 541 630 Turn Bay Length It) 350 400 250 275 225 526 325 Base Capacity �ph) 401 667 740 463 397 477 912 910 523 717 771 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 §polback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vic Ratio 0.52 0.39 0.61 0.03 0.37 0.50 0.30 0,02 0.08 0.65 0.13 Intersection Summar Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length 99.4 Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Ma)amum vlc RMW 0.80 Intersection Signal Delay; 26.7 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 #! 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer Queue shown is maAmum aftertWo cycles. Splits and Phases: 1: SR29 &Lake Trafford Rd * F 4\01 02 J 03 04 \*05 t06 • o7 --*08 Future 2048 Background -AM Peak Hour Sync hro 11 leport Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA i- ,j o e 1 232 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1, SR 29 & Lake Trafford Rd 1211 U2025 � � � f- < t r � Marie Grotlp FBL li EgR 11jBL .WBT :WBR, NBL N 0113T s64 Lane Configurations I + r 1 3 f + r Traffic Volume �ph) 160 157 257 18 314 33 396 424 60 29 406 208 Future Volume (vph) 160 157 267 18 314 33 396 424 60 29 406 209 Ideal Flow (vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1906 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1%0 1900 Storage Length 0) 350 400 250 0 275 225 526 325 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 Taper Length 0) 50 120 50 50 Lane Uhl. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 Fit 0.850 0.986 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.960 0.950 0,960 0.960 Said Flow tarot) 1770 1881 1568 1805 1857 0 1770 1863 1583 1719 1863 1599 Fit Permitted 0,222 0.660 0.224 0.346 Said Flow Perm) 414 1881 166E 1235 1867 0 417 1863 1583 624 1863 1699 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said Flow (RTOR) 276 4 225 225 Link Speed (mph) 35 36 46 45 Link Distance 0) 350 949 621 610 Travel Time (s) 16.6 18.5 9.4 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles M) 2% 1 % a % 0°% 1 % 0% 2% 2% 26% 6 % 2% 1 % Adj. Flow (vph) 172 169 276 19 338 35 426 456 65 31 437 224 Shared Lane Traffic (°i6j Lane Group Flow (vph) 172 169 276 19 373 0 426 456 65 31 437 224 Turn Type pm-0 NA Perm pmV NA pm-0 NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 9 4 6 6 2 2 Detector Phase 3 8 8 7 4 1 6 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 7.0 60 20.0 20.0 6.0 20.0 20.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 37.0 37.0 11.4 44.0 16.6 39.3 39.3 13.0 46.3 46.3 Total Split (s) 17.0 30.0 30.0 27.0 40.0 16.0 50.0 50.0 13.0 47.0 47.0 Total Split t%) 14.20(6 26.0°% 26.0% 22.5°% 33.3% 13.3°% 41.7°% 41.7°r6 10.8% 39.2°% 39.2°A Ma;dmum Green (s} 10.0 23.0 23.0 20.6 33.0 9.0 42.7 42.7 5.7 39.7 39.7 Yellow Time 0) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 49 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 All -Red Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.4 3.0 21 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 24 Lost Time Adjust (s) 01.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 Total Lod Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.4 7.0 7.0 7.3 7.3 72 7.3 7.3 Leadili Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 31.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 5,0 3.0 5.0 6.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Min Min None Min Min Walk Time (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Flash Dort Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 27.0 22.0 22.0 28.0 28.0 Pedestrian Calls (91hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 41.0 37.5 37.5 32.4 25.4 46 5 41.3 41.3 37.8 32.0 320 Actuated 91C Ratio 0.39 0.36 U.36 0.31 0.24 0,44 US 0,39 0.36 0.30 0.30 vk Ratio 0.60 0.26 0.38 0.05 0.83 1.41 0.62 0.09 0.11 0.77 0.36 Control Delay 31 .8 28.3 6.3 20A -54.3 227.0 33.0 0.2 18.3 44.0 6 3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 00 0 0 00 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Future 2048 Background - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 233 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 , SR 29 & Lake Trafford Rd 12M8025 ILaflOCroup. EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NST NBR SBL SBT S Total Delay 31.8 28.3 5.3 20.8 54.3 227.0 33.0 02 18.3 44 0 5.3 LOS C C A C D F C A B D A Approach Delay 19.0 52.6 118.0 3b.3 Approach LOS B D F C Queue Length 50th S) 78 75 0 $ 242 -301 273 0 11 270 0 Queue Length 95th fit) 136 161 62 24 373 *18 420 0 31 416 54 Internal Link Dist M) 770 $69 541 630 Turn Bay Length Qt) 350 400 250 276 225 525 325 Base Capacity kph) 292 670 736 616 597 302 777 791 285 717 764 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $pillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 A Storage CaF Feductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reducedvlc Ratio 0.69 0.25 0.38 0.03 0.62 1.41 0.69 0A8 0.11 0.61 0.30 Intersection Summar Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length-1062 Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type; Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vk Ratio:1.41 Intersection Signal Delay: $2.4 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 94 3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)16 - Volume exceeds capacity, queue istheoreticallyinfinite Queue shown is maximum aftertwo cycles. 4 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Future 2048 Background - PM Peak Hour Synchrol l Deport Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 234 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 : SR 29 & Lake Trafford Rd 12A812026 � � � 4- ~ � 41 T I' I Lama Group EBL EBT EBR WRL WRT WSR NBL NBT NBR EBL SBT SBt Lane Configurations + r 1� 1) ++ ++ Traffic Volume �ph) 191 202 347 11 123 9 218 266 18 39 427 94 Future Volume�ph) 191 202 347 11 123 9 218 255 18 39 427 94 Ideal Flow (tphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length 0) 350 400 250 0 276 225 526 325 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 Taper Length 0) 50 120 100 50 Lane (Ail. Factor 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.96 1,00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Fit 0.850 0.990 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.960 0,960 0.960 0.960 Satd Flow (prot) 1770 1881 1583 1805 1864 0 3335 3374 1615 1805 3406 1583 Fit Permitted 0.473 0,621 0.362 0.581 Satd. Flow iperrn) 881 1881 1683 1180 1864 0 1271 3374 1615 1104 3406 1683 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said Flow (RTOR) 377 3 166 230 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 4& 46 Link Distance 0) 850 949 621 610 Travel Time (s) 16.6 185 9.4 9.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 1 °% 2°% 0°% 1 °r6 0% 6°% 7°% 046 0°% 6% 2°% Adj. Flow (+ph) 208 220 377 12 134 10 237 277 20 42 464 102 Shared Lane Traitic (nib} Lane Group Flow (vph) 208 220 377 12 144 0 237 277 20 42 464 102 Turn Type pm4pt NA Perm pm+pt NA pm-V NA Perm pm tpt NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases S 9 4 6 6 2 2 Detector Phase 3 8 8 7 4 1 6 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initials) 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 7.0 6.0 20.0 20.0 6.0 20.0 200 Minimum Split (s} 12.0 37.0 37.0 11.4 44.0 16.6 39.3 39.3 16.6 46.3 46.3 Total Split 20.0 25.0 25.0 22.0 27.0 27.0 57.0 67.0 16.0 46.0 46.0 Total Split t56) 16.7°% 20.8% 20.$ % 18.3°% 22.5°% 22 5°% 47.6% 47.5°% 13 3°% 38.3°% 38 3°% Mammum Green (s} 13.0 18.0 1$.0 15.6 20.0 20.0 49.7 49.7 8.7 38.7 387 Yellow Time �) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 All -Red Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.4 3.0 21 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 24 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.4 7.0 7.0 7.3 7.3 7.3 7 3 73 LeadiLag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3A 3.0 3.0 6.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Min Min None Min Min Walk Time 0) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 100 10.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 27.0 22.0 22.0 28.0 28 0 Pedestrian Calls (Ohr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 30.3 28.1 29.1 18.4 11.8 36.2 30.2 30.2 29.0 22.2 222 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.36 0.34 0.34 022 0.14 0.44 036 036 0.35 0.27 0.27 v1c Ratio 0.47 0.35 0.48 0.04 0.64 0.30 0.23 0.03 0.10 0.51 0.17 Control Delay 23.4 24.7 6.3 18.9 41.6 14.6 21.9 0.1 14.5 29.0 0.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 Future 2048 Background Improved - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 123S Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: SR 29 & Lake Trafford Rd 121812025 Lana Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL GBT SBk Total Delay 23.4 24.7 5.3 18 9 41.6 14.6 21.S 0.1 14.6 29 0 0.6 LOS C C A B D B C A B C A Approach Delay 1 �.3 39.8 17.3 232 Approach LOS B D B C Queue Length 50th V) 73 77 0 4 67 35 6$ '0 12 108 0 Queue Length 95th F) 147 190 72 16 140 63 101 0 32 174 0 Internal Link Dist (t) 770 869 $41 630 Turn Bay Length It) 350 400 250 276 225 526 325 Base Capacity (uph) 461 634 784 618 455 1093 2039 1041 485 1603 %6 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 4 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vk Ratio 0.46 026 0.4s 0.02 0.32 0.22 0.14 0.02 0.09 0.29 0.12 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length:02 Natural Cycle:120 Control Type; Actuated -Uncoordinated Ma)amum v!c Ratio: 0.54 Intersection, Signal Delay:20.1 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 S lits and Phases, 1: SR29 &Lake Trafford Rd 01 02 J 03 a- 04 �05 106 7 07 �438 EEEEff— Future 2048 Background Improved - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 236 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1, SR 29 & Lake Trafford Rd 12=2025 Lam .G(olup-_ PB,L 1=1_�T EBR UWBL WBT WOR.. NBL NOT N R 813L SBT SB2 Lane Configurations rj + r il� t+ r ++ Traffic Volume (rph) 160 157 257 18 314 33 396 424 60 29 406 208 Future Volume (vph) 160 157 257 18 314 33 396 424 60 29 406 209 Ideal Flow (vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1�00 19W 1900 1900 Storage Length V) 350 400 250 0 276 225 525 325 Storage lanes 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 Taper Length 0) 50 120 100 50 Lane Uhl. Factor 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0,95 1,00 1.00 0.95 1,00 Frt 0.850 0."6 0.850 0.850 At Protected 0.960 0.950 0.950 0.960 Satd. Flow Prot) 1770 101 150 1805 1857 0 3433 3539 1683 1719 3539 1599 Fit Permitted 0.238 0.660 0 354 0 489 Satd. Flow Perm) 443 1881 1568 1235 1857 0 1279 3539 1683 885 3539 1599 fight Turn on Reed Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd Flow (RTOR) 276 4 225 225 Link Speed (mph) 35 36 46 45 Link Distance 0) 850 949 621 610 Travel Time (s) 16.6 18.6 9.4 9.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2°% 1 °% a % 0°% 9 % 0% 2% 20% +2% 6% 2a4 10% Adj. Flow (fah) 172 169 276 19 338 35 426 456 65 31 437 224 Shared Lane Traffic C/6) Lane Group Flow (uph) 172 169 276 19 373 0 426 456 65 31 437 224 Turn Type prnIA NA Perm pm+pt NA pm_V NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 Perml$ed Phases 8 8 4 6 6 2 2 Detector Phase 3 8 8 7 4 1 6 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 7.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 6.0 20 0 20.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 37.0 37.0 11.4 44.0 16.6 39.3 39.3 13.0 45.3 46.3 Total Split (s) 18.0 26.0 25.0 32.0 39.0 16.0 50.0 50.0 13.0 47.0 47.0 Total Split t°6) 15,006 20 8°% 20 9 % 26.7°% 32.5°% 13.3°% 41.7% 41.796 10.8°% 39.2% 39.2°% Ma)amum Green (s) 11.0 18.0 18.0 25.6 32.0 9.0 42.7 42.7 5.7 39.7 39.7 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 All -Red Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.4 3.0 21 2.4 2.4 2.4 24 2.4 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.4 7.0 7.0 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 LeacVLag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Min Min None Min Min Walk Time (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.6 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 27.0 22.0 22.0 28.0 28.0 Pedestrian Calls (Ohr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 39.9 35.9 35.9 30.2 23.5 37.4 32.1 32.1 28.9 23.2 23.2 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.42 0.38 0.38 0.32 0.25 0.40 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.26 0.26 Wlc Ratio 0.62 0.24 0.36 0.04 0.80 0.60 0.33 0.09 0.10 0.50 0.40 Control Delay 23.2 232 4.7 16.4 47.4 237 27.6 0.3 19.6 33A 6.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Future 2048 Background Improved - PM Peak Hour Sync hro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 237 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings SR 29 & Lake Trafford Rd 121s12025 t--0- ---t f- t 4\ t /0- �* 1 LArie Group EBI_ Fi3T FBR WBL WBT WBR. N81 NBT NB , SBL SOT Total Delay 23.2 23.2 4.7 16.4 47.4 23 7 27.5 0.3 19.6 33 8 6.6 LOS C C A B D C C A B C A Approach Delay 14.9 46.9 23.9 24.3 Approach LOS B D C C Queue Length 50th V) 61 59 0 6 205 87 120 0 11 120 0 Queue Length 95th It) 118 143 57 21 340 139 184 0 32 185 57 Internal Unk Dist (ff) 770 869 541 630 Turn Bay Length It) 350 400 250 275 225 525 325 Base Capacity �ph) 343 716 767 695 639 714 1618 84f 322 1506 "9 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.60 0�4 0.36 0.03 0.68 0.60 028 0% 0.10 0.29 0.28 fntemectlon Summar Area Type- Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Lengthy 94.6 Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated MaAmum vlc Patio: 0.80 Intersection Signal Delay:25.2 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 Splits and Phases: 1: 8R29 &Lake Trafford Rd 4-- 1 11*E35 1 t06 1 7 ©7 1 --008 Future 2048 Background Improved - PM Peak Hour Synchro l l Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 238 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1, SR 29 & Lake Traflord Rd 12A812025 --* --* ---t f- "Q 4% t /W I*. 1 -� ialeGrou EBL EST PBR WDL UUBT WBR NOL NBT N.BR S,BL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume �ph) 235 202 347 11 123 9 218 346 18 39 588 173 Future Volume (vph) 235 202 347 11 123 9 218 346 18 39 588 173 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1%0 1900 Storage Length F) 350 400 250 0 276 225 525 325 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 Taper Length fit) 50 120 100 50 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 0,97 0,95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.990 0.850 0 850 Fit Protected 0.950 '0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow Prot) 1770 1881 1583 1805 1864 0 3335 3374 1615 1805 3406 1583 Fit Permitted 0.477 0.621 0261 .0.529 Satd. Flow Perm) 889 1881 1583 1180 1864 0 916 3374 1615 1006 3406 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 377 3 166 230 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 46 45 Link Distance fit) 850 949 621 610 Travel Time (s) 16.6 18.5 9.4 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0 92 092 092 0 92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 Heavy Vehic les (/o) r1fo 1 % 2% 00/0 1 % 0°% 5% 7% 0% 0% 6°A 2% Adj. Flow (Th) 255 220 377 12 134 10 237 376 20 42 639 188 Shared Lane Traffic (°A) Lane Group Flow (vph) 255 220 377 12 144 0 237 376 20 42 639 10 Turn Type pmto NA Perm pm+pt NA pm-V NA Perm pm+pt NA Perrn Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 9 4 6 6 2 2 Detector Phase 3 8 8 7 4 1 6 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 5 0 20.0 20.0 6.0 20.0 20.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 37.0 37.0 11 A 44.0 16.6 39.3 39.3 15.6 46.3 46.3 Total Split (s) 20.0 25.0 25.0 22.0 27.0 270 67.0 67.0 16.0 46.0 46.0 Total Split CA) 16.7% 20.8% 20.M 18.3°,6 22.6% 22.6% 47.6% 47.6% 13.3°A 38.3% 38.3% Mawmum Green (s) 13.0 18.0 18.0 16.6 20.0 200 49.7 49.7 8.7 38.7 38.7 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 All -Red Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3 0 24 3 0 21 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 Lost Time Adjust (s) 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.4 7.0 70 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.6 3.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Min Min None Min Min Walk Time (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 27.0 22.0 22.0 28.0 28.0 Pedestrian Calls (4#hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Eftct Green (s) 31 .9 29.7 29.7 19.1 12.6 42.2 36.3 36.3 34.8 28.0 28.0 Actuated g1C Ratio 035 0.33 b'33 021 614 0.46 0.40 0.40 0.38 0.31 0.31 vk Ratio 0.59 0.36 0.49 0.04 0.56 0.36 0.28 0.03 0.09 0.61 0.29 Control Delay 30.2 28.4 5.8 22.7 46.4 14.6 21.2 0.1 13.7 29.8 2.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future 2048 Background Improved with Project -AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 239 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1, SR 29 & Lake Trafford Rd 12n $r2o25 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT 3BR Total Delay 30.2 28.4 6.8 22.7 46.4 14.6 21.2 0.1 13.7 29,8 2.7 LOS C C A C D B C A B C A Approach Delay 189 44.6 18.0 23.2 Approach LOS B D B C Queue Length 50th In) M 91 0 4 77 37 84 0 12 163 A Queue Length 95th V) 210 215 79 19 155 63 134 0 32 244 26 Internal Link Dist (t) 770 $69 541 M Turn Bay Length It) 350 400 260 275 226 626 325 Base Capacity kph) 440 616 771 485 420 993 19K 974 486 1479 817 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vk Ratio 0.68 0.36 0.49 0.02 0,34 024 0.20 0.02 0.09 0.43 0.23 ersection summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:120 Actuated Cycle Length: 9Q.9 Natural Cycle'. 120 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Ma)amum vk Ratio 0.61 Intersection Signal Delay,21,$ Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)16 Ats and Phases, 1: SR 29 & Lake Trafford Rd 4\ 01 02 _1* 03 04 \*.io5 "tO • i37 0 8 Future 2048 Background Improved with Project -AM Peak Hour Synchrol l Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 240 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 : SR 29 & Lake Trattord Rd 121182025 Larne Group EBL EBT EBR WK VBT A RR NBL _NOT NBR 53t '9RT SBR Lane Configurations fj + r '� T+ 1) ++ r ¢+ r Traffic Volume kph) 232 157 257 18 314 33 396 672 60 29 521 264 Future Volume �ph) 232 157 257 18 314 33 396 572 60 29 521 264 Ideal Flow (vphpf) 1900 1900 1900 1§06 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1%0 1900 Storage Length F) 350 400 250 0 275 225 525 325 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 Taper Length (ff) 50 120 100 50 Lane Uhl. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.66 1.00 1.00 0.97 095 1.00 1.00 0.95 1,00 Frt 0.860 0.986 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.960 0.960 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow Prot) 1770 1881 1568 1805 1857 0 3433 3539 1583 1719 3539 1599 Fit Permitted 0.222 0.660 0.272 0.375 Said. Flow Perm) 414 1881 1568 1236 1857 0 983 3539 1583 679 3539 1599 Right Turn on fled Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 276 4 225 284 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45 Link Distance fit) 850 949 621 610 Travel Time (s) 16.6 18.5 9.4 9.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0 93 0 93 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles (�%) rb 1 % a % 0°% 1 °% 0% 2°% 2°% 2°% 50% 2% 1 % Adj. Flow (Th) 249 169 276 19 33S 35 426 615 65 31 660 284 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 249 169 276 19 373 0 426 615 65 31 560 284 Turn Type pi NA Perm pm+pt NA pm-0 NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 9 4 6 6 2 2 Detector Phase 3 8 8 7 4 1 6 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 7.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 6.0 20.0 20.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 37.0 37.0 11.4 440 15.5 39.3 39.3 13.0 45.3 46.a Total Split) 22.0 30.0 30.0 32.0 40.0 16.0 45.0 45.0 13.0 42.0 42.0 Total Split (5ii) 1 U0A 25.0°% 25.0% 26.7°% 33.3°% 13.3% 37.5% 37.5% 10.$ % 36.0°% 35.0% Mammum Green } 15.0 23.0 23.0 26.6 33.0 9.0 37.7 37.7 6.7 34.7 34.7 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 49 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 All -Red Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.4 3.0 21 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 Total Lost Time 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.4 7.0 7.0 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 LeacVLag Ljead Lag Lag Lead Lag Dead Lag Lag Dead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Min Min None Min Min Walk Time (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 27.0 22.0 22.0 28.0 28.0 Pedestrian Calls Phr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 45.6 41.0 41.0 32.0 25.1 421 36.9 36.9 33.4 27.7 27.7 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.44 0.39 0 39 031 0.24 0.40 U_35 0,36 0.32 0.27 0 27 vlc Ratio 0.70 0.23 0.36 005 0.83 0.70 0.49 0.09 0.11 0.60 0.45 Control Delay 31.0 24.6 4.6 18.3 54.1 28.9 30.6 0.3 21.2 37.0 6.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Future 2048 Background Improved with Project - P M Peak Hour Synchrol l report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 241 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1 : SR 29 & Lake Trafford Rd 121812025 1_axie.Ornu _ EBL EBT ERR WBL WOT tf�BR 1VBL NBT NOR SBL SOT SBR Total Delay 31.0 24.5 4.6 18.3 64.1 28.9 30.6 02 21.2 37.0 6.2 LOS C C A B D C C A C D A Approach Delay 18.9 524 28.1 2� s Approach LOS B D C C Queue Length.50th 0) 105 67 0 7 238 97 189 .0 12 176 A Queue Length 95th V) 180 150 58 22 373 148 267 0 34 251 64 Internal Link Dist (R) 770 $69 541 530 Turn Bay Length It) 360 400 250 276 226 526 325 Base Capacity �ph) 38.0 739 783 690 602 612 1320 731 276 1 `201 730 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vac Ratio 0.66 0.23 0.36 0.03 0.62 0.70 0.47 0.09 0.11 0.47 0.39 Fntmection SOMMary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length:194.2 Natural Cycle:120 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vk Ratio: 0.83 Intersection, Signal Delay:28,7 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)16 Future 2048 Background Improved with Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA - 1242 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 New Market Rd and Escambia St Intersection HCM 6th TWSC 1: New Market Rd & Escambia St 08/26/2025 Intersection �. Int Delay, s/veh 04 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + + *t+ + Traffic Vol, vehlh 2 1 16 4 4 2 2 400 4 1 768 6 Future Vol, veh/h 2 1 16 4 4 2 2 400 4 1 768 6 Conflicting Peds, Nhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Contrd Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None - None None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles,% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 7 0 Mvmt Flow 2 1 18 4 4 2 2 440 4 1 844 7 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Maior2 Conflicting Row All 1299 1298 848 1305 1299 442 851 0 0 444 0 0 Stage 1 850 850 - 446 446 - - - - - - Stage 2 449 448 - 859 853 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 61 55 - 6.1 5.5 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 2.2 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 140 163 364 138 163 620 796 1127 Stage 1 358 380 - 595 577 - - - Stage 2 593 576 - 354 378 - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 137 162 364 130 162 620 796 - 1127 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 260 278 - 247 276 - - - Stage 1 357 379 - 593 575 Stage 2 585 574 - 335 377 Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Contrd Delay, s 16.1 17.7 0 0 HCM LOS C C Mnor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT r EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (vehlh) 796 344 295 1127 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 0.061 0.037 0 001 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 0 16.1 17.7 8.2 0 HCM Lane LOS A A C C A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 0.1 0 - Existing 2025 - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 243 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 HCM 6th TWSC 1: New Market Rd & Escambia St Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 08/2612025 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 41 4 4+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 19 19 8 16 2 4 808 14 5 367 19 Future Vol, veh/h 2 19 19 8 16 2 4 808 14 5 367 19 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None Storage Length Veh in Medan Storage, # 1 1 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles % 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 9 0 Mvmt Flow 2 21 21 9 18 2 4 898 16 6 408 21 Major[Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Row Al[ 1355 1353 419 1366 1355 906 429 0 0 914 0 0 Stage 1 431 431 - 914 914 - - - - - - Stage 2 924 922 - 452 441 - - - Critical Hdwy 8.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1® Critical Hdwy Stg 1 7.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 7.1 65 - 6.1 5.6 - - - : Follow-up Hdwy 4.4 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 22 2.2 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 79 151 638 126 151 337 1141 754 Stage 1 450 586 - 330 355 - - - Stage 2 221 352 - 591 580 - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 73 148 638 113 148 337 1141 754 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 154 258 - 234 261 - - - Stage 1 447 580 328 353 - - Stage 2 207 350 545 574 Approach EB WB NB SB' HCM Contrd Delay, s 17 2Q8 0 0.1 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1141 344 256 754 - HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0 004 0 129 0113 0 007 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 17 20.8 9.8 0 HCM Lane LOS A A C C A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 04 0.4 0 - Existing 2025 - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 244 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 HCM 6th TWSC 1: New Market Rd & Escambia St 1208/2025 Intersection Int Delay. s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR ._.1 Lane Configurations 4,- 4+ 4# Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 1 12 3 3 1 1 295 3 1 567 4 Future Vol, veh/h 1 1 12 3 3 1 1 295 3 1 567 4 Conflicting Peds, Nhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None None None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 1 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 7 0 Mvmt Flow 1 1 13 3 3 1 1 321 3 1 616 4 lutaj6r—Ninor Minor2 Minorl Majorl MajorL Conflicting Row All 947 946 618 952 947 323 620 0 0 324 0 0 Stage 1 620 620 - 325 325 - - - - - - - Stage 2 327 326 - 627 622 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 66 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 6.5 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 33 22 22 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 243 264 493 241 263 723 970 - 1247 Stage 1 479 483 - 692 653 - - - Stage 2 690 652 - 475 482 - - - Platoon docked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 241 263 493 234 262 723 970 1247 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 361 368 - 352 367 - - - Stage 1 479 483 691 652 - Stage 2 685 651 461 482 Approach -- EB WB NB SB T' HCM Control Delay, s 12.9 145 0 0 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 970 469 387 1247 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.001 0.032 0.02 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 0 - 12.9 14.5 7.9 0 HCM Lane LOS A A B B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 01 0 - Future 2048 Background - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1245 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 HCM 6th TWSC 1: New Market Rd & Escambia St intersection 12/18/2025 Int Delay: slveh 0.8 Move ent EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRI� Lane Configurations 4* 44 Traffic Vd, vehlh 1 14 14 6 12 1 3 596 10 4 271 14 , Future Vol, vehlh 1 14 14 6 12 1 3 596 10 4 271 14 Conflicting Peds, Nhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None - None""" Storage Length Veh in Medan Storage, # 1 1 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 9 0 Mvmt Flow 1 15 15 7 13 1 3 648 11 4 295 15 _Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 978 976 303 986 978 654 310 0 0 659 0 0 Stage 1 311 311 - 660 660 - - - - - - - Stage 2 667 665 - 326 318 - - - Critical Hdwy 8.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 41 41 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 7.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 7.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 4.4 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 2.2 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 155 253 741 229 252 470 1262 939 Stage 1 533 662 - 455 463 - - - Stage 2 321 461 - 691 657 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 149 251 741 215 250 470 1262 - - 939 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 238 353 - 337 354 - - - Stage 1 531 659 463 461 - Stage 2 310 459 658 654 roach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.4 15.8 0 0.1 HCM LOS B C Minor LanelMajor Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1262 462 353 939 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0 003 0.068 0 059 0 005 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 13.4 16.8 8.9 0 HCM Lane LOS A A B C A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 0.2 0 - - Future 2048 Background - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1246 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 HCM 6th TWSC 1: New Market Rd & Escambia St 12/18/2025 Intersection Int Delay, slveh Movement _ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4 4 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 43 1 12 3 3 1 1 327 3 1 624 78 Future Vol, veh/h 43 1 12 3 3 1 1 327 3 1 624 78 Conflicting Peds, Nhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 1 1 - 0 - 0 - Grade, % 0 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 7 0 Mvmt Flow 47 1 13 3 3 1 1 355 3 1 678 85 Ma&/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Row All 1084 1083 721 1089 1124 357 763 0 0 358 0 0 Stage 1 723 723 - 359 359 - - - - - - - Stage 2 361 360 - 730 765 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 22 2.2 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 196 219 431 195 207 692 859 1212 - - Stage 1 421 434 663 631 - - - Stage 2 662 630 417 415 - - - Platoon docked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 194 219 431 188 207 692 859 1212 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 316 329 - 306 316 - - - Stage 1 421 434 662 630 Stage 2 657 629 403 415 Approach EB WB NB S13 HCM Control Delay, s 18.1 16.9 0 0 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 859 335 337 1212 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 0.182 0.023 0.001 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.2 0 18.1 15.9 8 0 HCM Lane LOS A A C C A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.7 0.1 0 - Future 2048 Background with Protect - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 247 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 HCM 6th TWSC 1: New Market Rd & Escambia St 12/18/2026 Intersection Int Delay, slveh 2.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations .+ 4* 4* 4, Traffic Vol, veh/h 69 14 14 6 12 1 3 648 10 4 311 67 Future Vol, veh/h 69 14 14 6 12 1 3 648 10 4 311 67 Conflicting Peds, Nhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None Storage Length Veh in Medan Storage, # - 1 1 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 9 0 Mvmtnow 75 15 15 7 13 1 3 704 11 4 338 73 WI&IMinor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1106 1104 375 1114 1135 710 411 0 0 715 0 0 Stage 383 383 - 716 716 - - - - - - - Stage 2 723 721 - 398 419 - - - Critical Hdwy 8.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 65 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 7.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 7.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 4.4 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 22 2.2 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 124 213 676 187 204 437 1159 895 Stage 1 481 616 - 424 437 - - - Stage 2 296 435 - 632 593 - - - - Platoon docked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 119 211 676 175 202 437 1159 895 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 211 322 - 302 317 - - - Stage 1 479 612 422 435 - - - - - Stage 2 285 433 599 589 Approach EB_ _ _ WB NB SB HCM Contrd Delay, s 29.8 17.1 0 0.1 HCM LOS D C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1159 248 317 895 - - HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0 003 0 425 0 065 0 005 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 0 29.8 17.1 9 0 HCM Lane LOS A A D C A A HCM 95th °/dile Q(veh) 0 2 0.2 0 - Future 2048 Background with Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA < 6 e 1248 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Appendix G: SR 29/CR 846 Intersection - Stage 1 + ICE Traffic Memorandum (Excerpts) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 249 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 An aerial photograph of the existing intersection and the surrounding area, along with individual photographs of the intersection approaches, are provided in Appendix A. Signal Warrant Analysis A signal warrant analysis was conducted by Faller, Davis and Associates, Inc. (FDA), to determine if a traffic signal is warranted at the intersection. This signal warrant analysis was conducted for the year 2025 and included the proposed SR 29 Bypass The year 2025 traffic volumes were developed using traffic data from the July 2019 Preliminary Engineering Report and the January 2018 Design Traffic Technical Memorandum (DTTM) prepared in support of the SR 29 Protect Development and Environment (PD&E) Study from Oil Well Road to SR 82. The installation of a traffic signal was recommended since Signal Warrants 1A, 1B, 2 and 3 were met. The signal warrant analysis was submitted to the Department under separate cover in January 2020. A copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis Report is provided in Appendix 8 Crash History Crash data for the period from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2022 was obtained from Signal Four Analytics. A copy of the crash data is provided in Appendix C. The 0.2-mile portion of SR 29 between 13t" Street and 11t" Street, which includes the CR 846 E intersection, experienced 15 crashes in this six -year period These crashes resulted in one injury and no fatalities. The most prevalent crash types are sideswipe (six), rear -end (four), and off -road crashes (four) There was one bicycle crash and no pedestrian crashes The roadway surface and lighting conditions are summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Crash Conditions (January 2017 — December 2022) Road Surface Condition No. of Crashes Dry 14 Wet 1 Total Crashes 15 Lighting Condition Daylight 12 Dark 2 Dawn 1 Total Crashes 15 Intersection Control Evaluation Analysis A Stage 1 Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) analysis was conducted in accordance with the FDOT Manual on Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE Manual). The 2045 a.m. and p.m, peak hour turning movement volumes documented in the January 2018 DTTM prepared by VHB for the SR 29 PD&E Study were used to conduct the analysis. These volumes are provided in Appendix D and also summarized in Table 3. The following alternatives were considered: conventional traffic signal, signalized restricted crossing u-turn (RCUT) intersection, median u-turn (MUT) intersection, partial MUT intersection, displaced left -turn intersection (DLT), partial DLT and a two- lane roundabout. Due to the proposed realignment of this intersection and the addition of a new leg (i.e., the proposed SR 29 Bypass), the historic crash data was not used in the SPICE analysis The results of the 2045 CAP-X and SPICE analyses are summarized in Table 4. The CAP-X and SPICE analysis summary sheets are provided in Appendix E Page 3 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 250 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 Table 3: Design Year (2046) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 2045 AM Peek Hour EEL EBT EBR WBL W8T WER SEL 5ET 3ER 141VL NWT NWR Desi Tumm Wb mentVdume 180 440 641 115 181 162 290 661 IV 463 1 484 192 Peak Hour TruckPerce a 1P% 18% 17% 66% 1 14% 17% 16% 8% 16% 17% 1 B% 17% 2045 PM Poo Hour EBL EST EBR WBL War WER SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Design Tumm Movement Vdume 106 162 481 207 416 290 162 440 210 $24 693 100 Peak Hour Truck Percentage 22% 13% 17% 0% 11% 41°6 16% 8% 16% 0':4 Table 4: Stage 1 ICE Analysis Summary - SR 29/CR 846 Intersection Intersection Type 2045 V/C Ratios Life -Cycle Crashes SSI Scores AM Peak Hout PM Peak Hour Total Fatal & Injury Opening Year Design Year Conventional Traffic Signai 0.78 0.75 135 51 92 80 Signalized RCUT 0.87 0.80 305 77 92 81 Median U-Turn 104 1.02 115 35 92 79 Partial Median U-Turn 0-88 092 n/a n/a n/a n/a Displaced Left Turn 0.55 0.70 119 45 82 62 Partial Displaced Left Turn 1 0.59 0.62 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a Roundabout (2 x 2) 1,52 1.55 1 287 53 96 92 Lowest number of crashes of allalternatfves analyzed n/a = No Safety Performance Function (SPF) available With one exception, all of the signalized alternatives are projected to provide sufficient capacity during both peak hours. The median u-turn intersection is projected to have v/c ratios greater than 1.0 during both peak hours but is also projected to have the lowest amount of fatal and injury crashes The signalized RCUT intersection is projected to have the highest number of fatal and injury crashes Although the displaced left -turn intersection and partial displaced left -turn intersection are projected to have low v/c ratios during both peak hours, these two alternatives would result in circuitous access for vehicles entering and exiting Florida Specialties (a produce processing/distribution business) and Everglades Equipment Group (a farm equipment dealership) Both of these businesses are located on the west side of SR 29 The posted speed limit on SR 29 changes from 45 mph just south of CR 846 to 35 mph just north of CR 846 The lower speed limit is needed due to the relatively high volume of bicyclists and pedestrians within the downtown Immokalee area, as well as the high cross street density in this area. The signalized intersection alternatives would not provide positive speed control or help to facilitate the transition from 45 mph to 35 mph. In addition, the location of the Collier County Immokalee Regional Airport and the Immokalee Public Park, coupled with the alignment of the future SR 29 bypass, would require the construction of a skewed intersection for all of the signalized alternatives This skewed orientation would increase the difficulty associated with some truck turning movements. Although the CAP-X analysis results indicated the two-lane roundabout was projected to operate overcapacity, this software does not allow the analyst to evaluate the impact of providing exclusive right - turn bypass lanes. Based on these considerations, more detailed peak hour traffic analyses were conducted for the roundabout alternative using the SIDRA software These additional analyses were conducted to determine the optimal lane configuration for the roundabout and the capacity associated with this configuration. The SIDRA analyses were conducted for a five -legged roundabout due to the need to maintain the existing access to Florida Specialties and Everglades Equipment Group via 12"' Street The optimal Page 4 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 251 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area - TIS Section 2 - Intersection Analysis - December 2025 roundabout configuration is illustrated on the concept graphic provided in Appendix F The results of the initial SIDRA analysis indicated the roundabout was projected to operate overcapacity during both the a m. and p m. peak hours Therefore, additional analyses were conducted to determine the maximum future year peak hour volumes that could be accommodated by the roundabout The results of the additional analyses Indicated the roundabout alternative could accommodate approximately 75% of the 2045 a m and p m peak hour volumes It should be noted that this conclusion was based solely on the use of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) roundabout capacity model. The projected peak hour roundabout operations are summarized in Table 5 and the SIDRA analysis output summary sheets are provided in Appendix G. Table 5 SR 29/SR 29 Bypass/CR 846 Roundabout Operations Summary (75% Volume Levell AM Peak Hour HCM Cdpie ity Model SIDRA Capacity Model V/C Rahn Delay (sei /veh) LOS V/C Raw" Delay fsec/veh) LOS hderseclion LeG Ruadwd South SR 19 D 85 37.6 E 0.75 25.1 D Ea;L CR 846 047 164 C 0.37 12.6 B North SR 29 Bypa— 0.67 217 C 0.60 18.2 C west SR Z9 098 597 r 0.65 19.1 C Southwest I 12th Street 026 113.0 r 0.09 35.8 E Overall Intersection D 98 37 6 I E 0 75 199 C PM Peak Hour HCM Capacity Model SIDRA Capacity Model V/C Ratio " Delay (sec/veh) LOS v/C Ratio 11, Delay (sec/veh) LOS Intersection Leg Roddwdy Souili SR 19 0.70 18 2 C 061 13.3 B East CR 846 1 27 136A r 0.86 37.9 E Nonh SR 19 Bypass 0.54 174 C 0.55 18.4 C Wept SR 19 0.55 176 C 0.39 12.5 8 Suuthwesl, 121h Slrret Oil 44 1 E 0.07 254 D Overall Intersection 127 1 45 6 E 0.86 200 C Maximum vohime-Io-capar it y rat ar%nr it[ lane% on I he inter%erlion ley The SIDRA analyses were first conducted using the HCM roundabout capacity model. The results of these analyses indicate the roundabout is projected to operate at Level of Service E overall during both peak hours with average delays ranging between approximately 37 seconds/vehicle and 46 seconds/vehicle The highest approach delays are estimated to occur on the southwest leg of the roundabout (I e , 12w Street) during the a.m. peak hour and on the east leg (I e , CR 846) during the p.m. peak hour Given these delays, an additional set of roundabout analyses were conducted using the SIDRA standard capacity model based on guidance provided by the FDOT Central Office. The SIDRA capacity model utilizes more aggressive adjustments to driver gap acceptance as circulating volumes increase, resulting in higher roundabout capacities These additional analyses were conducted to obtain a range of potential operational performance results The use of the SIDRA capacity model indicates that the roundabout is projected to operate at Level of Service C overall during the peak hours with average delays of approximately 20 seconds/vehicle Therefore, the true peak hour operations are expected to be better than those estimated with the HCM capacity model but worse than those estimated with the SIDRA standard capacity model Table 6 provides a comparison of the 2017 peak hour volumes that were documented in the January 2018 SR 29 DTTM and 75% of the 2045 peak hour volumes that were documented in this same report. At the 75% level, the future a.m. and p.m peak hour volumes are approximately 203% and 139% higher than the 2017 a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes, respectively. These future volumes represent a m. and p m peak hour linear growth rates of approximately 7 3% per year and 5 0% per year, respectively It Page 5 of b Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 252 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 should be noted that there are minor differences between the volumes summarized in Table 6 and the volumes used in the SIDRA analyses These differences reflect the adjustments that were made to account for the existing peak hour volumes that were observed entering and exiting 12" Street The approximate year when the capacity of the proposed roundabout might be exceeded was estimated using linear Interpolation This analysis Indicates the roundabout capacity might be exceeded in the year 2035 if the projected growth in future traffic volumes actually occurs Given the extremely high future year peak hour volumes that can be accommodated with the roundabout it is quite possible that this intersection control strategy could provide acceptable traffic operations for an even longer period of time in the future Based on a long term peak hour traffic volume growth rate of 3 0% per year, the capacity of the roundabout would not be exceeded until the year 2047 Table 6: SR 29/SR 29 8ypass/CR 946 Intersection Peak Hour Volume Comparison AM rl-k lh— Volume•. PM Peak Hut# Vnhnnen Rio. de:. y Muvnnem 2045 75%or 2045 2017 Roadrval Movement 2045 75%of 1045 2017 %R T 460 3A5 236 NA IT 571 191 i14 5R 24 N R Ili 484 363 51129 NA TH 693 Wo n/a K R RT 197 144 14 NO RT 100 7S 21 W3 T 115 U 71 WBtT 207 15S 18 i 7 'tic,W3 T 1 181 136 7C (R AAfi WRTH 416 311 7W W4 nT 197 122 n/a WAIT )90 2111 n/o '41 T 290 718 n/e 511 T 161 122 of r 1R 29 Bypass SR TH 661 496 SA 29 ayWss SA TH 440 33n n(a 53 RT 192 144 n/a SORT 210 158 n a 43 T 380 135 n/a E8 J lee 140 rVa SR 29 _3 T'-I 440 330 212 SR 29 E3 TH 382 137 120 EliRT S30 39A A�6 FB RT •1)? 