Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CCPC Agenda 12/06/2018
COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 December 6, 2018 9: 00 AM Mark Strain - Chairman Karen Homiak - Vice -Chair Edwin Fryer - Secretary Patrick Dearborn Stan Chrzanowski, Environmental Joseph Schmitt, Environmental Thomas Eastman, Collier County School Board Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selected to speak on behalf of an organization or group are encouraged and may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item if so recognized by the chairman. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the CCPC shall be submitted to the appropriate county staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners if applicable. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Collier County Planning Commission Page I Printed 1112912018 December 2018 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes A. November 1, 2018 CCPC minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Public Hearings A. Advertised 1. VA-PL20180001748: A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, relating to a variance request from Section 5.03.06 E. of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum side yard setback for a boat dock facility from 7.5 feet to 1.3 feet on the north side of the proposed boat dock, and from 7.5 feet to 2.1 feet on the south side of the proposed boat dock, for property located at 37 Pelican Street, on the north side of Pelican Street, approximately 1000 feet west of Capri Blvd., in Section 31, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (This is a companion to Agenda Item PL20180001018) [Coordinator: Gil Martinez, Principal Planner] 2. BDE-PL20180001018: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to a request for a 235 -foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 -foot limit allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code, for a total protrusion of 255 feet, to accommodate a new docking facility with one boat slip for the benefit of property located at 37 Pelican Street W., on the north side of Pelican Street W., approximately 1000 feet west of Capri Blvd., in Section 31, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to VA P1,20180001748) [Coordinator: Gil Martinez, AICP, Principal Planner] Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 11/29/2018 December 2018 3. PL20170004419: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Map Series to add the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict to the Urban Mixed -Use District, to allow up to 420 multi family dwelling units, and furthermore directing transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is located on the south side of Veterans -Memorial Boulevard, just east of Livingston Road, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 35.57± acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] 4. PL20180002552: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Potable Water Sub -element of the Public Facilities Element to amend Policy 1.7 to reference the updated Ten Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, and furthermore directing transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner] B. Noticed 10. New Business 11. Old Business 12. Public Comment 13. Adjourn Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 1112912018 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.A Item Summary: November 1, 2018 CCPC minutes Meeting Date: 12/06/2018 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst — Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Name: Judy Puig 11/15/2018 9:47 AM Submitted by: Title: Dept Head - Growth Management Growth Management Department Name: Thaddeus Cohen 11/15/2018 9:47 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 5.A 12/06/2018 Completed 11/15/2018 9:47 AM 12/06/2018 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 4 5.A.a November 1, 2018 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, November 1, 2018 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 49 Packet Pg. 5 5.A.a November 1, 2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, November 1 st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. First item on our agenda is roll call by the secretary. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice -chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And addenda to the agenda, I don't see any new items other than the three public hearings that have been advertised. Ray, do you have anything that needs to be added? MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission absences, Ray, I'm going to need your help here for December, but I know that we have another meeting scheduled for November 15th. So does anybody know if they're not going to make it on November 15th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have a quorum. So the first meeting in November I know some things are scheduled for. I'm not sure all of which is, but there was a question about the second meeting in November, which is pretty close to Christmas. COMMISSIONER FRYER: December. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: December. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: December, I'm sorry. I had suggested to staff not to utilize that unless we had some time -sensitive issue, and the only issue at that time seemed to be possibly the Immokalee master plan, which I'm not sure we'd want to start that before Christmas and then continue it into January, so I suggested we hear that in January. So do you know if we're going to have something that's needed on the 20th of December? MR. BELLOWS: Not to my knowledge. There are no items contemplated at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because if that date's going to be open, I would think for the benefit of everybody here, we ought to know that as soon as possible. Is that something you can confirm at some point? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We'll do that today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good, thank you. That takes us to the approval of the minutes. We were sent electronically the October 4th minutes. Does anybody have any corrections or changes? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move their approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Patrick. Page 2 of 49 Packet Pg. 6 5.A.a November 1, 2018 Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Ray, BCC report? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On October 23rd the Board of County Commissioners heard on the summary agenda the Russell Square. That was approved pursuant to Planning Commission recommendations. Regal Acres was heard on their public agenda, and that was approved 5-0 subject to the Planning Commission recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Thank you. Chairman's report. I don't have anything that needs to be added right now. Oh, back to BCC reports. Wasn't there a discussion on sea level rise, I know -- on that BCC meeting, too? MR. BELLOWS: I heard some of it, but I wasn't involved with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just know we were following that, and I just wanted to make sure it was acknowledged that we did hear it. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I was there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did they answer all your questions, Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I just want to know when we're going to get the same presentation in front of the Planning Commission that we were promised after the Board meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then that's something, Ray, if you could get that scheduled, we'd appreciate that. MR. BELLOWS: We'll follow up with that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It can be the same one? You want to see it twice is what you're saying? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I wouldn't mind seeing it twice. I have some questions that I didn't ask during the Board meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's go ahead and get it scheduled, and probably after the holidays will be better, Stan, or is that pressing? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The sooner the better. But you're right, after the holidays is good. C14ARZMAN STRAIN: Okay. Whatever works. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm easy. I'll be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. There is no items on the consent agenda. And that takes us into our first advertised public hearings. Now, there are two companion items we're going to discuss them at the same time. We'll vote on them separately. I'll read them off together. First one is 9A1. It's the Hallstat/Grey Oaks Development of Regional Impact, PL20170001729. It's at the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Airport -Pulling Road. And the other is an amendment to the Grey Oaks MPUD. Same location. It's PL20170001548. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll start with disclosures on the Planning Commission with Page 3 of 49 Packet Pg. 7 5.A.a November 1, 2018 Tom. MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just the same emails that everybody else got. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Communications with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I've had two meetings with staff and two meetings with the applicant. Their team was different both times, but still two meetings with their team members. I've reviewed a lot of records, had discussions with staff members that weren't at the regular meeting outside of that. And that's it. Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: None, just email. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yes, and I received emails, too. Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Received an email from staff that contained a letter of objection, and I briefly spoke with Wayne Arnold this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just emails and communication with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll -- like I said, Wayne, we're going to be discussing both concurrently, so if your presentation can combine those two, that would be great. MR. ARNOLD: Sure. Hi. For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor & Associates. I'm a certified urban planner and here representing Al O'Donnell, who is the owner of the subject property. With me today is also Norm Trebilcock, who did our transportation analysis, and also John English with Barron Collier Peninsula Engineering, who's been involved with the project as well. So the application itself is, to me, fairly simple. It's a matter of relocating two unused access points, one on Airport Road and one on Golden Gate Parkway to Livingston Road in order to serve the proposed use of land under the Florida Power and Light easement. Of course, on the visualizer is an aerial photograph outlining all of Grey Oaks. The FP&L easement runs the entire linear length of the property's boundary along Livingston Road. Mr. O'Donnell owns all the property south of Grey Oaks Drive to the Florida Power & Light substation along that corridor. It's just under 30 acres of land. This aerial photograph shows you the proposed locations of the two new access points. The northernmost access point is south of the existing traffic signal, and it's at a location that already has a left directional turn lane which functions as a U-turn movement today, and our proposal would allow that to be utilized as a left turn into the property. Mr. O'Donnell's other alternative is to utilize the signalized intersection at Grey Oaks, go through their gate and then into the subject property, which is not an ideal situation, probably, for anybody at Wyndemere, Grey Oaks, or Mr. O'Donnell. So we think that clearly makes sense to utilize the existing median opening there. And the entrance that's shown on the south is meant to be a right -in, right -out entrance, and it's a location that already has what has been historically used as a construction easement. At the neighborhood information meeting we obviously discussed, you know, our proposed plans. We had some residents from Wyndemere present. We had obviously a few folks from Grey Oaks that were present. I think there was concern about the general use of the property, and Mr. O'Donnell obviously owns landscape nursery operations. And many of you may know that he's been around Southwest Florida for several decades and is well known in the landscape business industry. So his proposal is to utilize it for one of the handful of uses that the PUD authorizes under the FP&L easement. And the PUD language that authorizes that is in Section 4.02 of the Grey Oaks PUD. I've highlighted that, but it's -- hopefully you can read that, but it says, "storage, maintenance yards, and landscape nurseries within the FP&L easement," and that is exactly what we're proposing to utilize the property for. Page 4 of 49 Packet Pg. 8 5.A.a November 1, 2018 One of the questions that came up as part of the evaluation of this was, you know, Livingston Road's a controlled access corridor, and do we really need two access points for what otherwise is a fairly low traffic -generating use. And Norm Trebilcock is prepared to give you some discussion on the traffic analysis that he did that's associated with the landscape nursery use that's being proposed for the application today. And, again, I just reaffirm we're not asking to change any use that's already permitted in the PUD. We're simply asking to shift the access locations. We created an exhibit, and I'll show it to you, too, just so it's clear. I call it our access exhibit. So the two circled access points that are on the left side of the screen is the southernmost access point at Airport Road and another access point along Golden Gate Parkway. Those access points were originally designed to serve what was going to be a fairly large commercial component of the DRI and PUD. And, obviously, the plans have changed, and that's now been developed as a residential tract, and those access points no longer make sense or are needed. So then you can see where we're proposing to shift those two new access points on the east side. We don't have any objections from the state. In fact, the state gave us what's known as an E2 letter, which means it's a local issue, and there's no regional issue associated with it. So we dealt with Collier County Transportation, and we believe everything we've proposed here meets their access spacing criteria. So with that, I think I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Trebilcock and let them talk to you a little bit about traffic, and then if you have some questions, we'll be happy to answer them. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you, Wayne. Good morning. For the record, my name is Norman Trebilcock with Trebilcock Consulting Solutions. I'm a professional engineer and certified planner, and our firm prepared the traffic analysis for the project. And I'll just review that with you -all this morning as well. As Wayne mentioned, from a traffic standpoint we'll look at the Institute of Transportation engineer's land uses when we analyze traffic, and so there's some existing and approved development for the project, and probably the key is, as Wayne had mentioned, there's over 1.2 million square feet of general office and shopping center that aren't going to be built on the project there. And then with our proposed development, it's really a nursery, wholesale nursery. ITE looks at it as Land Use Code 818. And when you look at that land use code, the key thing in looking at that is, you know, does it fit what we're asking for? And, yes, it does in terms of serving contractors and also landscaping services in the description. A key, though, is a sample size is very small. For the acreage independent variable, there was only one land use size that ITE had. So that can always be questionable when we have such a small land use size, and it was a 6 -acre site in California. And staff had that question as well. You know, does this make sense and fit? So what we did result, we looked at, you know, other landscape operations in the area, the one at Orange Blossom and Airport. That's within a PUD area, but it has landscape contracting within that, and then also -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you back up. I don't mean to interrupt, but on that page you said that PUD on Orange Blossom has landscape contracting within it? MR. TREBIL,COCK: Well, what -- I'm sorry. The evidence is -- and I've seen for myself because I live in the area, is you have the landscape contracting services, like the typical trucks that we see for landscape contracting, and you can see it in the aerial of those vehicles and stuff that do that kind of service that's within that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said that the PUD has -- (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. TREBILCOCK: No, no, no, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and it does not. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, no, no. I apologize. What it is is we've got basically a wholesale landscape operation going on within this area, and I was just using it as just kind of an example of a typical wholesale operation that we see in the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just read that PUD, and I know that -- Page 5 of 49 Packet Pg. 9 5.A.a November 1, 2018 MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. You're absolutely right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It isn't what it sounded like. I wanted that correction. Thank you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. And just another example would be the Squares over off of Collier Boulevard and Sabal Palm Road where, again, you see, similarly on the aerial, I saw the same type of thing. So based on that, what we did is, empirically, working with the client, developed the landscape contracting portion. So we ran the typical ITE, but in addition we ran the landscape contracting operations. And, conservatively, we would be on the high side, but that's really where we want to be in terms of making sure that, A, there's no capacity issues on the surrounding roads, and also that when we get into site design, that things are sized correctly, turn lanes, et cetera. So that's how we've developed what we did and prepared for the project. But the intention was, this really is representative of the landscape operations for the project, and that's what we had created. In terms of equivalency, so this would be equivalent to 70,000 square feet of shopping center from a trip generation standpoint. And then also, we looked at the distribution and the traffic analysis and the peak -hour movements, and so then we used that in our analysis to make some conclusions. We looked at background traffic used in the AUIR numbers and grew that traffic, looked at those volumes. Also, we looked as well at the existing capacity out there. The bottom line, the surrounding roadway lengths will be operating at a satisfactory level of service with or without the project. The project impacts to the area road network were not significant, nor were they adverse. They were under the percentages we typically have. As Wayne had mentioned, the two connections, we would -- and the one we would match the existing median opening for a right -in, right -out and left -in, and then down to the south there was an existing construction access that we were planning to utilize as well as a right -in, right -out. And during the site improvement process, we had planned to provide turn lanes and extensions as necessary based on that fine-tuned analysis. So in looking at the analysis, as was pointed out, we're looking to move the two accesses off of Airport -- the one off of Airport and the one off of Golden Gate Parkway and move them to Livingston Road. These two accesses, as proposed, they are 1,800 feet apart. The site itself has 4,000 feet of frontage along Livingston Road. The frontage length, when you use -- this is a Class 2 facility, which is really one of the highest classes we have in Collier County, but with our frontage, we would qualify for three access points. They're 1,320 feet apart. We're looking at two here. One of the additional benefits of having these two access points -- again, we're not a real high generator, but it does allow Florida Power & Light to have access to their transmission facilities, which they like to see along roadways as well. So that was another one of the factors that, you know, we just had in mind there because of the nature of the site. So, really, in our conclusion, we don't exceed the traffic generated by the PUD ordinance. The project isn't a significant and adverse traffic generator. The use of the existing site drives and modifying them is warranted, and it provides for good site access for the project and also for Florida Power & Light and, in the mitigation, the removal of the access off of Golden Gate and Airport and also with the less intensive land uses, and our established existing DRI mitigation really should be deemed complete and satisfactory for the project. And with that, I'm available for any questions. C14ARUV AN STRAIN: We'll start with anybody have any questions of the applicant? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, the first one, I guess, is for Mr. Trebilcock. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Your study showed 12 total peak p.m. trips. How would that justify two points of ingress and egress off of Livingston? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Our study really didn't show 12. It showed the greater amount, 172 peak -hour trips, but also access management criteria isn't based on trip generation numbers. It's really a spacing criteria. If you look at our access management resolution, it doesn't specify with so many trips you Page 6 of 49 Packet Pg. 10 5.A.a November 1, 2018 get so many access points. Really, in a case like this, this linear project, with 4,000 feet of frontage along Livingston Road, there can be good justification, and I believe we've presented that. And also the externality of providing Florida Power & Light additional access to their major transmission facilities, I think, warrants it and makes sense, and the fact that there are existing drives in the area also makes sense. So that was the rationale. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Actually, I don't agree with you from the perspective of people driving along Livingston. I think they have other considerations and concerns, such as safety. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I take it, though, that you're not willing to amend your request to just one access point? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, again, we, you know, feel like we've provided -- one of the concepts may be that southern access would be an exit only is a possibility, but, you know, we feel that it makes sense. It's a reasonable request that's being made given the size of the property. And also, in terms of from a safety standpoint, that's a key why we would, when we come in to do a site improvement plan, we'd provide a right-of-way permit application, and Collier County does have turn -lane warrant requirements and sizing requirements to make sure that a project does provide the appropriate safety, which we would do, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: On Page 35 of the packet, Mr. Trebilcock, you say, "Neither the nursery nor landscaping uses are available to the general public, and the only traffic accessing the site will be employees and their respective commercial vehicles entering and exiting the site." Is that true? MR. TREBILCOCK: It's for the wholesale nursery operation. So it's not -- it's not open to the general public. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But you say, "The only traffic accessing the site will be employees and their respective commercial vehicles." That's not true, is it? MR. TREBILCOCK: I'm not -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Page 35 of the packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's probably looking -- if you look at the TIS in the explantation in the paragraphs as to how you got to your traffic calculation, Norm, I think you said there were 50 trucks with five employees each. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then you had discounted the employees as possibly carpooling -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to get to the number you got, but there would be about 200 -- I think you said there would be five employees per truck, so that would be -- average or -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- close to. That means there's about 250 employees coming and going from the site, and then 50 trucks coming and going from the site. Is that a -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that help -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. It just conflicts with what you wrote. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Oh, yeah. I mean, as a wholesale operation, you typically have deliveries and other such things. I guess I was trying to -- you know, maybe I didn't make it broad enough, you know. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, you would also, would you not, have other wholesalers or landscapers coming to pick up vegetation to plant? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, it would be associated with this nursery. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. And that -- well, again, that -- I believe that the ITE trip generation really, I think, captured that portion of it. What we felt it didn't capture as well is kind of our local conditions Page 7 of 49 Packet Pg. 11 5.A.a November 1, 2018 we have where you have the landscape contracting operations. And, again, I feel it's a conservative and high number that we had but, you know, I don't think that's inappropriate either. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I don't have any more questions of Norm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't -- anything of Wayne? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, Wayne had more presentation. I'm sorry. My bad. I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have something, Stan, you wanted to ask while Norm's up here? And then did you have something, Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have questions, but I'll wait till Wayne's finished. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just a little clarification. Norm, if you were dealing with a blank piece of land with a mile of frontage, how many access points do you think you could get? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, if it was a mile of frontage, it would be -- you'd be potentially, yeah, four -- four points of ingress and egress you could potentially have along that length. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just for a blank piece of land with nothing on it? MR. TREBILCOCK: For a blank, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, I'm sorry. I forgot to introduce Leo Salvatori as part of our team, and I think Leo wanted to make a couple of comments before we got into the general questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. He started looking around wondering what's going on here. MR. ARNOLD: I apologize to Leo and the Planning Commission. MR. SALVATORI: Lawyers are used to being overlooked, so that's okay. I'm Leo Salvatori. I represent the O'Donnells. Just a couple of things. It's really not so much traffic oriented as it says drive oriented. And, really, Chairman Strain, this is actually a continuation of our discussion that we had yesterday. And there was some discussion yesterday about whether or not the nursery is a permitted use on this property as a result of where it's located within a PUD and as a result of the comments that were made back in 1990 at the time that this PUD was enacted. And I was not at the 1990 meeting. But I went through it again after we had our meeting, and as you saw on the handout, it is shown as a permitted use under Section 4 which talks about golf course, recreational/park right-of-way as it's titled; however, when you got into it, it does say for its purpose, includes dedicated easements and utility connections. So the title does not say anything about what's involved in the easement; however, the purpose clause does. And all this land is within that dedicated easement area. This land is primarily FP&L easement and, of course, there's also your force main easement that goes through there as well. And as we talked about yesterday -- again, I wasn't there, and I didn't represent any of the parties involved. But I'd have to think that at the time this PUD was being discussed that what, if anything, was going to go under the FP&L easement lines was probably at the absolute tip of the tail of the dog that was being discussed at the time. I'm sure this was not everyone's focal point. It just happens to be today. But I think the use that's being made, obviously, is fairly modest as far as a wholesale nursery. The other discussion was -- Chairman Strain brought up because he always does his homework. There was some discussion back in 1990. 1 think it was, you said, Commissioner Saunders that said there will never be any commercial uses being made of this site. C14ARUV AN STRAIN: Actually, Livingston Road corridor. I can read the stipulation to you to be exact, if that will help. MR. SALVATORI: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll get to it eventually. There's so many documents on this project that it took a while to -- here it is. And this says, Commercial Saunders, actually, was involved with this when he was on the board in 1990, and he stipulated the same stipulation for both the DRI and the PUD. And, basically, a motion to approve and the additional stipulations that there be no commercial in the vicinity of Livingston Road. Now, at that time the commercial that was shown for Livingston Road, and the Page 8 of 49 Packet Pg. 12 5.A.a November 1, 2018 only one I can find on record being discussed, was where the Orchid Run apartments are. And because of Comprehensive Planning staffs position that that was outside of the activity center by a mile or so, you really couldn't -- they were finding -- they found it inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan. And I believe that was probably what may have got the Commission to be concerned about it, and they stipulated there will be no commercial in the vicinity of Livingston Road. So that was the reference I was referring you to. And, previously, I believe I gave a copy of it to Wayne, so hopefully you'd seen it. MR. SALVATORI: Understood. My point was this: I think any buyer that's going to look to buy a piece of property, see what the uses are, going to look at the applicable zoning, and the PUD we have in front of it does say clearly, storage, maintenance yards, and landscaping nurseries within FP&L easements or right-of-way, et cetera. There's nothing within the PUD document that, to me, is an ambiguity that would invite a purchaser to look at the minutes of the meeting when a PUD was enacted. As you said, there are a number of comments there. Why it didn't find its way into the document, I don't