30 791 7..WU0,, a, 3,387 2.915 961 hrersect.on A,, 3,a86 2.925 1,217 Total Growth 3n4.4n, ?CA 364;. Tonal Growth )?Ili,. 13941W. Annual Gromh Ra.e 10,87% 7.26% Atntt21 Growllr Rate 7 83% n 98 . Recommended Intersection Control Strategy The implementation of a two lane roundabout is expected to provide positive speed control in this critical location and help facilitate the reduction in vehicle speeds from a higher speed rural roadway to a lower speed urban roadway located in the center of downtown Immokalee The importance of reducing the speed of vehicles entering the Town of Immokalee cannot be overstated due to the large percentage of pedestrians and bicyclists in this urban area This roundabout is estimated to have the highest opening year and design year SSI scores, will provide efficient and safe access to and from the existing commercial/light industrial land uses on both sides of 12" Street and will eliminate the need for u-turn bulb -outs to be constructed on either SR 29 or the SR 29 Bypass Lastly this roundabout provides better accommodations for truck turning movements to and from the skewed intersection legs The proposed roundabout is projected to have sufficient capacity to accommodate future year peak hour volumes through the year 2035 at a minimum Based on the roundabout analysis results conducted using the SIDRA capacity model, the roundabout is projected to be able to accommodate more than 75% of the design year peak hour volumes. Consequently, the five -legged roundabout is the recommended intersection control strategy for this location When District One is ready to program funding for the widening (i.e., four-Ianing) of SR 29 from 1-75 to CR 846, the "existing" conditions at this intersection should be re -assessed and the design year traffic projections should be updated. Page 6 of b Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 253 Corkscrew Groves East Village Stewardship Receiving Area — TIS Section 2 — Intersection Analysis — December 2025 End of Section 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 254 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) TRAFFIC IMPACTMENT STATEMENT SECTION 2, EXHIBIT A C � � yyo rtrt g �iUU ry a m m� 8 F u iI IIII u,I III c L) e 0 o° 0 6.0 0 4 ° � F ISIS l) =b � � ss � sJ u 3> 6 G � 0 0 o o.;_ o _ o j i C o a e�G as ra a o.s o.s o.z i �ti9 S o: os z'o a.: 02 c.z oa os 0.i 0.1 i I I °1 lo a. o 0 0 j b ° o i e °4 R aS As LAS N O.Jwl Z a sz.) u,e NO 6 s.s lA 1.7 I Q o Ills x n d 3 6 S 9 3 u va UMWJ 0 s) 0 0 I� g� z� � r 9 z� YI i z� CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) STEWARDSHIP AREAS EXHIBIT �\ � %6 4m . @c 41r W\_ ,:�d of CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION FOR BUFFER LAKES .d - u Z O F- U W U) Q W Q LL Z LL 0 m U W z W Y U J J Q U C �r a z_ 11 w W m z //_RR LL V z W CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) AERIAL WITH PROPOSED ROAD CROSSINGS CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) NRI ASSESSMENT CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX ASSESSMENT Revised June 2025 Prepared For: Alico Land Development Company 10070 Daniel Interstate Court, No. 200 Fort Myers, Florida 33913 (239) 226-2000 Prepared By: Passarella & Associates, Inc. 13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 (239) 274-0067 Project No. 23AII4051 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction................................................................................. Page ............ I 2.0 NRI Assessment Methodology and Datasets.......................................................... 2.1 Stewardship Overlay Designation............................................................... 2.2 Proximity ..................................................................................................... 2.3 Listed Species Habitat................................................................................. 2.4 Soils/Surface Water.................................................................................... 2.5 Restoration Potential................................................................................... 2.6 Land Use/Land Cover................................................................................. 3.0 NRI Assessment ....................................... .3 .3 .3 .3 .4 .4 ......................................4 3.1 Stewardship Overlay Designation..........................................................................4 3.2 Proximity ................................................................................................................4 3.3 Listed Species Habitat............................................................................................5 3.4 Soils/Surface Water...............................................................................................5 3.5 Restoration Potential..............................................................................................5 3.6 Land Use/Land Cover............................................................................................5 3.7 Final Assessment Result........................................................................................5 4.0 NRI Results Summary V 0 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Spatial Datasets Used in the Corkscrew Grove East Village NRI Assessment Model ........................................................ Exhibit 1. Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3. Exhibit 4. Exhibit 5. Exhibit 6. Exhibit 7. Exhibit 8. Exhibit 9. Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 LIST OF EXHIBITS Page Project Location Map.........................................................................................E1-1 Aerialwith Boundary.........................................................................................E2-1 Aerial with Stewardship Overlay.......................................................................E3-1 Aerial with FLUCFCS Map...............................................................................E4-1 Aerial with Listed Species Locations................................................................E5-1 SoilsMap ...................................... Stewardship Overlay Designation. Proximity Index ............................ Listed Species Habitat Index ........ Soils/Surface Water Index ............ Land Use/Land Cover Index......... Final NRI Assessment ......................... Natural Resource Index Values .......... ......................................... E6-1 ......................................... E7-1 .................................................... E8-1 .............................................................. E9-1 ............................................................ E 10-1 ............................................................ El 1-1 ....................................... E 12-1 ....................................... E 13-1 IM 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Natural Resource Index (NRI) Assessment documents the environmental conditions and NRI scores within Corkscrew Grove East Village (Project) Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) and demonstrates that the Project meets the Suitability Criteria contained in Section 4.08.07.A.1 of the adopted Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) amendments. This Assessment is submitted in support of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay District SRA Designation Application on behalf of Alico Land Development Company. This Assessment is consistent with the requirements of the RLSA Zoning Overlay District, Collier County LDC, Section 4.08.00. This NRI Assessment includes the following: • Identification of the acreage of agricultural and non-agricultural lands, by type, included within the SRA; • A summary of the refined and updated data incorporated into the Project NRI model; • A summary analysis and verification of the NRI scores; • Identification of the acreage of lands, by type, within the SRA that have an NRI value greater than 1.2; • An analysis of how the Project NRI scores compare to those in the original Baseline model; and • A demonstration of compliance with the Suitability Criteria contained in Section 4.08.07.A.1. This SRA Designation Application involves the designation of 1,446.6± acres as the Project SRA, located in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10; Township 46 South; Range 28 East; Collier County (Exhibit 1). The location and extent of the Project is indicated in Exhibit 2. The Project is located within lands designated as "Open" on the adopted RLSA Stewardship Map and does not encroach into any Flow -Way Stewardship Area (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA), or Water Retention Area (WRA) lands, as illustrated in Exhibit 3. The Project is not within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). The Project property is currently dedicated to citrus grove operations and includes scattered natural areas composed of forested uplands, forested wetlands, and herbaceous wetlands, all of which exhibit a high degree of disturbance and contain various levels of exotic vegetation infestation (e.g., Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia)). The agricultural and non- agricultural land uses on the Project site are depicted in Exhibit 4. Listed species data from state and federal wildlife agencies indicate occurrences of Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) telemetry points within the SRA boundary. 2.0 NRI ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND DATASETS The NRI Assessment is a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis where resource values are calculated for every acre in the study area using a raster model. The raster model uses one- acre grid cells that receive a score value based on each of the six NRI Factors, as defined in Section 4.08.01 of the LDC. Baseline NRI values were assigned during the original Collier County RLSA Assessment Study to establish the Baseline conditions. This NRI Assessment includes documentation that refines the NRI Factors from the original study using updated data. Of the six NRI Factors on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet, two factors (i.e., Land Use/Land Cover and Listed Species Habitat) are the most prone to change over time or require mapping refinements. However, in preparing the Assessment, Passarella & Associates, Inc. (PAI) obtained updated datasets, where available, to be included in the model. Table 1 depicts the datasets used for each NRI Factor and indicates where data have been updated from the Baseline model. Table 1. Spatial Datasets Used in the Corkscrew Grove East Village NRI Assessment Model Natural Resource Model Input GIS Dataset Source Date' Index Factors Stewardship Overlay Collier County Collier County Collier County 2 2024 Designation Stewardship Areas Stewardship Areas Collier County Collier County Collier County2 2024 StewardshipAreas StewardshipAreas Proximity Conservation Collier Collier County 2019 Preserve Land Florida Managed Areas FNAI 2019 Florida Panther Telemetry FWCC 2022 Wading Bird Rookeries FWCC 1999 Documented Listed Species Listed Species Listed Species and Habitat Species -Specific Survey PAI 2024 Results Habitat Type FLUCFCS PAI 2025 Soils/Surface Soils Soils for Lee Collier USDA-NRCS 1990 Water and HendryCounties Restoration Potential Land Use/Land Land Cover FLUCFCS PAI 2025 Cover FLUCFCS - Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System FNAI - Florida Natural Areas Inventory FWCC - Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission NRCS - Natural Resources Conservation Service PAI Passarella & Associates, Inc. USDA - United States Department of Agriculture 'Years in bold indicate updated dataset. 'WRA boundaries around the perimeter of the Project were revised per permitted wetland boundaries and agricultural reservoirs (see Section 2.1). 2 2.1 Stewardship Overlay Designation As part of establishing the RLSA, the Stewardship Overlay was established to designate land within the RLSA as FSA, HSA, WRA, or Open. To refine this layer, WRA boundaries taken from the Collier County Stewardship Overlay Map were updated through a detailed analysis of these areas on the ground, using actual surveyed wetland and South Florida Water Management District permit boundaries. Using this actual groundtruthed data, the Stewardship Overlay WRA boundaries were refined. The Project SRA boundary was created so that no FSA, HSA, or WRA areas were included. Exhibit 3 illustrates the refined Stewardship Overlay within the SRA boundary. 2.2 Proximity The Proximity Index Factor also utilizes the Collier County Stewardship Areas. The same refined dataset used for the Stewardship Overlay Designation Index Factor was used for the Proximity Index. In addition, the Conservation Collier and Florida Managed Areas datasets were used to determine the proximity of private or public preserve lands. 2.3 Listed Species Habitat The Listed Species Habitat Index values are based on the intersection of documented listed species observations and land cover that is identified as preferred or tolerated by that species. The Baseline model used Land Use/Land Cover mapping from the Stage 1 Report. While this mapping was generally accurate at the regional/planning scale, groundtruthing by PAI revealed some positional and classification errors that are rectified in this application. The updated Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) mapping for the Project SRA is presented in Exhibit 4. The Documented Listed Species datasets were updated to include the results of listed species and species -specific surveys conducted by PAI in 2023 and 2024. In addition, updated listed species occurrence data and Florida panther telemetry was obtained from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC). Pursuant to communication with the FWCC in August 2023, the FWCC no longer releases panther telemetry data to the public per Florida Statute 379.1026. Panther telemetry data was last obtained from the FWCC by PAI in September 2022 and is current through May 2022. A map of the updated listed species occurrences, listed species records, and Florida panther telemetry points is provided as Exhibit 5. 2.4 Soils/Surface Water The U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service soils map for the Project is provided in Exhibit 6. This dataset has not changed since the Baseline model. 2.5 Restoration Potential Restoration Potential is one of the six NRI Factors in an NRI Assessment. However, this Factor is assigned only during a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) designation process, if appropriate, and was not assessed in the Baseline model. As this application and NRI Assessment are for an SRA, this NRI Factor was not incorporated into the Project NRI Assessment. 2.6 Land Use/Land Cover As mentioned in Section 2.3, the updated FLUCFCS mapping conducted by PAI was utilized for the land cover dataset in the Project NRI Assessment. 3.0 NRI ASSESSMENT The following section summarizes the results of the Project NRI Assessment and analyzes how the results of this Assessment compare to the Baseline Assessment results from the Collier County RLSA Assessment Study. Most of the variation in the NRI Factor results between the Project and the Baseline are due to updated datasets. However, it is worth noting that while the Project NRI Assessment was conducted for the proposed SRA boundary, the Baseline Assessment was conducted for the entire RLSA area. This difference results in some minor variations due to the difference in scope between the two Assessments and the alignment of the model's one -acre grid cells. 3.1 Stewardship Overlay Designation In the Assessment for the Project, there are no lands designated as FSA, HSA, WRA, or ACSC. Therefore, the majority of the SRA boundary received a score of 0 for this NRI Factor (Exhibit 7A). The cells that received a score of 0.6 are on the perimeter of the SRA, with the centerpoint outside of the SRA boundary where WRAs are located. The Assessment scoring matches the majority of the scoring for this area in the Baseline Assessment (Exhibit 713). Variations between the two Assessments are attributed to the refinement of the WRA boundaries and the nature of the raster model and the scope of the Baseline Assessment, resulting in minor differences in the alignments of the model's one -acre grid cells. 3.2 Proximity For the Proximity Index, the Project SRA boundary is within 300 feet of an HSA along a small portion of the southeastern boundary. Cells that were within the 300-foot distance from the HSA scored 0.3, and the remainder of the SRA scored 0 (Exhibit 8A). These scores are also supported by the Baseline Assessment (Exhibit 813). Variations between the two Assessments are attributed to the nature of the raster model and the scope of the Baseline Assessment, resulting in minor differences in the alignments of the model's one - acre grid cells. 4 3.3 Listed Species Habitat The Listed Species Habitat Index for the Project received scores ranging from 0 to 0.4 (Exhibit 9A). The areas that scored 0.4 had observations of listed species within habitats that are considered preferred or tolerated for that species. Areas receiving a score of 0 did not have a listed species observation within a preferred or tolerated habitat. In the Baseline Assessment (Exhibit 9B), all areas received a score of 0. Variations between the Baseline and Project Assessments are attributed to the use of updated and groundtruthed FLUCFCS mapping and species datasets. 3.4 Soils/Surface Water For the Soils/Surface Water Index Factor, the Project Assessment received scores ranging from 0 for non-hydric soils to 0.3 for sand depression soils (Exhibit 10A). The majority of the Baseline Assessment (Exhibit lOB) matches the Assessment for the Project. Variations between the two Assessments are attributed to the nature of the raster model and the scope of the Baseline Assessment, resulting in minor differences in the alignments of the model's one -acre grid cells. 3.5 Restoration Potential This Factor is assigned only during an SSA designation process, if appropriate, and was not assessed in the Baseline model. As this application and NRI Assessment are for an SRA, this NRI Factor was not incorporated into the Project NRI Assessment. 3.6 Land Use/Land Cover In the Land Use/Land Cover Index Factor, the Project Assessment received scores of 0 to 0.4, as it contains FLUCFCS Code Groups 4 through 1 (Exhibit 11A). The majority of the Baseline Assessment matches the Assessment for the Project (Exhibit 1113). Differences between the two Assessments are due to the use of updated and groundtruthed FLUCFCS mapping conducted by PAI. 3.7 Final Assessment Results The final model result is calculated by summing the raster cells for each NRI Factor. The Project Assessment demonstrates that none of the land within the SRA boundary carries an NRI value greater than 1.2, with scores ranging from 0 to 1.0 (Exhibit 12A). The majority of the Baseline model cells are in agreement with the Project Assessment (Exhibit 12B). Areas where scoring in the Project Assessment diverge from the Baseline Assessment are primarily due to the refinement of the model to include updated FLUCFCS mapping and species information and the refinement of WRAs to permitted and groundtruthed boundaries. The Project NRI Assessment scores are presented graphically in Exhibit 12A and in table format in Exhibit 13. 5 4.0 NRI RESULTS SUMMARY The NRI Assessment for the proposed Project SRA has been prepared with updated and refined datasets to reflect current site conditions. This NRI Assessment for the Project SRA indicates there are no habitats within the boundary that score above a 1.2. Comparisons between the updated Assessment for the Project and the Baseline Assessment indicate that the incorporation of updated and refined datasets has not had a significant change to the overall Assessment scoring. Many of the index factors are still in agreement with the Baseline condition. Differences between the Baseline and Project Assessments are due to the refinement of the model to include updated FLUCFCS mapping and species information and the refinement of WRAs to permitted and groundtruthed boundaries. Con EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP �w�`'.,��-�z � k1.. r �Z.•n .t�� I "_ p .�i� ! iJ'—tir, -�—� �iAt,—'c4rH 5 r �r ( :, � y I a l e i Y'V F ,J•t•7�. �i�Y .t k � i a }`' �'. -;I �� S it)1� �,� y+'.� _ ®� �J,. JZ, �• - - 4T' :k "G' '>t 1 ..../`�� L E E kip" Ti Nt 06 #_1 410f, Ww- COLLIER Y. I t i EXHIBIT 2 AERIAL WITH BOUNDARY EXHIBIT 3 AERIAL WITH STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY y r i z, 00 K 1 PROJECT LOCATION al 7 qJ ,� ,1 r •; 4 ; d --L LEGEND . CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGES.. N . CONSERVATION COLLIERS y FLORIDA MANAGED AREA \ a O FLOW -WAY STEWARDSHIP AREA (FSA) \ \\� O HABITAT STEWARDSHIP AREA (HSA) _ . WATER RETENTION AREA (WRA) O SFWMD CONSERVATION EASEMENT - ') Aw BY DATE W.C. 12/5/24 EXHIBIT 3. AERIAL WITH STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY RE\9ENEDRY DdTE PASS A R F. i .I _A EXHIBIT 4 AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS MAP ■ PROJECT LOCATION 110 RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 221 CITRUS GROVE 262 LOWPASTURE 3209E2 SHRUB ANOBRUSHIAND,DISTURBED(25-49% EXOTICS) 3209E4 SHflLI AND BRUSHLAND, DISTURBED (76100%EXOTICS) 4119E3 PINE FIATWOODS, DISTURBED (0-24%EXOTICS) 4119E4 PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (76100% EXOTICS) 4159E2 PINE,DISTUR:ED (2549%EXOTICS) 4159E3 PI NE, DISTURBEO(5075%EXOTICS) 422 BRAZILIAN PEPPER 4221 BRAZILIAN PEPPER, HYDRIC 4289E2 CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED(25-49%EXOTICS) 4289E4 CABBAGE PAW DISTURBED (76100%EXOTICS) 4299E4 WAX MYRTLE, DISTURBED(71F200% EXOTICS) 4349F1 HARDWOOD/CONIFER MIXED, DISTURBED (0.24%EXOTICS) 4349E2 HARDWOOD/CONIFER MIXED, DISTURBED(2549% EXOTICS) 4349E4 HARDWOOD/CONIFER MIXED, DISTURBED(76-100% EXOTICS) S14 DITCH 514H DITCH, HYDRIC 530 RESERVOIR 6189E1 WILLOW, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS) 6189E3 WILLOW, DISTURBED (5075%EXOTICS ) 6189E4 WILLOW, DISTURBED (76-1fD% EXOTICS) 6249E4 CYPRESS/PINE/CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED(76-100% EXOTICS) 625%2 IDRIC PINE, DISTURBED (2569% EXOTICS) 6259E3 HYDRIC PINE. DISTURBED (S0-75%EXOTICS) 62S9E4 HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED(7S10D% EXOTICS) 6309E3 WETLAND FORESTED MIXED, DISTURBED(%7S% EXOTICS) 6319E2 WETLANDSHURB,DISTURBED(21-49%EXOTICS) 6319E3 WETLANDSHURB, DISTURBED (.7S%EXOTICS) 6319E4 WETLAND SHRUB, DISTURBED(76, 100% EXOTICS) 6419E1 FRESHWATER MARSH, 0 STUBBED(024% EXOTICS) 6419E2 FRESHWATER MARSH, OISTURBED 125-49%EXOTICS) 6419E4 FRESHWATER MARSH, DISTURBED(76, 100% EXOTICS) 740 DISTURBED LAND 7401 DISTURBED LAND, HYDRIC 742 BORROWAREA 743 SPOILAREA 747 BERM 814 ROAD 932 ELECTRICAL POWER TRANSMISSION LINES U21 ELECTRICAL POWER TRANS MISSION UNES,HYDRIC N NOTES E LEGEND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2024 $ PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER JR EVANS ENGINEERING DRAWING N0, CORKSCREW GROVES EAST VILLAGE BNOY (2024-II-25), DwG NOVEMBER 25. 2024 0 1,000 2,000 Feet W.C. 12/5/24 EXHIBIT 4. AERIAL WITH FLU CFCS MAP RE\'IEW'ED RY BATE PA S S A R E L LA CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE H.S. 12/5/24 ASSOCIATES RE\'I EEC DATE - -, W.C. 5/29/25 EXHIBIT 5 AERIAL WITH LISTED SPECIES LOCATIONS EXHIBIT 6 SOILS MAP EXHIBIT 7 STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY DESIGNATION EXHIBIT 8 PROXIMITY INDEX EXHIBIT 9 LISTED SPECIES HABITAT INDEX EXHIBIT 10 SOILS/SURFACE WATER INDEX EXHIBIT 11 LAND USE/LAND COVER INDEX EXHIBIT 12 FINAL NRI ASSESMENT EXHIBIT 13 NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX VALUES CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX VALUES Revised June 2025 NRI Value Percent of Total SRA Acreage f Open Total Acres f Total SRA Acres f 0.0 9.6 138.9 138.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 71.1 1,028.0 1,028.0 0.3 3.4 49.9 49.9 0.4 4.3 61.9 61.9 0.5 10.0 144.9 144.9 0.6 0.6 9.0 9.0 0.7 0.3 4.0 4.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 10.0 10.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Totals 100.0 1,446.6 1,446.6 NRI >1.2 Totals 0.0 0.0 0.0 NRI - Natural Resource Index SRA - Stewardship Receiving Area E13-1 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) LISTED SPECIES SURVEY REPORT EAST VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA LISTED SPECIES SURVEY REPORT March 2025 Prepared For: Alico Land Development Company 10070 Daniels Interstate Court, No. 200 Fort Myers, Florida 33913 (239) 226-2000 Prepared By: Passarella & Associates, Inc. 13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 (239) 274-0067 Project No. 23AII4051 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................1 2.0 Methodology for Listed Species Surveys..........................................................................1 2.1 Literature and Database Review............................................................................1 2.2 Listed Species Field Survey...................................................................................2 3.0 Listed Species Survey Results...........................................................................................3 3.1 Literature and Database Review Results...............................................................4 3.2 Listed Species Field Survey Results......................................................................4 4.0 Species -Specific Surveys...................................................................................................5 4.1 Red -Cockaded Woodpecker Surveys....................................................................5 4.2 Southeastern American Kestrel Survey.................................................................6 4.3 Crested Caracara Survey........................................................................................6 4.4 Florida Bonneted Bat Survey.................................................................................6 5.0 Field Survey Results..........................................................................................................6 5.1 American Alligator................................................................................................7 5.2 Crested Caracara....................................................................................................7 5.3 Little Blue Heron...................................................................................................8 5.4 Roseate Spoonbill..................................................................................................8 5.5 Tri-Colored Heron.................................................................................................8 5.6 Wood Stork............................................................................................................8 5.7 Wading Bird Rookery ............................................................................................8 5.8 Florida Bonneted Bat.............................................................................................8 5.9 Florida Panther.......................................................................................................8 5.10 Listed Plant Species...............................................................................................9 6.0 Summary ............................................................................................................................9 7.0 References..........................................................................................................................9 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Weather Conditions During Survey ....................................... Table 2. Documented Listed Wildlife Species (Literature Review)....................................4 Table 3. Documented Listed Wildlife Species (Listed Species Survey) .............................5 Table 4. Documented Listed Species (All Surveys)............................................................6 III LIST OF APPENDICES Page Appendix A. Project Location Map.......................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B. Aerial with FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map..........................................................B-1 Appendix C. Aerial with Survey Transects...............................................................................C-1 Appendix D. Documented Occurrences of Listed Species....................................................... D-1 Appendix E. Aerial with Boundary and Listed Species Locations...........................................E-1 iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents the listed species survey and species -specific surveys conducted by Passarella & Associates, Inc. (PAI) for East Village (Project) Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA). The surveys were conducted to determine if the Project was being utilized by wildlife species listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern; and for plant species listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) and the USFWS as endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited. For the purpose of this report, the survey area is comprised of the Project's SRA boundary, which totals 1,446.6f acres and is located in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10; Township 46 South; Range 28 East; Collier County (Appendix A). More specifically, the Project is located at the intersection between State Road (SR) 82 and Corkscrew Road (County Road 850). A total of 41 vegetative associations and land uses (i.e., Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) codes) occur on the Project. The dominant land use on the property is Citrus Groves (FLUCFCS Code 221), comprising 79.5 percent of the site. A FLUCFCS map of the Project SRA boundary is provided as Appendix B. 2.0 METHODOLOGY FOR LISTED SPECIES SURVEYS 2.1 Literature and Database Review Before conducting the updated listed species survey for the Project, existing literature and agency databases were reviewed to determine the potential for listed species to occur within the Project site. The literature search examined available information on protected species in the Project's geographical region. The literature sources included the FWCC's Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species (2022); Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991); USFWS Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region (1987); the Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan (Logan et al. 1993); the Landscape Conservation Strategy Map (Kautz et al. 2006); and the USFWS and/or the FWCC databases for telemetry locations of the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW), Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), crested caracara (Caracara cheriway); and wading bird rookeries, such as those of the wood stork (Mycteria americana) in Collier County. The wildlife agencies' database information is updated periodically and is current through different dates, depending on the species. The FWCC information reviewed for this report is current through the noted dates for the following species: Florida black bear — October 2024 (acquired) and current to 2007; Crested caracara — August 2024 (acquired) and current to 2021; Florida panther — July 2024 (acquired) and current to June 2024; Red - cockaded woodpecker — August 2024 (acquired); Florida scrub jay — August 2024 (acquired); and wading bird rookeries — August 2024 (acquired) and current to 1999. Bald eagle nest locations were acquired from the Audubon EagleWatch in August 2024 and are current to the end of the 2023 through 2024 nesting season. 2.2 Listed Species Field Survey A field survey for listed wildlife and plant species was conducted by PAI for the Project in November and December 2023 and in May and June 2024. An aerial with the Project boundary and Survey Area is provided as Appendix C. The survey was conducted for wildlife species listed by the FWCC and the USFWS as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern; and for plant species listed by the FDACS and the USFWS as endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited. The FWCC's Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species (2022) was used as a reference to identify the status of listed species. The USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species Database System was referenced online for the updated federal status of listed species. In addition, the property was surveyed for the bald eagle and/or their nests since they are protected under Florida Administrative Code 68A-16.002 and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The field survey was conducted by qualified ecologists walking parallel belt transects and meandering pedestrian transects through suitable habitats to ensure that sufficient visual coverage of ground and flora was obtained. Transect spacing varied from 100 to 300 feet depending on habitat type and visibility. Approximate survey transect locations are shown on Appendix C. At regular intervals, the ecologists stopped, remained quiet, and listened for wildlife vocalizations. The survey was conducted during daylight hours with the aid of 8x or 1 Ox power binoculars. Table 1 summarizes weather conditions during the survey. Table 1. Weather Conditions During Survey Survey Date Weather Conditions November 21, 2023 Temperatures in the upper 70s, mostly sunny, and 10 to 15 mph southeast winds. November 22, 2023 Temperatures in the low 80s, mostly sunny, and 10 to 20 mph southwest winds. November 30, 2023 Temperatures in the low 70s, mostly sunny, and 9 to 15 mph eastern winds. December 27, 2023 Temperatures in the mid-60s, mostly cloudy skies, and 3 to 8 mph northwest winds. December 28, 2023 Temperature in the upper 50s, light rain, and 0 to 13 mph southeast winds. May 24, 2024 Temperature in the upper 80s, mostly sunny skies, and 5 to 12 mph winds. May 28, 2024 Temperature in the low 90s, mostly sunny skies, and 0 to 13 mph western winds. May 29, 2024 Temperature in the low 90s, mostly sunny skies, and 0 to 12 mph western winds. May 30, 2024 Temperature in the upper 80s, mostly sunny skies, and 3 to 10 mph eastern winds. 2 Table 1. (Continued) Survey Date Weather Conditions June 4, 2024 Temperature in the upper 80s, mostly sunny skies, and 7 to 13 mph eastern winds. June 5, 2024 Temperature in the low 90s, mostly sunny skies, and 0 to 8 mph eastern winds. June 6, 2024 Temperature in the low 90s, mostly sunny skies, and 0 to 5 mph southwest winds. June 12, 2024 Temperature in the upper 70s, heavy rain, and 5 to 20 mph western winds. 3.0 LISTED SPECIES SURVEY RESULTS 3.1 Literature and Database Review Results The closest documented bald eagle nest (CO-030) is located approximately 2.4 miles south of the Project (Appendix D). According to the Audubon database, the current status of this nest is "unknown" for the 2024 nesting season. The closest known active nest is Nest LE- 142, which is located approximately 8.2 miles northwest of the Project (Appendix D). The distance to both nests is well beyond the FWCC's and the USFWS's recommended 660- foot-buffer protection zone for active and alternate bald eagle nests (USFWS 2007). The bald eagle nest database is current through the end of the 2023 through 2024 nesting season. The bald eagle is not a listed species, but is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The FWCC database for Florida black bear locations does not report any documented occurrences on the Project. The closest radiotelemetry location was recorded approximately 3.3 miles southwest of the Project (Appendix D). Although no longer a listed species, the Florida black bear remains subject to the FWCC's Management Plan. The USFWS database for crested caracara locations does not report any documented occurrences on the Project site but does include an occurrence adjacent to the Project property (Appendix D). The nearest crested caracara location was recorded approximately 0.15 mile east of the Project. The crested caracara is listed as threatened by the USFWS and the FWCC. The FWCC database for Florida panther locations contains multiple radiotelemetry occurrences on and adjacent to the Project (Appendix D). The Florida panther is a federally endangered species. There were no documented occurrences of the red -cockaded woodpecker, according to the FWCC database (Appendix D). The Project contains scattered occurrences of suitable mature pines (Pinus spp.) that may be utilized by red -cockaded woodpeckers. No red - cockaded woodpeckers were found on the Project during the field survey. The red - cockaded woodpecker is listed as threatened by the USFWS and the FWCC. The USFWS database for Florida scrub jay indicates that the nearest Florida scrub jay location is approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the Project (Appendix D). The Project site does not contain scrub habitat. The Florida scrub jay is listed as threatened by the FWCC and the USFWS. The Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991) was referenced for the location of breeding colonies for both listed and non -listed wading birds, including, but not limited the snowy egret (Egretta thula), roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), wood stork, and tri-colored heron (Egretta tricolor). There was no reference to breeding colonies located on the Project. The closest documented wading bird rookery is located approximately one mile east of the Project (Appendix D). There are five plant species listed on the "Less Rare Plant" list per Collier County's Land Development Code (LDC) Section 3.04.03 (Requirements for Protected Plants) that could occur within the Survey Area. They include butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis), giant wild pine airplant (Tillandsia utriculata), inflated wild pine airplant (T. balbisiana), cardinal airplant (T. fasciculata var. fasciculata), and twisted airplant (T. flexuosa). There are also five plant species listed on the "Rare Plant" list per Collier County's LDC Section 3.04.03 (Requirements for Protected Plants) that could occur within the Survey Area. They include cowhorn orchid (Cyrtopodium punctatum), Curtiss' milkweed (Asclepias curtissii), Florida clamshell orchid (Encyclia cochleata), ghost orchid (Polyrrhiza lindenii), and West Coast prickly -apple (Harrisia gracilis var. aboriginum). Table 2. Documented Listed Wildlife Species (Literature Review) Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status USFWS FWCC Mammals Florida panther Puma concolor coryi FE FE FWCC - Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission USFWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FE - Federally Endangered 3.2 Listed Species Field Survey Results Seven listed wildlife species and/or their signs (i.e., tracks, scat) were documented on the Project during the field survey (Table 1). In addition, a wading bird rookery was documented on the Project during the field survey. Nests within the rookery are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. The approximate locations of these species are depicted on an aerial provided as Appendix E. M Table 3. Documented Listed Wildlife Species (Listed Species Survey) Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status USFWS FWCC Reptiles American alligator Alligator mississi iensis FT S/A FT S/A Birds Cattle egret nest Bubulcus ibis Crested caracara Caracara cheriway FT FT Glossy ibis nest Ple adis alcinellus Great egret nest Casmerodius albus Little blue heron E retta caerulea -- ST Roseate s oonbill Platalea a'a'a -- ST Snowy egret nest E retta thula Tri-colored heron E retta tricolor ST Wood stork M cteria americana FT FT Mammals Florida panther Puma concolor coryi FE FE FWCC - Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission USFWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FE - Federally Endangered FT(S/A) - Federally Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance ST - State Threatened *Protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 One listed plant species, cardinal airplant, was identified on the Project site during the field survey (Table 2). This species occurred within Mixed Wetland Hardwoods, Disturbed (50- 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6309 E3). The approximate location of this species is depicted on an aerial provided as Appendix E. The cardinal airplant is listed as state endangered by the FDACS. 4.0 SPECIES -SPECIFIC SURVEYS In addition to the listed species survey, species -specific surveys were also conducted between December 2023 and November 2024. The results of these species -specific surveys are summarized below. 4.1 Red -Cockaded Woodpecker Surveys Even though the Project has limited habitat for RCWs, non -nesting season foraging surveys were conducted in December 2023 for the Project, due to the property being located within the known geographical range of RCWs. No RCWs were heard or observed, and no RCW cavities were documented during the survey. 4.2 Southeastern American Kestrel Survey A survey was conducted within potential Southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) habitat within the Project in May 2024. No Southeastern American kestrels were observed within the Project during the survey or other on -site fieldwork. 4.3 Crested Caracara Survey A nesting territory survey for the crested caracara was conducted in January through April 2024 for the Project. Six transects were surveyed every other week for 17 weeks in 2024. The survey began approximately 15 minutes before sunrise and ended after approximately three hours. Crested caracaras were observed on the Project during the nesting season survey period. Crested caracara observations during the survey included flights, foraging, courtship, nesting material, collection behavior, and prey delivery. Nesting was documented in the portion of the Project near Corkscrew Road and SR 82. Approximate locations of crested caracara observations and the caracara nest from the crested caracara nesting territory survey is included in Appendix E. 4.4 Florida Bonneted Bat Survey An acoustic survey for the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) was conducted by PAI from September through November 2024 for the Project using SM4BAT FS recorders. Analysis of the acoustic recordings is currently ongoing. An initial data review has indicated that Florida bonneted bat calls have been recorded on the Project. The approximate locations of listed wildlife species observed during the species -specific surveys are shown on an aerial photograph provided as Appendix E. 5.0 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS During the listed species and species -specific surveys conducted for the Project, eight listed wildlife species and one listed plant species have been documented on the Project. In addition, a wading bird rookery was documented on the Project during the field survey. Nests within the rookery are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Table 4. Documented Listed Species (All Surveys) Common Name -T Scientific Name Listing Status USFWS FWCC/FDACS Reptiles American alligator Alligator mississi iensis FT S/A FT S/A C. Table 4. (Continued) Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status USFWS FWCC/FDACS Birds Cattle egret nest Bubulcus ibis Crested caracara Caracara cheri;ay FT FT Glossy ibis nest Ple adis falcinellus Great egret nest Casmerodius albus Little blue heron E retta caerulea -- ST Roseate spoonbill Platalea a'a'a -- ST Snowy egret nest Ejzretta thula Tri-colored heron E retta tricolor ST Wood stork M cteria americana FT FT Mammals Florida bonneted bat Eumo s oridanus FE FE Florida panther Puma concolor coryi FE FE Plants Cardinal airplant Tillandsia fasciculata -- SE FDACS - Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FWCC - Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission USFWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service CE - Commercially Exploited FE - Federally Endangered FT - Federally Threatened FT(SIA) - Federally Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance ST - State Threatened SE - State Endangered *Protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 5.1 American Alligator American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) signs (i.e., tracks) were documented on the Project in ditches (FLUCFCS Code 514) and reservoirs (FLUCFCS Code 530) associated with the Citrus Groves (FLUCFCS Code 221). No nests for this species were documented. 5.2 Crested Caracara Crested caracara were on the Project during the field survey and one nest was documented within the Project. This nest is located along the eastern side of Corkscrew Road, approximately 900 feet south of SR 82. Crested caracara were observed foraging throughout the Project. The crested caracara is a federally threatened species. 7 5.3 Little Blue Heron Little blue heron were observed on the Project during the field survey. These occurrences were primarily in association with ditches (FLUCFCS Code 514) and reservoirs (FLUCFCS Code 530). No nests for this species were documented. The little blue heron is a state -designated threatened species. 5.4 Roseate Spoonbill Roseate spoonbills were observed on the Project during the field survey in ditches (FLUCFCS Code 514) and reservoirs (FLUCFCS Code 530) associated with the Citrus Groves (FLUCFCS Code 221). No nests for this species were documented. The roseate spoonbill is a state -designated threatened species. 5.5 Tri-Colored Heron Tri-colored herons were observed on the Project during the field survey. These occurrences were in ditches (FLUCFCS Code 514) and reservoirs (FLUCFCS Code 530) associated with the Citrus Groves (FLUCFCS Code 221). No nests for this species were documented. The tri-colored heron is a state -designated threatened species. 5.6 Wood Stork Wood storks were observed on the Project during the field survey. These occurrences were in ditches (FLUCFCS Code 514) and reservoirs (FLUCFCS Code 530) associated with the Citrus Groves (FLUCFCS Code 221). No nests for this species were documented. The wood stork is a federally threatened species. 5.7 Wading Bird Rookery A wading bird rookery was documented in a reservoir centrally located in the western section of the Project. The rookery included one cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) nest, one glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus) nest, seven great egret (Casmerodius albus) nests, and one snowy egret nest. These nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. 5.8 Florida Bonneted Bat Preliminary analysis of the Florida bonneted bat acoustic survey data has indicated that Florida bonneted bat calls have been recorded on the Project. 5.9 Florida Panther Florida panther sign (scat) was observed on the Project during the field survey. This observation was made along a berm within the Citrus Grove (FLUCFCS Code 221) in the central portion of the Project, near SR 82. The Florida panther is a federally endangered species. 5.10 Listed Plant Species One listed plant species, cardinal airplant was documented on the Project during this listed species survey. This species occurred within Mixed Wetland Hardwoods, Disturbed (50- 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6309 E3). 6.0 SUMMARY A literature and database review for documented occurrences of species listed by the FWCC and USFWS was conducted for the Project. The FWCC database for the Florida panther contains multiple radio telemetry points on and adjacent to the Project. A listed species survey was conducted for the Project in November and December 2023 and May and June 2024. The survey was conducted for wildlife species listed by the FWCC and the USFWS and for plant species listed by the FDACS and the USFWS. In addition to the listed species survey, species -specific surveys were conducted for the Project between December 2023 and November 2024, including surveys for RCW, Southeastern American kestrel, crested caracara, and Florida bonneted bat. In total, eight listed wildlife species, a wading bird rookery, and one listed plant species were documented during the surveys conducted on the Project. Listed species documented include American alligator, crested caracara, little blue heron, roseate spoonbill, tri-colored heron, wood stork, Florida bonneted bat, Florida panther, and cardinal airplant. Species represented in the documented wading bird rookery include cattle egret, glossy ibis, great egret, and snowy egret. Nests for these species are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. 7.0 REFERENCES Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2022. Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species (Updated December 2022). Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure No. 550-010-001-a. Third Edition. Kautz, R., R. Kawula, T. Hoctor, J. Comiskey, D. Jansen, D. Jennings, J. Kasbohm, F. Mazzotti, R. McBride, L. Richardson, K. Root. 2006. How much is enough? Landscape -Scale Conservation for the Florida Panther. Biological Conservation, Volume 130, Issue 1, Pages 118-133. Logan, Todd, Andrew C. Eller, Jr., Ross Morrell, Donna Ruffner, and Jim Sewell. 1993. Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan: South Florida Population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Gainesville, Florida. L Runde, D.E., J.A. Gore, J.A. Hovis, M.S. Robson, and P.D. Southall. 1991. Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies, Update 1986-1989. Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 10. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region. 10 APPENDIX A PROJECT LOCATION MAP �;�. L�'i-�'•, itr GPI RD ' 'CH RCH RD ,q � � �• �dq � my +BENTLY S�yTE dfjz'yml�tVATjT LN r ml:' .�L� COLYER S ETw'�� w r c t� h wa :r✓ PI - � �1� 3 a i`�{ y f � � � $F�" Do .�, .,Tin •!_„,'jT I�I spX J AGUARLV'w [�v'I�r`� a-�t,u'- - zr r v�.� I .�.Ix� �+= Z' � .Y.--• 1 .__' - - _ '�•� `TAMES ST,E, M1 o � KNAP�P�ST' O-Eiilmr�l- 'v DDjS :i'T Q ~ Ni�?Z BLVD Z Z�iiq,r� .IS^ !i' `. ' e � .• _ J I yy5 t a �5 ailN•i � `'M�'�`� *�K rto.7 U'� �� y 1 1� ' _ i w F �t a - T .._1y� � !� MEgUo 1.'.. .� a I 1.,.,.�3" 1 fit' ~ 1' "� yf HERITgG , r r w'ROcQ 1aDAM ENS T-E' .� ?FQ-D _ _ _ _`.""� PROJECT LOCATIOSEC - r^Tj 5:' DRIL 1 / � a i'"•. , �: ; o CGRgV _ a G r, 5 � . i 3I - _ /-.�'I1_ LBERMAR STR ��. -.._. _ H E D it s t'L".1 ...r �„s..� • 5i ' _7 w a - fF'';1`�... _ j CALFcsYN�,L`'N'�'K' f '' }� ��Ir •, t_LI G,Oc L L L E,F2 , - P ��,--�+,:�T NAS LN •' r . -/��rqq► PIP F R pA0`,•8 F� :.`II.�"I �"tom/ 7�t. -` r,• i _ .f," `t,{ o'rSG�'� r = r swz {KATYDI-44 D LN,r4 L UT S i t 41 � .�R 1 - �. �. '� 777...777 A V _ +gam" K �� ',�• _.�' -N1 •� i�' _. y H I Q... ,• -.� yy, O RD,OAKS RD.. '-PEPP gki O., {,.�'..'. r r p r SLAKE TRAFFORO,RDgo IMMOKALE DR APPENDIX A. PROJECT LOCATION MAP - - ♦ 1 It 1 APPENDIX B AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAP •� 7 4 514 514 tl ,� -e SR-� .I . 51,4 514 514 IA - (6259E3 �,832. 51 5� F•' 14 �. i�'. I ! r t a 51d � DID �1�9i14a I� 'fk115 0 6249E4 ;42 d; rdµ[tnt f -64 9E1 4349E 422 +�• A0 6 t - 6259E4 LEGEND EAST VILLAGE SRA APPENDIX B. AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS MAP EAST VILLAGE SRA N N' E S 0 1,000 2,000 Feet DRAWN BY DATE W.C. 12/5/24 H.S. 12/5/24 PROJECT LOCATION FLUCFC5 CODE DESCRIPTION 110 RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 221 CITRUSGROVE 3209E2 SHRUB AND BRUSHLAND, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS) 3209E4 SHRUB AND BRUSHIAND, DISTURBED (7610D% EXOTICS) 4119E1 PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS) 4119E4 PI NE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED(76-10096 EXOTICSI 4159E2 PINE, DIITURBED(25-49%EXOTICS) 41S9E3 PINE, DISTURBED ISO.7S%EXOTICS) 422 BRAZILAN PEPPER 4221 BRAZIUAN PEPPER, HYDRIC 4289E2 CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED 12649% EXOTICSI 4289E4 CABBAGE PALM, 01 TURBE D176100% EXOTICSI 4299E4 WAX MYRTLE, DISTURBED (766100% EXO7ICS) 4349E3 HARDWOOD/CONIF ER MIXED, DISTURBED(0�24%EXOTICS) 4349E2 HARDWOOD/CONIFER MIXED, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS) 4349E4 HARDWOOD/CONIFER MIXED, DISTURBED(76100% EXOTICS) 514 DITCH 514H DITCH, HYDRIC 530 RESERVOIR 5189E1 WILLOW, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS) 6189E3 WILLOW, DISTUR8ED(50.75%EXOTICS) 6189E4 WILLOW, DISTURBED (76-100% EXOTICS) 6249E4 CYPRESS/PINE/CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED(76100% EXOTICS) 6259E2 HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED(25-49%EXOTICS) 6259E3 HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED(50�75%EXOTICS) 6259E4 HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBE D (7r IW%EX07ICS) 6309E3 WETLAND FORESTED MIXED, DISTURBED (5D-75%EXOTICS) 6319E2 WETLAND SHRUB, DISTURBED 125-49%EXOTICS) 6319E3 WETLAND SHRUB, DISTURBED 150-75%EXOTICS) 6319E4 WETUIND SHRUB, DISTURBED(76100% EXOTICS) 6419E1 FRESHWATER MARSH, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS) 6419E2 FRESHWATER MARSH, DISTUR:ED(2549% EXOTICS) .19E4 FRESHWATER MAflSH, DISTURBED (76100% EXOTICS) 740 DISTURBED LAND 7401 DISTURBED LAND, HYDRIC 742 BORROWAREA 743 SPOIL AREA 747 BERM 814 ROAD 832 ELECTRICAL POWER TRANSMISSION LINES NOTES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2023 PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER JR EVANS ENGINEERING DRAWING No. CORKSCREW GROVES EAST VILLAGE BNDY (20 24-11.25). DWG N OV EM BE R 25. 2024. PASSARELLA & ssoc`.IATCS APPENDIX C AERIAL WITH SURVEY TRANSECTS APPENDIX D DOCUMENTED OCCURRENCES OF LISTED SPECIES i cn sl ,'r9 jr • • •�• • •• • ' • A G BELL BLVD % •, ;•y •� ,�• • �• •• • • ► ». n Yti • • m • . .•. 1 LEE •• — HENDRY • .•. ' •�'•• • '• �• Je , r•. •• er H ► • • • • •••. t %• �' • • I • tI • • N • '•j i • • • oe olm ex m mI m � OOr ( ' o i o �� r • is • D �a� 1 O 0 A Q� 1 AO D T f .T D T N .'p 0 y D T v O Z� D y D D � O C fl .11 D T m .T z r O T m Z Z E D Z. m mot p �3z O D 3m v 0 Z �� 3y O O M occH m 0 D �3t� O, y �3r m � • ► C-1 Ll y ZCym E24'Ttyil Sy Zym N O zmm mD N<mA ^lov U. Dmm f to T m m m Z T A y `c 0 C� Nr O ON TT r o•�r N T D A� A O TT% yf <Dy C D C Ov C o m m N D O r 0 tail y y n00 T yn a^m 23 D r 000'1 N r Nmo r O L D m m a r r .0 2 m Oy O Z0y v Z v= D m D 2-a1 o NZ1 3 % I i m A 1 T O D D r r D m Cm D N NTH mN p of0'lN D Z N N �� O ti D Z T m c N 0 m C y C T D O r N I 0 D T f1 t09 N m Z tnF CD MM pyy mm mm I D _1 .Tl � D y D Nm o ym ,�,a mmtai z o m02 Z Zm 71m Dm -t ii'I O Z O r n O z O r D NO y.ZIC ~ n Sta'1 Z O 0 i C om m CC N c O ap v.T N0 Z -ad Z o O z m v '^ v m A vm v A m o Z • II APPENDIX E AERIAL WITH BOUNDARY AND LISTED SPECIES LOCATIONS f(7 a § `\\||■. , )K|§)§§§/$§ >IT � |I§§ CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) HUMAN -WILDLIFE COEXISTENCE PLAN CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA LISTED SPECIES MANAGEMENT AND HUMAN -WILDLIFE COEXISTENCE PLAN Revised June 2025 Prepared For: Alico Land Development Company 10070 Daniels Interstate Court, No. 200 Fort Myers, Florida 33913 (239) 226-2000 Prepared By: Passarella & Associates, Inc. 13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 (239) 274-0067 Project No. 23AII4051 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................1 2.0 Listed Species....................................................................................................................1 3.0 Stewardship Sending Areas...............................................................................................2 4.0 Perimeter Lake Buffer and Fencing...................................................................................4 5.0 Structural and Upland Buffers...........................................................................................4 6.0 Prescribed Burning.............................................................................................................4 7.0 Preserve Signage................................................................................................................5 8.0 Pre -Construction Surveys..................................................................................................5 9.0 American Alligator Management Plan..............................................................................6 9.1 Biology.......................................................................................... 9.2 Habitat Management..................................................................... 10.0 Eastern Indigo Snake Management Plan .................................................. 10.1 Biology ..................... 10.2 Habitat Management 7 7 11.0 Gopher Tortoise Management Plan...................................................................................7 11.1 Biology...................................................................................................................7 11.2 Habitat Management..............................................................................................8 12.0 Crested Caracara Management Plan..................................................................................8 12.1 Biology...................................................................................................................9 12.2 Pre -Construction Surveys......................................................................................9 12.3 Crested Caracara Nest and Habitat Management..................................................9 13.0 Wood Stork and Wading Bird Management Plan.............................................................10 13.1 Pre -Construction Surveys.....................................................................................10 13.2 Habitat Management.............................................................................................I I d Table of Contents (Continued) Page 14.0 Florida Bonneted Bat Management Plan..........................................................................11 14.1 Biology..................................................................................................................11 14.2 Pre -Construction Surveys.....................................................................................12 14.3 Habitat Management.............................................................................................12 15.0 Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Management Plan....................................................................13 15.1 Biology..................................................................................................................13 15.2 Pre -Construction Surveys.....................................................................................13 15.3 Habitat Management.............................................................................................13 16.0 Florida Black Bear Management Plan..............................................................................14 16.1 Biology ................................... 16.2 Habitat Management .............. ................................................14 ................................................14 17.0 Florida Panther Management Plan....................................................................................15 17.1 Biology..................................................................................................................15 17.2 Habitat Management.............................................................................................15 18.0 Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan...................................................................................16 18.1 American Alligator Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan.......................................16 18.2 Eastern Indigo Snake Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan....................................16 18.3 Crested Caracara Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan...........................................16 18.4 Wading Bird Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan..................................................17 18.5 Florida Bonneted Bat Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan....................................17 18.6 Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan..............................17 18.7 Florida Black Bear Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan........................................17 18.8 Florida Panther Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan..............................................18 19.0 References.........................................................................................................................18 Ill LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Summary of Listed Wildlife Species.....................................................................1 r"i LIST OF APPENDICES Page Appendix A. Project Location Map.......................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B. Aerial with Proposed Wildlife Crossings, Lake Buffers, and Fencing................B-1 Appendix C. Prescribed Burning Information..........................................................................C-1 Appendix D. American Alligator Management and Preserve Signage.................................... D-1 Appendix E. FWCC List of Bear -Resistant Garbage Containers .............................................E-1 Appendix F. American Alligator Informational Pamphlet.......................................................F-1 Appendix G. Eastern Indigo Snake Informational Pamphlet ................................................... G-1 Appendix H. Wading Bird Informational Pamphlet................................................................. H-1 Appendix I. Florida Black Bear Informational Pamphlet........................................................ I-1 Appendix J. Florida Panther Informational Pamphlet.............................................................. J-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents the Listed Species Management and Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan for the Corkscrew Grove East Village (Project) Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA). The management plan contained in this report pertains to the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), crested caracara (Caracara cheriway), listed wading birds, Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus), Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) (BCFS), Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), and Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). The SRA site totals 1,446.6± acres and is located in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10; Township 46 South; Range 28 East; Collier County (Appendix A). More specifically, the Project is located at the intersection between State Road (SR) 82 and Corkscrew Road (County Road 850). 2.0 LISTED SPECIES A listed species survey was conducted by Passarella & Associates, Inc. (PAI) for the Project in November and December 2023 and May and June 2024. The survey was conducted for wildlife species listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern and for plant species listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) and the USFWS as endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited. A description of the methodology and the results of the listed species surveys are included in the Listed Species Survey Report, provided under separate cover. In addition to the listed species survey, species -specific surveys were conducted on the Project site. The species -specific surveys and their corresponding survey periods are as follows: red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) — December 2023; crested caracara — January through April 2024; Southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) — May 2024; and Florida bonneted bat — September through November 2024. Summaries of these species -specific surveys are included in the Listed Species Survey Report, provided under separate cover. Table 1 summarizes the listed wildlife species documented during the listed species survey or other fieldwork conducted on the Project site. Table 1. Summary of Listed Wildlife Species Common Name _T Scientific Name Listing Status USFWS FWCC Reptiles American alligator Alligator mississi iensis FT S/A FT S/A Birds Cattle egret nest Bubulcus ibis Crested caracara Caracara cheriway FT FT Glossy ibis nest Ple adis alcinellus Table 1. (Continued) Common Name Scientific Name Listin Status USFWS FWCC Birds Continued Great egret nest Casmerodius albus Little blue heron E retta caerulea - ST Roseate spoonbill Platalea a'a'a - ST Snowy egret nest E retta thula Tri-colored heron E retta tricolor ST - Wood stork M cteria americana FT FT Mammals Florida bonneted bat Eumo s oridanus FE FE Florida panther Puma concolor coryi FE FE FWCC — Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission USFWS — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FE — Federally Endangered FT — Federally Threatened FT(S/A) — Federally Threatened due to similarity of appearance ST — State -Threatened *Protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 3.0 STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREAS The Project has been planned under Collier County's (County's) Innovative Rural Planning Strategy, created for 195,000± acres of land located in the eastern portion of the County known as the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA). Under the RLSA Overlay, one obtains Stewardship Credits from Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs), which are areas designated for the protection of natural resources and agriculture, and applies those Stewardship Credits to entitle development in SRAs, where new communities are permitted and natural resource values are low. In developing the RLSA program, the County delineated private lands within the RLSA District as: a) Flow -Way Stewardship Areas (FSAs); b) Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs); c) Water Retention Areas (WRAs); d) Open Lands; or e) Restoration Zone Lands (Sections 4.08.05.0 and 4.08.05.D, Collier County Land Development Code (LDC)). FSAs are primarily wetlands located within the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough, establishing the primary wetland flow -way systems in the RLSA. See Section 4.08.01.I, LDC. HSAs include lands whose natural characteristics make them habitats that are potentially suitable for listed species and also contain areas without such characteristics. HSAs may include the areas 2 that are contiguous to the listed species habitat and form a continuum of landscape that could improve listed species habitat values. See Section 4.08.0l.K, LDC. WRAs consist of areas permitted by the South Florida Water Management District to operate as agricultural WRAs, which provide surface water quality and other natural values. See Section 4.08.01.WW, LDC. Open Lands are lands within the RLSA District that are not designated as FSAs, HSAs, or WRAs and are available for conversion to development as an SRA. Restoration Zone Lands are the privately owned lands in the RLSA District located within 500 feet of an FSA but not otherwise included in an HSA or a WRA. See Section 4.08.01.CC, LDC. Under the RLSA program, SRAs can only be established on privately owned lands that meet specific suitability criteria and cannot occur on lands that are designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, or lands previously designated as SSAs. See Section 4.08.07, LDC. In order to establish one of these communities, a landowner must have land designated as an SRA and have reserved an adequate number of Stewardship Credits from established SSAs within the RLSA. The applicant will be utilizing credits from one SSA that has already been approved by the County's Board of County Commissioners (i.e., SSA 11) and from two that are under review (i.e., SSA 22 and SSA 23). The applicant is proposing that SSAs 22 and 23 be approved at the same time or prior to the approval of the Project to generate SSA credits for the Project. SSA 11 totals 3,699.Of acres and is located immediately south of the Collier and Hendry County line, approximately three miles east of SR 29 and adjacent to Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest. SSA 11 was approved by the County in June 2008 (Resolution No. 2008-162) and includes 1,337.6f acres of caracara habitat restoration. These restoration activities will enhance habitat for listed species, including, but not limited to, crested caracara, Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pratensis), Southeastern American kestrel, and Florida panther. SSA 22 totals 1,295.4f acres and abuts the Project's eastern boundary. SSA 22 includes 1,295.4± acres of panther corridor restoration to be conducted by enhancing existing native habitats and restoring native habitats from existing citrus groves. SSA 23 totals 388.9f acres and is composed of WRAs within and adjacent to the Project. SSA 23 also proposes 384.6± acres of restoration, including wading bird habitat restoration and native habitat restoration through exotic removal. Restoration activities within SSA 22 and 23 will enhance habitat for listed species, including, but not limited to, the American alligator, Eastern indigo snake, bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), crested caracara, state -listed wading birds, and wood stork (Mycteria americana). Restoration activities will be conducted per Restoration Plans to be approved for each SSA by the County. Both SSAs 22 and 23 will be placed under a stewardship easement granted to the County and the FDACS. SSAs 22 and 23 also include conservation lands to be used for compensatory mitigation for state and federal permits associated with the Project. These conservation areas will be maintained and managed in accordance with the Wetland Mitigation/Monitoring/Maintenance Plans that will be associated with these permits. An aerial showing the locations of SSAs 22 and 23 relative to the Project is provided as Appendix B. 3 As part of the applicant's outreach program, pre -application meetings were held with FWCC and USFWS staff to discuss the management and conservation of listed species habitat within the County RLSA, including the Project site. With input from FWCC and USFWS staff, the applicant has included design standards to minimize impacts to existing native habitats and the potential for large mammal (i.e., Florida panther and Florida black bear) interactions with humans. The applicant has implemented these design standards on the Project site. To minimize impacts to the native habitats on -site and in accordance with the County Stewardship Overlay Designation, the Project is located within areas that are designated as "Open" and primarily within existing citrus groves. SSA 22 proposes to preserve and restore native habitat to establish a portion of the northern wildlife corridor identified on the County's RLSA Overlay Map. The preservation and restoration within SSA 22 will enhance large -mammal movement in the region. The design also includes a lake buffer between the development areas and the edges of SSA 22 to deter large mammals from accessing the development areas and internal preserves. 4.0 PERIMETER LAKE BUFFER AND FENCING The Project site design includes a perimeter lake buffer between the development areas and native habitats. The goal of this lake buffer is to limit the potential for large -mammal access to development areas and internal preserves. The lake buffer has been designed with a width of 150f feet. Per discussions with USFWS and FWCC staff, the 150-foot width is needed to deter large mammals from crossing into the development areas. The locations of the proposed lake buffers are depicted on Appendix B. Breaks in the lake buffers have been designed as part of the surface water management plans for the Project in order to eliminate the potential for hydrological impacts to adjacent wetlands. These breaks will consist of earthen berms. At the breaks between the lakes and where construction of this lake buffer is not feasible, wildlife fencing that consists of a 10-foot chain -link fence will be used to deter access by large mammals. The proposed fence location is shown on Appendix B. 5.0 STRUCTURAL AND UPLAND BUFFERS Where native uplands exist, a minimum 15-foot upland buffer will be provided for the Project's conservation areas. A structural buffer (i.e., berm, fence) adjacent to conservation areas will be utilized where native uplands do not exist. 6.0 PRESCRIBED BURNING Prescribed burning may be used as a management tool to maintain the native vegetation communities within the SSAs and is currently used as a management tool on existing conservation lands located south of the Project. Prescribed burns help maintain vegetative communities in their natural state, reduce fuel loads and the danger of wildfire, aid with the eradication and control of exotic and nuisance vegetation species, and improve wildlife habitat. The objectives of prescribed burning in the conservation areas will be to aid in the control of exotic vegetation and woody 4 shrubs (e.g., wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) and saltbush (Baccharis halimifolia)) and to stimulate the growth and diversity of herbaceous vegetation. If prescribed burning is conducted, burning frequency for the SSAs will be two to four years, which is consistent with the natural fire regime for mesic flatwoods, wet flatwoods, and wet prairies described by Florida Natural Areas Inventory in the Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida (2010). The edges of the freshwater marshes and cypress forests will be burned when the fire moves through the adjacent pine and prairie habitats. The fire will be allowed to extinguish naturally within the wetter cypress and marsh habitats. Prescribed burning is typically conducted during the winter or early spring, when temperatures are reduced and wind direction is more constant. An initial burn would likely be conducted during the late winter. Winter burns are preferred to reduce high fuel loads. Following the initial burn, the season of the year of prescribed burn will vary from late -winter burns to early -wet -season burns in order to increase biodiversity within the site. Changes in annual weather cycles determine when burn permits will be available, and burns may be conducted only on the day(s) permitted by the Florida Forest Service. Required permits from the appropriate regulatory authorities will be obtained prior to implementing prescribed burns. Additionally, an effort will be made to coordinate prescribed burn activities with Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed. Prior to the prescribed burn, the burn prescription will be forwarded to County staff. Community residents will be made aware of the use of prescribed fire in the vicinity of the Project and provided with educational materials about the importance of prescribed burns for minimizing wildfire hazards and maintaining healthy fire - adapted ecological communities. Appendix C provides further information regarding prescribed burning. 7.0 PRESERVE SIGNAGE Signage shall be placed around the SSAs and internal preserve areas to identify and protect the preserves during and after construction. Signs identifying the preserve as a "nature preserve area" will be installed along the boundary of the preserve. The signage should include language stating "no dumping allowed." A typical preserve sign is shown in Appendix D. 8.0 PRE -CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS Prior to the commencement of clearing activities, species -specific surveys will be conducted for gopher tortoise, crested caracara, listed wading birds, BCFS, and Florida bonneted bat. The species -specific surveys will be conducted according to USFWS and FWCC guidelines for the particular species at the time of surveying. Further details of the survey methodologies are provided in the sections below. 5 9.0 AMERICAN ALLIGATOR MANAGEMENT PLAN The following habitat management plan outlines the protection guidelines that will be implemented for the American alligator during and after construction of the Project. 9.1 Biology The American alligator is a reptile with an elongated, armored, lizard -like body with a muscular, flat tail. Adult alligators are dark with a pale underside, while juveniles have bright yellow stripes and blotches. The average size for adults is 8.2 feet for females and 11.2 feet for males. The body weight can reach up to one-half ton. American alligators inhabit all counties in the state of Florida and are most common in the major river drainage basins and large lakes in the central and southern portions of the state. They can also be found in marshes, swamps, ponds, drainage canals, phosphate -mine settling ponds, and ditches. Alligators are tolerant of poor water quality and occasionally inhabit brackish marshes along the coast. A few even venture into salt water (Nifong et al. 2015). Individuals are wide-ranging, and some males may utilize an area of two square miles or more. Individuals of both sexes are most likely to become more active and extend their ranges during the April to May courtship and breeding season. Prey may include frogs, snakes, birds, and small mammals, although alligators are opportunistic feeders and may prey on what is readily available (Saalfeld et al. 2011). Larger individuals often prefer carrion to fresh meat. 9.2 Habitat Management Signs will be posted to instruct on -site workers and residents not to feed or harass the American alligator. The signs will indicate that the offense is punishable by law. A typical sign is shown in Appendix D. Construction personnel and residents will be instructed that in the event there is a problem with a persistent nuisance alligator, they will need to contact the FWCC, as that is the only agency empowered to handle nuisance alligators. American alligator habitat will be provided within SSAs 11, 22, and 23. Wetlands and WRAs within these SSAs contain habitats that will serve as potential foraging and nesting habitat for American alligators. In addition, restoration activities in SSAs 22 and 23 will result in wetland preserves that are more suitable as habitat for American alligators and provide suitable habitat for American alligator prey species. 10.0 EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN The following habitat management plan outlines the protection guidelines that will be implemented for the Eastern indigo snake during clearing operations for the Project. The plan provides educational material and guidelines for construction personnel to follow in the event they encounter an Eastern indigo snake. The plan has been prepared following the guidelines established by the USFWS for the protection of the Eastern indigo snake. rol 10.1 Biology The Eastern indigo snake is a large, non -venomous, glossy black snake with smooth, iridescent scales. The chin and throat may be rusty or white -blotched. The juvenile snakes are similar to the adults but may be lighter and exhibit a blotched dorsal pattern. Adults can grow to lengths over eight feet. The Eastern indigo snake might be confused with the black racer (Coluber constrictor), but the black racer exhibits a white or brown throat and is smaller and lighter in build (USFWS 2013). The Eastern indigo snake inhabits a range of habitat types, including pine flatwoods and wet prairies. Individuals are wide-ranging and may utilize an area of 250f acres. Eastern indigo snakes are known to shelter in gopher tortoise burrows (Hyslop et al. 2012). The Eastern indigo snake is diurnal (i.e., active only during the daytime) and will actively search for prey. Prey may include frogs, snakes, birds, and small mammals (Stevenson et al. 2010). Very little is known of the reproduction of this species in the wild. Breeding is believed to occur during the winter and early spring months, with up to 11 large white eggs being deposited in late spring and early summer (Hyslop et al. 2012). 10.2 Habitat Management The USFWS's Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake (2021) will be followed prior to and during construction activities. The Standard Protection Measures include the placement of posters at strategic locations on the construction site and along proposed access roads, clearly visible to construction staff. The posters include a description and photograph of the Eastern indigo snake, its protection status, and instructions in the event that one is observed. In addition, informational brochures will be provided to all construction staff. SSA 22 contains 1,295.4f acres of panther corridor restoration, which will contain habitats that will provide foraging and nesting opportunities for Eastern indigo snake. 11.0 GOPHER TORTOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN Gopher tortoise burrows have been documented on lands adjacent to the Project that are owned by the applicant. The following plan outlines the management activities that will be implemented for the gopher tortoise prior to site clearing. The gopher tortoise is listed as threatened by the FWCC. 11.1 Biology The gopher tortoise is a large, terrestrial turtle averaging 23 to 28 centimeters (9 to 11 inches) in shell length. The maximum length is around 38 centimeters (15 inches). The gopher tortoise is characterized by stumpy, elephantine hind feet and flattened, shovel -like forelimbs adapted for digging. The tan, brown, or gray carapace (top portion of the shell) is domed and oblong. The plastron (bottom portion of the shell) is somewhat concave in 7 males. Growth annuli may be conspicuous, particularly in juveniles. Hatchlings are approximately 4.4 centimeters (1.7 inches) in length and are yellowish orange in color. The gopher tortoise occurs in the southeastern Coastal Plain of the United States, from eastern Louisiana to southeastern South Carolina and throughout Florida. In Florida, gopher tortoises occur in portions of all 67 counties. Gopher tortoises inhabit a wide variety of upland vegetative communities. Three environmental conditions are important for gopher tortoises: well -drained, sandy soil to burrow in; adequate, low -growing herbaceous ground cover for food; and relatively open, sunlit areas for nesting. The gopher tortoise is primarily found in longleaf pine —scrub oak woodlands (sandhills), but is also found in sand pine scrub, coastal strands, live oak hammocks, dry prairies, pine flatwoods, and mixed hardwood -pine communities. Disturbed habitats, such as roadsides, fencerows, clearings, and old fields, often support relatively high tortoise densities. Gopher tortoises excavate burrows averaging 4.5 meters (14.8 feet) in length and 2 meters (6.6 feet) in depth that are wide enough to allow them to turn around at any point. These burrows protect from temperature extremes, desiccation, and predators and serve as refuges for a variety of other animals. The placement and depth of burrows vary with the soil type, geographic location, and groundwater levels. An individual tortoise may use more than one burrow and may excavate new burrows at any time during its life. Gopher tortoise densities and movements are affected by the amount of herbaceous ground cover present. Generally, feeding activity is confined to within 50 meters (164 feet) of the burrow. Principal foods include grasses, legumes, and grass -like plants of the sedge and aster families. Legumes appear to be particularly important in the diet of juveniles. Fruits such as blackberries (Rubus spp.), pawpaws (Asimina spp.), gopher apples (Geobalanus oblongifolius), and saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) berries are also consumed. 11.2 Management Plan Prior to the commencement of clearing activities within the development footprint, a survey will be conducted to identify gopher tortoises or gopher tortoise burrows. If gopher tortoise burrows are located within the development footprint, the applicant will obtain a permit from the FWCC to relocate any gopher tortoises to a protected recipient site before initiating construction activities. The recipient site will be approved by the FWCC and managed in perpetuity, consistent with the FWCC's Gopher Tortoise Management Plan (2012). 12.0 CRESTED CARACARA MANAGEMENT PLAN The following habitat management plan outlines protection guidelines that will be implemented for the crested caracara prior to, during, and after construction for the Project. 12.1 Biology The crested caracara is a large, non -migratory raptor that feeds largely on carrion and is often found with flocks of turkey vultures (Cathartes aura) and black vultures (Coragyps atratus). The population of crested caracara found in peninsular Florida is genetically isolated from other populations of crested caracara subspecies found in the southwestern United States and portions of Central and South America (USFWS 1999). While other subspecies of crested caracara are not listed as threatened or endangered, the crested caracara subspecies found in Florida was listed, in July 1987, as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S. Code 1531 et seq. ). Crested caracaras primarily use open habitats, including native prairies, grasslands, and pastures, with their associated freshwater marshes and small clumps of cabbage palms (Sabal palmetto), live oak hammocks, and cypress (Taxodium spp.). Cabbage palms in open habitats are of high importance for nesting (Rodgers et al. 1996, Morrison 2001). The primary nesting season for the crested caracara is November through April. Egg -laying typically occurs December through February. Clutch size is one to three eggs, and incubation ranges from 28 to 32 days. Caracara young fledge at age seven to eight weeks, most in March and April (Wood 2001). 12.2 Pre -Construction Surveys Prior to the commencement of clearing activities within 1,500 meters (4,920 feet) of an identified nest, a survey will be conducted during the crested caracara nesting season (January through April) to determine if the nest is active or if other crested caracara nests are present. The survey will be conducted in potential nesting and foraging habitat within 1,500 meters of an identified caracara nest, including land adjacent to the Project that is under the applicant's ownership. The crested caracara survey will be conducted according to the methodology described in the USFWS's Crested Caracara Draft Survey Protocol (2016). The locations of crested caracara nests and the movements and activities of caracaras will be documented, if observed. 12.3 Crested Caracara Nest and Habitat Management Prior to conducting any clearing activities within 1,500 meters (4,920 feet) of any previously documented or newly discovered crested caracara nest site, a survey will be conducted during the crested caracara nesting season (January 1 through April 30) to determine if the documented or discovered nest is active and if other crested caracara nests are present. The survey area will include potential nesting and foraging habitat within 4,920 feet (1,500 meters) of the identified caracara nest, including potential habitat located in land adjacent to the Project site that is under the applicant's ownership or neighboring areas where access is allowed. To minimize the potential for disturbance to nesting crested caracaras, land -clearing activities will be conducted outside the nesting season for areas that occur within the primary zone (984 feet or 300 meters) of any documented crested caracara nest site. Should 0 it be necessary to conduct land -clearing activities during the nesting season, land clearing within 984 feet (300 meters) of any documented nest will not occur until monitoring has determined that the nest has either been abandoned or that the chicks within the nest have fledged and left the nest site. Once the nest is empty, clearing of that primary zone and nest tree can proceed. If construction activities are to occur within 984 feet (300 meters) of an active nest identified in the most recent nesting season, restoration of caracara nesting and foraging habitat on a scale equal to the portion of the breeding territory that is impacted by construction activities will be conducted. Restoration activities will be conducted by restoring native dry or wet prairie with scattered cabbage palms or creating improved pasture and planting scattered cabbage palms. Restoration activities will occur on existing agricultural lands located within the Project site or on agricultural lands adjacent to the Project site that are under the applicant's ownership. The USFWS's Florida Ecological Services Office and the FWCC will be contacted prior to start of the construction activities and shall be provided the location and extent of proposed restoration activities. Once restoration activities have been completed, the restored habitat will be maintained in perpetuity and managed in a state that supports use by crested caracara. Caracara habitat restoration totaling 1,337.6t acres will occur within SSA 11. These restoration activities include establishing and maintaining short -stature herbaceous vegetation, maintaining or transplanting cabbage palms, and managing scrub cover, including Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia). The restoration activities are further defined in the County -approved SSA 11 Restoration Program. In addition, panther corridor, wading bird, and native habitat restoration activities will occur within SSAs 22 and 23. These restoration activities will include removing exotic and nuisance vegetation, grading existing citrus groves, and installing supplemental plantings. If cabbage palms are not already present in sufficient number or location to serve as nest trees, they may be planted as necessary as part of the management activities in order to provide adequate nesting habitat for crested caracaras. 13.0 WOOD STORK AND WADING BIRD MANAGEMENT PLAN The following habitat management plan has been prepared for the purpose of addressing the conservation of wading bird habitat on the Project. Wood storks, other species of listed wading birds, and a wading bird rookery have been observed on the Project site during the listed species survey and other fieldwork. 13.1 Pre -Construction Surveys Prior to the commencement of clearing activities, a survey will be conducted in potential wading bird nesting habitat within 100 meters (330 feet) of clearing activities in order to identify evidence of nesting. If nesting is identified, no clearing will be conducted within I1 100 meters (330 feet) of an active nest. If clearing is unavoidable, permitting alternatives will be sought with the USFWS or the FWCC. 13.2 Habitat Management Wading bird habitat restoration within SSA 23 and restoration activities conducted as part of the panther corridor restoration within SSA 22 will result in habitats that are more suitable for wading bird foraging and roosting. The creation of lakes and lake littoral zones as part of the Project will also provide foraging habitat for wading birds. Problematic encounters between future residents and wading birds are not anticipated. Construction personnel, maintenance staff, and homeowners will be informed that the wading birds are protected species. 14.0 FLORIDA BONNETED BAT MANAGEMENT PLAN The following habitat management plan has been prepared for the purpose of addressing the conservation of Florida bonneted bat habitat on the Project and outlines the protection guidelines that will be implemented for the Florida bonneted bat during and after Project construction. 14.1 Biology Habitat for the Florida bonneted bat consists mainly of foraging areas and roosting sites, including some artificial structures in both urban and forested areas (USFWS 2014). They are known to roost in rock crevices, tree cavities, buildings, and bat boxes (Marks and Marks 2008). South Florida bonneted bats roost primarily in trees and in artificial structures, with roost availability indicated as an important limiting factor (USFWS 2014). Foraging habitat includes areas over open fresh water, such as ponds, streams, and wetlands; and they will drink when flying over open water (USFWS 2014). They will also forage over treetops and other open areas, such as golf courses (Marks and Marks 2006). During the dry season, the bonneted bat becomes more dependent upon the remaining open -water habitats, such as ponds, streams, and wetland areas, for foraging activities (USFWS 2014). The current range of the Florida bonneted bat is known to include central and south Florida, with lower probability of occurrence in areas where historical mean minimum temperatures drop below 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit) (USFWS 2020). Data indicate that the core range may be located within Charlotte, Lee, Collier, Monroe, and Miami -Dade Counties, along with portions of Okeechobee, Polk, DeSoto, Hendry, and Broward Counties. Possible use of areas within Glades and Highlands Counties is also indicated (USFWS 2019). They have historically been found in the Miami area in 1936; Coral Gables, Coconut Grove, and Miami in the 1950s; Punta Gorda in 1979; Fakahatchee Strand in 2000; and North Fort Myers in 2003 (Marks and Marks 2006). Natural roost sites have been discovered at Avon Park Air Force Range and Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS 2020). 14.2 Pre -Construction Surveys Prior to the commencement of clearing activities, a cavity tree survey will be conducted within forested areas to be cleared to identify potential cavity trees that may be utilized for roosting by the Florida bonneted bat. If cavities are identified within the clearing limits, a cavity tree inspection will be conducted to determine if the cavities are being utilized by the Florida bonneted bat. If cavities are found to be unoccupied, the removal or clearing of the cavity tree should be completed within a week of the survey. If any cavities are found to be occupied by Florida bonneted bats, the FWCC and the USFWS will be contacted for guidance before removing or clearing the cavity tree. 14.3 Habitat Management The Project will implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are in accordance with the USFWS Consultation Key for the Florida bonneted bat (USFWS 2019). The following BMPs will be implemented for the Project: • A 250-foot buffer will be maintained around known or suspected Florida bonneted bat roosts when using heavy equipment to limit disturbance to roosting bats. • The creation of the Project's buffer lake system and the preservation native habitats within SSAs 11, 22, and 23 will promote Florida bonneted bat foraging opportunities. • Riparian habitat will be enhanced by planting native vegetation along the lake shorelines (i.e., littoral zone plantings). • Widespread application of insecticides will be avoided in areas where Florida bonneted bats are known or expected to forage or roost. • Native trees and shrubs will be planted within open space and buffer areas to promote insect diversity, availability, and abundance. • Mature trees and snags that could provide roosting habitat will be retained within the SSAs. • The Project will implement International Dark -Sky Association lighting initiatives to minimize the use of artificial lighting and retain natural light conditions to the greatest extent practicable. • The Project will implement prescribed burns as a management tool within SSAs to promote foraging habitat. 12 15.0 BIG CYPRESS FOX SQUIRREL MANAGEMENT PLAN The following habitat management plan has been prepared for the purpose of addressing the conservation of BCFS habitat on the Project and outlines the protection guidelines that will be implemented for the BCFS during and after Project construction. 15.1 Biology The BCFS lives and breeds in varied habitats in Southwest Florida, including cypress swamps; pine flatwoods; tropical hardwood forests; live oak woods; mangrove forests; and suburban habitats, including golf courses, city parks, and residential areas in native vegetation (Humphrey 1992). Dense cypress/hardwood swamps are avoided. This may be due to the competition for food and habitat with the gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). Little data are available on the preferred foraging habitat of the BCFS. BCFSs prefer to feed on the male and female cones of slash pine (Pinus elliottii). Cabbage palm fruits, bromeliad buds, and acorns are also important food items. A smaller percentage of the diet may consist of seasonal fruits, berries, and seeds (Humphrey 1992). 13CFSs often form platform nests in pines and hardwoods and moss -and -stick nests in cypress, tops of cabbage palms, and large clumps of bromeliads. Cabbage palms and bromeliads are especially important because they can provide immediate shelter, which allows the squirrel to travel over large areas without requiring a daily return to a permanent nesting facility (Humphrey 1992). BCFSs are solitary animals. Interaction between animals occurs primarily during mating season. Mating chases occur frequently throughout the months of May through August. During the non -mating season, interactions are infrequent and often occur around food sources. Young remain in the nest for approximately 90 days. Home ranges are 40± hectares or approximately 100 acres for males and 20f hectares or approximately 50 acres for females (Humphrey 1992). 15.2 Pre -Construction Surveys Prior to the commencement of clearing activities, a survey to identify potential BCFS nests will be conducted in forested areas to be cleared. If potential nests are identified within the clearing limits, observations will be conducted to determine if the nests are being utilized by BCFSs. No clearing will be conducted within 125 feet of an active BCFS nest tree. Following completion of nesting observations that document that a nest is not active or that juvenile squirrels have left the nest, the nest tree and buffer can be cleared. 15.3 Habitat Management SSA 22 includes 1,295.4± acres of panther corridor restoration, which will contain habitats that will provide foraging and nesting opportunities for BCFSs. 13 16.0 FLORIDA BLACK BEAR MANAGEMENT PLAN The following habitat management plan has been prepared for the purpose of addressing the Florida black bear. The Florida black bear is not listed by the FWCC or the USFWS. However, the FWCC has specific management guidelines for this species. 16.1 Biology The Florida black bear is a solitary animal that inhabits heavily wooded terrain. They are most often found in large tracts of swamp forest and undisturbed upland forest. Some of the most important habitat types for the black bear include pine flatwoods, hardwood swamps, cypress swamps, cabbage palm forests, sand pine scrub, and mixed hardwood hammocks. Denning often occurs in remote swamps or thickets with dense vegetation. Adult females breed in alternating years during the months of June and July. In Florida, hibernation may be restricted to females producing cubs. Hibernation most often occurs during the winter months. The diet of black bears is highly variable and includes both plants and animals, including saw palmetto berries, honeybees (Apis spp.), ants (Formicidae spp.), armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), feral hog (Sus scrota), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) (Humphrey 1992). 16.2 Habitat Management In order to deter the potential for interactions between humans and large mammals, such as the Florida black bear, a lake buffer will be constructed between the conservation and development areas. Where a lake buffer is not feasible, fencing will be used between development and preserve areas. See Section 4.0 for details regarding the buffer lake and fencing. The establishment of SSA 22 is part of a larger regional wildlife habitat corridor designated by the County in the RLSA Overlay Map. As part of the panther corridor restoration, 1,295.4f acres of SSA 22 will be managed for the Florida black bear through the preservation and restoration of native habitats. The FWCC will be consulted on management initiatives such as bear -resistant dumpsters and garbage receptacles for residential areas. A list of companies that provide bear -resistant garbage containers for residential use, obtained from the FWCC, is provided as Appendix E. In addition, these management initiatives may include the following: Residential units that have curbside garbage service will be required to place garbage containers curbside no earlier than the morning of the days of garbage pickup, and garbage containers will be returned to their permitted location no later than the evening of the days of garbage pickup. For units with curbside garbage service, all garbage, trash, refuse, or rubbish will be required to be placed in appropriate garbage containers and stored inside an enclosed area except for the days when there is curbside garbage pickup service. For units without 14 curbside garbage service, all garbage, trash, refuse, or rubbish will be placed in bear - resistant dumpsters with the lid closed and secured. 17.0 FLORIDA PANTHER MANAGEMENT PLAN The following habitat management plan has been prepared for the Florida panther. 17.1 Biology The Florida panther is a large, long-tailed cat with a great deal of color variation: pale brown or rusty upper parts; dull white or buff -colored under parts; and dark brown or blackish tail tip, back of ears, and sides of nose. Mature males have an average weight range between 100 to 150 pounds and measure nearly seven feet from nose to tip of tail. Females are considerably smaller, with a weight range of 50 to 100 pounds and measuring about six feet (USFWS 1987). Panthers subsist on a variety of mammalian prey, dominated by white-tailed deer, feral hog, and in some areas, raccoon (Procyon lotor) (Maehr 1988a). Existing data on Florida panther reproduction indicate that breeding occurs throughout the year with a peak in the winter -spring period, a gestation period of around 90 to 95 days, litter sizes of one to four kittens, and a breeding cycle of two years for females successfully raising young to dispersal (which occurs around 18 to 24 months) (Belden 1988, Maehr 1988b). In terms of population size and occupied range, the Florida panther population is at least stable and at best expanding, as evidenced by natality rates exceeding mortality rates and by recent dispersals north of the Caloosahatchee River (Land et al. 2000). According to Maehr et al. (1991), home ranges average 200 square miles for resident adult males, 75 square miles for adult females, 241 square miles for transient males, and 69 square miles for subadult females. Florida panthers inhabit large, remote tracts of land with adequate prey and cover and occupy a variety of habitat types, including hardwood hammocks, pine flatwoods, mixed hardwood swamps, and cypress swamps. Appropriate cover is an important component of habitats used, especially during hunting, denning, and day - bedding. Recent information based on global positioning system (GPS) telemetry data collected during nocturnal and diurnal periods indicates that forests are the habitats selected by panthers (Land et al. 2008). 17.2 Habitat Management In order to deter the potential for interactions between humans and large mammals such as the Florida panther, a lake buffer will be constructed between the conservation areas and development areas. Where a lake buffer is not feasible, fencing will be used between development and conservation areas. See Section 4.0 for details regarding the buffer lake and fencing. The establishment of SSA 22 is part of a larger regional wildlife habitat corridor designated by the County in the RLSA Overlay Map and is consistent with the Florida Wildlife 15 Corridor adopted by the State of Florida.. As part of the panther corridor restoration, 1,295.4f acres of SSA 22 will be managed for the Florida panther through the preservation and restoration of native habitats. 18.0 HUMAN -WILDLIFE COEXISTENCE PLAN The following Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan will be incorporated into the Project's homeowner's association documents. The managing Stewardship District and/or Community Development District for the Project will also provide periodic educational information to residents. 18.1 American Alligator Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan Signs will be posted on the Project property to instruct on -site workers and residents not to feed or harass the American alligator. The signs will indicate that the offense is punishable by law. The typical signage is provided in Appendix D. The FWCC educational brochure entitled "A Guide to Living with Alligators" (Appendix F) will be provided to homeowners, community association managers, and maintenance staff. The brochure can be found at https:Hmyfwc.com/media/16070/alligator-brochure.pdf. Construction personnel and residents will be instructed that in the event there is a problem with a persistent nuisance alligator, they will need to contact the FWCC, as that is the only agency empowered to handle nuisance alligators. 18.2 Eastern Indigo Snake Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan The USFWS's Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake (USFWS 2021) will be followed prior to and during construction activities. The Standard Protection Measures include the placement of posters at strategic locations on the construction site and along proposed access roads, clearly visible to construction staff. The posters include a description and photograph of the Eastern indigo snake, its protection status, and instructions in the event that one is observed. In addition, informational brochures will be provided to all construction staff. The USFWS's Standard Protection Measures, including the poster and brochure, can be found at http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/listedspeciesreptiles.html. A copy of the brochure is provided in Appendix G. 18.3 Crested Caracara Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan Problematic encounters between future residents and crested caracara are not anticipated. Restricted resident access to the preserves through signage, as well as the typical nest location within the canopies of cabbage palms, will ensure against disturbance to crested caracara nests. 16 18.4 Wading Bird Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan A brochure prepared by PAI entitled "Wading Bird Informational Pamphlet" (Appendix H) will be provided to residents and maintenance staff. The brochure provides wading bird information and methods to prevent human -wading bird interactions. In addition, the brochure informs residents of the need to avoid disturbance around nesting colonies should a colony be identified on the Project property in the future. 18.5 Florida Bonneted Bat Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan Problematic encounters between future residents and Florida bonneted bats are not anticipated. Restricted resident access to the preserves through signage, as well as the typical roost location high within tree cavities, will ensure against disturbance to potential Florida bonneted bat roosts. 18.6 Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan Problematic encounters between future residents and BCFSs are not anticipated. Restricted resident access to the preserves through signage, as well as the typical nest location high within the tree canopy, will ensure against disturbance to BCFS nests. 18.7 Florida Black Bear Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan The FWCC educational brochure entitled "A Guide to Living in Bear Country" (Appendix I) will be provided to residents, community association managers, and maintenance staff. This brochure may be found at https://myfwc.com/media/I 891/livinginbearcountrybrochure.pdf. The FWCC will be consulted on management initiatives, such as bear -resistant dumpsters and garbage receptacles for residential areas. A list of companies that provide bear -resistant garbage containers for residential use, obtained from the FWCC, is provided as Appendix E. In addition, management initiatives may include the following: Residential units that have curbside garbage service will be required to place garbage containers curbside no earlier than the morning of the days of garbage pickup, and garbage containers will be returned to their permitted location no later than the evening of the days of garbage pickup. For units with curbside garbage service, all garbage, trash, refuse, or rubbish will be required to be placed in appropriate garbage containers and stored inside an enclosed area except for the days when there is curbside garbage pickup service. For units without curbside garbage service, all garbage, trash, refuse, or rubbish will be placed in bear -resistant dumpsters with the lid closed and secured. 17 18.8 Florida Panther Human -Wildlife Coexistence Plan The educational brochure entitled "A Guide to Living with Florida Panthers" (Appendix J), prepared by the FWCC and the USFWS, will be provided to residents, community association managers, and maintenance staff. This brochure provides safety tips and instructions for panther encounters. The brochure may be found on the FWCC website, located at https://myfwc.com/media/3112/livingwithpanthers.pdf. In addition, residents will be informed that vaccinating house cats for the feline leukemia virus can prevent disease transmission from house cats to Florida panthers. 19.0 REFERENCES Belden, R.C. 1988. The Florida Panther. Pages 514-532 in W.J. Chandler (ed) Audubon Wildlife Report. 1988/1989. The National Audubon Society, New York. 817 pages. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2012. Gopher Tortoise Management Plan (September 2012). Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2010. Guide to the natural communities of Florida: 2010 edition. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida. Humphrey, Stephen R. 1992. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida; Volume I. Mammals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 392 pages. Hyslop, N.L., D.J. Stevenson, J.N. Macey, L.D. Carlile, C.L. Jenkins, J.A. Hostetler, M.K. Oli. 2012. Survival and population growth of a long-lived threatened snake species, Drymarchon couperi (Eastern Indigo Snake). Population Ecology. 54: 145. Land E.D., D.B. Shindle, R. J. Kawula, J.F. Benson, M.A. Lotz, D.P. Onorato. 2008. Florida panther habitat selection analysis of concurrent GPS and VHF telemetry data. Journal of Wildlife Management: Volume 72, No. 3 pp. 633-639. Land, E.D., M. Lotz, D. Shindle, and S.K. Taylor. 2000. Florida panther genetic restoration and management. Annual report, Study Number 7508. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Maehr, D.S. 1988a. Florida Panther Movements, Social Organization and Habitat Utilization. Annual Performance Report, 7/1/87-6/30/88, Study No. E-1-12 II-E-2 7502, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 19 pages. Maehr, D.S. 1988b. Florida Panther Food Habits and Energetics. Annual Performance Report, 7/1/87-6/30/88, Study No. E-1-12 II-E-3 7503, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 4 pages. IN Maehr, D.S., E.D. Land, and J.C. Roof. 1991. Social Ecology of Florida Panthers. National Geographic Research & Exploration, 7(4): 414-431. Marks, C.S. and G.E. Marks. 2006. Bats of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Marks, G.E. and C.S. Marks. 2008. Status of the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus). Final report. Submitted by the Florida Bat Conservancy under grant agreement number 401815G 192. Florida Bat Conservancy. Bay Pines, Florida. Morrison, J.L. 2001. Recommended Management Practices and Survey Protocols for the Audubon's Crested Caracara (Caracara cheriway audubonii) in Florida. Technical Report No. 18. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. Nifong, J.C., C.A. Layman, B.R. Silliman. 2015. Size, sex, and individual -level behavior drive intrapopulation variation in cross -ecosystem foraging of a top predator. Journal of Animal Ecology. 84: 35-48. Rodgers, J.A., Jr., H.W. Kale II, H.T. Smith (eds.). 1996. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Vol. V. Birds. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida, USA. Saalfeld, D., Conway, W., and Calkins, G. 2011. Food Habits of American Alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) in East Texas. Southeastern Naturalist, 10(4), 659-672 Stevenson, D. J., Bolt, M. R., Smith, D. J., Enge, K. M., Hyslop, N. L., Norton, T. M., and Dyer, K. J. 2010. Prey Records for the Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon couperi). Southeastern Naturalist, 9(1), 1-18. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Florida Panther Recovery Plan. Prepared by the Florida Panther Interagency Committee for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 75 pages. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Multi -species recovery plan for south Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Eastern Indigo Snake Conservation Guidelines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake. South Florida Ecological Services Office. Vero Beach, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Biological Opinion for Golf Club of the Everglades. Service CPA Code 2014-CPA-0037. South Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Crested Caracara Draft Survey Protocol. ow U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Biological Opinion for Hudson Creek. Service Consultation Code 04EF2000-2019-F-0083. South Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Designation of Critical Habitat for Florida Bonneted Bat (Proposed Rule). South Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake. South Florida Ecological Services Office. Vero Beach, Florida. Wood, Don A. 2001. Florida's Fragile Wildlife Conservation and Management. University Press of Florida. Gainesville, Florida. FIE APPENDIX A PROJECT LOCATION MAP ,r- T f"1'��5r'. 3 rt5 >�-+•-• s�GPI RD _ CHURCH RD - .q BENTLY STYE r 5-�m"�"j�} �PI!°�•�mlt.. !�'iw i Yr , +.' � E5,TT m 5L[ ICOLYER�ST�E w w-Y rl �' 5 �A¢ g,i '.q.. � �,t; ).rt A . J' Ar � • � - 1y � 1 •7. `� y� ^v h JAGUAR BLVD 1 ;it ASi�EiQF.� z} �z 77�0 >tL'AM.i QV ^i�S wry i� ��"•-'N.tL 7IAM j zST'�iE -�.r �� '�-c-a w.w -- ERMINE SSE ,fir '1 1 i 0 ff•� ! (_ ' - KNAP N !'�T 7T T• fit- .` i �dn L /.y� I Z,.y,:2r l��y�� • { - �.1: zL�.:n�i - i — - - `.' a CI.Lr:wwm.y HIV�t .fKzii, 1_ ,,r •++ - a7F-�h - �i , O � MfgOOw f .� #QO�iIII�'�aa f -� w S r �E -;�{. � HERITAGE RD - m ROc i/]UDAMEN -r' II--SPROJECT LOCATION 5 N'^' �I��'•':� 'iY rlr:.- "-ft.`F DRIG �. _ <r' 1 TVvT 46 S, RNG 28 E I, w x ' - S BF GRq y D GP as { I r 15 ;• 2 .y _ Ii . it 'l, a' _ ,�+• 1 �B ER MAST s�:}�• arhty■ X/./°°'' �...11,1 I � I .¢ � _I� �> h�J CAz 0 iLN 'ter !� "�•`I`` I I _LE y5;jt� Fih� R �V—`i.i e4 v I'� I r?" � 1-.. 7, - �Vl �- �'�� •'.. r_ti �, fi_�ffA 1 $ t I rAT 1` z '.i Y �tyy�R.+_tI1 M 'l. +h..i n rr ATYDID�LN,�� _ 4 74 Lj ORD.OAKS RD- PEpp-' r ♦ - WESTC�O Em Yin TRAFFORD RD z�1 FG, z' OK DR' APPENDIX B AERIAL WITH PROPOSED WILDLIFE CROSSINGS, LAKE BUFFERS, AND FENCING MOM Pu. � _.. n r k - T co A O r. 7. rt: O O APPENDIX C PRESCRIBED BURNING INFORMATION FLORIDA LANDOWNER INCENTIVE PRO(;RA\l PR.AC'TICE STANDARD PRESCRIBE BURNING DEFINITION' The controlled application of fire in accordance \\ ith a \\ ritten prescription for fuels under specified en\ ironmental conditions \\ hile follo\\ ink, appropriate precautionar\ measures that ensure that the Iire is contained to a predetermined area to impro\e habitat for listed species. PURPOSES This practice nla\ he applied as part ot'a conser\ation management s\stem to suppo►•t one or more of' the 1i61lo\\ing purposes: • To impro\ e habitat tier species at risk. • To control exotic \cuetation. • To control plant disease al1cctim-, nati\e \c�,etation. • To reduce \\ ildtire hazards in areas critical species at risk. • To enhance nati\e seed and seedling, production. • To restore and maintain ecolo,,ical sites beneficial to species at risk. CONDITION'S WHERE PRACTICE APPLIES This practice ma\ be applied on an\ pri\ate land \\Ilel•c deemed needed to impro\e habitat conditions tier listed species in compliance \\ ith practice standards and specifications. CRITERIA I. General Criteria Applicable to All Purposes The method(s) of prescribe hurnim_. to inlpro\e hahitat stiucturc and composition tier species at risk. shall be determined b\ the assigned hiolo�'ist conducting the Needs Assessment. Application ofthe prescribed treatment \\ ill be based on the GIS anal\sis. site examination. and IealUred species or species �'roups. The lando\\mer shall obtain all necessar\ permits heflore implementation ofthe practice. Planning and application shall conlpl\ \\ith all applicable Federal. State. and local la\\s. rules and regulations. I he procedure. equipment. and the number oftrained personnel shall he adequate to accomplish the intended purposes as stated in the burn plan. The expected \\either conditions. human and \ehicular traffic that nm\ he impeded b\ heat or smoke. liabilit\ (C.(-,.. utilit\ lines) and sat'ct\ and health precautions shall he inte�,rated Into the tilmny_. location and expected intensit\ ofthe burn. Timing of burning \\ ill be commensurate \\ nth soil and site conditions to maintain site producti\ it\ and minimize effects on soil erosion and soil properties (structure. soil moisture). Firebreak construction and maintenance are not included as a cost -shared treatment. IL Specific Criteria to Impro%c Listed Species Flabitat The appropriate season ofburning. burning technique. burning frequenc\. and size of burn shall he selected hased on the \\ ildlife habitat needs and site limitations. Vl here practical. prescribed horns shall he planned and applied in a manner that creates a "patch\" mosaic ofburned and unburned \e�,,elation. Conditions \\ nth likuller relati\c hunlidit\ and soil moisture are likel\ to assist in creating a patch\ burn. 111. Specific Criteria to Control Undesirable Vegetation Prescribed burns to control brush or other undesirable \euetation shall consider the anticipated seed production and rc-sprouting response of the target specie(s). The IrcquenQ and intensit\ of the planned burn shall he based on the re -glom th of the target species. \\eighed against lora_uc and'or \\ nldlite habitat considerations. Prescribed horns planned for area,, \\ ith knomi infestations ofnoxious and or non-imasi\c species shall address the anticipated response of those species during and fo llo\\ ing the prescribed burn. Re-establishment of nati\e \egetation shall he planned For horned areas \\here re-estahlisllnleilt is needed to pi•e\eilt emCroaCllillCilt ofundesirable plants. control soil erosion. and restore historic plant communities as a means to restoring; habitat beneficial to species at risk. IV. Specific Criteria to Impro\e \attic Plant Production Quantit% and/or Qualit% Prescribed burns shall he planned to pro\ ide optimum benefit to the nati\e plant species ofconcern. When possible. prescribed burn, shall he conducted durin�s periods 01' adequate soil moisture for plant rcco\cr\ tiillo\\ iny_ the horn. Appropriate protection from li\estock. human. and \\ildlife acti\ities shall he implemented to allo\\ the \egctation to reco\cr from the stress ofthe burn. Burned areas shall he protected until the \euctation Ilas reco\ered sufticientl\ to allO\\ use to he restored. CONSIDERATIONS Consideration must he ,iNen to maintaining existing_ habitat lilr species at risk. The site preparation method should be cost eticcti�c and protect threatened and endangered Species. cultural resources. %\ildlitc habitat. \pater resource,. and identified unique areas. Attention should also he -ken to soil producti\ its. presenting erosion. and conser\ ingg, Unique \eectati\e conntnunitics. Visual quality obiecti\es s1101.11d he considered \\hen Selecting_ site preparation methods. :anticipate possible oft -site effects and nlodit\ the site preparation design accordingly. Consider personal salet\ during site preparation actin ities. 41 here practical. the season. frcqucnc\. and intensity of prescribed bLimings should mimic the natural occurrence of fire t\ pical of the ecological sites being managued. Consider the use Ofexistins harriers Such as lakes. streams. \\etlands. roads. and constructed firebreaks in the design and layout ofthis practice. To minimize carbon release and associated smoke manauement problems reduce the amount of fuel to he burned. delay burning until acceptable \\cather conditions gist. alter the method ol'hurn and intensity of the burn. and complete the burn as quickly as possible. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE The follo\� inu actions shall he carried out to ensure that this practice functions as intended throughout its expected life. These actions illclUde normal rcpetiti\c acti\ itiCS in application and use of the practice (operation). and repair and upkeep of the practice (maintenance): E"\aluations to determine ifthe stated obiecti%cs \%erc met and to inlpro\e coordination of Iirture burns. Initial CX aluations should be conducted \� ithin ? �\eeks fo 110\\ ins' the horn. Lone -term e\aluations should he conducted durim_ or after the first ,.rO\\ in- season follo\\ in-, the burn. Items to consider in the c�aluation include: a. 4\ crc the prchurn preparations properly completed? b. Were the initial obiccti\es met? c. Was the burn prescription lollo\\ ed? d. Were de\ iatlons I•onl till' burn prescription dOCt1111Cnted? e. 1\ as the burning techniquC(s) adequate to meet the planned objecti\es'' f. Were �\Cather conditions. tire bcha\ ior. and smoke dispersion \%ithin the planned limits of the prescription? What \\erc the cftects on the soil. keeetation. \\ater. and \%ildlife h. Did the Lire escape the planned area? i. I lo\\ could future burns he inlpro\ed? j. \1 ere the post horn actin itics (e.g. grazing determent_ re -plantings. etc.) applied corrcctl\ to elect the stated purpose or ohiccti\c(s) ofthc horn° APPENDIX D AMERICAN ALLIGATOR MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVE SIGNAGE �-- 2' MAX DO NOT HARASS THE l I' MAX AMERICAN ALLIGATOR FLORIDA LAW PROHIBITS THIS BEHAVIOR AND IS PUNISHABLE BY A $500 FINE AND/OR 60 DAYS IN JAIL. 4' MAX 77 TYPICAL AMERICAN ALLIGATOR SIGNAGE N.T.S. 2' M AX NATURE PRESERVE I' MAX AREA CLEARING OR DUMPING ALLOWED 4' MAX vp A TYPICAL PRESERVE SIGNAGE N.T.S. R.F. oVza/zs �, PASSARELLA APPENDIX D. AMERICAN ALLIGATOR MANAGEMENT AND REVIEWED RI' DATE PRESERVE SIGNAGE H.S. OIL28 zs CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE REVISED DATE &ASSOCIATES z APPENDIX E FWCC LIST OF BEAR -RESISTANT GARBAGE CONTAINERS � n 0 0 n � � 8 n � Ln A� ° l 0 - a F �° G) O N < A e�7 y r 0 IO - O! O n0 N n N rt 0 y \ 3 �o rn d v N O O O O 3 o �• N Ln N Ln a ^! O• to to Z r-j O NJ O y 'ly OC 5' ? 00 N v W �. O V O N N QQ U1 Li r 'C3 � f9 y "'S y N � N O �� O lD lD rt rt Q, o n '7 y O rt s r., ac n N .a f1 n. c 0. "0 _ -1 n UQ 0 n �a v CCD Cr N 'a £ n w 0 tA 0)m . � CO fD A � IN/I g �c =' 0- W fD a N �� N� a a w .� QD S p Q1 l0 O Nj ►� 00 c O co m cu ^ O\ p 0 O !^ V1 v� g33 CD , 3 Ln rn rn 04 0'Q OU O O O 7 7 7 W O o N O O :3 7 n n QJ 7o O O rD zy Q Ql Q d 7 Q aq O II1 O O �. c c an an O O O o : =3 m ? 'y Z) O v O C, CL c c m'C n M rn-f O O H O O_ DQ ; f9 y 'S rt tA n O N N N W N --J 01 V O rt °N' o o n "1 y O rt O^ 'y `TSIOw fl6 m X m cn N V/ 2 n O Z D Z m n' y G Q a) rF D C^ L OEI IAWC tA O 03 eb w n O A N cu obi y (A n v .d (D (D G S _S N0 S O n N of M yNi (D O p 0) O Q- IN/I f lD 00f�D m a- l0 O ram. fl' O n tD 0, �' Q CD (D � 00 (D o oVo G1 Q 00 G) d o l ° a 07CDp n W < T w o m. 0 v < v 00O O A O K O1 , 00 O 01 m O v 7 O N \ 3 3 p 3 Ql Ql Ln N Ui Ui N aq N v � v d v v v N O O O O O O O O O •7 � G O b NJA NJUl 0000 I� Ol N V V N n• �. (D (D (D (D (D (D CD 0)41 N w a)S n n n n (� n (p N O l0 Ql 0 0 ui V rn N O 0 O 00 O U, '7' to F' to ~' 'O. + A + p + A a0o r) w v O. nni nni 0 .j o y 00 N N N N IN N O F' 00 m a) 00 O H n 4) NJW ✓ 7 fD QQ N v TJ r NJ w 0) 0V A 01 lD N N �! N O U V N n Oo lrt N p O O _ 0 0 n A Ql A O N l0 I U7 Ul �'' �"' F+ m � 00 00 I + + n + + O. .. � ni � u 0ni d W w :. - Imm a) aL n' rD N rD 3 IZ O 3 rr S rD w 3 O c 3 O 41 n N 3 N S O C W S n' rD O 0'U a N r-r rr rD 0 3 ro 3 O -.h N S DO a 3 IZ lD M n� S rD rD '-r N Ott N S rD a n O LM rF N O_ rD rD 3 O_ O 3 S v 0 C 3 O n v 3 N a3- rD 0q C n S v O_ S as n O L Ln O_ rD n r(D a N rD N m 3 O rD n v 3 N C n S v N rD O_ C n S a) Ln CD O_ 2 m 3 n ID m rD 0 O_ rD O_ 3• r* S rD ai ' n O C 3 3 Z O rr S rD O v n O N r~ O rD c O O_ rD -s S rD m rN-r 3 v O_ f"1 O N rr rD n O 3 3 rD n O c 3 N N S O 3 0'0 I I v 3 O C 3 rr O N S 3' 00 Q 0- rD o_ S •I• S rD 3_ 3 3 C 3 v 3 O C 3 rr d al N rf O IS rD C n nA N rD O_ c N O Q C n S an N aD N N rD IZ r~ m 3 CD a 3 >y UQ cD � � n 3 c c C A C n R To a g" o T R i v o y O N 0 S N D O O ■r 3 oN D � C 3 3 w rn � n> N O 3 3 o �• =s c 'TJ ti 00 O lt) o ro + S C n n •o' � = 3 > Aa LA 00 CD �s .j � o � � v 00 m Ln N 00 SD QQ 'z7 r rD 00 ko n io J C ,Y o �° n + a K 70 m (A Q O �G n a� r+ W CL r) w H fu O A O A UQ Q H n cp 4 n 0 N N Q rD rD 0 0- 0 0 s (D w O C 1 0 n cu D N rD 7 0'0 C n s tL m 0_ LA 3' 0U n 0 N r+ N 0- (D n ((DD a N fD N r7 rD 3 0 rD n O 7 N C n S v rD Q (D n rD (D n 0 0 r+ v rD S fD 0 rD r+ N zT O ao (D n 0 N r+ 0 0 n d 7 m v n n 0 3 a 0 •G T v N r+ S rD 0 7 3. 3 C 3 0 Q (D 0 n v 0 N v r+ N O 0- (D s rD m N 3 v 0 a n 0 N O (7 0 0 cu rD n 0 C 7 N 0 =' oa u v 3 0 C 7 r-h 0 1 N 3' 7 04 Q a- rD Q •I• rD _3 0 3 C 3 w 3 0 C r+ v S N N 0 0- rD C A S d N rD c N n rn 0 ao 0 A m cu S S fD .. 7 ? n X GJ rn LA . 00 w .�... K m a s o o W ,a (D s n, A N W O n 0 d a C C1 O) f.N 00 a 3 g o y 3 3 0 3 Ln OL1 OU 00 QO 00 QO y �1 II1 t1J N OJ cu N fD O O O O O O 7 7 7 7 7 7 O ^7 �O•! C N NJ N N I-- N O w N lD Ul U'I l0 (D (D (D (D (D (D n• Cl) v d d 0) 0J f9 S S S S S 3 ih ih i/} C O O O O O O N 00 -ll H n '� -• '� � � � � l0 l0 lD O + w + lit + w 7 6) flu � 0.) v rD ZA �. N N 'S tn A A d Uri O O w � Un O O 00 00 r W W w W N NJ"C Ln Ql U1 Cj) V -�I (D (n A O Ui Ln w 0 0 00 0 0 W W V o N + N N "U.)w• + w + LU n w � -o- a O = v v O O W ani ani 0) D 7 7 N 7 H Q '+ :. rD 3 n S m z3 n rD O sZ m f1 3 S m LU N rt n O C 3 3 FA, z O S m C r t r7 �r t I (� i m m H D Q W > W > m N(AO Z h 1 [U al l t � 1 i T 3 T s y S r 00 .. 00 =3 .. G, '� 1 � o j o 00 r a 0 D° A 1 A A N obi To ni � s- hi c O w w n C O w A W O .. iD > n CL 6 N d n C1 O N ° j' In O c m� CL f1 N A my Q n N A 9'� A. L,�m� . N V 00 0 3~ oNo 3~ oNo 0 D a m 7 3 3 i fl CN rV lD LM W N O O vl O O O i CRl m (TQ CIO dQ d4 N * fU 21 al a) a) N• > O O O O O O fD l T 3 3 3 3 �• � i L NNJN Ln lD V C!l lD 00 a0 �P V Ul � t.D 1- m I a) &i O O + Crl + U) + lD w 'C 3 d d N a)d a)(-) �. r�•h 3 3 3 3 3 7 00 to v N v to v M +C 0 00 00 "C SLn Un y L'I Ln O o n A � t ) .n r S D 3 1 J to o 0 �, 0 0 � 3 yn 00 1 1 Ul C) Ul a3 O Ph N -Pb 00 O) O) �• m 3 = + Ul n A W + CJl A n W of F - n O O 3 3 3 3 7 H N N N � lS '•h 0 a c A d LM v fA (D Q .-r S (D r* Oa A G1 N N_ W (D N n O 3 O rD (D N Oa v O m Gl 3 G1 OO S A Gl C rD 0- fD OJ a r+ (D m S D m G CS Q (D -n O C Q O � 3 _ m 0 o 3 c m D S � N d � to m 0 � O n, � � � m „ x CC vm O (D o O O Ql O _ID �• Q N S 1n 00 A. IA S -n (0 (/1 tD A 0000 C fND 6 X b r'► 6) N G1 n X a v A Z x 5 W 00 O — cn a a o D Gn .. `5 OOAO V 3 e', ao 1 7 00 lD lD v m 0o a (Nn 0 O in In d � p � rn N C 7r 7r S v, v, N 0 3 O N rj (A\ O O In 3 3 3 0 3 3 A N .fit A 3' ram+ C G Er 3 O '+ Dr a m�� v O(D 3 O t�i+ 3 Q_ v� H OA 3 N 3 O ^'! n S O m O O A O cu r. �p C 3 (D Vf (D (D r. 0 (GD O 7 O O c O C rY ((DD LA fD C ? 00 m G rD O = 2 n. d C S A O w O. :3d Cl.Q Q. LA Q a v+ O 0 m*d p N iA rn a) r+Q,+, m m y n rD O :3 N ? O O p y CA 3 O N LM o 3 O H A w 01 N N w S 01 r 7 3 W S N =- (ND (A OO A Oq (D y cu OJ 0) 0) N Vf O m N 01 w :3fOD O O 7 N 0 0 3 7 j C d n !' tR A ' C N w In rD co Ln i!" ° 1 d V r+ Ln A m 3 O of 7 t0 1p N S O f p] O '� (.0 9 •.s 'a. 7 j n N fm+ (D r+ ? Q 0=0. ..j (A O m z s m m o �p � A 7 � 00 n d O r+ 3 O 3 d H'%.. (A m m w fl: cr M 0 3 m r* O � O m O S r+ O O IA o0 a �D In n mO 3 m d m 3. d (A0 n v va m oni d -9 `c .r. a m H S S * '7' K 00 O 60 O y m x S t 00 y IA tfDi X V d r S do fA m C O 00 (D 0) NO Ln N a nor. f.+ a w A a nni _• a m L n > Ot f'f C N 00 Cam! '�' V \ < Ul n Q O_ In 01 00 M O 3 Ln Ln wat O p O N y\ C Ol 00 r r N S N 00 = :3 Ln 3 !D !D w N n n O O y n L 0 0 ( Mn F_ ( (0 F r r fl C N N A A QJ N � v a) O MM O fA c c n n O) 0) C Q C Q O O A S rn7 • 0 en-P 0 N 3 3 ?o Oq v OV d :3 7 0 0 O c- c n S v O1 (D O_ r* (D m v VU (D O n n 2. N_ co rD w n O 3 rD rD Ln rr+ Otl O v 3 W Cv c ert S a r-r rD cr rD 0) Ln N N r-r r-r s rD r D 00 rr Q rD T1 O C 7 Q N 0 _ m c m o n ao n ° c 5 OD p� r3D .N► m K K O, LA r+ m n 0 = O r C O �D N S 00 N un 3 L) CD �. s O �. O .. O _3 v (D N N d 00 M y r, fD 0 N w 0 r, 00 w to ° oo fl D 'A < 00 o rn N F .. 00 N m o 0 m ((D o vcL m ? o� 'n o o C' ll1 a A Q n O7 a 6 N iD 00 00 O Y o w t^o 0 00 n W o � ° rn U, o o IT, r} -4 00 A ram+ d O O O J d v W y N A PliQ co 9 Gl W < O y Q 00 (i Gl O O 0 < d rD �! 00 o 0o V f" 0 W CO .< lD ni 0 y \ O O_ O Z C O i, 3 d Ln A O p O 3 . rD rD rD v v v cu n r) O O O o 6�7 cu 0) _N (D (D (D (D (D v v Ln V O r Q w r- E (n r Q Ln0 r a �v 41 �0 v �, C)_ w CF)_ a)_ C r_ O QC LM s N O a ai ar CL rD Q Q v =3 Uj ON j j n ill Ql N N N 70 rr p w N 1-- O A In 'O 'O R �! �. 53 n 3 n. 3 tA c -O "O =' '0 ? 00 0- cr 0- m m (D rD (D r `'�• '^ 0 rD rD (D r+ rM '" 0 �' 0 r9 r I APPENDIX F AMERICAN ALLIGATOR INFORMATIONAL PAMPHLET w 00 0 o� y co N .P N m O �5 O .O. N N Ol L N a O N CD a a w m 0 = K M w 0 -I O CZCDO N x M Nw O;O N.O O O d 7 O u q=T v a o CD w� 5 O (D 7 D) O�a'OOL7 rn v m c - a w �E a �3 � N (p Nm 0C) CD 3 o D CD N< � m 'O T CD O O ;: r < O - 7 � N—.. -wC 6 (D Cl) O w =r< O 3 O. N < N O 0 L (D (D — 0)3 N O (D pN' 73 O 0 7 O j Ow, C) 0) N 7 3 Ct 0 3OK) d O' N = 0 O C Q C N O ■ ■ ■ ■ � w w (D °+m o w d tv-Z K 0- cr N m �r m w N o m am5. < - �K O cr K M 'r3 e+ .'3 y-y � ez.r K O z cn w O+ (D K W, K O (CD cr .7 El O (D � w o,:, o O CD w m� O 0 go Z = - (D (D � �' N CD SD O c* O N O CD E' i)-' gL Oq CD CD er P, w O K a' cwr OKQ CD O pl OQ 15 'S3 (D O (D O, w ° N CDC , CD ^� w w °' Cm o ^0 ov o o aq owco cl� Nazrdw wmoZ wz CDCD �, Oq OaG CO CD 0 'd K (IDz CD to 0 cn G 00 O 0 00 C3 w N w K ,wry, cw* E� 2 (D O. `r w eY C. (D Pl CD m M 0) O 0) O Ul O 000 Ul O Nc W N; a) 4 O: m N Af W NUmQD N6i� j (D Ulm fDUl N N 4'" OO (D Ul N 01 W.N. 0,0 w.+0 N OO cn(a Ulm = 0)m� A m >En a > p (S 0 0 m 77 w � O m m N coa CD 77 CD m w 3 = c) c� W N A N 00 0) O (D O OME C D• PO AD — N aq O w C ` cD O t� rKi, K . r d � ID o aq 0 I co �* C, m a- C d C cD w w ° °' `' 0 O 'I �. o � CD � w ° w K w �.pDm O bo S K cD K o� _ K CD K aq Z �' aq �_ .mom. er y zr Z R to 4 �' O v, O Co o is rJlrr o' cob m mp p o rl'1� 0 CA w o w �* �s �* CD a, � w w m" o w O O a o as •"w n CDn cKD cD O m M 0 O O K 0 �* cKo PI � w m0 11 't O w cOr" c* w M cD p CD 11 CD o m CD :�. w K o G ::r N • CD rn cC K ° w n • K K, ¢ COD 1saM glegezil N a y wow5' 0KtcDD ocd�P >mmor 0( ¢ 0) w K CD CD A a er ewe ■ ° w w M o �s w w w a m K w wOA CD w Y m m m eT cn w aq m • CL m G " tD aq a q� m�� cA te a) � 1• Z Z CD C) CD :' a w g °n � ram° O O M 0 CD O (D w w C �. aq O0 � (D p pD -e w G M. w �� b 0 O ,OS CD (A CO M K eKr K cC (f) �C '.°3 '� ' K w o O r cco � c' `* p �' a m cD `"'• rA O w d p cD w O :•� m KCD _ � Ve w w CD b ° 0 aq It aq KO cr p'I CD CDy c�D n N w t$ m ccDD w (KD AD aq ° OD 9L d < m w o K O G CD m w w c, K p O N K c* x' 0 0 11. aq � M n m cD " aq o pr K �° p �* �. o r m ti K CD ?; O' N (DD O m O PD O aq �r CD w pr _ m w c+ m' `e c m cu Dq' E. 0 o m w w x w �' p '0 �ej CD K 1+ 0 w a ¢' w n N r- Cr M cw•r M o awq G �. `< n I O a o a p., � m G wM� O K w 'O m m K '� 'Q `Y c* ° A -1• Cr N cD ° n '7 ch O' cKr m m a' m o� m w 5 m a 5 M C."" K m p k o m m 0 p p m oaq w �' w �(D CD m c0 " � `° m w OCDw :5 CD O w w w AL 'C3 Oo P. m K CD m O 9 er m K Z CD 0� v, aq � w � K (D eK* 0�. m� K m n K K a r« Q¢ 0 m .w7 C C �� K er aq ¢• m p� w r N c�+ �--� O 0 c. fn CD a '� cD Am, cc `n CD m "� w cID � O .7 cwr O K cp w� p K G (� `Ot CD O fD C " ° a' U' G awqv`'i m m cp w K K w K K CD m ¢• N cD C w 'ND Cn CD O m (n CD m aq m m ; a l< xw� m dm 0 0 t7 rL> acw C7 � m Ct�� 9aq �. w o w O O w M Sr O w C `C 11 o �• O O CO M := p m w aw . aq cD O O P'+ w iwr aKq O er CD K ear aq e•r 'a AD CDK m O O SDm CD K K CD K aq m �. m n m wch o E O 0'cD w O n w n ts� p.. CD CD n PI 0 CD SD �o 00m°0 °( g'a �.ocDo b C aq m 0 ¢ t7 ❑ m aq' aq c_ a o „0 aq o� ° Y a car R„ Z m cD K M-1 0 7' w r __ 0 CD m K O W. cn w o CD CD o E 0 co co(o E K a o m m m K w w m a m"' cr .O Or cp 'w"' APPENDIX G EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE INFORMATIONAL PAMPHLET 0-4 0.-0 zoil ~o R oC"D m o o CCD '3 o oW CD o CD O n0 A)0 CDa CDN =' CD O-. ° �' n CD CA CD 4 ID o •tiZj rCCDD O CD cn CD CD cn W-4 CrJ C Tl w cD w p a CD CD ., (D C w a ',�' �' ..t A. CD n CD 0 CD CD CD w o CD CD o�z aoci z� t7� s �O E3 CD CD CD a CD CD P17" o' o a O co v cu v� o M f cDcn O .., Q �o c � a. cD � o •� � � �' Q trJ uqft to w �y l7 o. p 00 co Y J C y O' m. w �'• N Ow '� .•'' CyrJ 4 ��i rDD w y J a4 cn O O N W r. CCD AD O N W 7Q �• p O � O �� o' CD CD CACD D E; v ti O r CD o cn z w r. p- w ao B Y O C7 o o c ° cD ; < O o a o o< a. o CDCD c°D to CD .O, t17 co `� - y O -e w w O cn � � W CD CD CD cn Nda Oo�O �)O .y + tTj ¢ a o : N CD O 0. z w o cn O. Y O O m w a4 O n H CS N n OCD CL CD IRD 5- CL CD O a GO ti 0N C O CCD CDaD C O h y p N � w ,..' AAi W = p n CDN CD .y <. CD W CD E3 in cr CD CD `� v to ° Q CY CD �, n 0 O✓ O v O a Cr CD CD CD 0 GQ CD • O co O � w •, O v, � P.. o O CD O O :MOrcn O OO. p o cD G iD W N CD w CDCD O CD O -h b9 Erg Cn N ►d O 0 O -0 -0 "�� - ] P� v p �C Qn t-+ trJ • y • v� O O "O rn cr T'n p, �y cn '• Vi N CD �" V x �' O CD a (JQ ° CD i1- F/ • 0O aQ y CD 7 O o C o . N CD �' (rQ t" O~ 5 0 mo °° o � cn � n nCD K � CDD CD N > CD CDCD . ° CD O D ° G Q.. co'r1 C/�CD p.. o y a. w o �_ w0 ° o SD 0 CD ° ° ua CnL as o ° a. 0 o CD _ ° CD °o � iW. oo o�" to � a Cn o CD D 0)q cs• a. .� CD A CD CDl. ¢. - > ° CD o z .a �' w j '� �' �= CCDD �t R .� a CD CD �. YI —h N —• V = r+ z =r > > rD m r+o3�� =Do rn (Dr+(D� Q �� D � � * � 'rt Ln Do D Z 3 _ O rD m N m m O_ � _ --t, a X o 3 -• fD CL _ N Z O Ln rD :E O °o m _ z Z N �. r� ; i � rD r c) cD rD z N APPENDIX H WADING BIRD INFORMATIONAL PAMPHLET < 'o �s o o ... @ o 0 c� a cu ° o o y 80 a a�CP 0000 0 o CD ° CD roa To CA CD CD o To O .a oElEn O ?- con CD n C n y�J'Yi•'f`i'��71.��lk'r�� ,-�•�r'Fr� ,y� � �y� � s ry � � y w yy ILL, ,,.V:'e �•,�z �Y\J4'i cD �a� �, �� CA v� cr CD CA N CD Cr N a.o�a.,�ooa o � Z Cn CD aq n P CDD aaCDa Cl, 0 CAD °' CD 0 o CD = ". ' CD n -t as z 'a CD p Q•��Qp-o��aq°, t CD �t O t (Ima�yy O CCDD C Q C. CD 0 W `� W o W ZS CCDD C O CD FBI CD CD CD G- CD CD CD CD Cn C p 3y CD CD CA CD w CD Cl. CD CD CD CD CD p o •• CD d CD CD p -• nCD O L1. v' p. v� p v� CD rn CD W CDCD CD 0 p CD CD �. `o CD CD aq a o ►� a� as npdo ... CD CD . ... O CA A� ...... vOA C o C� n p.orc ° p �.. o n Q. a4 aq I �' -t " CD r, .T . ..t o-710CD CD CD 0 CD CD CD CD CD CD ► c ..t CD oo CI. CD CD a. CD CD•-. Cn ` 7 CD o tW w .+, ' 3 d CD . ►o CD a o � g `° ° CD CD n CAD °CDCD� �.CDcnrD�.P- c�cn CD CD CD CD CL ��aq CD 0 ��,�o-�,�Ln � � o ° CL o a CCDD '-C �' � APPENDIX I FLORIDA BLACK BEAR INFORMATIONAL PAMPHLET A guide to living in bear country Ashley Hockenberry ID. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission MyFWC.com/Bear 1< If you are in Florida, you should know Florida's black bear population has recovered from historically low numbers in most areas of the state, while at the same time the number of people has increased in and around where bears live. As a result, bears and people encounter each other more than ever. Keeping bears wild and away from the places where people live and work is a responsibility we all share to ensure they remain a valued part of Florida's natural heritage. Living in bear country provides rewarding opportunities for residents and visitors to view Florida's largest land mammal. Observe them from a distance, as a bear near your home or workplace is usually just passing through. However, if you experience human -bear conflicts, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) can assist you. The FWC receives over 5,000 bear related calls annually, with most people reporting bears in their yards or getting into garbage. Human -bear conflicts are preventable. Most conflicts result from people feeding bears either intentionally or unintentionally, even though feeding is illegal in Florida. Bears are attracted to neighborhoods that allow access to food sources — such as garbage, pet food and birdseed — and will quickly learn to associate homes and businesses with getting an easy meal. This behavior becomes more evident in fall, when bears eat up to 20,000 calories a day to bulk up for winter. Bears that become too comfortable around people are more likely to be killed by collisions with vehicles, by someone taking an illegal action or by FWC to address a public safety risk. The bear facts Black bears are the only species of bear in Florida and once roamed the entire state. ■ FWC biologists estimate approximately 4,000 black bears roam Florida today, compared to as few as 300 bears in the 1970s. ■ Florida bears generally have black fur with a tan muzzle and sometimes a white chest patch called a blaze. ■ Adult black bears typically weigh between 150 to 400 pounds, with males often twice the size of females. ■ Female bears have their first litter at about 3 1/2 years old and usually have one to three cubs every other year. ■ In Florida, bear breeding season runs from about June to August, with cubs born in late January or early February. ■ Bears typically range over a large area: 15 square miles for females and 62 square miles for males. ■ Bears have the best sense of smell of any land mammal, seven times better than a bloodhound. ■ 80% of a black bear's diet comes from plants such as fruits, nuts and berries, 15% from insects like termites, ants and bees, and 5% from meat such as opossums, armadillos and carrion. For more bear facts, visit MyFWC.com/Bear. 1 Why not relocate bears? W,, m m N O (D Unfortunately, relocation typically does not resolve human -bear conflicts. In Florida, it is rare to find public lands large and remote enough where bears can be moved without coming in contact with people. Relocated bears typically leave the new area to return to their original home or because the new habitat is already occupied by other bears. The result can be bears wandering through unfamiliar areas and crossing busy roads, which creates a danger to motorists and bears. In addition, relocated bears very often exhibit the same unwanted behavior they did before, so relocation may just shift the problem to a new place. For all these reasons, relocation is neither a desirable nor effective way to solve human -bear conflicts. The FWC is committed to providing effective solutions to conflicts that address the safety concerns of residents and visitors, as well as the long-term well-being of bears. Bear behavior and you Black bears are shy animals and generally not aggressive towards people. When bears are frightened they run away or climb a tree. If a bear is in a tree in your neighborhood, it is either feeding or trying to escape danger. Keep people and pets away, and the bear will come down and leave on its own when it feels safe, usually after dark. When a bear stands on its hind legs, it is only trying to get a better view or scent, rather than acting in a threatening manner. Black bears may huff, snap their jaws, swat the ground or "bluff charge" when cornered, threatened or defending food or young. If this happens, stop, hold your ground and then slowly back away. Always remember to respect bears — they are large, powerful, wild animals that can act unpredictably and become dangerous. Bears used to getting food from people may lose their natural fear of human contact and are more likely to damage property or become a public safety threat. NEVER feed or attract bears. If a bear is eating something on your property, take note of what it is and secure it after the bear has left the area. Here are some tips on how to be BearWise, remain safe around black bears and reinforce their natural fear of people: ■ Never approach a bear. Keep as much distance between you and the bear as possible. ■ If a bear changes its behavior because of your presence, you are too close. ■ When walking dogs, keep them close and be aware of your surroundings. Dogs can trigger defensive behaviors from bears. ■ Report any bear threatening the safety of people, pets or livestock, or causing property damage to the FWC (see back cover). ■ If you encounter a bear at close range, remain standing upright with arms raised, back up slowly and speak to the bear in a calm, assertive voice. ■ Do not turn your back, play dead or run from a black bear. Back away slowly into a secure area such as a house, car or building. ■ Make sure you are in a secure area and the bear has a clear escape route, then yell loudly, bang pots and pans, blow a whistle, or use an air horn or car horn to scare the bear away. ■ Install a motion -activated device, such as flood lights, a water sprinkler or audio alarm, to scare a bear away from a location when you are not present. Warning! It is illegal to take, possess, injure, shoot, collect or sell black bears under Florida state law unless authorized by Commission issued permit. If you are found guilty, you could face fines and/or jail time. Discouraging bears from visiting your home Bears do not linger in neighborhoods if they do not find food. Properly storing or securing garbage and other attractants is a proven method of preventing bear conflicts around homes, neighborhoods and businesses. However, it takes a community -wide effort to keep bears wild and away from people. These items will attract bears: ■ Unsecured trash and unwashed recycling containers ■ Bird and squirrel feeders with items like seed, suet and peanuts ■ Wildlife feeders ■ Pet food and bowls ■ Barbeque grills and smokers ■ Small animals such as chickens, goats, pigs and rabbits ■ Animal feed like corn, grain and pet food ■ Composting unsuitable materials ■ Beehives ■ Fruit and nut -bearing trees and shrubs ■ Unsecured outdoor freezers, refrigerators or coolers Securing garbage: ■ Store garbage and unwashed recyclables in bear - resistant containers or in a secure area, such as a sturdy shed or garage, until the morning of pickup, or ■ Build a small shed to store trash cans. Be sure there are no gaps along the shed's edges and use screws instead of nails. If the shed is curbside, call your waste service provider to ensure they will service trash cans from a shed, or ■ Retrofit your regular trash can to make it more bear -resistant by adding hardware. For a retrofit to be successful, the lid must not be flexible and the can must not collapse when you stand on its side. Call your waste service provider to ensure they will service a retrofitted trash can, or ■ Request a commercially manufactured bear -resistant trash can from your waste service provider. If they do not provide these cans, you can special order one from a hardware store, but ensure your waste service provider will service it. Securing other bear attractants: ■ Use electric fencing to protect gardens, garbage, compost piles, beehives, fruit trees and livestock. ■ Feed pets indoors or bring food dishes (even empty ones) inside before dark. ■ Store pet and livestock feed in bear -resistant containers or inside a secure area. ■ Remove or modify bird and wildlife feeders and ensure the ground is free of all feed and debris. ■ Keep gardens and fruiting trees and shrubs tidy. Remove rotten fruit and harvest ripe nuts, fruits and vegetables. ■ Create an Unwelcome Mat by placing finishing nails, heads up, 2 inches apart with no more than 3/4 of an inch of the nail sticking up, into a sheet of anchored plywood to keep bears away from a specific area, such as under a window or door, along a patio edge or an opening in a fence. ■ Keep outdoor refrigerators and freezers in a secure location or lock up with super -adhesive anchors, like Marine LockSTM. ■ Clean meat smokers and barbeque grills with a degreasing detergent and store in a secure area. Properly dispose of any food remnants after each use. NOTE: Screened porches are not secure from bears. �r��r_rvr_ ■ir_�r� �n�■ r�+�i rimine at RUVAPlate Where bears live in Florida Rear Range (2016) Abundant Common Occasional Rare Bear Management Unit County Water FWC Regional Offices It Leland N4at Palm Beach If you are experiencing bear conflicts, please contact the nearest FWC regional office. North Central Northeast Northwest South Southwest Lake City Ocala Panama City West Palm Beach Lakeland (386) 758-0525 (352) 732-1225 (850) 265-3676 (561) 625-5122 (863) 648-3200 If you suspect illegal activity, call FWC's Wildlife Alert Hotline at 888-404-FWCC (3922). Follow us on: IN IF 0) Yount flitkr UUM `._.-� (D.MyFWC.corn/Bear Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Cap printed on recycled paper 5/2017 APPENDIX J FLORIDA PANTHER INFORMATIONAL PAMPHLET O O 9 D) =Z O C = 9 rt do 7 rt S ODom n ID OD O -n A 0 3 < O A y d y G. O n 7 S F O n y d o m a a w - N� c O � A 0o wswe�m R N R O m R � 3 5 - O '.f0 :3 10 R r Q ID° a •p G m m ,, O x m w A b a y ,y y m• m C �J' . 7 `< 'O O O c� n n; m S a.� M m m M. O o 9 fD R.H ° C °C E a'pi `• C B m w S� X oo N `< ry M o.R 'S'Rj XR < N n R m Cy O fD N O G C CD w m �• w- 07 N O n W C ew+ R S em* S2. A [) p l) O ey. w n 1v e' O K A G •y 0 44 G w G A R r ;mxx w°<3X G �ti wag' 0-4 m w G P a m rL O C 0, A m�Mcm � °c3wme� ma £w� �m o�� 3w+R C. ,�, cM.mi °n a m <°�dq R w X a �' p .< m R wg- ontD°w NE.TRw A Rww .<R R�C 7r O C.y tr y) O C R m m N <DD> 7 3 0 w fD 0. n w D .< 'O 7 ,O.y .'• m `< m _ f C. p O <' S o m m a R N aq laded pap6aal uo paluud Q Y joy;ued/woo"ONUAW 009T-66£Z£ lj `aasseyellel 3aai3S uelpljaw 'S OZ9 u01ss1ww0D u01lenA3su03 aIIIPIIM pue yslj ep!IOIj , Et (D ME r+ CL O < R9 �. r+ �i Q 0 w � w = �yw p C. <D m m m n m n �emoR, a°w 'O R � M m 9 m w w w m m ° R ,C ( << ;� C n n �'.p ° 4 R R m C m o'y x .. ° Pr S A G. N m .wq CJ R "g—m O m o m is CD p ID j' t" P m 7'C D SO w c,c c 0 O mom m < o o R a N R 7 'GaCS 021i 07 7 m w 7c' m 3 K 0 p W A W. 0 E m 0i �(D �� tia m K :E w =1 m °cyK S.owN� <E c<o°m mA'< 9E er 'Y � m•• � C w m 7 m 7�� R. �. o Z .07 c<D � M N A DC ID m C m O C. m N d wino .°Eow mmsm mom, °Rocmi m m 0 0yy mmm �.K 7 c. mM' m^7 0' p W R M O �- [=]ao O O f m m R C O m G. R E. °cmm eS(DoKo l< p = m < C op 0o m . 0 010,11 "M col '78 m w w o E w R y v e 0.0 .O m P.. r� fR0 d j w `< W C y �, G. m w OO O O °'aR.�. � n � w R m ua Sao .�. mm C'•O C m?yy <RSyti cR�' K m N (D 00 E A y R m M m m 3 m °c w .3 w (°m ° w 0 W Y o N Sm O.cn v"n, w C '10' C' 5. w 'o % w o Nao c M- n.g oo °� e ID R m R w' 0" ' C R ¢. 7 lD R m- m 3 < <" A' .m... p y R tpi 7 m R '�J' n IUD �y m 0 m ° 3 w as ??, O P. 'O C .°y p m C m C m per n S m m Q 19. m 0 C, r R WV31 U3H1NVd DMJ i c c a v o c P, to > �= a m /= w Do ?. R R p. a o• ., O 3 O 3 X m 7' ? vm m S 9± m m m m p m C N S R r 5 R o f A O m' O w (D y? Fo n o rc �o�i W -n < m a^ CC Q m 3 3 0 N m A 0 S w SCR , G •T1� G O \ R .3 (Rj •p O m m ,p OC M N C K T C v°i ew* C. 1. m p O m 3 00 co R m S °n V pCD Is I— �y gyxoo.., s wm mwa: w CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) PUBLIC FACILITIES REPORT WITH EXHIBITS CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Solid Waste A solid waste assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SR,4 Designation Application package. The assessment shall identify the means and methods for handling, transporting and disposal of all solid waste generated including but not limited to the collection, handling and disposal of recyclables and horticultural waste products. The applicant shall identify the location and remaining disposal capacity available at the disposal site. According to the Economic Assessment, the proposed SRA will increase the County's peak residential population by approximately 9,615 peak population persons at buildout for 4,502 total dwelling units, including 362 affordable housing units. Using a tons per capita rate of 0.66 (per the 2024 AUIR), a population increase of 9,615 people will generate an additional 6,345.9 tons disposed per year. Commercial solid waste and residential curbside solid waste, recycling, and horticulture will be collected with Collier County's franchise agreements by other franchise -approved haulers. Commercial recycling is open to market collection. Construction waste will be collected and processed by a local business specializing in the recycling of construction products. Collier County maintains a Board approved Disposal Capacity Agreement (DCA) with Okeechobee Landfill, Inc., that provides 930,000 tons of reserved capacity at Okeechobee Landfill. The waste generated and transferred to Okeechobee Landfill as part of the DCA is not included in the AUIR capacity LOS. Per the AUIR, for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the LOS Standard for capacity, it is assumed Collier County will renew, amend, or enter into a new agreement, as necessary, and continue to transfer. Commercial, municipal solid waste, and recycling containers will comply with Collier County ordinances. The project will utilize County -approved bear -resistant dumpsters/trash cans for all residential and non-residential uses, with locations of dumpsters being determined at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP) approval. All costs, including maintenance, of bear -resistant dumpsters will be borne by the owner/developer. Potable Water A potable water assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The assessment shall illustrate how the applicant will conform to either Florida Administrative Code for private and limited use water systems, or for Public Water Systems. In addition to the standard requirements of the analyses required above, the potable water assessment shall specifically consider, to the extent applicable, the disposal of waste products, if any, generated by the proposed treatment process. The applicant shall identify the sources of water proposed for potable water supply. Page 1 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\ResubmittallPublic Facilities Lnpact Assessment Repoli (6-30-2025).docx The project site is located within the Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) utility service area. Therefore, potable water services for the Corkscrew Grove East Village project will be provided by IWSD. To address the potable water demands of the project, the following improvements are anticipated: 1. Regional Water Supply Facility: IWSD plans to construct a regional water supply facility on land currently owned by Alico Land Development Company and located just east of the SRA along the north side of SR 82. This facility will ensure an adequate potable water supply for the development and comply with the Florida Administrative Code standards for Public Water Systems. 2. Distribution of Potable Water: Within the project boundaries, potable water distribution will be coordinated between the Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District and the IWSD. Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District will oversee the initial installation of distribution infrastructure. The proposed potable water system will comply with all regulatory requirements, including considerations for the disposal of any waste products generated by the water treatment process. The system will adhere to approved generation rates and design criteria to ensure compliance with Level of Service (LOS) standards. Potable water demands, including Average Daily Demand (ADD) and Maximum Daily Demand (MDD), will be calculated in coordination with IWSD and the relevant permitting agencies. The Owner/Developer will not be obligated to pay Collier County potable water impact fees. Instead, applicable connection fees will be calculated and paid directly to IWSD. Irrigation Water An irrigation water assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The assessment shall quantify the anticipated irrigation water usage expected at the buildout of the SRA. The assessment shall identify the sources of water proposed for irrigation use and shall identify proposed methods of water conservation. The Corkscrew Grove project site has a long history of permitted agricultural withdrawals from the Lower Tamiami and Sandstone Aquifers that have not resulted in any known adverse impacts to natural environments. The agricultural water allocations currently permitted and used within the Corkscrew Grove project area total approximately 13.78 MGD on an annual average basis (5,028 MGY) and approximately 18.45 MGD on a maximum monthly basis (572 MGM). At build -out, the Corkscrew Grove project will result in converting approximately 1,447 acres of the currently permitted 3,100 acres of agricultural land into a residential development or about 47% of the currently permitted agricultural acreage. Prorating the currently permitted irrigation allocation to the 1,447 acres proposed for development yields an annual average day allocation of 6.48 MGD and a maximum month day allocation of 8.68 MGD for the proposed development Page 2 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WPaeSLibinittal\Public Facilities Impact Assesssment Report (6-30-2025).docx area. The transition of agricultural use to residential/commercial use will result in approximately 432 acres of landscaping and turf within the Corkscrew Grove development requiring irrigation. The project irrigation demand for this amount of irrigated acreage as determined using the SFWMD Blaney-Criddle method is: • 1.44 MGD on an annual average basis or 524 MGY (78% reduction in current use) 2.24 MGD on a maximum monthly basis or 68 MGM (74% reduction in current use) The proposed change in land use will result in a significant reduction in irrigation water usage at the project site. The Corkscrew Grove project will obtain a water use permit from the SFWMD which will allow withdrawal from onsite surface water and ground water sources to meet irrigation demands. The onsite irrigation water supply system will include stonnwater lakes and wells. The lake system will be used to supply irrigation water for the project and wells will be utilized to resupply the withdrawal lakes when needed. The proposed source aquifers for the wells are the Lower Tamiami Aquifer and Sandstone Aquifer as currently permitted to meet the existing agricultural water demands on the project site. The lake withdrawals will provide an efficient and low impact method for effectively harvesting available stormwater supplies while lake storage and re -supply by groundwater will minimize potential impacts to both surface and groundwater levels. The Owner/Developer would be responsible for all costs associated with the permitting, construction, and maintenance of the irrigation system. Wastewater A wastewater assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The assessment shall illustrate how the applicant will conform to either Standards for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems, contained in Florida Administrative Code for systems having a capacity not exceeding 10,000 gallons per day or for wastewater treatment systems having a capacity greater than 10,000 gallons per day. In addition to the standard requirements of the analysis required above, the wastewater assessment shall specifically consider, to the extent applicable, the disposal of waste products generated by the proposed treatment process. The project site is located within the Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) utility service area. Therefore, wastewater services for the Corkscrew Grove East Village project will be provided by IWSD. The following improvements are anticipated to meet the wastewater demands of the project: Wastewater Treatment Facility: IWSD plans to construct a regional wastewater treatment facility on property currently owned by Alico Land Development Company, located east side of the SRA on the north side of SR 82. This facility will treat wastewater generated by the development in compliance with the Florida Administrative Code standards for wastewater treatment systems exceeding 10,000 gallons per day. 2. Wastewater Collection and Transmission: Within the project boundaries, wastewater collection and transmission infrastructure will be coordinated between the Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District and IWSD. Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District will oversee the initial installation of the necessary gravity sewer lines, force mains, and lift stations. Page 3 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-HMHMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Resubmittal\Public Facilities ImpactAssesssment Report (6-30-2025).docx The proposed wastewater treatment system will adhere to all regulatory requirements, including the proper disposal of waste products generated during the treatment process. Wastewater flows, including Average Daily Flow (ADF) and Peak Hourly Flow (PHF), will be calculated in coordination with IWSD and the appropriate permitting agencies to ensure compliance with Level of Service (LOS) standards. The Owner/Developer will not be obligated to pay Collier County wastewater impact fees. Instead, applicable connection fees will be calculated and paid directly to IWSD. Stormwater Management Astormwater management impact assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The stormwater management impact assessment shall, at a minimum, provide the following information: A. An exhibit showing the boundary of the proposed SRA including the following information: All responses to the questions below are shown on the Village Master Plan submitted as Exhibit A to this Public Facilities Impact Assessment Report. 1) The location of any WRA delineated within the SRA; Areas designated WRA within the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA are shown on the Village Master Plan submitted as Exhibit A to this Public Facilities Impact Assessment Report. 2) A generalized representation of the existing stormwater flow patterns across the site including the location(s) of discharge from the site to the downstream receiving waters; and Existing stormwater on this site is generated by the agricultural activities that have historically taken place and are currently permitted. Stormwater is collected through a network of internal ditches and canals, which route the runoff to the on - site Water Retention Areas (WRAs) via pumps. Discharges from these WRAs are controlled through regulated control structures that limit offsite discharge rates. Offsite discharges flow into adjacent canals and/or culverts under Corkscrew Road, with the ultimate outfall directed into the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW). Please reference the "Storm Water Management Impact Assessment Exhibits" included with this submittal. 3) The land uses of adjoining properties and, if applicable, the locations of stormwater discharge into the site of the proposed SRA from the adjoining properties. Page 4 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\ResubmittaNPublic Facilities Impact Assesssment Report (6-30-2025).docx Land uses to the north, east, and west is agricultural. Lands to the south are agricultural and public lands outside of the RLSA boundary. B. A narrative component to the report including the following information: 1) The name of the receiving water or, if applicable, FSA or WRA to which the stormwater discharge from the site will ultimately outfall; Corkscrew Grove East Village will ultimately outfall to the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW). 2) The peak allowable discharge rate (in cfs/acre) allowed for the SRA per Collier County Ordinance 90-10 or its successor regulation; The site is located within the Cocohatchee River Canal Basin. The peak allowable discharge, per Ordinance No. 2019-19, is 0.04 cfs/ac. 3) If applicable, a description of the provisions to be made to accept stormwater flows from surrounding properties into, around, or through the constructed surface water management system of the proposed development, The proposed SRA encompasses three distinct areas: the property west of Corkscrew Road, the property north of SR82, and the property east of Corkscrew Road and south of SR82. The existing site has historically been used for agricultural row crops, primarily oranges and tomatoes. The site is composed of an intricate network of agricultural infrastructure, including dikes, impoundment areas known as WRAs, perimeter ditches, and berms. These perimeter berms effectively prevent external surface water from flowing onto the site, ensuring that no stormwater flows from surrounding properties are accepted. Within the site, stormwater runoff from the agricultural fields is collected in perimeter ditches. From there, agricultural pumps transfer the excess runoff into the WRAs. These WRAs are equipped with drainage structures that direct stormwater either into adjacent canals, through culverts under Corkscrew Road, or directly into the CREW lands. Two canals currently traverse the site, ultimately discharging into CREW. These canals, essential for stormwater conveyance from surrounding properties, will be preserved. One of these, Cabbage Slough, will be partially relocated within the site to accommodate the proposed development. This relocation will maintain the canal's current capacity and flow patterns, ensuring that surrounding hydrology is not adversely affected. The other canal, Gator Slough, will remain unaltered to preserve its existing functionality. Page 5 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Resubmittal\Public Facilities Impact Assesssment Report (6-30-2025).docx 4) The types of stormwater detention areas to be constructed as part of the surface water management system of the proposed development and water quality treatment to be provided prior to discharge of the runoff from the site; and In the post -development condition, all agricultural operations will be discontinued, agricultural ditches will be filled, and the site will be redeveloped into a mixed -use village with a master surface water management system. The existing perimeter berms will be retained to ensure that surrounding flow patterns remain unaffected; however, these berms may be modified during construction to comply with South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) criteria. The master surface water management system will provide the necessary water quality treatment and nutrient removal through a combination of traditional stormwater storage methods, such as wet detention and dry retention areas, prior to discharging into WRAs or the offsite CREW Lands. Stormwater from the site will discharge into CREW via multiple existing culverts under Corkscrew Road and the two (2) existing canals that traverse the property described in the previous section. S) If a WRA has been incorporated into the stormwater management system of an SR,4, the report shall demonstrate compliance with the provisions of Section 4.08.04.A.4.b. All WRAs adjacent to the SRA will be integrated into the stormwater management system. Discharges into the WRAs will occur only after the required water quality treatment has been achieved. Stormwater discharge into the WRA will only occur through control structures permitted by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The owner of Corkscrew East Village SRA will be responsible for all costs associated with the design, permitting, construction, and operation of the proposed stormwater improvements required to serve Corkscrew East Village development. School Concurrency The adopted level of service for schools is based upon permanent Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity: 100% for high school Concurrency Service Areas (CSAs); 95% for elementary school CSAs; and 95% for middle school CSAs. The subject site is within the Ell Immokalee Area 1 CSA for elementary schools, the M5 Immokalee Area CSA for middle schools, and the H5 Immokalee Area CSA for high schools. The FISH capacity and enrollment data below is per the Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for fiscal years 2025 through 2044. The El I CSA includes three elementary schools, Eden Park, Highlands, and Lake Trafford. They have a combined FISH capacity of 2,517 students, a 2024/2025 enrollment of 1,922 students, and a projected 2028/2029 enrollment of 2,063 students (82% capacity). Page 6 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Resnbmittal\Pnblic Facilities Impact Assesssment Report (6-30-2025).docr The M5 CSA includes one middle school, Immokalee Middle. There is a FISH capacity of 1,715 students, a 2024/2025 enrollment of 1,419 students, and a projected 2028/2029 enrollment of 1,260 students (73% capacity). According to the CCPS CIP, enrollment at Immokalee Middle is being monitored. The H5 CSA includes one high school, Immokalee High. There is a FISH capacity of 2,221 students, a 2024/2025 enrollment of 1,993 students, and a projected 2028/2029 enrollment of 1,773 students (80% capacity). According to the CCPS CIP, enrollment at Immokalee High is being monitored. The proposed Corkscrew Grove East Village consists of up to 4,127 dwelling units (not including the 375 affordable housing units), broken down by type in the table below in accordance with Collier County Impact Fee Ordinance(s) methodology and terminology and applying the student generation rates (SGR) established in the 2015 Collier County School Impact Fee Study (the most recent data available) the Corkscrew Grove East Village is anticipated to generate 1,109 new students at buildout. Residential Unit Type Units SGR Projected Students Multi -family (condo, duplex, single-family attached, etc. 1,279 0.11 141 Single-family detached < 4,000 SF 2,848 0.34 968 TOTAL 4,127 1,109 As the total projected number of students will be distributed between the El 1, M5, and H5 CSAs, the Owner/Developer of the Village has reserved a 24-acre dedicated school site as depicted on the SRA Master Plan (Exhibit A of this document). The Owner/Developer will also design the Village stormwater system to accommodate necessary stormwater treatment and storage for the school site. A stipulation to the development order requires the Owner/Developer to convey real property for the school site in exchange for education impact fee credits. The proposed stipulation states: "With respect to the conveyance of real property, by the Applicant to the School District, the reservation of the school site to the School District fully mitigates for the developments impact to the elementary, middle, and high schools needed to serve the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA." Fire and EMS The Corkscrew Grove East Village is located within the service area of the Immokalee Fire Control District (Fire District). Fire and EMS services for the project will be initially provided out of Station 31 in Immokalee. However, a new fire (and co -located EMS) station may be needed to serve the project at buildout. A stipulation to the development order requires the Owner/Developer to convey real property for a three -acre site for a fire and co -located EMS station in exchange for fire impact fee credits and/or cash. The proposed stipulation states: "With respect to the conveyance of real property by the Applicant to the Fire District, the reservation of the site to the Fire District fully mitigates for the developments impact to the fire and EMS facilities needed to serve the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA." Page 7 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-HM\I IMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Resubmittal\Public Facilities Impact Assesssment Report (6-30-2025).docx Transportation Impacts See the Traffic Analysis provided as part of this SRA application for transportation impacts. Page 8 of 8 Q:\FL-NAPL-RM\HMDATA-NP2\2023\2023120\WP\Restibinittal\Public Facilities Impact Assesssment Report (6-30-2025 ).docx n vl k C 1• CID P r m I r — —i U1 � _ m V1 S \� O w L C"i �r1 ff ,p O90 --I f it D r m D o z x m • _ fvi N m m L Z ca O J� _� a A i m O i r O O ; C D - m K A r O Al N n D D =O yy f rn m pa x X • x . 00 p C A , i K m � • N � C A ; O � O 'Q� •�P�.17rN �I vk 4u.`F'. r3n1_r Gudry C 4yc-nwl i/S �y� � = S O � m m ' • D r o rn N f • Fi m z > • O 0 N Ci a O_ D m i O A x O • � A N = 11 m A T m a s • • • • C m � r m I I I I c'I Zi n ' C1 fl'0 r mm2 m A(AMO n to o O Y C n p �Q r m m In m O z 0 Y= p s 5, m CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE Bowman FACILITIES MAP �" " d " i� �,,,,y,,.�.m. nann�anmut[or �unxo�noxxur•[n aom Q J.R. EVANS CORKSCREW GROVES EAST VILLAGE SRA 0109000E10- STORMWATER MGMT IMPACT ASSESSMENT.OWG ENGINEERING STORM WATER MANAGEMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT D—mbv 00. 2024 EXISTING CONDITIONS iN 0 1000' 2000' SCALE; 1" = 2000' RA BOUNDARY APPROX- COUNTY LIMITS HENDRY COUNTY CONCEPTUAL STORM WATER 9 COLLIER COUNTY \` OUTFALL STRUCTURE STq>�R (LOCATIOh &NUMBER 8 MAY VARY) M?) PAIVFF{FR $RA BOUNDARY p�► BOUNDARY RR16GElC- "` 1^ BRIDGE CAN AI CRCS91 CROSSING ., WRA(5$A 2,3) Ur OT PART OI SRA) RELQOATEb CABBAGE GATOR SLOUGH SLOUGH CANAL CANAL LIMITS /� Y CONCEPTUAL STORM WATEP/` `•� OUTFALL STRUCTURE / - � iONCEPiUAI:STORM - (LOCATIRY)TI'P) {ON 6 NUMBER NEATER OUTFALL � r MAYVA��• j STRUCTURE (LOCATION R 4+ _ NUMBERMA'.VARYXI`YP) 7 CORKSCREW ROM RA.W. WRA(5SA#23) - SRA BOUNDARY INOTPART OF SRA) MODIFICATIONS ANO(OR REMOVAL OF EX STRUCTURE i TO BE OMRMINE13 AT TIME OF BOP PERMUTING ('fYp) -fff/ff C.R.E.w LANDS I J.R. EVAINS CORKSCREW GROVES EAST VILLAGE SRA 01093DOE10- STORMWATER MOMT IMPACT ASSESSMENT.DWG ENGINEERING STORM WATER MANAGEMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT D...b., a0, z0za PROPOSED CONDITIONS CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment Collier County Collier County Schools Immokalee Fire Control District Initial Submission: March 6, 2025 Revised: June 20, 2025 Solid Waste and Roads Revised: July 29, 2025 Solid Waste Revised: August 29, 2025 Roads Prepared By: DPFG CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................5 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................7 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................................ 7 MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS..................................................................................................................9 Development Assumptions.......................................................................................................9 Revenue Assumptions.............................................................................................................10 Sales, Just, and Taxable Values.............................................................................................. 10 PropertyTaxes....................................................................................................................... 11 ExpenditureAssumptions........................................................................................................11 COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL IMPACTS..............................................................................................12 Collier County Operating Impacts............................................................................................12 Collier County Operating Revenue Projections........................................................................12 Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections..................................................................13 Collier County Capital Impacts.................................................................................................1S Collier County Capital Impacts by Department..................................................................... 15 COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT................................................................................27 Collier County Schools Capital Impacts....................................................................................27 Collier County Schools Operating Impacts............................................................................... 31 Immokalee Fire Control District..................................................................................................33 Immokalee Fire Control District Capital Impact.................................................................... 33 Immokalee Fire Control District Annual Operating Impacts ................................................. 34 APPENDIX.................................................................................................................................... 36 GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS................................................................................................54 2 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 1: Corkscrew Grove East Village Development Program....................................................9 Table 2: Corkscrew Grove East Village Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values....................10 Table 3: Corkscrew Grove East Village Nonresidential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values..............10 Table 4: Corkscrew Grove East Village County Tax Base at Buildout..........................................11 Table 5: Collier County Millage Rates.........................................................................................11 Table 6: Corkscrew Grove East Village Operating Annual Net Impact at Buildout .....................12 Table 7: Corkscrew Grove East Village Annual Operating Revenue Projections .........................13 Table 8: Corkscrew Grove East Village Annual Operating Expenditure Projections ...................14 Table 9: Corkscrew Grove East Village Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County .........................16 Table 10: Corkscrew Grove East Village Regional Parks Capital Impacts....................................18 Table 11: Corkscrew Grove East Village Regional Parks Level of Service....................................19 Table 12: Corkscrew Grove East Village Indexed Capital Cost per Acre......................................19 Table 13: Corkscrew Grove East Village Community Parks Capital Impacts...............................19 Table 14: Corkscrew Grove East Village Community Parks Level of Service...............................20 Table 15: Corkscrew Grove East Village Community Parks Level of Service...............................20 Table 16: Corkscrew Grove East Village Law Enforcement Capital Impacts...............................21 Table 17: Corkscrew Grove East Village Correctional Facilities..................................................21 Table 18: Corkscrew Grove East Village Correctional Facilities Capital Cost ............................... 22 Table 19: Corkscrew Grove East Village Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost per Resident ........ 22 Table 20: Corkscrew Grove East Village EMS Capital Cost..........................................................23 Table 21: Corkscrew Grove East Village EMS Capital Impact......................................................23 Table 22: CCPC Historical Enrollment and Capital Revenues.......................................................28 Table 23: Collier County Charter School Student Stations...........................................................29 Table 24: Corkscrew Grove East Village Projected Public School Enrollment .............................29 Table 25: Corkscrew Grove East Village Projected Enrollment by School Type ..........................30 Table 26: Corkscrew Grove East Village School Impact Fee Revenue.........................................30 Table 27: Corkscrew Grove East Village School Net Capital Impacts — Total Cash Flow Approach .................................................................................................................................................... 31 Table 28: Corkscrew Grove East Village Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout 32 Table 29: Corkscrew Grove East Village Immokalee Fire Control District Capital Impact ........... 33 Table 30: Corkscrew Grove East Village Immokalee Fire Control Impact Fee Revenues ............34 Table 31: Corkscrew Grove East Village Square Footage............................................................34 Table 32: Corkscrew Grove East Village Immokalee Fire Control District Annual Operating Impacts atBuildout..................................................................................................................................35 Appendix Table 1: Collier County Base Assumptions.................................................................36 Appendix Table 2: Corkscrew Grove East Village Resident Population and Seasonal Population Coefficients.................................................................................................................................37 Appendix Table 3: Corkscrew Grove East Village Population and Employment Estimates ......... 37 Appendix Table 4: Corkscrew Grove East Village Population and Employment Summary ......... 37 Appendix Table 5: Corkscrew Grove East Village Public School Enrollment...............................38 Appendix Table 6: Corkscrew Grove East Village County Tax Base............................................38 3 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 7: Corkscrew Grove East Village School District Tax Base ................................. 39 Appendix Table 8: FY 2025 Collier County General Funds and MSTU Revenue Budget Summaries .................................................................................................................................................... 40 Appendix Table 9: FY 2025 Collier County General Funds Revenue Demand Units....................41 Appendix Table 10: FY 2025 Collier County MSTU Revenue Demand Units...............................41 Appendix Table 11: Corkscrew Grove East Village General Funds Revenue at Buildout .............42 Appendix Table 12: Corkscrew Grove East Village MSTU Revenue at Buildout ...........................42 Appendix Table 13: FY 2025 Collier County General Funds and MSTU Expenditure Budget Summaries..................................................................................................................................43 Appendix Table 14: FY 2025 Collier County Expenditure Budget Summaries .............................44 Appendix Table 15: FY 2025 Collier County Appropriations by Program Budget Summaries ..... 45 Appendix Table 16: FY 2025 Collier County General Funds Expenditure Demand Units ............46 Appendix Table 17: EMS Adjusted Operating Expenditures for New Ambulance ......................47 Appendix Table 18: FY 2025 Collier County MSTU Expenditure Demand Units .........................48 Appendix Table 19: Corkscrew Grove East Village General Funds Expenditures at Buildout .....49 Appendix Table 20: Corkscrew Grove East Village MSTU Expenditures at Buildout...................50 Appendix Table 21: Collier County Impact Fee Schedule for Applicable Services .......................51 Appendix Table 22: Corkscrew Grove East Village Impact Fee Revenues for Applicable Services .................................................................................................................................................... 52 Appendix Table 23: Collier County School District Base Assumptions........................................53 4 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Alico, Inc. is proposing the establishment of the Corkscrew Grove East Village Stewardship Receiving Area ("SRA") on 1,446.59± acres in Collier County with a portion located on the north side of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road and the remainder located south of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road, east and west of Corkscrew Road. In accordance with the definition of a Village in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area ("RLSA") Overlay, Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA ("Corkscrew Grove East Village" or "Village") is primarily a residential community with a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 4,502 dwelling units. The Village includes 149.07± acres of a mixed -use Village Center providing the required neighborhood -scale retail, office, civic, and community uses. The concept plan also includes 283,500 square feet of retail space and 70,000 square feet of civic/institutional space. As shown in the table below, the Corkscrew Grove East Village will generate substantial tax and impact fee revenues for Collier County, the Immokalee Fire Control District, and Collier County Public Schools. The results are presented at the Project's buildout (horizon year), as required. Table 1: Corkscrew Grove East Village Fiscal Collier County: Ad Valorem Tax Base Net Annual Fiscal Benefit Annual Operating Revenues Annual Operating Expenditures Total Annual Net Operating Surplus Collier County Schools: Ad Valorem Tax Base Countvwide MSTU $ 2,137,928,000 $ 2,137,928,000 Countywide MSTU $ 8,880,000 $ 1,590,000 5,877,000 683,000 $ 3,003,000 $ 907,000 School District $ 2,197,080,000 Net Fiscal Benefit: Annual Operating* Total Capital Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Revenues $ 6,987,000 $ 67,335,000 Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Expenditures 6,987,000 67,335,000 Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Surplus $ $ - Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues: Collier County Collier County MSTU Conservation Collier Water Pollution Control Immokalee Fire Control District Collier County Schools - Ad Valorem Operating Collier County Schools - Capital Improvement Total Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues At Buildout $ 6,437,000 1,463,000 448,000 53,000 8,017,000 6,987,000 2,490,000 $ 25,895,000 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Required Facility Analysis: Roads - Impact Fees $ 35,834,000 Regional Parks $ 9,246,000 Community Parks $ 3,242,000 Law Enforcement $ 2,258,000 Jail $ 1,898,000 EMS $ 543,000 Schools $ 28,671,000 Water N/A Wastewater N/A Immokalee Fire Control District $ 9,146,000 * The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formulas. Source: DPFG, 2025 Developer Contribution Agreements ("DCAs") will be negotiated with the County prior to approval of the Corkscrew Grove East Village. As demonstrated in this report, DPFG concludes that the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is fiscally neutral, as defined, for the following facilities as required by the Collier County Land Development Code ("LDC") Section 4.08.07 L. Summary Table 2: Corkscrew Grove East Village Net Fiscal Impact Conclusions Collier County Annual Operations: General Funds MSTU Capital: Roads Regional and Community Parks Law Enforcement Jail EMS Immokalee Fire Control District Collier County Schools Annual Operations* Neutral Positive Capital Neutral Positive Collier County Neutral Annual Operations and Capital: Positive Water N/A Neutral Wastewater N/A Neutral Irrigation Water Neutral Neutral Solid Waste Neutral Stormwater Neutral Positive * The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formul * The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formulas. Source: DPFG, 2025 A CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION An Economic Assessment is required as part of the Stewardship Receiving Area ("SRA") Designation Application Package, and each SRA must demonstrate that its development, as a whole, will be fiscally neutral or positive to the County tax base at buildout. At a minimum, the Economic Assessment shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and schools. Development Planning & Financing Group, Inc. ("DPFG") was retained to prepare an Economic Assessment for the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA. This report provides complete and transparent support for the methodology, assumptions, and calculations applied to demonstrate fiscal neutrality, as required, for the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA for Collier County ("County"), the Immokalee Fire Control District, and the Collier County Public Schools District ("School District"). METHODOLOGY The Government Finance Officers Association ("GFOA")1 outlines the most common methods for estimating service costs in fiscal impact analysis as: average cost, marginal cost, comparisons to other governments and econometric modeling. In many cases, fiscal impact analysis uses a combination of these methods to generate a projection. • Average Cost is the easiest and most common method and assumes the current cost of serving residents and businesses will equal the cost of serving the new development. The average cost method provides a rough estimate of both direct and indirect costs associated with development. However, this method does not account for demographic change, existing excess capacity, or potential economies of scale in service delivery. Methods of calculating average cost include per capita costs, service standard costs and proportional valuation costs. • Marginal Cost uses site -specific information to determine services costs for a new development. A case study approach is typically necessary to gather detailed information about the existing capacity within public services and infrastructure to accommodate growth from a development project. This method assumes that information about local service levels and capacity is more accurate than standards based on average data • Comparable Governments incorporate the experience by similar governments with comparable development projects. Studying other governments before and after specific Michael J. Mucha, "An Introduction to Fiscal Impact Analysis for Development Projects," (white paper, Government Finance Officers Association, 2007), www.gfoa.org VA CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT projects can provide useful information in determining additional costs and the increase in costs over a long period of time. • Econometric Modeling uses complex econometric models and is best used for estimating impacts from large projects that create many indirect effects on the existing community such as a utility plant or an entertainment center. The fiscal impact analysis of the Corkscrew Grove East Village uses a marginal/average cost hybrid methodology to determine the Project's impact on capital and operating costs. Personnel and operating costs were projected on a variable, or incremental basis, as were expenditures for certain capital improvements. Revenues, such as property taxes, were projected on a marginal basis whereas revenues attributable to growth were reflected on an average basis. Allocation bases include Permanent Population, Peak Seasonal Population, Peak Seasonal Population and Employment, Peak Seasonal and Tourist Population and Employment. Persons per residential product type and employees per nonresidential land uses were obtained from the County's 2016 Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Update, which County staff has deemed the most appropriate source of County -adopted residential and nonresidential demographic metrics for purposes of this analysis (see Appendix). Based on discussions with County staff, these demographic metrics are conservative when compared to similar metrics compiled forthe impact fee updates which are in process. The Economic Assessment model and future reports will be revised and reissued if the Board of County Commissioners adopts the impact fee updates and establishes new rates prior to hearing.' The analysis includes the following general funds:' (0001) General Fund, (0002) Affordable Housing Impact Fee Deferral Program, (0003) Emergency Relief Fund, (0004) Economic Development, (0011) Clerk of Circuit Court, (0040) Sheriff, (0060) Property Appraiser, (0070) Tax Collector, and (0080) Supervisor of Elections. A reconciliation of these funds to the County's budget documents is provided in the Appendix. The analysis also includes (1011) Unincorporated Area General Fund MSTU, the Immokalee Fire Control & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District. The FY 2025 budget of the County and the FY 2025 budgets of the Immokalee Fire Control District, and the School District form the basis for the service levels and revenue and cost assumptions. This "snapshot" approach does not attempt to speculate about how services, costs, revenues, and other factors will change over time. Instead, it evaluates the fiscal impact to the County as it currently conducts business under the present budget. The impacts of self-supporting funds (e.g., enterprise funds) were not included in this analysis as is typical in fiscal impact analysis. Utility rates and capacity fees are established through z Impact fee updates for Roads, Parks, EMS, Law Enforcement, Correctional Facilities, and Schools are currently underway. 3 Collier County considers this listing of general funds as the "General Fund Grouping." 8 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT independent studies. Public utilities generally benefit from economies of scale (i.e., more customers) since rate structures are dependent upon recovering fixed infrastructure costs. Based on Pre -Application discussions with County staff, the County accepts the methodology described in this report and as applied in previous SRA Economic Assessments. In particular, the County accepts the preparation of the analysis at the year of buildout (or horizon year) under a snapshot approach which reflects the intended land uses of the project as a whole. In addition, there are no monitoring requirements with respect to the fiscal impact of an SRA Village. MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS Major assumptions supporting the Corkscrew Grove East Village Economic Assessment are summarized in this section. The financial model and assumptions are provided in the Appendix. Balance Carryforwards were excluded from allocation to avoid overstatement of revenues. Interfund transfers were analyzed in depth, and their classifications in the model were carefully reviewed. Revenue and costs are projected in constant 2025 dollars, with no adjustment for future inflation. The use of a constant dollar approach in fiscal impact analysis produces annual and buildout results that are readily comparable and understandable. Results have been rounded to the nearest one thousand dollars ($1,000). Development Assumptions Table 1 presents the Corkscrew Grove East Village development program proposed by the Applicant. The program was the basis for determining the operating and capital impacts of the Project. Table 1: Corkscrew Grove East Village Develooment Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 Total Market Rate Residential 4,127 Affordable Housing Units 362 Tota Housing Units 4.489 Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft 283 Total Non -Residential 283 Civic/Institutional 70 Grand Total Non -Residential (sf) 353 Source: Alico, Inc., DPFG, 2025 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Revenue Assumptions Sales, Just, and Taxable Values Estimates of sales, just, and taxable values for the residential units are shown in Table 2. The sales values of the residential product types were provided by the Applicant's market consultant, Mr. Michael Timmerman, CRE. The eligible homestead percentage per residential product type used in computing the taxable value per unit was based on unincorporated County averages published by the Shimberg Center for Housing Studies at the University of Florida. Table 2: Corkscrew Grove East Villaee Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 $ 418,990 $ 393,850 $ 376 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 $ 601,204 $ 565,132 $ 552 Total Market Rate Residential 4,127 $ 544,734 $ 512,050 $ 497 Source: Mr. Michael Timmerman, CRE, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2025 Table 3 reflects the estimates of sales, just', and taxable values for the nonresidential land uses. Sales values were based on data provided by the Applicant's market consultant, Mr. Michael Timmerman, CRE. Estimates used to arrive at just values also considered construction cost per square foot estimates from the Cumming Group for reasonableness. Table 3: Corkscrew Grove East Village Nonresidential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values Taxable Sales Value Just Value Value per Non -Residential Sq Ft per Sq Ft per Sq Ft Sq Ft Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft 283,500 1 $ 3S0 $ 298 $ 298 Total Non -Residential 283,500 Civic/Institutional 70,000 Grand Total Non -Residential (sf) 353,500 Source: Mr. Michael Timmerman, CRE Cumming Group, DPFG, 2025 At buildout, the real property tax base of the Corkscrew Grove East Village is estimated to be $2.1 billion as reflected in Table 4. In determining just value, reasonable fees and costs of purchase (for example, commissions) are excluded. 10 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 4: Corkscrew Grove East VI Multi -Family Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) Single -Family Detached Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. Total Market Rate Residential Non -Residential Retail 200,001- 400,000 Sq Ft Tax Base at Buildout 784 $ 416,699 $ 326,692,000 210 $ 271,939 57,107,000 157 $ 320,819 50,369,000 128 $ 367,819 47,081,000 1,279 $ 481,249,000 1,073 $ 483,357 $ 518,642,000 908 $ 567,957 515,705,000 784 $ 614,957 482,126,000 83 $ 671,357 55,723,000 2,848 $ 1,572,196,000 4,127 $ 2,053,445,000 283,500 $ 298 $ 84,483,000 Total Non -Residential 283,500 $ 84,483,000 Total Tax Base $ 2,137,928,000 Source: Mr. Mike Timmerman, CRE, DPFG, 2025 Property Taxes Table 5 reflects the millage rate assumptions (FY 2025) for Collier County used in the analysis. Table 5: Collier County Millage Rates 3.0107 County General Fund 0.0246 Water Pollution Control 0.2096 Conservation Collier Program 3.2449 County Wide Millage Source: Collier County, 2025 Expenditure Assumptions A detailed evaluation of expenditures by the General Funds Group and the MSTU General Fund was performed to determine which were variable (i.e., assumed to fluctuate with growth) or fixed (i.e., not impacted by growth) in nature. For equitable matching of revenues and expenses, certain adjustments were made to account for funding sources from other funds. The primary demand bases in the average cost/revenue calculations were new population and employment for the County and new students for the School District. 11 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL IMPACTS Collier County Operating Impacts Table 6 presents the annual net operating fiscal impact of the Corkscrew Grove East Village at buildout. Table 6: Corkscrew Grove East Villaee Operating Annual Net Imoact at Buildout Total Annual Operating Revenues $ 8,880,000 $ 1,590,000 Total Annual Operating Expenditures 5,877,000 683,000 Total Annual Operating Surplus $ 3,003,000 $ 907,000 Source: DPFG, 2025 Collier County Operating Revenue Projections Projected County annual operating revenues at buildout are summarized in Table 7. Corkscrew Grove East Village is projected to generate annual operating revenues of $8.9 million for the County's General Funds and $1.6 million for the MSTU General Fund. 12 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 7: Corkscrew Grove East Village Annual Operating Revenue Projections Ad Valorem Taxes $ 6,437,000 Licenses & Permits 3,000 Inter -Governmental Revenues 6,000 State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion 283,000 State Sales Tax 1,160,000 Charges for Services 712,000 Fines & Forfeitures 10,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 4,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous 34,000 Indirect Service Charge 113,000 Transfers from Constitutional Officers 99,000 Reimburse from Other Departments 19,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues $ 8,880,000 MSTU GENERAL 'REVENUES At Ad Valorem Taxes $ Buildout 1,463,000 Licenses & Permits 6,000 Charges for Services 42,000 Fines & Forfeitures 3,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 4,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous 6,000 Communication Services Tax 55,000 Reimburse from Other Departments 11,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Revenues $ 1,590,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections Projected County annual operating expenditures at buildout are presented in Table 8. Corkscrew Grove East Village is expected to generate annual General Funds service demand of $5.9 million and $683,000 of MSTU General Fund service demand. The Appendix contains a detailed breakdown of operating costs by line -item category. 13 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 8: Corkscrew Grove East Village Annual Operating Expenditure Projections GROUPINGGENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES At Buildout County Attorney $ 23,000 Other General Administration 67,000 Property Appraiser 79,000 Supervisor of Elections S1,000 Clerk of Courts 121,000 Sheriff Law Enforcement 2,523,000 Law Enforcement Paid by BCC 69,000 Detention & Corrections 126,000 Bailiffs 4,000 Tax Collector 154,000 Human Resources 37,000 Procurement Services 20,000 Emergency Management Division 65,000 Growth Mgt - Planning 20,000 Growth Mgt - Regulation 27,000 Circuit & County Court Judges 1,000 Public Defender 11,000 State Attorney 13,000 County Manager Operations 15,000 Office of Management & Budget 18,000 Facilities Management Division 147,000 Public Services Administration 4,000 Domestic Animal Services 85,000 Community and Human Services 84,000 Library 165,000 Parks & Recreation 329,000 Public Health 5,000 Transportation Mgt - Public Transit & NE 11,000 Transfer to 1001 Road & Bridge 362,000 Transfer to 1051 Court Administration 45,000 Transfer to 1060 MHz Radio System 9,000 Transfer to 3081 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap 126,000 Transfer to 4030 CATT Transit Enhance 51,000 Transfer to 4033 Transp Disadv 44,000 Transfer to 4050 EMS Fund 735,000 Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies 231,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures $ 5,877,000 14 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Other General Administration $ 31,000 Human Resources 8,000 Growth Mgt -Administration 5,000 Growth Mgt - Planning 31,000 Growth Mgt - Regulation 100,000 Communications Government & Public Affairs 37,000 Parks & Recreation 361,000 Transportation Mgt - Operations 40,000 Transportation Mgt - Landscaping 43,000 Transportation Mgt - Coastal Zone Management 4,000 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 23,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Expenditures $ 683,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally positive with respect to the County's Operating Impacts. Collier County Capital Impacts Collier County Capital Impacts by Department Methodologies upon which the County's impact fees are based generally use the consumption or existing inventory replacement approach rather than an improvements -driven approach. For example, the County's Parks impact fee is calculated by dividing the existing inventory of park facilities, including land at current replacement value, by the existing population or relevant demand base. This methodology does not consider the timetable over which the existing facilities were acquired, available capacity within existing facilities, or long-range capital improvement plans with timetables for delivery of new facilities. Impact fee methodologies are typically designed to generate the maximum amount of impact fees a jurisdiction can legally assess. Impact fee calculations include a credit component to recognize future revenue streams which will be used to fund capital expansion and certain debt service payments. The credit component prevents new development from being charged twice for the same facility. The analyses of the General Funds and the MSTU General Fund account for these credits by recognizing capital outlays and applicable transfers (e.g., subsidized capital acquisition and capital fund debt service) as expenditures. This approach is very conservative because the associated expenditures include growth and non -growth -related capital outlays and capital fund subsidies. In comparison, the credit component of the impact fee calculation is limited to certain growth -related capital outlay and capital fund subsidies. The impact fee updates for Correctional Facilities and Parks were adopted in 2015, and the corresponding adopted rates have been indexed. EMS and Law Enforcement impact fee studies were updated in 2016, and the associated rates were adopted in 2017. The Road impact fee update was adopted in 2019 with new rates phased -in over a three-year period. Impact fee 15 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT updates for Roads, Parks, Law Enforcement, EMS, Correctional Facilities and Schools are currently underway. Over buildout, new development will be charged impact fees at rates enacted by the County at that time. The Economic Assessment model and future reports will be revised and reissued if the Board of County Commissioners adopts the impact fee updates and establishes new rates prior to hearing. The capital needs of the Corkscrew Grove East Village were discussed with the Collier County Sheriff, EMS, the Immokalee Fire Control District, and the School District. The capital analysis for these services was prepared in accordance with their input. When the achieved level of service ("LOS") for a particular public facility currently exceeds the adopted LOS, then the adopted LOS was applied in calculating demand to (1) recognize existing capacity and (2) avoid overstating demand. When the achieved LOS for a particular facility was less than the adopted LOS, then the achieved LOS was used when calculating demand to avoid charging new development for a higher LOS than provided to existing development. Data from the 2024 Audit Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities ("AUIR"), the most recent source available, was generally used to calculate the achieved LOS. Other inputs were obtained from the relevant impact fee studies. Projected impact fee collections for the facilities specified in LDC Section 4.08.07 L are reflected in Table 9. The County's impact fee schedule is included in the Appendix. Required Facility Analysis: Roads - Impact Fees $ 35,834,000 Regional Parks $ 9,246,000 Community Parks $ 3,242,000 Law Enforcement $ 2,258,000 Jail $ 1,898,000 EMS $ 543,000 Schools $ 28,671,000 Water N/A Wastewater N/A Immokalee Fire Control District $ 9,146,000 Note: Immokalee Water and Sewer District will provide water and wastewater services Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 16 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Collier County Road Capital Impacts Based on the results provided in the Traffic Impact Statement— Section 1, Road Segment Analysis (June 4, 2025) prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA, the Corkscrew Grove East Village is a significant traffic generator for the roadway network at this location and adversely impacts the following roadway segments: • SR 29 from 91" St. to CR 29A North • SR 29 from Hendry County Line to SR 82 • SR 82 from Hendry County Line to SR 29 The Owner proposes to provide a transportation mitigation plan to stay consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Collier County's GMP. The Owner may be required to assist the County with potential capacity/operational improvements for the roadway segments that are significantly impacted by the project. A detailed evaluation of applicable access points will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting to determine turn lane requirements, as more accurate parameters will be made available. The Owner proposes to pay the applicable Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project. The Owner proposes to provide transportation commitments that will be incorporated into the Development Document for the project. The mitigation plan will include specific improvements to be undertaken, fair share contribution commitments where appropriate, and site related improvements. Site related improvements are addressed as development occurs. Concurrency Fair -Share Estimate Appendix L to the Traffic Impact Statement — Section 1 Road Segment Analysis contains the roadway proportionate share calculation for Corkscrew Grove which will be developed as a pair of SRA Villages. The project traffic's consumption of the projected added capacity is total traffic volume with project minus the unimproved service volume. The estimated roadway service volume in the improved condition uses the Collier County AUIR unimproved condition service volume multiplied by the ratio of LOS D service volumes shown in FDOT Generalized Service Volume Table 7 (Urban Condition, Class I Arterial, Appendix 1) between the improved and unimproved cross sections (product rounded to the nearest hundred). Ex ratios: • 2 lanes to 4 = 2,000/880 = 2.27 • 2 lanes to 6 = 3,020/880 = 3.43 • 4 lanes to 6 = 3,020/2,000 = 1.51 17 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT That ratio isolates the effect of the additional lanes while keeping all other factors affecting service volume constant. The effect of all those other factors is reflected in the County's published service volume in the unimproved condition and explains its relation to the average for all roads of like cross section. The Proportionate Fair share estimate allocable to Corkscrew Grove East Village is $24.9 million ($49.8 million cost for both Villages x 50 percent = $24.9 million allocable to East Village), which is less than the project's projected road impact fees of $35.8 million. The Owner proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project, as applicable. Operational Fair -Share Estimate Based on the results provided in the Traffic Impact Statement — Section 2, Intersection Analysis (August 29, 2025) prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA, an operational fair -share contribution is not required. Corkscrew Grove East Village Regional Parks Capital Impacts The County imposes separate impact fees for community and regional parks. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the County's Parks facilities are provided in the General Funds and MSTU Operating Impacts section. Regional Park capital impacts are presented in Table 10. Table 10: Corkscrew Grove East Village Regional Parks Capital Impacts Regional Park Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue $ 9,246,000 Other Capital Revenues* 481,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 9,727,000 Regional Park Indirect Capital Costs Indexed Land & Facility Cost per Acre $ 590,288 Regional Park Acres at Achieved LOS 16.67 Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Regional Park Acres $ 9,840,000 Regional Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ (113,000) Community Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 177,000 Total Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ 64,000 *Included in the Collier County General Funds and MSTU expenditures analysis Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 The County's adopted LOS for Regional Parks is 2.70 acres per 1,000 peak population. County Staff recommended the application of an adjusted achieved LOS of 1.82 acres per 1,000 peak population for purposes of this analysis. 18 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 11: Corkscrew Grove East Village Regional Parks Level of Service • Regional Park Achieved LOS per County Staff 1.82 Corkscrew Grove East SRA Peak Seasonal Population 9,159 Corkscrew Grove East SRA Community Park Acreage 16.67 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 The indexed capital cost per Regional Park acre is calculated in Table 12. Table 12: Corkscrew Grove East Village Indexed Capital Cost per Acre Land Purchase Cost per Acre $ 450,000 Landscaping, Site Preparation, and Irrigation Cost, per acre 40,000 Total Land Cost per Acre $ 490,000 Facility & Equipment Cost per Acre 43,634 Total Land & Facility Cost per Acre $ 533,634 Index 1.106 Indexed Cost per Acre $ 590,288 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Corkscrew Grove East Village Community Parks Capital Impacts Community Parks capital impacts are presented in Table 13. Table 13: Corkscrew Grove East Village Community Parks Capital Impacts Community Park Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue $ 3,242,000 Other Capital Revenues* 52,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 3,294,000 Community Park Indirect Capital Costs Indexed Land & Facility Cost per Acre $ 283,638 Community Park Acres at Adopted LOS 10.99 Corkscrew Grove East SRA Community Park Cost $ 3,117,000 Community Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ 177,000 Regional Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs (113,000) Total Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ 64,000 *Included in the Collier County General Funds and MSTU expenditures analysis Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 The County's adopted LOS for Community Parks is 1.20 acres per 1,000 peak population, and the achieved LOS is 1.22 acres. As such, the adopted LOS was used to estimate the number of Community Park acres needed to serve Corkscrew Grove East Village. 19 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 14: Corkscrew Grove East Village Community Parks Level of Service • Community Park Adopted LOS 1.20 Corkscrew Grove East SRA Peak Seasonal Population 9,159 Corkscrew Grove East SRA Community Park Acreage 10.99 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 The indexed capital cost per Community Park acre is calculated in Table 1S Table 15: Corkscrew Grove East Village Communitv Parks Level of Service Land Purchase Cost per Acre $ 107,000 Landscaping, Site Preparation, and Irrigation Cost, per acre 10,000 Total Land Cost per Acre $ 117,000 Facility & Equipment Cost per Acre 149,328 Total Land & Facility Cost per Acre $ 266,328 Index 1.065 Indexed Cost per Acre $ 283,638 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Collier County Law Enforcement Capital Impacts The Law Enforcement impact fee includes the capital construction and expansion of police service related to land facilities, and capital equipment required to support police service demand created by new growth. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the Law Enforcement facilities and equipment are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section. Direct capital impacts on Law Enforcement are presented in Table 16. Based on discussions with the Sheriff's office, a substation is needed to serve Corkscrew Grove East Village. Under the adopted impact fee methodology, Corkscrew Grove East Village will generate sufficient impact fee revenues to cover the direct impact of law enforcement facilities and equipment. 20 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 16: Corkscrew Grove East Village Law Enforcement Capital Impacts Law Enforcement Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue $ 2,258,000 Other Capital Revenues* 409,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 2,667,000 Law Enforcement Direct Capital Costs: New Substation - Square Feet 4,500 Cost per Sq Ft $ 470 Cost of New Substation 2,115,000 Law Enforcement Indirect Capital Costs 552,000 Law Enforcement Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs $ - *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis Source Collier County, DPFG, 2025 The County's 2016 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study is based on a Certified Police Officer per Capita LOS, consistent with the County adopted standards at the time. Since then, the County has adopted a Facility Square Footage per Capita LOS. A new impact fee study incorporating this methodology is underway. The Economic Assessment model will be revised upon the adoption of a new Law Enforcement impact fee study. Collier County Correctional Facilities Capital Impacts The Correctional Facilities impact fee includes jail facilities (land and building) and equipment. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating correctional facilities and equipment are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section. Correctional Facilities capital impacts are presented in Table 17. Table 17: Corkscrew Grove East Village Correctional Facilities Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue $ 1,898,000 Other Capital Revenues* 104,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 2,002,000 Capital Cost (Land, Building, Vehicles, and Equipment) - indexed 2,002,000 Correctional Facilities Net Capital Impact $ - *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 The capital cost for correctional facilities is calculated below. 21 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 18: Corkscrew Grove East I Cost Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) 0.83 1,279 1,062 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 1.81 2,848 5,152 Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft 2.34 283,500 663 Total Functional Population 6,877 Indexed Capital Cost per Functional Population $ 290.98 Total Capital Cost $ 2,002,000 Functional Population Coefficients obtained from the Collier County Correctional Impact Fee Study Update (2015) Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 The indexed capital cost per bed is calculated in Table 19. Table 19: Corkscrew Grove East Village Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost per Resident kescription Net Asset Value - Indexed $ 111,592,344 Number of Beds 1,304 Net Asset Value per Bed $ 85,577 Impact Fee LOS (Beds per 1,000 Functional Residents) 3.40 Asset Value per Functional Resident $ 290.98 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Collier County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Capital Impacts Emergency Medical Service ("EMS") for the project will be initially provided by Collier County Medic Station 32 which is co -located at the Fire District's Headquarters Station 32. If call volume and response time for the Corkscrew Grove East Village and the immediate area generate the need for an additional ambulance, Collier County EMS may choose to co -locate a medic facility at the new Immokalee Fire Control District station. For purposes of the Economic Assessment, it is assumed the space needed for a new ambulance will be leased at the highest annual rent as currently paid for similar space. The EMS level of service in the County's AUIR is approximately one unit (vehicle, equipment, station space) per 16,400 population; however, in addition to this metric, EMS also relies on demand factors such as response time and call volume to site new facilities. Call volume is affected by demographics in the service area. For example, nearly 60 percent of the County's ambulance fee collections are Medicare patients and 10 percent are Medicaid patients. Medicare payments are not based on charged rates, but rather 80 percent of what the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services determines to be allowable. Table 20 calculates the allocable cost of EMS equipment needed to serve the Corkscrew Grove East Village using a peak seasonal resident population approach. 22 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 20: Corkscrew Grove East Village EMS Capital Cost a��.�rrwiuvrur.�a.mrnuruuaR.�� EMS Direct Capital Costs: Equipment Cost $ 903,567 Level of Service Standard 16,400 Per Capita Cost $ 55.10 Peak Resident Population 9,159 EMS Direct Capital Costs $ 505,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Table 21 compares the allocable EMS equipment needs to the estimated impact fee revenues. Table 21: Corkscrew Grove East Village EMS Capital Impact ImpactI EMS Net Capital EMS Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue $ 543,000 Other Capital Revenues* 13,000 Total Capital Revenues $ 556,000 EMS Capital Cost: EMS Direct Equipment Cost $ 505,000 EMS Net Capital Revenues Available for EMS -Growth Related Capital Needs 51,000 Total Capital Cost $ 556,000 *Included in the Collier County General Funds net fiscal impact buildout analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Personnel and operating costs for staffing and operating a new ambulance, including rent, are allocated in Appendix Table 17 based on the level of service in the 2024 AUIR and the peak residential population of the Corkscrew Grove East Village. The calculated General Fund EMS Expenditure per demand unit was multiplied by 187 percent to recognize the additional EMS cost. For conservatism of this analysis, it is assumed the General Fund will subsize 100 percent of the cost, whereas the actual subsidy is generally around 55 percent. The Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Roads, Regional and Community Parks, Law Enforcement, Correctional Facilities, and EMS capital and operating impacts. Water and Wastewater The project site is located within the Immokalee Water and Sewer District ("IWSD") utility service area. Therefore, potable water and wastewater services for the Corkscrew Groves East Village project will be provided by IWSD. To address the potable water demands of the project, the following improvements are anticipated: 1. Regional Water Supply Facility: IWSD plans to construct a regional water supply facility on land currently owned by Alico Land Development Company and located just east of the SRA along the north side of SR 82. This facility will ensure an adequate potable water 23 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT supply for the development and comply with the Florida Administrative Code standards for Public Water Systems. 2. Distribution of Potable Water: Within the project boundaries, potable water distribution will be coordinated between the Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District and the IWSD. Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District will oversee the initial installation of distribution infrastructure. The proposed potable water system will comply with all regulatory requirements, including considerations for the disposal of any waste products generated by the water treatment process. The system will adhere to approved generation rates and design criteria to ensure compliance with Level of Service ("LOS") standards. Potable water demands, including Average Daily Demand ("ADD") and Maximum Daily Demand ("MDD"), will be calculated in coordination with IWSD and the relevant permitting agencies. The following improvements are anticipated to meet the wastewater demands of the project: Wastewater Treatment Facility: IWSD plans to construct a regional wastewater treatment facility on property currently owned by Alico Land Development Company, located just east of the SRA along the north side of SR 82. This facility will treat wastewater generated by the development in compliance with the Florida Administrative Code standards for wastewater treatment systems exceeding 10,000 gallons per day. 2. Wastewater Collection and Transmission: Within the project boundaries, wastewater collection and transmission infrastructure will be coordinated between the Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District and IWSD. Corkscrew Grove Stewardship District will oversee the initial installation of the necessary gravity sewer lines, force mains, and lift stations. The proposed wastewater treatment system will adhere to all regulatory requirements, including the proper disposal of waste products generated during the treatment process. Wastewater flows, including Average Daily Flow ("ADF") and Peak Hourly Flow ("PHF"), will be calculated in coordination with IWSD and the appropriate permitting agencies to ensure compliance with Level of Service ("LOS") standards. The Owner/Developer will not be obligated to pay Collier County Water -Sewer District potable water and wastewater impact fees. Instead, applicable connection fees will be calculated and paid directly to IWSD. The Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County's Water and Wastewater capital and operating impacts. 24 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Stormwater Management Existing stormwater on the site is generated by the agricultural activities that have historically taken place and are currently permitted. Stormwater is collected through a network of internal ditches and canals, which route the runoff to the on -site Water Retention Areas ("WRAs") via pumps. Discharges from these WRAs are controlled through regulated control structures that limit offsite discharge rates. Offsite discharges flow into adjacent canals and/or culverts under Corkscrew Road, with the ultimate outfall directed into the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed ("CREW"). The proposed SRA encompasses three distinct areas: the property west of Corkscrew Road, the property north of SR 82, and the property east of Corkscrew Road and south of SR 82. The existing site has historically been used for agricultural row crops, primarily oranges and tomatoes. The site is composed of an intricate network of agricultural infrastructure, including dikes, impoundment areas known as WRAs, perimeter ditches, and berms. These perimeter berms effectively prevent external surface water from flowing onto the site, ensuring that no stormwater flows from surrounding properties are accepted. Within the site, stormwater runoff from the agricultural fields is collected in perimeter ditches. From there, agricultural pumps transfer the excess runoff into the WRAs. These WRAs are equipped with drainage structures that direct stormwater either into adjacent canals, through culverts under Corkscrew Road, or directly into the CREW lands. Two canals currently traverse the site, ultimately discharging into CREW. These canals, essential for stormwater conveyance from surrounding properties, will be preserved. One of these, Cabbage Slough, will be partially relocated within the site to accommodate the proposed development. This relocation will maintain the canal's current capacity and flow patterns, ensuring that surrounding hydrology is not adversely affected. The other canal, Gator Slough, will remain unaltered to preserve its existing functionality. All WRAs adjacent to the SRA will be integrated into the stormwater management system. Discharges into the WRAs will occur only after the required water quality treatment has been achieved. Stormwater discharge into the WRA will only occur through control structures permitted by the South Florida Water Management District ("SFWMD"). The Owner of Corkscrew East Village SRA will be responsible for all costs associated with the design, permitting, construction, and operation of the proposed stormwater improvements required to serve Corkscrew East Village development. The SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment provides additional information. The Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Stormwater Management capital and operating impacts. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Irrigation Water The Corkscrew Groves project site has a long history of permitted agricultural withdrawals from the LowerTamiami and Sandstone Aquifers that have not resulted in any known adverse impacts to natural environments. The agricultural water allocations currently permitted and used within the Corkscrew Groves project area total approximately 13.78 MGD on an annual average basis (5,028 MGY) and approximately 18.45 MGD on a maximum monthly basis (S72 MGM). At build -out, the Corkscrew Groves project will result in converting approximately 1,447 acres of the currently permitted 3,100 acres of agricultural land into a residential development or about 47% of the currently permitted agricultural acreage. Prorating the currently permitted irrigation allocation to the 1,447 acres proposed for development yields an annual average day allocation of 6.48 MGD and a maximum month day allocation of 8.68 MGD for the proposed development area. The transition of agricultural use to residential/commercial use will result in approximately 432 acres of landscaping and turf within the Corkscrew Groves development requiring irrigation. The project irrigation demand for this amount of irrigated acreage as determined using the SFWMD Blaney-Criddle method is: • 1.44 MGD on an annual average basis or 524 MGY (78% reduction in current use) • 2.24 MGD on a maximum monthly basis or 68 MGM (74% reduction in current use) The proposed change in land use will result in a significant reduction in irrigation water usage at the project site. The Corkscrew Groves project will obtain a water use permit from the SFWMD which will allow withdrawal from onsite surface water and ground water sources to meet irrigation demands. The onsite irrigation water supply system will include stormwater lakes and wells. The lake system will be used to supply irrigation water for the project and wells will be utilized to resupply the withdrawal lakes when needed. The proposed source aquifers for the wells are the Lower Tamiami Aquifer and Sandstone Aquifer as currently permitted to meet the existing agricultural water demands on the project site. The lake withdrawals will provide an efficient and low impact method for effectively harvesting available stormwater supplies while lake storage and re -supply by groundwater will minimize potential impacts to both surface and groundwater levels. The Owner/Developer would be responsible for all costs associated with the permitting, construction, and maintenance of the irrigation system. The SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment provides additional information. The Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Irrigation Water capital and operating impacts. i. CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Solid Waste According to the Economic Assessment, the proposed SRA will increase the County's peak residential population by approximately 9,615 peak population persons at buildout for 4,502 total dwelling units, including 362 affordable housing units. Using a tons per capita rate of 0.70 (per the 2024 AUIR), a population increase of 9,615 people will generate an additional 6,730.5 tons disposed per year. Commercial solid waste and residential curbside solid waste, recycling, and horticulture will be collected with Collier County's franchise agreements by other franchise -approved haulers. Commercial recycling is open to market collection. Construction waste will be collected and processed by a local business specializing in the recycling of construction products. Collier County maintains a Board approved Disposal Capacity Agreement (DCA) with Okeechobee Landfill, Inc., that provides 930,000 tons of reserved capacity at Okeechobee Landfill. The waste generated and transferred to Okeechobee Landfill as part of the DCA is not included in the AUIR capacity LOS. Per the AUIR, for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the LOS Standard for capacity, it is assumed Collier County will renew, amend, or enter into a new agreement, as necessary, and continue to transfer. Commercial, municipal solid waste, and recycling containers will comply with Collier County ordinances. The project will utilize County -approved bear -resistant dumpsters/trash cans for all residential and non-residential uses, with locations of dumpsters being determined at the time of Site Development Plan ("SDP") approval. All costs, including maintenance, of bear -resistant dumpsters will be borne by the Owner/Developer. Revenues and expenses of the solid waste operations described above are accounted for in the County's Solid Waste Fund, a self-supporting enterprise fund. The Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County Solid Waste. COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT Collier County Schools Capital Impacts Three major sources of capital funds are available to Collier County Public Schools: the Capital Millage Tax, impact fees, capital outlay, and debt service. As shown in Table 22, the Capital Millage Tax has funded most of the School District's capital projects over the past 10 years. Over that period, the School District collected $1.4 billion in Annual Capital Millage Tax, and annual Capital Millage Tax revenue is projected to triple from $99.1 million in 2015-16 to over $311.0 million in 2028-29. The School District's capital revenues have provided $386.0 million in debt service funding, thereby positioning the School District to 27 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT be debt -free by 2026, and pay -go financing of Aubrey Rogers High School, Bear Creek Elementary School (the District's first new elementary school in 18 years), and the new elementary school in Ave Maria (scheduled to open in 2026). Table 22: CCPC Historical Enrollment and 1 2015-16 2 2016-17 3 2017-18 4 2018-19 5 2019-20 6 2020-21 7 2021-22 8 2022-23 9 2023-24 10 2024-25 Net Change/Total Projected: 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 356,874 42,748 $ 99,171,443 $ 10,000,000 362,634 43,321 119,452,273 12,000,000 366,385 43,329 126,312,667 16,312,194 371,939 43,447 132,117,173 14,000,000 377,079 43,622 141,768,052 14,000,000 385,980 41,208 150,062,073 23,918,248 390,912 41,665 121,221,683 15,600,000 404,310 42,256 155,853,979 26,152,692 408,381 42,477 183,473,411 22,640,130 413,300 42,550 186,718,691 19,000,000 56,426 (198) $ 1,416,151,445 $ 173,623,264 $ 260,439,696 $ 275,117,472 $ 293,829,264 $ 310,913,136 Partial Uses of Capacity -Adding Capital Revenues Reduce Outstanding Debt FY 2016-2024 $ 279,223,924 Reduce Outstanding Debt FY 2025 70,800,000 Reduce Outstanding Debt FY 2026 36,000,000 Aubrey Rogers High School (2023) 100,000,000 Bear Creek Elementary School (2025) 83,000,000 Elementary Q (Ave Maria) (2026) 80,000,000 Partial Uses of Capacity -Adding Capital Revenues $ 649,023,924 (1) Month 2 Monthly Membership Report (2) Amounts obtained from Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports and the 2024-25 Work Plan. Italized amounts obtained from Adopted Budgets as they were not separately reported in the ACFR Source: Collier County, Collier County Public Schools, DPFG, 202S From 2015-16 to 2024-25, the County added over 56,000 new permanent residents, but enrollment in School District elementary, middle, and high schools remained flat. As a result, the student generation rate per housing unit has declined considerably. According to the CCPC Capital Improvement Plan Fiscal Years 2025 through 2044, a robust housing market is expected in Collier County through 2028; however public school enrollment at brick and mortar schools is projected to remain steady. Factors moderating school enrollment during this growth period include the increase of charter school capacity and an expansion of the private school voucher program. As shown in Table 23, over 4,178 new charter school student stations have been added in the District over the past 10 years. 28 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 23: Collier County Charter School Student Stations 1 Marco Island Charter Middle 2 Immokalee Community Academy 3 Marco Island Charter High 4 Gulf Coast Charter Academy South 5 Mason Classical Academy 6 Collier Charter Academy 7 BridgePrep of Collier 8 Naples Classical Acadmey 9 Optima Clasical Academy (Virtual Enrolled) Total Increase in Charter School Capacity 2014-15 to 1998 1 470 470 2000 300 300 2011 350 350 2013 336 701 2014 564 1,500 2017 - 1,145 2018 1,000 2021 1,000 2022 - 97 2,020 6,563 2024-25 4,178 Source: Collier County Public Schools, DPFG, 2025 Current school impact fees were adopted in 2015 based on the Collier County School Impact Fee Update Study (June 23, 2015) and were subsequently indexed based on the 2017 Indexing Calculations prepared by the County's impact fee consultant. A school impact fee update is currently underway, and new school impact fees may be adopted before the end of 2025. Certain methodology and policy decisions are made by the Board of County Commissioners during the adoption of legally defensible impact fees. The new impact fees will take into consideration the decline in student generation rate, available capacity in existing schools, the significant increase in new school construction costs, the F.S. 1013.64(b) statutory cost caps, and the substantial increase in Capital Millage Tax available to fund new schools. It is beyond the scope of this analysis to calculate a legally defensible school impact fee. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed the School District will continue to rely on Capital Millage Tax for new school construction costs, and new development will be charged impact fees at rates enacted by the County at that time. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Economic Assessment model and report will be revised and reissued when the Board of County Commissioners adopts the impact fee update and establishes new rates. Corkscrew Grove East Village's estimated demand for student stations is projected in Table 24 based on student generation rates in the 2015 School Impact Fee Update, the most recent adopted data available. Table 24: Corkscrew Grove East Villaae Projected Public School Enrollment Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 0.11 141 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 0.34 968 Total Market Rate Residential 4,127 1,109 Source: Collier County School District, DPFG, 2025 29 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Projected enrollment by school type and 2028-29 available capacity in Planning Zone 6 is shown in Table 25. Table 25: Corkscrew Grove East Village Projected Enrollment by School Type Planning Zone 6 Projected 2028-29 SchoolType Students Percent Avail Capacity: Elementary 517 47% 830 Middle 240 22% 455 High Total 352 32% 448 109 100% 1,733 Source: Collier County School District, DPFG, 2025 The property owners of Corkscrew Grove East Village have reserved approximately 24.0 acres for a dedicated School Site, as depicted on the SRA Master Plan. A stipulation to the development order requires the Owner to convey real property for the School Site (public elementary school) in exchange for educational impact fee credits. The proposed stipulation states, "With respect to the conveyance of real property, by the Applicant to the School District, the School Reservation of the School Site to the School District fully mitigates for the development's impact to the elementary, middle and high schools needed to serve Corkscrew Grove East Village." Projected school impact fee revenue is shown in Table 26. 26: Corkscrew Grove East Village School Impact Fee Revenue Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 $ 2,844.19 $ 3,638,000 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 $ 8,789.54 25,033,000 Total School Impact Fees 4,127 $ 28,671,000 Source: Collier County Public Schools, DPFG, 2025 As shown in Table 27, capital revenues consist primarily of ad valorem taxes and impact fees. The FY 2025 Capital Outlay Millage, which is determined locally by the School Board within parameters established by the State Legislature, is 1.1332 mills (subject to cap of 1.50 mills). The County voters approved a referendum in 2020 allowing the School District to reduce the Capital Outlay millage by 0.35 mills for four years and levy that millage for operating purposes. 30 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 27: Corkscrew Grove East Vill School Capital Revenues: School Impact Fee Revenue $ 28,671,000 $ - $ 28,671,000 School District Capital Tax Revenue - 38,664,000 38,664,000 Total School Capital Revenues $ 28,671,000 $ 38,664,000 $ 67,335,000 Direct School Capital Expenditures 67,335,000 Net School Capital Expenditures $ - Source: Collier County Public Schools, DPFG, 202S Collier County Schools Operating Impacts The Florida Legislature establishes the school operating millage based on the General Appropriations Act. Legislative committees meet to debate continuing and new initiatives in education and set a budget based on these results within the General Appropriations Act. The State budget determines the Required Local Effort Millage ("RLE") for each school district. The RLE is the amount of funding that each district provides annually towards the cost of the Florida Education Finance Program ("FEFP"). The aggregate RLE for all school districts is prescribed by the Legislature as a specific line item in the annual General Appropriations Act. The Commissioner of Education is also authorized to adjust the millage rate to make sure no school district's RLE exceeds 90 percent of that district's total FEFP entitlement. The Legislature establishes a per student funding amount which is based upon the local authorities taxing of both the RLE and the 0.748 discretionary tax millage. According to the School District, the school tax millage for Collier County is much lower than the statewide average and typically ranks within the four lowest of all Florida school districts. A comparison of the School District's millage history is shown in Figure 1. 31 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Figure 1: Collier County School District Millage History School District Millage History 6.000 5.580 5.480 5.245 5.122 5.049 5.083 5.016 5.000 4.889 4.459 4.292 4.313 4.000 3.000 2.000 1.000 0 000 3.332 3.232 2.997 2.894 2.821 2.835 2.768 2.641 . »�. 2.211 2.248 2.231 hi 2.248 2.248 2.248 2.228 2.228 2.248 2.248 2.248 2.248 2.044 2.082 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-1 ®+-Required State Law -IF-Discretionary Millage Total Millage Source: Collier County Public Schools, 2025 Because the Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through a series of statewide equalization formulas, most fiscal analysts do not attempt to model school operating impacts. An estimate of local ad valorem school operating revenues is shown in Table 28. Table 28: Corkscrew Grove East Village Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout Ad Valorem Local Millage - Residential 3.1800 $ 6,718,000 Ad Valorem Local Millage - Non Residential 3.1800 269,000 Ad Valorem Local Millage Revenues $ 6,987,000 Ad Valorem Local Millage Operating Expenditures $ 6,987,000 Ad Valorem Local Millage Net Revenues $ - Source: Collier County Public Schools, DPFG, 2025 The Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally neutral respect to the Collier County School District. 32 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Immokalee Fire Control District Immokalee Fire Control District Capital Impact The Corkscrew Grove East Village is located within the service area of the Immokalee Fire Control District ("Fire District"). Fire service for the project will be initially provided by the District's Headquarters Station 32 in Ave Maria. However, a new fire station may be needed to serve the project at buildout. A stipulation to the development order requires the Owner to convey real property of approximately 3.0 acres for a Fire and co -located EMS station in exchange for fire impact fee credits and/or cash. The proposed stipulation states, "With respect to the conveyance of real property by the Applicant to the Fire District, the Fire Reservation of the Fire Site to the Fire District fully mitigates for the development's impact to the Fire/EMS facilities needed to serve the Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA." Capital impacts are shown in Table 29 and reflect the cost of a new fire station and the related vehicles and equipment. Capital costs are fully funded by impact fee and other capital revenues and an assumed one-time allocation of the annual net operating surplus generated by the project. Table 29: Corkscrew Grove East Village Immokalee Fire Control District Capital Impact Iescription Amount• Impact Fee Revenue: Impact Fee Revenue $ 9,146,000 Other Capital Revenue 1,016,000 Total Capital Revenue $ 10,162,000 New Station, Vehicles, and Equipment New Fire Station Sq. Ft. 12,000 Construction Cost per Sq. Ft. $ 700 Construction Cost $ 8,400,000 Land Value New Station 120,000 Total Land and Building $ 8,S20,000 Vehicles and Equipment Engine and Equipment $ 1,219,000 Ladder Truck and Equipment 1,767,000 Attack Truck and Equipment 243,000 Water Tender and Equipment 572,000 Total Vehicles and Equipment 3,801,000 Total New Station, Vehicles and Equipment $ 12,321,000 One -Time Capital Revenue Excess (Deficiency) over Capital Cost (2,159,000) One -Time Allocation of Excess Annual Operating Surplus 2,159,000 Net Capital Impact $ - Source: Immokalee Fire Control District, DPFG, 2025 33 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Projected impact fee revenues are presented in Table 30 and total $9.1 million. The adopted rates are based on the 2023 Impact Fee Update Study. Table 30: Corkscrew Grove East Villaee Immokalee Fire Control Impact Fee Revenues Residential 4,127 9,548,725 $ 0.94 $ 8,975,802 Commercial 283,500 283,500 $ 0.60 170,100 Total $ 9,145,902 Source: Immokalee Fire Control District, DPFG, 2025 The square footage of the Project at buildout is provided in Table 31. Table 31: Corkscrew Grove East Village Square Footage Multi -Family Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) Single -Family Detached Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. Total Residential NonResidential Source: Mr. Mike Timmerman, CRE, DPFG, 2025 784 1,900 1,489,600 210 1,430 300,300 157 1,525 239,425 128 1,925 246,400 1,279 2,275,725 073 2,200 2,360,600 908 2,700 2,451,600 784 2,800 2,195,200 83 3,200 265,600 848 7,273,000 127 9,548,725 500 283,500 Immokalee Fire Control District Annual Operating Impacts Operating expenditures to support a new fire station are estimated in Table 32. Because the current operating millage of the Immokalee Fire Control District is geared to much lower density development, the Corkscrew Grove East Village is projected to generate significant annual operating surpluses for the Fire Control District. 34 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 32: Corkscrew Grove East Village Immokalee Fire Control District Annual Annual General Fund Revenue Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Ad Valorem Tax Base $ 2,137,928,000 Immokalee Fire District Control Millage Rate 3.75 Annual Ad Valorem Revenue $ 8,017,000 $ 8,017,000 FY 2025 Annual General Fund Expenditures Personnel Operating Total Annual Personnel and Operating Costs Square Feet per Facility Station 30 Station 31 Station 32 Headquarters Logistics Building Total Square Feet Annual Operating Cost per Square Foot New Station Square Feet New Station Annual Operating Expenditures $ 7,204,911 1,468, 658 $ 8,673,569 12,884 12,000 23,988 5,156 54,028 $ 160.54 12,000 $ 1,926,000 Estimated Ongoing Annual Surplus $ 6,091,000 One -Time Capital Cost (Not Covered by Capital Revenue) (2,159,000) Estimated Annual Surplus after One -Time Capital Cost $ 3,932,000 Source: Immokalee Fire Control District, DPFG, 2025 at Buildout The Corkscrew Grove East Village is deemed fiscally positive with respect to the Immokalee Fire Control District. 35 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT APPENDIX Appendix Table 1: Collier County Base Assumptions COLLIER COUNTY STUDY PERIOD FY 2025 1Cunty Budget Year COLLIER COUNTYWIDE POPULATION 413,300 2025 County Permanent Population - Collier County 2024 AUIR 1.2084 1 Seasonal Population Coefficient -Collier County 499,426 2025 County Peak Seaonal Population - Collier County 2024 AUIR 86,126 12025 County Peak Seasonal Population COLLIER COUNTYWIDE EMPLOYMENT 283,739 Woods & Poole 2025 Employment 0.8897602 FTE Conversion Factor - IMPLAN 252,460 2025 In -Place FTE Employment COLLIER COUNTY PEAK TOURIST POPULATION 266,200 Collier County CVB Profile - March 2024 8,587 Peak Daily Tourists COLLIER COUNTYWIDE POPULATION AND JOBS 665,760 County Permanent Population and Jobs 751,886 County Peak Seasonal Population and Jobs 760,473 County Peak Seasonal Population, Tourists, and Jobs COLLIER UNINCORPORATED COUNTY POPULATION 376,216 12025 Unincorporated County Permanent Population - Collier County 2024 AUIR 1.2082 Seasonal Unincorporated Population Coefficient - Collier County 454,553 2025 Unincorporated County Peak Seaonal Population - Collier County 2024 AUIR 78,337 2025 Unincorporated County Peak Seasonal Population COLLIER COUNTY UNINCORPORATED EMPLOYMENT 229,808 Allocation basis consistent with prior years. COLLIER COUNTY UNINCORPORATED POPULATION AND JOBS 606,024 County Permanent Population and Jobs 694,361 jCounty Peak Seasonal Population and Jobs COLLIER COUNTY MILLAGE RATES FY 2025 3.0107 lCounty General Fund 0.0246 Water Pollution Control 0.2096 Conservation Collier Program 3.2449 County Wide Millage 0.6844 MSTU General Fund COLLIER COUNTY MILLAGE RATES FY 2025 0.2096 Conservation Collier Program Disclosure Only COLLIER COUNTY % HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION Shimberg Center for Housing Studies - 2024 Final Tax Roll Year 67% Single Family 35% Condominium 0% Rental Apartments $ 50,000 County Homestead Exemption $ 25,000 School Homestead Exemption Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 36 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT ix Table 2: Corkscrew Grove East Village Resident Population and Seasonal Population Coefficients Residential (Units) Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1.04 1.21 1.26 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2.19 1.21 2.65 Source: Collier County 2016 EMS Impact Fee Update, DPFG, 2025 Appendix Table 3: Corkscrew Grove East Village Population and Employment Estimates Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 1.26 1,612 1.04 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 2.65 7,547 2.19 Total Market Rate Residential 4,127 9,159 Affordable Housing Units 362 Tota Housing Units 4,489 Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft 283,500 2.50 95% 673 Total Non -Residential 283,500 673 Civic/Institutional 70,000 Grand Total Non -Residential (sf) 353,500 673 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 Table 4: Corkscrew Grove East Village Population and Permanent Population 7,580 Residential Seasonal Population 9,159 Employment 673 Permanent Population and Jobs 8,253 Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 9,832 Residential Seasonal Population, Tourists, and Employment 9,832 Public School Enrollment 1,109 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 6,246 7,580 37 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 5: Corkscrew Grove East Villaee Public School Enrollment Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 0.11 141 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 0.34 968 Total Market Rate Residential 4,127 1,109 Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2025 Table 6: Corkscrew Grove East Multi -Family Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) Single -Family Detached Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. Total Market Rate Residential Non -Residential Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft Tax Base 784 $ 416,699 $ 326,692,000 210 $ 271,939 57,107,000 157 $ 320,819 50,369,000 128 $ 367,819 47,081,000 1,279 $ 481,249,000 1,073 $ 483,357 $ 518,642,000 908 $ 567,957 515,705,000 784 $ 614,957 482,126,000 83 $ 671,357 55,723,000 2,848 $ 1,572,196,000 4,127 $ 2,053,445,000 283,500 $ 298 $ 84,483,000 Total Non -Residential 283,500 $ 84,483,000 Total Tax Base $ 2,137,928,000 Source: Mr. Mike Timmerman, CRE, Collier County, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2025 38 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 7: Corkscrew Grove East Villaee School District Tax Base Multi -Family Type 1 784 $ 425,490 $ 333,584,000 Type 2 210 $ 280,730 58,953,000 Type 3 157 $ 329,610 51,749,000 Type 4 128 $ 376,610 48,206,000 Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) 1,279 $ 492,492,000 Single -Family Detached Type 1 1,073 $ 500,179 $ 536,692,000 Type 2 908 $ 584,779 530,979,000 Type 3 784 $ 631,779 495,315,000 Type 4 83 $ 688,179 57,119,000 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. 2,848 $ 1,620,105,000 Total Market Rate Residential 4,127 $ 2,112,597,000 Non -Residential Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft 283,500 $ 298 $ 84,483,000 Total Non -Residential $ 84,483,000 283,500 Total Tax Base $ 2,197,080,000 Source: Mr. Mike Timmerman, CRE, Collier County, Shimherg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2025 39 P, V OOi A o 0 0 0 In F+ Ol 00 V Oo A in O N N N OD N O v�o:�mawo 88880000 F+ N S8 to f+ Ol Oo V OC A V N In m in n o m rai o BgSooSS CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 9: FY 2025 Collier County General Funds Revenue Demand Units General Fund Grouping Revenue Category Ad Valorem Taxes Licenses & Permits Inter -Governmental Revenues State Revenue Sharing - Fixed Portion State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion State Sales Tax Fed Payment in Lieu of Taxes Charges for Services Fines & Forfeitures Miscellaneous Revenues Interest/ Miscellaneous Indirect Service Charge Carry Forward Transfers from General Fund (001) Transfers from Constitutional Officers Other Transfers Advance/Repay Reimburse from Other Departments Total Budget $ 458,429,200 Demand CUMULATIVE AV 1.00 N/A 2�emancl N/A 241,500 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 665,760 $ 0.36 491,000 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 665,760 $ 0.74 1,036,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 1S,402,000 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 37.27 63,275,000 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 153.10 1,250,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 57,463,600 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 665,760 $ 86.31 518,500 PEAKPOP 1.00 499,426 $ 1.04 341,300 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 665,760 $ 0.51 2,732,500 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 665,760 $ 4.10 9,096,600 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 665,760 $ 13.66 147,433,100 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 297,500,100 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 7,600,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 751,886 $ 10.11 1,333,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 250,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 1 1,459,100 IPEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 1 751,886 $ 1.94 $ 1,065,853,600 $ 309.14 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2025 Appendix Table 10: FY 2025 Collier County MSTU Revenue Demand Units General Fund Grouping Revenue Category Ad Valorem Taxes Licenses & Permits Charges for Services Fines & Forfeitures Miscellaneous Revenues Interest/ Miscellaneous Carry Forward Communication Services Tax Special Assessments Transfers from General Fund (001) Transfers from Constitutional Officers Other Transfers Advance/Repay Reimburse from Other Departments Total Budget $ 66,045,800 Demand Base CUMULATIVE AV Multiplier 1.00 Demand N/A N/A 412,800 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 606,024 $ 0.68 3,087,300 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 606,024 $ 5.09 220,000 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 606,024 $ 0.36 295,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 0.43 390,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 0.57 12,982,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A 3,800,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 5.55 16,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A - FIXED 1.00 N/A 200,000 FIXED 1.00 N/A 388,500 FIXED 1.00 N/A - FIXED 1.00 N/A 740,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 1.08 $ 88,579,100 1 $ 13.76 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2025 41 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT General Funds Revenue at Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV $ 3.0107 $ 6,437,000 Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0.36 3,000 Inter -Governmental Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0.74 6,000 State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion PERMPOP $ 37.27 283,000 State Sales Tax PERMPOP $ 153.10 1,160,000 Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS $ 86.31 712,000 Fines & Forfeitures PEAKPOP $ 1.04 10,000 Miscellaneous Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0.51 4,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous PERMPOP&JOBS $ 4.10 34,000 Indirect Service Charge PERMPOP&JOBS $ 13.66 113,000 Transfers from Constitutional Officers PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 10.11 99,000 Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 1.94 19,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues $ 309.14 $ 8,880,000 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2025 Table 12: Corkscrew Grove East Village MSTU Revenue at Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV $ 0.6844 $ 1,463,000 Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0.68 6,000 Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS $ 5.09 42,000 Fines & Forfeitures PERMPOP&JOBS $ 0.36 3,000 Miscellaneous Revenues PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.43 4,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.57 6,000 Communication Services Tax PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 5.55 55,000 Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 1.08 11,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Revenues $ 13.76 $ 1,590,000 Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2025 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 O N N O p to S O 8 m ae o0 V OD A V N P w M A A N m NomNom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W F• O� J N 00 A O� N O w oSSoo 8 -Pb w CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 14: EY 2025 Collier County Expenditure Budget Summaries Fund # General Fund Description Total Budget 0001 General Fund $ 698,218,600 0002 Utility Impact Fee Deferral Program 20,000 0003 Emergency Disaster 542,300 0004 Economic Development 216,000 0011 Clerk of Circuit Court 18,740,900 0040 Sheriff 266,452,100 0060 Property Appraiser 11,835,000 0070 Tax Collector 35,796,500 0080 Supervisor of Elections 5,331,500 Total General Fund Groupings $ 1,037,152,900 General Fund Groupings $ 449,761,700 Special Revenue Funds 278,884,400 Capital Funds - Enterprise Funds 68,414,700 Internal Service Funds 118,394,800 Trust and Agency Funds 84,200 Transfers and Reserves 232,707,200 Total Operating Services, Excluding Public Utilities $ 1,148,247,000 Board of County Commissioners $ 25,789,500 Constitutional Officers 351,914,300 Corporate Business Operations Department 153,104,600 Public Safety 94,921,800 Growth Management Community Development 210,823,600 Court Related Agencies 7,041,300 Office of the County Manager 129,404,900 Public Services Department 74,844,400 Transportation Management Services 100,402,600 Total Operating Budget Before Public Utilities $ 1,148,247,000 Public Utilities 401,592,400 Grand Total Total Operating Budget $ 1,549,839,400 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 44 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Board of County Commissioners County Attorney Other General Administration Property Appmiser Supervisor of Elections Clerk of Courts Sheriff Tax Collector Corporate Business Operations Administration Human Resources Information Technology Procurement Services Risk Management Division Emergency Management Division Emergency Services & Fire District Grants Emergency Medical Services EMS Fire Districts Growth Mgt - Administration Growth Mgt - Planning Growth Mgt - Regulation G."h Mgt - Mousing Policy and Econ Development Growth Mgt - Econ Development and Innovation Zones Growth Mgt - Conservation Collier Growth Mgt - Reserves and Transfers Court Administration Circuit & County Court Judges Public Defender State Attorney Guardian Ad Utem Program Court Related Technology County Manager Operations Office of Management & Budget Communications Government & Public Affairs Pelican Bay Services Dori Slosberg Driver Education Corporate Compliance & Continous Improvement Tourist Development Council Sports & Special Events Complex Sayshore CRA Immokalee CRA Fleet Management Facilities Management Division Public Services Administration Operations and veteran Services Domestic Animal Services Community and Human Services Library Museum Parks & Recreation Public Health University Extension Service Transportation Mgt - Operations Transportation Mgt - landscaping Transportation Mgt - Stormwater Operations Transportation Mgt Water Pollution Control Transportation Mgt -Coastal Zone Management Transportation Mgt -Airport Operations Transportation Mgt - Public Transit & NE Transportation Mgt - MPO Transportation Mgt - Improvements Districts & MSTU Summaries 3,526,600 193,000 - 3,719,600 16,831,200 3,613,400 20,444,600 12,105.100 - - - - - 12,105,100 5,507,800 - - - - - 5,S07,BOD 18,506,200 - - - 1120.000 19,626,200 271,823.100 3,989,100 - - - - 2:706,700 278,518,900 23,584,000 - - - - - 12,572,300 36,156,300 541,30D - - - - - - 541,300 5,728,200 532,900 - - - 6,261.100 - - - - 19,343,000 - 3,438,500 22,781,500 3,049,900 - - - - - - 3,049,900 - - - - 83,286,400 - 37,184.400 120,470,800 5,073,400 2,798,100 - - - 613,100 8,494,600 - 7,542,300 - - 9,364,700 16,907,DD0 - - - 52,283,800 - - 11,414,400 63,698,200 - 4,920,800 - - - - 911,200 5,832,000 - 12,501,200 - - - - - 12,501,200 1,525,200 6,563,100 - - - - - 8,088,300 2,058,100 32,606,900 - - - - 710,500 35,375,500 1,486,000 1,671,900 - - - 2,31Q800 5,468,600 - 7,296,800 - - - - 12,701.800 19,998,6D0 - 44,258,000 - - 94,200 61,166,400 IOS,508,600 - - - - - - 23,882,800 23,882,900 - 3,514,800 - - - - 488,800 4,003.600 71,700 - - - - - 71,700 486,800 - - - - - - 486.800 730,000 - - - - - - 730,000 4,600 - - - - - - 4,600 - 1,630,800 - - - - 113.800 1,744.600 2,319,100 - - - - - - 2,319,100 2,823,700 1,179,300 - - - - 1,284.100 5,287,1OD - 2,542,500 - - - - - 2,542,500 - 5,944,200 - - - - 2,224,800 8,169,000 - 193,DDO - - - - 82,600 275,600 831,800 - - - - 831,800 - 26,089,000 - - - 15,246,600 41,335,600 - 8,213.100 - - - - 2,244.900 30,458,000 - 4,400,800 - - - - 8,269,100 12,669.900 • 1,861,200 - - - 1,980,400 3,841,60D - - - - 15,765,4DO - 902,600 16,668,D00 22,471,200 90,400 - - - 2,445,10D 25,006,700 420,500 - - - - - 420,500 2,721,3DO - - - - - - 2,721,300 4,736,000 329,500 - - - - 81200 5,073,700 9,182,200 2,692,900 - - - - 617,900 12,493,000 8,987,300 285,400 - - - - 522,600 9,795,300 - 2,861,ODO - - - 42,200 2,903,200 17,930,400 19,438,500 - - - - 1,536,800 38,985.700 1,490,200 - - - - - 1,490,200 1,005,000 43,200 - - - - 13,300 1,061,500 - 33,495,000 - - - 1,303,800 34,798,800 - 3,018,&W - - - - 3,018,800 - 11,631,900 - - - - 252,4D0 11,894,300 4,157,600 2,555,300 6,712,900 - 1,328,600 - - 161,900 1,490,400 - - - 9,128,300 - 2,195,200 11,323,500 578,500 - - 7,002,600 - - 1,203,400 8,784,500 - 11,700 - - - 11,700 - 15,443,800 - - - - 6,933,900 22,377,700 1,625,300 3,526,600 7,264,300 12,105,100 5,507,800 19,506,200 271,923,100 23,584,ODO 541,300 5,728,200 3.049,900 5,044,600 1,525,200 2,058,100 981,200 71,700 486,800 730,000 4,600 2,319,100 2,823,700 831,801) 22,471,200 420,500 2,721,300 4,636,000 9,182,200 8,987,300 17,930,400 1,490,200 1,005,000 578,500 Total $ 449,761,700 S 278,894,400 $ - $ 68,414,700 $ 118,394,900 $ $4,200 $ 232,707,200 $ 1,148,247,000 5 439,561,200 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 45 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 16: FY 2025 Collier County General Funds Expenditure Demand Units Department Board of County Commissioners Budget $ 1,625,300 Demand Base FIXED Multiplier 1.00 Base Demand - Demand N/A County Attorney 3,526,600 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 2.35 Other General Administration 7,264,300 PERMPOP 0.50 413,300 $ 8.79 Property A raiser 12,105,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 8.05 Supervisor of Elections 5,507,800 PERMPOP 0.50 413,300 $ 6.66 Clerk of Courts 18,506,200 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 12.31 Sheriff Law Enforcement 195,143,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 760,473 $ 256.61 Law Enforcement Paid by BCC 5,371,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 760,473 $ 7.06 Detention & Corrections 64,783,800 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 0.15 760,473 $ 12.78 Bailiffs 6,525,300 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 0.05 760,473 $ 0.43 Tax Collector 23,584,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 15.68 Corporate Business Operations Administration 541,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Human Resources 5,728,200 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 3.81 Procurement Services 3,049,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 2.03 Emergency Management Division 5,044,600 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 760,473 $ 6.63 Growth Mgt - Planning 1,525,200 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 751,886 $ 2.03 Growth M - Regulation 2,058,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 751,886 $ 2.74 Growth M - Housing Policy and Econ Develo men 981,200 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Circuit & County Court Judges 71,700 PEAKPOP 1.00 499,426 $ 0.14 Public Defender 486,800 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 1.18 State Attorney 730,000 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 1.77 Guardian Ad Litem Program 4,600 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 0.01 County Manager Operations 2,319,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 1.54 Office of Management & Budget 2,823,700 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 1.88 Corporate Compliance & Continous Improvement 831,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Facilities Management Division 22,471,200 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 751,886 $ 14.94 Public Services Administration 420,500 PERMPOP 0.50 413,300 $ 0.51 Operations and Veteran Services 2,721,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Domestic Animal Services 4,636,000 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 11.22 Community and Human Services 9,182,200 PERMPOP 0.50 413,300 $ 11.11 Library 8,987,300 PEAKPOP 1.00 499,426 $ 18.00 Parks & Recreation 17,930,400 PEAKPOP 1.00 499,426 $ 35.90 Public Health 1,490,200 PERMPOP 0.20 413,300 $ 0.72 University Extension Service 1,005,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transportation M - Public Transit & NE 578,500 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 1.40 General Funds Grouping Totals Less Remittances $ 439,561,200 Remittances 10,200,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A General Funds Grouping Totals Plus Remittances $ 449,761,700 Transfer to 1001 Road & Bride 27,675,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 751,886 $ 36.81 Transfer to 1051 Court Administration 2,401,700 PEAKPOP 1.00 499,426 $ 4.81 Transfer to 1060 MHz Radio System 1,323,700 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS O.SO 760,473 $ 0.87 Transfer to 3081 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap 9,660,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 751,886 $ 12.85 Transfer to 4030 CATT Transit Enhance 2,761,600 PEAKPOP 1.00 499,426 $ 5.53 Transfer to 4033 Transp Disadv 2,380,400 PERMPOP 1.00 413,300 $ 5.76 Transfer to 4050 EMS Fund 30,421,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.87 760,473 $ 74.76 Other Transfers 86,030,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers to General Fund 1001 20,000 FIXED 1.00 N/A Advance/Repayments 11,356,800 FIXED 1.00 N/A Restricted for Unfunded Requests - FIXED 1.00 N/A Transfers to Constitutional Officers 323,224,600 FIXED 1.00 N/A Reserves 77,562,800 FIXED 1.00 N/A Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies 12,572,300 PEAKPOP 1.00 499,426 $ 25.17 Total $ 1,037,152,900 1.00 $ 614.82 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 46 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT ix Table 17: EMS Transfer to 4050 EMS Fund PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS $$ Per Demand Unit Corkscrew Grove East PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS Projected EMS Operating Expenditures Index Projected EMS Operating Expenditures Corkscrew Grove East PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS Revised $$ Per Demand Unit Alternate Calculation based on Level of Service New Ambulance Annual Operating Expenditures: Annual Personnel Cost per FTE # of FTEs Annual Personnel Cost Personal Services Operating Expense Annual Facility Lease Total Annual Operating Cost New Ambulance Annual Operating Expenditures: Total Annual Operating Cost General Fund Subsidy Percentage General Fund Annual Cost Level of Service Standard Per Capita Amount Corkscrew Grove East PEAKPOP Projected EMS Operating Expenditures Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 s for New Ambulance $ 30,421,000 760,473 $ 40.00 9,832 $ 393,280 187% $ 735,000 9,832 $ 74.76 $ 159,310 $ 111,000 $ 84,000 3 3 3 $ 477,930 $ 333,000 $ 252,000 $ 1,062,930 228,000 17% 26,000 $ 1,316,930 $ 1,316,930 100% $ 1,316,930 16,400 $ 80.30 9,159 Emergency Medical Service ("EMS") for the project will be initially provided by Collier County Medic Station 32 which is co -located at the Fire District's Headquarters Station 32. If call volume and response time for Corkscrew Grove East Village and the immediate area generate the need for an additional ambulance, Collier County EMS may choose to co -locate a medic facility at the new Immokalee Fire Control District station. For purposes of the Economic Assessment, it is assumed the space needed for a new ambulance will be leased at the highest annual rent as currently paid for similar space. Personnel and operating costs for staffing and operating a new ambulance, including rent, are allocated in Appendix Table 17 above based on the level of service in the 2024 AUIR and the peak residential population of the Corkscrew Grove East Village. The calculated General Fund EMS Expenditure per demand unit was multiplied by 187 percent to recognize the additional EMS cost. For conservatism of this analysis, it is assumed the General 47 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Fund will subsize 100 percent of the cost, whereas the actual subsidy is generally around 55 percent. Appendix Table 18: FY 2025 Collier County MSTU Expenditure Demand Units DepartmentPer Other General Administration 1,515,500 PERMPOP 0.50 376,216 $ 4.03 Human Resources 532,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 684,361 $ 0.78 Emergency Management Division 21,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 0.03 GrowthMgt-Administration 375,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 0.55 Growth M - Planning 2,142,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 3.13 Growth Mgt - Regulation 6,966,S00 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 10.18 Communications Government & Public Affairs 2,542,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 684,361 $ 3.72 Pelican Bay Services 156,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Immokalee CRA 237,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Parks & Recreation 17,899,400 PEAKPOP 1.00 454,553 $ 39.38 Transportation M - Operations 2,757,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 4.03 Transportation M - Landscaping 3,018,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 4.41 Transportation M - Coastal Zone Management 256,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 0.38 Transportation M - Improvements Districts & MSTU 422,800 FIXED 1.00 N/A Indirect Cost Reimbursement 1,597,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 684,361 $ 2.33 Remittances 500,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers 37,686,900 FIXED 1.00 N/A Advances - FIXED 1.00 N/A Reserves 6,187,700 FIXED 1.00 N/A Total $ 84,818,700 1.00 $ 72.94 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 48 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT ndix Table 19: Corkscrew Grove East Village General Funds Expenditures at Buildout County Attorney PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 2.35 $ 23,000 Other General Administration PERMPOP 8.79 67,000 Property Appraiser PEAKPOP&JOBS 8.05 79,000 Supervisor of Elections PERMPOP 6.66 51,000 Clerk of Courts PEAKPOP&JOBS 12.31 121,000 Sheriff Law Enforcement PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 256.61 2,523,000 Law Enforcement Paid by BCC PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 7.06 69,000 Detention & Corrections PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 12.78 126,000 Bailiffs PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 0.43 4,000 Tax Collector PEAKPOP&JOBS 15.68 154,000 Human Resources PEAKPOP&JOBS 3.81 37,000 Procurement Services PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.03 20,000 Emergency Management Division PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 6.63 65,000 Growth Mgt - Planning PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.03 20,000 Growth Mgt - Regulation PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.74 27,000 Circuit & County Court Judges PEAKPOP 0.14 1,000 Public Defender PERMPOP 1.18 11,000 State Attorney PERMPOP 1.77 13,000 Guardian Ad Litem Program PERMPOP 0.01 - County Manager Operations PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.54 15,000 Office of Management & Budget PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.88 18,000 Facilities Management Division PEAKPOP&JOBS 14.94 147,000 Public Services Administration PERMPOP 0.51 4,000 Domestic Animal Services PERMPOP 11.22 85,000 Community and Human Services PERMPOP 11.11 84,000 Library PEAKPOP 18.00 165,000 Parks & Recreation PEAKPOP 35.90 329,000 Public Health PERMPOP 0.72 5,000 Transportation Mgt - Public Transit & NE PERMPOP 1.40 11,000 Transfer to 1001 Road & Bridge PEAKPOP&JOBS 36.81 362,000 Transfer to 1051 Court Administration PEAKPOP 4.81 45,000 Transfer to 1060 MHz Radio System PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 0.87 9,000 Transfer to 3081 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap PEAKPOP&JOBS 12.85 126,000 Transfer to 4030 CATT Transit Enhance PEAKPOP 5.53 51,000 Transfer to 4033 Transp Disadv PERMPOP 5.76 44,000 Transfer to 4050 EMS Fund PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 74.76 735,000 Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies PEAKPOP 25.17 231,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures $ 614.82 $ 5,877,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 49 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Table 20: Corkscrew Grove East Villaee MSTU Expenditures at Buildout Other General Administration PERMPOP $ 4.03 $ 31,000 Human Resources PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.78 8,000 Emergency Management Division PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.03 - Growth Mgt -Administration PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.55 5,000 Growth Mgt - Planning PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 3.13 31,000 Growth Mgt - Regulation PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 10.18 100,000 Communications Government & Public Affairs PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 3.72 37,000 Parks & Recreation PEAKPOP $ 39.38 361,000 Transportation Mgt - Operations PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 4.03 40,000 Transportation Mgt - Landscaping PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 4.41 43,000 Transportation Mgt - Coastal Zone Management PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 0.38 4,000 Indirect Cost Reimbursement PEAKPOP&JOBS $ 2.33 23,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Expenditures 72.94 $ 683,000 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 50 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT ix Table 21: Collier County Impact Fee Schedule for Applicable Services Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) Un 1 $ 6,950.001 $ 1,230.241 $ 455.20 Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. Unit 1 $ 8,090.001 $ 2,694.32 1 $ 933.83 Retail 200,001- 400,000 Sq Ft Sq Ft I S 13.77400 N/A I N/A Multi -Family (Low -Rise, 1-2 Floors) Unit Single -Family Detached <4,000 Sq. Ft. Unit Retail 200,001 - 400,000 Sq Ft Sq Ft Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2025 296.561 $ 228.911 $ 67.50 586.95 1 S 499.19 1 $ 142.07 51 0 O O Vv U-1 N :0 Ln 7 c O1 QQ N T T O w 01 0 3 3 r O Ao m F � T � o a m 0 N A ~ N T o T O 0 In � � N T N 00 W N r In 00 N O A V O 00 l0 a C C 7 7 lA {/> iA O O O O O O O O O V� -L^ ►sFsr V1. V� ILn A to O Oo N V7 91 O O O O O O O O O "L� tr N N W O O1 w w w oa O O O O O O w r° c N T T O a)� 0 3 _3 0 r (O 0 Ao v O S o a SD N n r O A N OO T In 0 � N rf N 00 W N F+ In 00 N O A J O 00 lD 4 C C K -n CL fD fD f.4 4.11� t A G fD 1-, 00 O1 W J O �DLn H A O 0 O O O O O O D R 0) d Z N F+ Q D A p Qj A W N N A ri ID N Z lD A ' D W U1 w lr 00 N W O N O V In N w 00 lD O O Ql lD Ul A 111 01 O � A N A Lo 00 In w r iD Q1 lD r l O 00 Am CA � N V W 0) O U1 J V O Z 00 N D 00 A W A in A w CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 23: Collier County School District Base Assumptions STUDENT GENERATION RATES - 2015 IMPACT FEE UPDATE 0.34 Single Family 0.11 Multi Family and Single Family Attached 0.28 Mobile Home FY 2024-2025 SCHOOL FTE ENROLLMENT (Part 2 General Fund by Schools) 18,788 jElementary 9,324 Middle 13,594 High 675 Alternate Schools 5,256 Charter Schools 47,637 Total SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 201S IMPACT FEE UDPATE 49%1 Elementary 23% Middle 28% High 100% Total FY 2025 MILLAGE RATES 2,0820 lRequired Local Effort 0.7480 Discretionary 0.3500 Addiitional Millage 3.1800 Total General Fund Millage 1.1332 Capital Improvement Millage 4.3132 Total Millage 2.0820 Required by State Law 2.2312 Total Discretionary Local 4.3132 Total Millage Source: Collier County School District, DPFG 2025 53 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the data contained in this report are accurate as of the date of this study; however, factors exist that are outside the control of DPFG and that may affect the estimates and/or projections noted herein. This study is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed by DPFG from its independent research effort, general knowledge of the industry, and information provided by and consultations with the client and the client's representatives. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by the client, the client's agent and representatives, or any other data source used in preparing or presenting this study. This report is based on information that was current as of March 6, 2025 (except for sections identified as being updated June 20, 2025, July 29, 2025, and August 29, 2025), and DPFG has not undertaken any update of its research effort since such date. Because future events and circumstances, many of which are not known as of the date of this study, may affect the estimates contained therein, no warranty or representation is made by DPFG that any of the projected values or results contained in this study will actually be achieved. Possession of this study does not carry with it the right of publication thereof or to use the name of DPFG in any manner without first obtaining the prior written consent of DPFG. No abstracting, excerpting or summarization of this study may be made without first obtaining the prior written consent of DPFG. This report is not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities, debt, equity, or other similar purpose where it may be relied upon to any degree by any person other than the client, nor is any third party entitled to rely upon this report, without first obtaining the prior written consent of DPFG. This study may not be used for purposes other than that for which it is prepared or for which prior written consent has first been obtained from DPFG. Any changes made to the study, or any use of the study not specifically prescribed under agreement between the parties or otherwise expressly approved by DPFG, shall be at the sole risk of the party making such changes or adopting such use. This study is qualified in its entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations, conditions and considerations. 54 CORKSCREW GROVE EAST VILLAGE SRA (PL-20240010212) NIM DOCUMENTS Neighborhood Information Meeting Summary Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA (PL-20240010212) September 24, 2025, 5:30 PM Collier County UFAFAS Extension - Multi -Purpose Room 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120 The NIM was held for the above -referenced petition. The petition is described as follows: SRA-PL-20240010212 - A petition to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) in the form of a Village. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is located in northern Collier County in portions of Sections 3-10, Township 46 South, Range 28 East. The Corkscrew Grove East Village ("Village") contains a total of 1,446.59t acres. A portion of the Village is located on the north side of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road. The remainder of the Village is located south of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road, east and west of Corkscrew Road. Allows for a maximum of 4,502 dwelling units (f3.11 DUs per gross acre); a minimum and maximum of 238,606 gross square feet of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses (including indoor self -storage); and a minimum of 45,020 gross square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses. Note: This is a summary of the NIM. Applicant: Alico, Inc. Attendees on Behalf of the Applicant: John Kiernan, President and CEO, Alico, Inc. Mitch Hutchcraft, Executive Vice President of Real Estate, Alico Inc. Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester (CYK) Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Senior Vice President, Bowman Jeremie Chastain, AICP, Senior Manager, Planning and Development, Bowman Norm Trebilcock, AICP, PTOE, PE., Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, Inc. (via Zoom) Heather Samborski, Senior Ecologist, Passarella & Associates, Inc. (via Zoom) Alvaro Yusty, P.E., Project Manager, JR Evans Engineering (via Zoom) Attendees on Behalf of the County: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM There were no members of the public physically in attendance, and no members of the public in attendance via Zoom. The applicants' representatives and County staff waited approximately 15 minutes on Zoom and 15 minutes in person for attendees to join. As no attendees joined the meeting, the NIM ended without presentation at approximately 5:45 PM AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tar rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance. ( gnature of Applicant's Agent) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Affidavit of Compliance was acknowledged before me this September 9, 2025, by means of physical presence or online notarization, by Jeremie Chastain, AICP, Senior Manager, Planning and Development, Bowman, Cvhois personally known to me or who has produced as identification. Signature of Notary Public —� (Notary Seal) rc,h �1 n Printed Name of Notary �N+o DEBORAH N. D'ANGaLA ®Notary Public - State of Florida p` Commission M HH 219413 •.,or r` '` My Comm. Expires Jan 23. 2026 Bonded through National Notary Assn. LocaliQ Florida GANNETT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STEPHANIE KAROL Hole Montes Inc 950 Encore WAY 4 200 Naples FL 34110-9176 STATE OF WISCONSIN, COUNTY OF BROWN Before the undersigned authority personally appeared, who on oath says that he or she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Naples Daily News, a newspaper published in Collier County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Legal Ad in the matter of, was published on the publicly accessible website of Collier and Lee Counties, Florida, or in a newspaper by print in the issues of, on: 09/09/2025 Affiant further says that the website or newspaper complies with all legal requirements for publication in chapter 50, Florida Statutes. Subscribed and sworn to before me, by the legal clerk, who is personally known to me, on 09/09/2025 Legal Clerk ��XV? G/LiC�G� Notary, Late of WI, County of'Brown �YZ My commission expires Publication Cost: $1003.17 Tax Amount: $0.00 Payment Cost: $1003.17 Order No: 11645928 Customer No: 1125693 PO #: THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE! Please do not use dus form for payment remittance MARIAH VERHAGEN Notary Public t State of Wisconsin # of Copies PO Box 631244 Cincinnati, OH 45263-1244 Page 1 of 2 The public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting held by Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Senior Vice President, Jeremie Chastain, AICP, Senior Manager, Planning and Development of Bowman, and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, PA, on behalf of the applicant at the following time and location: Wednesday, September 24, 202S, at 5:30 p.m. Collier County OF/IFAS Extension 14700 Immokalee Road, Multi -Purpose Room, Naples, FL 34120 The following application has been made to the Collier County Growth Management Department: SRA-PL-20240010212. A petition to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) in the form of a Village. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is located in northern Collier County in portions of Sections 3-10, Township 46 South, Range 28 East. The Corkscrew Grove East Village ("Village") contains a total of 1,446.59± acres. A portion of the Village is located on the north side of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road. The remainder of the Village is located south of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road, east and west of Corkscrew Road. Allows for a maximum of 4,502 dwelling units (±3.11 DUs per gross acre); a minimum and maximum of 238,606 gross square feet of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses (including indoor self -storage); and a minimum of 45,020 gross square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses. State R°SUBJECT ad 8.2 Q SITE SUBJECT SITE SUBJECT SITE SSG Bowman Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the project with the applicant and Collier County staff. The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting is to provide the public with notice of an impending zoning application and to foster communication between the applicant and the public. The expectation is that all attendees will conduct themselves in such a manner that their presence will not interfere with the orderly progress of the meeting. Zoom is being provided as an option for those unable to attend the meeting in person. However, if technical difficulties arise with Zoom, the technical difficulties will not be grounds to invalidate the meeting. If you would like to participate via Zoom or view a video of the meeting, please email us at NIM-SWFL@bowman.com and we will send zoom invite or a link of the video. You may also email any comments or questions to NIM-SWFL@bowman.com. Please refer to Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA in the subject line. Jeremie Chastain, AICP, Senior Manager, Planning and Development, Bowman 950 Encore Way, Naples, FL 34110; Phone: 239-254-2000, email: JChastain@bowman.com no+nxe.se Bowman September 9, 2025 Re: Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA (PL-20240010212) Bowman File No. 340543 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Senior Vice President, Jeremie Chastain, AICP, Lead Planner of Bowman, and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, PA, on behalf of the applicant, have made the following application to Collier County Growth Management: SRA-PL-20240010212. A petition to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) in the form of a Village. The Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA is located in northern Collier County in portions of Sections 3-10, Township 46 South, Range 28 East. The Corkscrew Grove East Village ("Village") contains a total of 1,446.59f acres. A portion of the Village is located on the north side of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road. The remainder of the Village is located south of the intersection of State Road 82 and Corkscrew Road, east and west of Corkscrew Road. Allows for a maximum of 4,502 dwelling units (f3.1 l DUs per gross acre); a minimum and maximum of 238,606 gross square feet of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses (including indoor self -storage); and a minimum of 45,020 gross square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses. State Roan 82 SUBJECT ITE tw� SUBJECT SITE SUBJECT SITE 110aa r- Goes Bowman Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA Page l of 2 950 Encore Way, Naples, FL 34110 P: 239.254.2000 Bowman.com Q \FL-NAPL-HM HMDATA-NP2 2023\2023120\WP\NIM Property Owner Letter (9-9-2025).docx Bowman In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to hear a presentation about this petition and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 24, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. at Collier County OF/IFAS Extension, 14700 Immokalee Road, Multi -Purpose Room, Naples, Florida 34120. The purpose and intent of this Neighborhood Information Meeting is to provide the public with notice of an impending zoning application and to foster communication between the applicant and the public. The expectation is that all attendees will conduct themselves in such a manner that their presence will not interfere with the orderly progress of the meeting. Zoom is being provided as an option to those unable to attend the meeting in person. However, if technical difficulties arise with Zoom, the technical difficulties will not be grounds to invalidate the meeting. If you would like to participate via Zoom or view a video of the meeting, please email us at NIM-SVb FL Rbowman.com and we will send zoom invite or a link of the video. You may also email any comments or questions to NIM-S1%'FL a bowman.com. Please reference Corkscrew Grove East Village SRA in the subject line. Very truly yours, BOWMAN #&� a4AW4�_ Jeremie Chastain, AICP Senior Manager, Planning and Development JC/sk Page 2 of 2 950 Encore Way, Naples, FL 34110 P: 239.254.2000 Bowman.com Q: FL-NAPL-HM HMDATA-NP2 2023\72023120 WP NIM Propeny Owner Letter (9-9-2025) docx ALICO LAND DEV CO ALICO LAND DEV CO ALICO LAND DEV CO 10070 DANIELS INTSTE CT #200 10070 DANIELS INTSTE CT #200 10070 DANIELS INTSTE CT #200 FORT MYERS, FL 33913 --- 0 FORT MYERS, FL 33913 --- 0 FORT MYERS, FL 33913 --- 0 ALICO LAND DEV CO 10070 DANIELS INTSTE CT #200 FORT MYERS, FL 33913---0 ALICO LAND DEV CO 10070 DANIELS INTSTE CT#200 FORTMYERS,FL 33913 --- 0 ALICO LAND DEV CO 10070 DANIELS INTSTE CT#200 FORT MEYERS, FL 33913 --- 0 ALICO LAND DEV CO 10070 DANIELS INTSTE CT#200 FORT MYERS, FL 33913 --- 0 ALICO LAND DEV CO 10070 DANIELS INTSTE CT#200 FORT MYERS, FL 33913 --- 0 BROWNINGS NURSERY & LANDSCAPING INC PO BOX 39 LEHIGHACRES,FL 33970-0 SOUTH FL WATER MGMT DIST SOUTH FL WATER MGMT DIST SOUTH FL WATER MGMT DIST ATTN: LAND MGMT ATTN: LAND MGMT ATTN: LAND MGMT PO BOX 24680 PO BOX 24680 PO BOX 24680 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33416--- 4680 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33416--- 4680 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33416--- 4680 Marsha Ellis 17850 Devore Lane Fort Myers, FL 33913 (239)822-7826 Marshaellis22(cOgmaiLcom RE: Permit Application No. SAJ-2025-01221 (SP-MLT) Applicant: Alico Inc. c/o Mitch Hutchcraft Dear Reviewer(s), It is with a sense of loss and grief that I begin this letter. This permit would further jeopardize recovery of the survival of the FL Panther and other endangered and imperiled species found on and near the property. Further, the loss of agricultural independence and the ability to provide food for the region and beyond is a permanent, cumulative conversion of rural lands that together with conservation lands form a mosaic of open lands providing ecological services havingtangible economic and cultural value. The diminishment of wildlife viewing opportunity for the region is real and palpable as is the degradation of the environment including water scarcity and quality diminishment. 5�-5.61 acres of vulnerable wetlands already precluded from development and an additional 338.65 acres of other surface waters stand to be impacted along with >3,500 acres of other lands that collectively represent a mosaic of connected habitat and open space. This is in combination with the >6,700 acres of adjacent Kingston, approved in controversial, irregular means --- still facing criticism without being actualized and time afforded to ascertain impacts. This haste calls into question whether or not regulatory agencies are fulfilling their legal, ethical and moral obligation to protect the environment, its rural stewards and wildlife or buckling to political pressure. Further, policy implications from the conversion of these massive agricultural lands on a landscape -level scale with regional, cross county implications and impacts without meaningful agency or local government coordination visible to the public or accessible are unaddressed. The takeaway from Kingston for Mitch Hutchcraft appears to be a strategy to mix up the order of approvals and plow forward before any studies to evaluate region altering impacts can be commenced. The environmental justice component of taking rural lands and skipping over economically deprived areas, such as Lehigh Acres to urbanize the landscape such as proposed (think homes with less than 10' between them, urban level setbacks) is disturbing. It is harmful for the area by denying investments in areas that face unsafe water supply from densities sharing private water wells and on -site septic on 3/4 lots and increases and pressures further increasing to central urban densities there --- without the requisite investments. There are water source shortages in the area collapsing wells today and imminently. Between Kingston and this proposal a city, roughly the population of Ormond Beach is proposed in primary and secondary panther habitat contiguous to CREW lands (the largest intact watershed in the region) and proximate to Audubon, a driving economic force for scientific research and eco-tourism. With that being said, I met with Mitch HutchUlu ft and Alico Inc ®anny Sutton last year with a friend who had requested a sit down, face to face. The prospect of doling up the Alico Lands, given the enormous monetary support (eligibility) these lands have received for compensation and to remain open --- and scale of impacts is beyond worrisome. At that meeting I heard the rationale of preserving (at least for the moment) lands in Hendry in a credit type of system --- as a tradeoff to develop the lands in Collier, home of the National Panther Refuge, essentially exploiting the "wildlife corridor" narrative as justification. The aspirations of the Wildlife Corridor do not supplant the necessity of protection of existing panther in Collier and Lee to fit a convenient and contrived narrative. will point out the obvious, which is the "tourism" in Hendry undoubtedly does not match up with the "tourism" in Collier/Lee, nor does the specialized workforce. The narrative of developing a "wildlife corridor" at the expense of Collier and Lee County panther populations is shameless and erodes the goals of recovery necessitating some genetic diversity to address genetic mixing arising from some separation of distinct populations. To coin the phrase "death by a 1,000 cuts" does not do justice to the exponential scale of harm being rendered by these corporate players seeking grace by enmeshing agriculture with development and treating the vital agricultural sector as a "placeholder" for development. This permit application proposes development of over 4, 600 acres added to the 6,700 from Kingston --- 11,000 acres in the immediate vicinity and thousands of other acres from the Collier Rural Villages -- choking FL Panther dispersal and developing dwindling uplands. The loss of independence for the rural area peoples and the failure to recognize and support varied land uses that demands some governmental discipline is fatal for the panther and diminishes our food sovereignty rippling out from beyond Alico property bounds. The costs of supplying infrastructure to this remote area is crippling to the Collier and Lee communities who are sufferingfrom bumper -to -bumper traffic, inadequate roads and waste facilities, in the case of Lee operating for years under consent order. Taxpayers are left holding the bill for this sprawl and will face an enormity of costs and consequences for attempting but failing to provide and maintain infrastructure in immature areas and be left with "reimbursing" developers for development they don't want, exclusive civil contracts and demands and do not benefit them. The shell game of off -site mitigation and "compromises" made to accommodate developers is ushering in the demise of the panther and other species, including those upland species who compete with developers for dry land to stave off extinction in a fight for survival. No number of compromises or new proposals appears to be ever enough, It is an escalating careening dance toward entropy with not a beat skipped to pause, listen with warranted caution and reason and assess in actual quantifiable terms the impacts of adjacent Kingston or assess the impacts (economic and other) of permanent conversion of ag lands and loss of varied land use types. The Watersheds of Lee, Estero, Collier and the Ten Thousand Islands should be preserved as UNESCO heritage --- as sustaining the culture of the Calusa, the only known civilization completely reliant on fishing in recognition of the vast water and natural resources ecology and preserve the environment that has assured continuation and clean water capable of providing entirely for a people. Alico agricultural lands have had an essential role in bee Keeping and the overwintering of hives in the region, safe from freezes and providing nectar from uncultivated and cultivated lands to ready hives. This area has historically been the nation's bee nursery preparing hives for shipping throughout the US to sustain our food supply with pollination services. Again, we are not talking about dividing a 10-acre lot to put a double -wide trailer but the permanent conversion of thousands of acres of economically vital farmlands, a mosaic of connected habitat for endangered species and degradation of the largest intact watershed in the region feeding water that has historically provided food source for an advanced culture of unique indigenous peoples and been the economic driver of the tourism industry. Alico can continue to receive compensation for Keeping their lands open or pursue such. We simply cannot continue to allow development to move forward in this area given the recent impacts without a studied, significant pause and evaluation. It is disingenuous to exploit the Wildlife Corridor as a means to justify credit swapping schemes that undermine recovery and fail to uphold protections for species dependent upon these lands. To further degrade CREW beyond Kingston impacts amplifies harms underway. To rob rural people of their sovereignty to provide food for themselves, rely on wells, people to be able to fish and eat their catch and exceeding the carrying capacity of our land is irredeemable given what we know about the impacts of urbanization and ecological services provided by the rural - conservation mosaic and ecological services. Not applying reasoned constraint and study of underway impacts or meeting up to the expectations of federal edicts to protect and preserve endangered species and the environment is illogical and negligent. This land has witnessed the decimation of the Calusa, but the panther lived on. Now, the land --- a victim of haste and greed --- faces decimation of agriculture alongside the panther and is crossing a tipping point in defiance of federal regulations and sound policy. Further, continuing to build and cluster homes around stormwater ponds despite research indicating this is a regrettable practice leading to diminishment of function over time, a source of pollutants rather than effective stormwater management in this region and increasing physical hazard and unassigned liability through drownings continues in this project unabated. Constructed wetlands and dry detention areas are better choices, not that these features or any amount of stormwater entrainment would offset harm given the sensitive location of this property. To advance a narrative that this project enhances natural resources --- water quality, habitat, food security --- is bought and paid for by hired consultants whom are enabling degradation and taking off the table a future for restorative farming practices to support future sustainability goals. The price on our estuaries, water quality, aquifer recharge, quality of life, species diversity, varied land uses, diverse economy is not worth placating a corporate entity given what is at stake. implore you to pause any more approvals in this area (Lee -Collier) pending cumulative evaluation of actualized impacts and the diminishment to multiple economic sectors that reliant upon this land and commitment of regulatory and government agencies to follow sound planning practices. Sincerely, Marsha His Nancy Guncilach MIJ ecto FW: Corkscrew Grove -Letter of Objection 6�r®��e kat D <katwalk115@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2026 8:54 PM Too Ailyn Padron <Ailyn.Padron@collier.gov> Subject: Corkscrew Grove EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. I would like my comment on record on the Corkscrew Grove application. You cannot continue to deny that overpopulation is a real threat to our environment, our wildlife and our quality of lives. Our Florida panther, as well as several other endangered species, are going to go extinct with all this reckless development. It's time to open up your eyes, stop the greed and selfishness and work for the residents of Southwest Florida. Please do not approve this application. Thanl<you Kathy Walker 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.