know, but I do think it's unfair to burden a purchaser with having to look at the minutes of a PUD that seems otherwise clear on its face as the use. Again, this has nothing to do with the traffic and the purpose that we're here, but I know that was a factor that was being considered, and I thought I wanted to bring that up to make sure people were aware of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Thank you. MR. SALVATORI: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Was that simply a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Was that simply a minute? I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Was that simply a minute, or was it part of a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was part of a motion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So it's not just minutes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. And there's more detail. And I appreciate Leo's briefing on it. But there are more elements that I have questions about that, when I get to my questions, we'll see where they go. MR. SALVATORI: And not to disagree with you either, Mr. Fryer, but my point was this: No purchaser's going to look beyond the PUD if it seems like its unambiguous on its face. And I don't think the Collier family would have sold the property to the O'Donnells knowing that the only thing that he would get out of it was bragging rights that he owned the land that's underneath the FP&L easement and the force main. That's my consideration. So I'm not disagreeing with Chairman Strain. I'm just saying in terms of precedent, there's a precedent also to be had as to the landowner perspective as well that needs to be considered. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well -- but the motion that was made by the commissioner and that was adopted restricts commercial uses. MR. SALVATORI: I understand what you're saying. My point is this: It didn't find its way into the PUD document. And you have a purchaser now nearly 30 years later looking at a document that appears unambiguous on its face. It appears that the use is there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think if you -- let's get through some more questions, and maybe you'll see why I am having trouble with it. And I'm not saying that -- I don't know how to review this because of the conflicted statements I found in the earlier documents. I've asked David Weeks to attend the meeting today as part of -- a person who could probably help us understand this; certainly me. I need to know what direction all the staff members are going. So I think if you hold on just a little bit, some of this may come to a more reasonable understanding. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Just a question. Hi, Leo. How you doing? Page 9 of 49 Packet Pg. 13 5.A.a November 1, 2018 MR. SALVATORI: Fine, sir. Yourself? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: When I dealt with FP&L, I was told by FP&L that they pay so much for their easements but don't take the land because they don't want to be a landowner. But they pay a lot for their easements because they want total control over the easement. MR. SALVATORI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And they will -- once they buy the easement -- I assume you've read the easement document here. MR. SALVATORI: I have. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And they are the only ones that have control over the uses on here; well, other than the county Planning Commission. MR. SALVATORI: Pretty much. I mean, we all have seen FP&L easements. You can't go vertical other than a few feet on it. And, obviously, they paid for that easement, I presume, to the Collier family incident to their getting the easement in the first place. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Their easements are not normal easements. MR. SALVATORI: No. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, okay. MR. SALVATORI: One last thing, and getting back to your point, too, sir, in terms of commercial use, the minutes didn't really say what a commercial use was. Is this going to be a commercial use? I think so. I call it enhanced ag. It's going to be primarily furnishings -- landscaping, obviously, but it's not storefront either and not office space either, and that's the million -two square foot they've got left on the table. And, unfortunately, that wasn't clear in the minutes either, so that's why we're thinking that there are some equities here that need to be considered. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody have any questions now? Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Question to Wayne. Can you describe the use as wholesale what that -- does that mean any commercial landscaper in the county can go in there and purchase landscape materials? Is it open as a -- basically for wholesale but only to commercially licensed landscapers? MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold, for the record. The Land Development Code does not define landscape nurseries. What we're going on is basically what the ITE standard calls out for landscape nurseries. And I think -- if you can switch back to the visualizer, Ray, it's a fairly short definition, but we think it clearly encumbers everything that Mr. O'Donnell's nursery operations include, which is it's growing materials, it's managing materials. It's providing wholesale materials. It's not a general retail sales open to the public. And to build on what Leo said, if I could take a moment. The PUD was very explicit as to what commercial uses are for this PUD. None of those commercial uses are permitted under this FP&L easement. There are three uses permitted under the FP&L easement, and I agree with Mr. Salvatore, they are sort of quasi -agricultural uses. It says you can have storage yards, maintenance yards, and landscape nurseries. It doesn't say I can have commercial uses otherwise, but it does say I can have a landscape nursery, and that is exactly what Mr. O'Donnell's doing. So we don't think it's ambiguous, and we believe that it's very clear that this PUD contemplated that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But was that a landscape nursery for only internal use by the Grey Oaks community for replacing landscape material, or did it imply that it could be a wholesale business? MR. ARNOLD: I've seen nothing in the record that would imply that it was only for Grey Oaks' use. And, in fact, it wasn't developed by Grey Oaks, and the Collier family sold the land separately. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I guess to use the term, Joe Public can't pull in there and buy two trees? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. That's our interpretation. It's a wholesale nursery. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, would it be just a commercial entity that would pull in there and be able to buy wholesale? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. Mr. O'Donnell is one of those entities. For instance, he grows and maintains landscaping. He installs landscaping. And this was primarily for his use. I wouldn't want to say that he's Page 10 of 49 Packet Pg. 14 5.A.a November 1, 2018 going to prohibit another landscaper from coming in to buy some material from him, but it's not open for you and me to go purchase landscape materials on Sunday morning. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So -- but it's still open to general landscapers to come in and purchase material? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question of Mike Sawyer. I want to talk about the history of Livingston Road. I know some of this goes way back, or at least the PUD goes way back long before Livingston Road was extended. Of course, I have the knowledge since -- being on staff back in the early 2000s. When Livingston Road was extended, there was some significant restrictions when it went before the county as far as limited access and availability for traffic to move unobstructed with interchanges and intersections. So does this violate anything that was approved by the county in regards to the Livingston Road extension when it was approved and where it now is providing access where once it was deemed there would be no additional access points, or is this any violation of that, or is this in conformance with what Livingston Road originally was, as approved by the county back when it was extended? MR. SAWYER: Certainly. For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. It is not. It does meet our access management. Livingston Road is a limited -access road, if you will, and we do want to protect that. The more access points that we've got, we do have a lowering of capacity that's associated with that. In this case it does meet the reasonableness test, if you will, depending on what the actual use is going to be. We are only required to give them one access point, however. We do have that ability to limit, if we feel it's necessary, to a single access point. To be honest, the TIS has transitioned, if you will, from this project from a wholesale nursery to a second TIS that showed a number of additional uses to a third one that shows simply the wholesale as well as the commercial aspects of the installation crews. At this point our opinion is that because of the length of the property itself, it is, in fact, reasonable to have two access points, and it does meet our access management. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is the northern access point a full opening? MR. SAWYER: No, it is not. Neither of them are actually a full opening. The northern access has a right -in, right -out, left -in access. It does not have a left -out. So in that case, it does not have a full opening. The second southern access is simply a right -in, right -out. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So no -- I don't want to say -- there's no intent or at least doesn't appear to be any intent for any future signalization at the northern opening? MR. SAWYER: No, certainly not. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think it should prohibit any attempt to have any signalization there. MR. SAWYER: Commissioner, I would have to look and measure that out, but I'm not sure that would ever -- number one, I don't think it would ever meet warrants or distance. We do have a signal that is just to the north of this access. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: North. MR. SAWYER: And we had actually explored that with the applicant. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I think, Norm, you wanted to add to that? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. Well, Mike hit it on the head. Again, Norm Trebilcock. But the proximity to the existing signal would prohibit us. And, also, one of the rationales here was to really have this access down so that we don't really infringe upon, you know, the existing residential developments there at Wyndemere and also Grey Oaks. So that was part of the other is to really kind of keep us, you know, out of that area, and that was something that really had come up from the residents, and we thought this was, you know, a good measure to help out there, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So with this, with the left out, if you're having a left turn out -- MR. TREBILCOCK: No. We don't have a left -out. We have a left -in. The left -out is left out. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correction, left -in. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. Page 11 of 49 Packet Pg. 15 5.A.a November 1, 2018 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The only other way, then, if you didn't have a left -in, you'd have to go to the light and do a U-turn? MR. TREBILCOCK: Exactly. So what we want to do is kind of keep our traffic away from the communities there, and so we thought this was a, you know, good measure. And, again, the other one to the south is where there is an existing driveway cut that had been used historically for construction access into Grey Oaks. So, you know, we try and work with driver expectation and, again, we would improve any safety measures that are required by the right-of-way manual so that it doesn't impact the capacity of the roadway. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's all I've got. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Are you going to add additional lighting here above and beyond the lighting that's already out there? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Streetlighting, you mean? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Streetlighting, yeah. MR. TREBILCOCK: That's a good question. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, thank you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, that is typically an SDP. The staff would look at that, you're right. They'd look at just an entrance. It would just be an entrance, some lighting, and there's also restrictions with Florida Power & Light. You can't be any higher than 14 feet. So the only thing I believe we would have is kind of minimal site lighting, but it would all be in compliance with FP&L criteria which really minimizes the height as well. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So if you were on the other side of the street, you probably wouldn't notice any additional glare above and beyond what's already there? MR. TREBILCOCK: No. It would be less than the 40, you know -- they're not 40 -foot height lights there, but it would be less than the current streetlighting that's out there, correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, we'd be limited in height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I just have one. Mr. Arnold, you mentioned that there was nothing in the record with respect to the original uses of this sliver of a parcel, but a letter was submitted by Jean Foster. I don't know if you've seen that. It's now part of the record. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And in it it says, "It's my understanding that the property was never zoned for commercial use but was to be utilized for staging landscaping materials for the build and nothing else." Do you have any evidence to contradict that? MR. ARNOLD: I don't have any evidence to support what she says. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Or to contradict it? MR. ARNOLD: Or to contradict it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: But we don't believe that was ever the intent, to limit the use to only Grey Oaks' staging. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have quite a bit of questions, but I'm hoping that staff will resolve many of them and I won't have to ask them. So I'm going to go to the staff report next, because my questions will be predominantly from staff. I have talked in depth with the applicant. They know my concerns. I'm going to see where staff can go with the questions that I have. Page 12 of 49 Packet Pg. 16 5.A.a November 1, 2018 And so, Nancy, do you have a -- let's start with any comments you have. We have your staff report. Do you have anything you want to add, explain, get into with the staff report? MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning. For the record, Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the zoning division. And I don't have anything that I want to add to the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the past I've asked you, does staff have a report. We have the report, so that was kind of -- over all these years, I've finally figured that probably wasn't the right question to ask you. So we've got your report. Does the staff have anything they want to add? And your conclusion in that report was a recommendation of? MS. GUNDLACH: Recommendation of approval, and it is approval with the recommendation that the land use is limited to the wholesale nursery only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And did you review this PUD for the traffic entrances? That's what the application was for, so that's what you're really referring to in your recommendation is one entrance for landscaping nursery only; is that correct? I'm just trying to understand, because there's been multiple reports, and there's over, I think, close to what, 6- or 700 pages involving all the reports we got. So I'm trying to nail it down. What is your final recommendation from staff? MS. GUNDLACH: I'm going to defer to -- I'm going to ask Mike Bosi to come and testify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did Mike Bosi write the staff report? MS. GUNDLACH: He's the director that reviews the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I know that. But did he write the staff report? MS. GUNDLACH: No. I wrote the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you don't know if you've -- what you're recommending in that staff report? MS. GUNDLACH: Well, we've had several changes with the memos and with statements made at the hearings this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's confusing. Go ahead, Mike. MS. GUNDLACH: It is. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. We had provided a recommendation within our original staff report, and we deferred to transportation and the access management plan. Two access points met the criteria, and we deferred to -- we deferred to the department which administers our policies regarding access points. We had revised our recommendation to -- based upon the TIS and the TIS calling out -- and our perception, or our understanding, was a landscape nursery and additional landscape subcontracting. And we saw that as two distinct uses that were allocated within the TIS. And based upon that -- based upon those two distinctions, we recommended -- we've revised our recommendation to limit it to one access point, but the purpose of why we did that is because we wanted to get the use question out in the open. We still defer to the access management plan and the Transportation Department in terms of where is the appropriate access points for this use. What we were trying to do with our revised recommendation was to put the use question so we could describe what are the activities that are associated with a landscape nursery and what are uses that would not be so we can make sure that we are consistent with the PUD's -- the uses as prescribed by the PUD. So that is the reason why we modified our recommendation to one access point. But it wasn't based upon the access management policy. It was based upon the recognition from staff that there was a question towards the uses that were allowed and being proposed within this property, and that's what the recommendation was to put that forward and promote the discussion with the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in summary, you're recommending approval for one entrance point with a limitation of wholesale nursery and 12 trips; is that a fair statement? MR. BOSI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's clarify the -- Page 13 of 49 Packet Pg. 17 5.A.a November 1, 2018 MR. BOSI: Staff is recommending approval of the requested PUD amendment per the recommendation of Transportation related to the access points with the clarification that the only use that's allowed for on this property is a landscape nursery. MR. KLATZKOW: Are you recommending one or two access points? MR. BOSI: From staffs perspective, from what I heard -- MR. KLATZKOW: This is -- the Chairman asked what's the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm still trying to get to -- yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: So staffs -- MR. BOSI: Two access points. MR. KLATZKOW: The applicant is asking for two access points. Do you agree or disagree with that? MR. BOSI: From staffs recommendation, yes, two access points. MR. KLATZKOW: Two access points, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then in recommending two access points, has staff taken into account the potential for safety issues on Livingston? MR. BOSI: Once again, the Zoning Department coordinates the reviews for staff. The staff perspective from transportation review -- MR. KLATZKOW: Mike's not the right guy for this question. MR. BOSI: -- met two access points. We are putting forward the recommendation that has come from staff collectively. The application of the ingress and egress points will be transportation right-of-way based upon the access -management policies. They've satisfied -- they've indicated that the spacing between the access points satisfies the access -management criteria; therefore, they're recommending two access points. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Will somebody be able to speak to the safety question? MR. BOSI: I am sure that Trinity or Mike can, but I believe that that is inherent within every review of any ingress/egress permit that would be issued by this county that safety is a consideration. It is always an underlying principle -- MR. KLATZKOW: Mike, you're the land -use guy. The transportation person's Trinity. MR. BOSI: Okay. MS. SCOTT: I'm sorry. I was in the hallway this morning. Could I get sworn in. Sorry. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager. Yes, we will take safety into consideration when the access points are finalized during the Site Development Plan process. They will do further analysis, further operational analysis. Currently, if -- this is where it's a little confusing. If the TIS, the last TIS that we received, holds true, which includes a wholesale landscape nursery along with the contractor services, the two access points certainly meets our access management, and we could support that. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Hold on. But that's based on a land use that Mr. Bosi disagrees with, correct? MR. BOSI: No. There's been no disagreement from staff. Staff is trying to allocate that the use -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. She -- MR. BOSI: The uses permitted by the PUD is a landscape nursery. What we're trying to clarify and what I think we're trying to get from the applicant to describe within that box of a landscape nursery what are the activities that traditionally would be associated -- MR. KLATZKOW: You two are talking two separate uses. Mike, in your opinion, what's the approved use of this parcel? MR. BOSI: A landscape nursery. MR. KLATZKOW: Trinity, based on a simple landscape nursery, one or two access points? MS. SCOTT: If it's shown as it is in the TIS -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. Page 14 of 49 Packet Pg. 18 5.A.a November 1, 2018 MS. SCOTT: -- a wholesale nursery -- this is what I have to go by -- (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. You guys are talking two separate things. You're basing your opinion on a land use that Mr. Bosi doesn't necessarily agree with, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, didn't -- Mike, hold on, please, for just one minute. Didn't -- I think we -- Trinity, I believe when I spoke with you and maybe Mike at one meeting, you guys had notified zoning staff of a concern over the use that these entrances were going to be used for. First of all, is that true or not? MS. SCOTT: In our review comments in our first round of reviews -- and Mike Sawyer could come up. In our first round of reviews, we asked for a developer commitment to limit this to a wholesale nursery because that was the original TIS that we received. And then through our reviews, as Mike indicated, Mike Sawyer indicated previously, the land use changed within the TIS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SCOTT: Got broader, it kind of scaled back, but it never went back to what the original TIS said, which was a wholesale nursery. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think the question we're trying to clarify is, is Transportation staff looking at this as that use that generates the traffic, and is the Zoning/Comprehensive Planning staff looking at it in the same manner? Is that a fair question for you guys -- can you guys be on the same page there? MR. BOSI: And that's what I was trying to convey. The question -- and I think we haven't gotten to the question -- what is the activities that are associated with a landscape nursery? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have been trying -- yeah, we've got a lot to get to yet, but that's going to be one of the things we'll get to. MR. BOSI: And I don't think -- we're trying to make a decision before we've had the relevant facts that describe what those activities are. So I think from a -- from a zoning perspective, the anticipation of today's hearing was to try to define specifically what those uses are in agreement amongst the Board, amongst staff, and amongst the applicant as to what those are, and then a determination as to whether those are consistent with the landscape nursery as it's specifically provided for in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As we go through this, I have a methodical way of questioning today so -- and I don't mind the tangents, but I'm going to keep going back to where I started or each time where I left off. So with that, I think the -- I had asked if there's any further questions of staff, and Nancy provided you as an opportunity to talk about the recommendation. I'll turn to the Planning Commissioners again, is there any further questions of any of you for staff at this point? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll only say that I'm looking for clarity that I don't have yet, but maybe it will come out in your questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, I hope so. A thousand pages of documentation, or 800, is an awful lot of documentation. So, Nancy, I think we've got a very muddy picture of what you've recommended. But the questions I'm going to start with are pursuant to the PUD, and as the applicant's attorney had made a note, you know, the PUD is the document that their client would have reviewed. So let's start there and figure out where this happened. So if we look at Section 2.03, land uses of the PUD -- and it's on Page 9 of the PUD, which is Page 11 of the second staff report that we received. Oh, no, it's not. It's Page 07 -- it's Page 11 of the PUD. I had to pull that out of CTS, so I don't know whether it is in your packet. MS. GUNDLACH: I have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 9 under 2.03 land uses, it says, Table 1 is a schedule of the intended land use types. Total dwelling units, acreage and total square footage indicated, commercial square footage indicated. Can you show me on that master plan, which is Map H1, where this is indicated to be a commercial operation? Page 15 of 49 Packet Pg. 19 5.A.a November 1, 2018 And, first of all -- maybe I'm jumping a little bit ahead -- does staff consider the landscaping contracting use that's proposed as part of the wholesale nursery a commercial operation? I mean, well -- and we'll back up even one more. Did staff review the intensity of a use that's being proposed here in relationship to the application that was just to move two entrances in? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, zoning manager. The application that we reviewed -- and it was my understanding when I was reviewing this project is we were dealing with a wholesale nursery as the uses stated and allowed in the PUD. A landscape nursery -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You reviewed the PUD then? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's focus on that as a starting point, and then we'll get into the other issues. In the reviewing of that PUD, did you find issues allocated on Table 1 of the PUD as referenced in 2.03, land uses, of the PUD? MR. BELLOWS: We're seeing it in Section 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Table 1 is not Section 4. MR. BELLOWS: You're reading from 2.03. We see it now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you go to Table 1, you've got a series of residential units, commercial total, office and retail, hotel, golf course recreation/park right-of-way, and that's referring to 54 holes. It doesn't say anything about any kind of nursery or any other commercial operation. Lake, water management, conservation. That's for the city -- that's for the county part of it. Then there's also a breakdown for the City of Naples part of it. I'm just wondering, do you see this particular operation in that table, or would you have been able to infer that was an allowed use as a result of that table? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Staff was looking at this as a permitted use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it in that table? MR. BELLOWS: I don't see it listed there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So 2.03 of the PUD, you don't find that listed in the reference to Table 1 in that location. Two paragraphs down on that same page under 2.03, it talks about subdivision review. At the time of subdivision and review approval for each subdivision phase, the location size and configuration of land -use tract shall be identified along with the assignment or permit of residential and commercial land -use types. Now, I'm sure the subdivision they're referring to is the platting process in Collier County. I did pull the plats up. I found no reference to this. In fact, I find it as a Tract E, and I can't even locate what a Tract E is, but I don't find a reference to any kind of commercial activity on this portion of the PUD in the subdivision plans. Did you guys look at the subdivision plans? MS. GUNDLACH: No, I have not looked at the subdivision plans. C14ARZMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have a Table 2. Table 2 indicates by project year the estimated absorptions of units and commercial square footage. Did you see any reference to this kind of operation in the absorption schedules on Table 2? I mean, I didn't, but maybe you guys looked at it and saw it differently. MS. GUNDLACH: We don't see anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The category of the residential land use in the PUD, Section 3 -- actually, there's a reference there that I don't need to bring up. It's been answered, so we'll move to Section 4. First of all, do we have a separate residential and commercial component section to this PUD, a listing of the commercial uses allowed, and a listing of the residential uses allowed, and in Section 4 we've got the commercial golf course recreation and park right-of-way uses allowed. So, Nancy, is there commercial -- is there a separate commercial section in this PUD? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, there is. It is Section 6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is the golf course -- I mean, not the golf course -- but the landscape operation listed as an allowable use within that commercial section? MS. GUNDLACH: We'll double-check. Page 16 of 49 Packet Pg. 20 5.A.a November 1, 2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's a garden center, but I didn't see a landscape nursery operation. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it is listed, as the applicant says, as a landscape nursery under golf course, recreation/park, right-of-way. Now, that section of this PUD primarily deals with the golf course, clubhouse, driving range, rights -of -ways, dedicated easements, and utility corridors. These are all developer/development-related issues. You go down the list of principal uses, golf courses, tennis clubs and facilities, open space, recreational activities. Knowing that's a gated community and knowing that the club is membership, I believe -- I mean, I don't know if -- I can't even get through the gate. So I don't see how any of the uses in that category would have necessarily been intended in the eyes of the people reviewing this in 1990, and certainly as we review PUDs today for those categories, necessarily looking at a commercial use. I would not have known that was a commercial use. And if I was a buyer, the first thing I would have done is picked up the PUD master plan and said, gee, this is a commercial use. Can I put my commercial use on Livingston Road? Let's see what it says in the master plan. Do you know what the master plan says? Does it say commercial? Is it labeled commercial? MS. GUNDLACH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a couple more to go to on the PUD, then we're going to -- I've got to look at some questions about Comprehensive Planning. Under Section 7.03, environmental, does staff know or does someone -- maybe our Pollution Department would know. I assume they use fertilizers there and chemicals that are used for the plants. Are any of those considered hazardous? Does anybody know? Wayne, would you know if your applicant has any hazardous use of -- do they use fertilizers? MR. ARNOLD: Hi, I'm Wayne Arnold. I don't know specifically what fertilizers are used, but I'm assuming that any landscape maintenance facility does. I would assume, too, that the Grey Oaks golf course maintenance facility also utilizes fertilizers and other chemicals for use on the golf course. It's within the same PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't doubt it either, but I thought this was an interesting clause. Under the section of -- the environmental section, 7.03.4 -- maybe staff can tell me if it applies or not. "The developer must receive all appropriate state approvals for storing and handling hazardous materials prior to construction of the golf maintenance facilities" which, by the way, in the PUD, it looks like that's one of the uses you could have on this location. "All hazardous materials will be stored in a central location removed from the Gordon River headwaters or Golden Gate Canal." "Removed from," I'm assuming that means a distance. "There will be no storage of hazardous materials that is in excess of two days' supply at the satellite facilities," and then "with the exception of petroleum storage." So I'm not sure how that applies, but did you as staff look at the potential for fertilizers and operations at this location in regards to the hazardous materials that will be produced there or used there if there were any? MS. GUNDLACH: We did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you question, at all, the applicant? MS. GUNDLACH: No. C14ARUV AN STRAIN: That's the questions I have out of the PUD at this time. I do have some questions of Comprehensive Planning. Hi, David. MR. WEEKS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for attending today. I asked Mike -- I figured you have a long history in Collier County, so if anybody would know what's going on with some of the questions I'd have, I was assuming it would be you. Just so -- and I don't know if Mike -- or you looked it up or Mike talked to you about it, but back Page 17 of 49 Packet Pg. 21 5.A.a November 1, 2018 when this project was originally approved in 1990, there was a debate by Comprehensive Planning staff and -- not a debate, a statement said: The distance of the Orchid Run apartments to the south side of Golden Gate Parkway where it was going to be a commercial component was inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan. They listed four or five different reasons why commercial couldn't be there. Now, the result of that was that in the end, I assume, that was part of what the commissioners at the time, the Board of County Commissioners, weighed in on, including Commissioner Saunders, to say, you know, we stipulate there will be no commercial on Livingston corridor. Can you tell me if the Comprehensive Planning staff was correct in their analysis at that time and if that analysis has changed by current conditions of Comprehensive Planning. MR. WEEKS: I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: I'm David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning staff. Commissioner, there were only -- the first answer is yes, I agree that the staff was correct at that time. The Comprehensive Plan or Growth Management Plan had just been adopted in 1989, a year or two prior to this petition, and it only had three provisions for commercial uses. One was within our mixed-use activity center, which that Orchid Run site as well as the subject site are not within; secondly was a PUD commercial provision which was limited to the intensity of uses, and it was correlated to the amount of residential units and the size of the PUD; did not comply with that provision; and, thirdly, it was for what's called an infill commercial provision, which it clearly would not apply to as well. It would have to be abutting commercial. So in summary, again, I would say yes, staff was correct in their analysis in 1990 -- yes, 1990. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And did you notice also they were concerned -- I think they actually referenced a strip or linear zoning as another concern they had if the commercial was over on Livingston corridor. Actually, I highlighted that, if I could find it. MR. WEEKS: That makes sense, because with the adoption of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, that included the creation of these mixed-use activity centers. And one of the main purposes of that was to try to concentrate commercial at major intersections and to avoid the strip or linear pattern of commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I did find it. What they said is the commercial components are designed in a strip pattern and are considered isolated tracts. So that was their basis for, again, an inconsistency. Okay. So you believe they were correct in their findings. What would have been your findings today in relationship to commercial or -- well, first of all, I know you don't get into uses, but just general commercial uses along Livingston Road at that location, or the location to the north that we're talking about specifically. MR. WEEKS: Right. Neither the Orchid Run site or the subject site would qualify under today's Comprehensive Plan for commercial zoning, and that is the perspective of evaluating a petition for consistency with the Future Land Use Element. As you just said, we don't look at an individual use. We look at the zoning district that would be required for that use, and then we determine if that zoning district would be consistent with any of the commercial locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan. So the starting point is to look at the Zoning Services staff, defer to them to determine, is this a commercial use? That is, is it a use that requires commercial zoning, and if it is, then we will evaluate whether that commercial zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Map and Element provisions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's -- that answers the questions I had, David. Thank you. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Sure. CHARUV AN STRAIN: I may have more, but if you don't mind sitting here to listen till the hearing's over, that would be helpful. Ray, now that we've understood from the component of Comprehensive Planning, do you know what a zoning verification letter is? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many of those do you do, say, within a week or a year or a month? I see quite a few of them, but do you do a lot of those? MR. BELLOWS: A lot. Page 18 of 49 Packet Pg. 22 5.A.a November 1, 2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what do people use those for? MR. BELLOWS: To get assurance from the county in writing of confirming zoning requirements and use as well as other zoning -related questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you provide me with a zoning verification letter for this property in question? MR. BELLOWS: I will have to look for it. I don't have it on me now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if one was done? MR. BELLOWS: I don't recall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If one was done, Nancy, would you have put it in the packet? MS. GUNDLACH: Of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have an official interpretation since this has become a level of concern as far as how it applies? Did anybody request an OI, official interpretation? MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nancy or Ray, have you had the opportunity, since the question of the application was for entryways and it was a PUDA in which they could have, by the way, asked for zoning certification or verification in this location -- they chose not to. They just simply recommended -- suggested they already have that even though the section of the PUD that that is under is generally a section applied to community amenities and community -related factors; at least that's how I've always seen them. It's a little interesting that we have a commercial use that's not in the commercial listed components, and it's not on the master plan listed commercial, and I asked the applicant yesterday to produce any documents they had that showed this use to be have been discussed historically for that location. There aren't any. And I think the idea that it's the tip of the tail wagging the dog, okay, maybe no one saw that as an issue. My concern was that at the time there were other PUDs looking at landscape nurseries. Some of those -- but it was mostly, the ones I found, the Vineyards being an example and I think it was Audubon, were for developer landscaping nurseries, developer, so the developers, is if they had a long project, will grow some of their own material, and they would move it onto the project. And I don't know how this should be classified from an SIC code. I found four different numbers. Have you guys done any of the research to figure out what the SIC classification of this was supposed to be or should be? MS. GUNDLACH: I did do some research. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And did you come up with any conclusion? MS. GUNDLACH: Landscape contracting is listed under contracting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it would be SIC number what? MS. GUNDLACH: Hold on a second. I have it in my notes. I have it 1799. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what commercial or what -- where that falls in the MUNI code, for what zoning district? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. It falls under C5 and industrial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I did some research, too, trying to figure out how it fit, and sometimes I went to NAICS as a conversion because they're more detailed than SIC. I found several different categories: 0782, 0783, and 5193. All three of those are allowed in industrial with the exception of 0783, which is allowed in C4. And 0783 is titled ornamental shrub and tree services. I don't know all of Mr. O'Donnell's businesses, so I'm not sure what he is classified as, but based on the submittal and being that landscape contracting is part of the wholesale operation, I wanted to understand how this actually fits into our code and to what zoning district it would be. So there's no commercial designation on the master plan? MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no discussion of the nursery as a commercial operation in any part of the PUD other than showing up under the amenities -- more or less amenities section of the PUD, which is golf course, recreational, and the rest of it. Okay. I'm still, then, at a loss. I asked the applicant yesterday to produce any documentation they could to show where this was discussed as a commercial operation or an operation outside of, let's say, the Page 19 of 49 Packet Pg. 23 5.A.a November 1, 2018 developer's program or even in the developer's program. I can't find any, and I don't believe they have. Maybe they can offer that up at rebuttal or when we come back to them a little later. But I don't have -- that's the last question I have, I think, Nancy, of you at this time. So I appreciate your time. I'm going to move through some other things just to be sure I've asked all the questions I have. I think -- no. Does anybody else on staff (sic) have any questions while I'm looking through the rest of mine? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, in the administrative code, does the administrative code apply in the situation we're dealing with here today? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The administration code requires the master plan to show the office, retail, commercial, and residential components of a PUD. Did they offer any new master plan with this application, or we -- I don't believe we've touched the master plan. MS. GUNDLACH: The master plan shows the new access points. The new master plan does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. And it was submitted for the access points, not for the use. MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There are other sections of the PUD ordinance, PUD code that requires the sites within a PUD be referenced by residential community facilities commercially planned. I don't see this one industrial and a few others, mixed use. I don't see this one isolated out on any plans for the intended use that we're discussing today. I understand the language argument that the applicant's made, but my concern overall is that if this has not been isolated out as a separate and distinct use in regards to how it would apply to that property outside of the developer's application, I still have found no evidence to get us there, and that's what I've been looking for. I don't know if staff would have come up with a different analysis if they were able to have reviewed this as an application for a rezone, that might have been the better solution, because then the restrictions on a rezone could have been instituted that would have brought in lighting and walls and buildings and site plans to show where things were going and buffers around the trucks that were going to be in and out. We don't have any of that in this application because it didn't come in that way. And that's been the frustrating part for me, so -- and I'm not used to having seen one like this. This is the first time this is approached. Under 1.03.01 of the LDC, it says the following: "In construction, interpretation of the language of these regulations, the rules established in this chapter shall be observed unless such construction will be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the BCC as expressed in the Collier County GMP." Now, I believe we've got to -- already acknowledged that there's a problem with the GMP in regards to potentially this use depending on how staff looks at this use from a zoning matter. So I would think you don't have that answer -- you don't -- do you have an answer on that today, or you're going to go with the limited research you've already done, or you feel that's enough on the SIC? The staffs concur this is a commercial use, a use that's allowed, or how have you -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. When staff reviewed this application, it was first thought of as a wholesale nursery, which is allowed in an agricultural zoning district, and that type of use is not deemed commercial use. A retail nursery is allowed in the agricultural zoning district through the conditional -use process. We did not feel that a landscape contractor, which is more of a commercial operation, was a permitted use, and that's why staff recommendation was for the landscape aspect and not the contractor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I want to clear up one thing on the agricultural use. When this PUD came in, they came in to change the zoning from ag to PUD, and in the uses allowed in the PUD, they don't list ag. So how would this have been contemplated as an ag use? MR. BELLOWS: They listed a use which is allowed in the ag district, which is wholesale nursery. Page 20 of 49 Packet Pg. 24 5.A.a November 1, 2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But is this an ag district? Is it an ag district? MR. BELLOWS: No, it is not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Also under 1.03.01, it talks about interpretation, and it says -- the last line, and I'm just paraphrasing pieces of it. The provision imposing the greater restriction or regulation shall be deemed to be controlling. Now, I know the applicant's position on this. I don't find anything to show that there's been -- this was allocated as a commercial location unless staffs got something to offer. I don't know how to get there. And then the provisions of the regulations that are -- should be consistent with the GMP, and I think we already know that. And that's, I think, the last item I have to discuss on this matter. Let me make sure that I had -- I got everything out of our Comprehensive Planning staff. Hang on just a second. Okay. Does anybody else have any other questions? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. And I guess this is maybe better asked for the applicant. Maybe I should wait until redirect; however, let me just ask it anyway. Have you been in touch with the Grey Oaks Property Owners Association? Are they taking a position on this? MR. ARNOLD: For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold. The applicant has been in discussions with the Grey Oaks Property Owners Association management, and we had a letter supporting the project from that manager. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Let me clarify the record for you. The letter of no objection came from the country club. We did not receive anything from Grey Oaks Estates Homeowners Association, Inc., or Grey Oaks Properties Association, Inc. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And I assume that they were all notified, for instance, of the NIM by reason of their proximity to the -- MR. ARNOLD: Yes. We notified everybody internally and externally to the PUD that we're required under the notice requirements. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So nothing from the POA? MR. ARNOLD: We have no objection from them and I guess no support from that entity. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We have nothing in writing from them. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. O'Donnell -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. O'Donnell was sworn in. MR. O'DONNELL: As I understand -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you identify yourself for the record first. MR. O'DONNELL: Yes, Al O'Donnell. As I understand it, Jim Ink (phonetic) wrote the letter, and my understanding at the time was he was in charge of all of the community POAs and the golf course. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I did a corporate check, and he was not listed as an officer. He had no authority. I didn't receive anything on either of the HOA, only the country club. I asked for it repeatedly, and I did not receive anything. MR. O'DONNELL: At the time, I understand Jim Ink was the general manager of the whole project, all of the associations and everything. Maybe John English can speak to that. Yeah, I'm sorry, Jim Butler. He's not in that position anymore and -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: He was not listed as an officer or CEO. I was not able to get any information, and the letterhead indicated it was the country club. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of staff or the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then with that, we'll turn to public speakers. Ray, do we have any registered public speakers to start with? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have two speakers. The first one is Les LaBov and followed by Bill Confoy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you'll -- Page 21 of 49 Packet Pg. 25 5.A.a November 1, 2018 MR. CONFOY: Can we reverse the order? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Just use one of the speakers. Identify yourself when you come up, and we'll be glad to hear from you. MR. CONFOY: Good morning. Thanks for letting me talk. This is Bill Confoy. I am on the board of the homeowners association at Wyndemere. And we are, like Grey Oaks, two distinct operations. The country club is one, and the homeowners is another. And we have separate issues outside of theirs, for instance. That's the homeowners. And in listening to this, it seems to me that Jean Foster's letter, I guess, which you guys all received, outlines some of our basic concerns. The master plan, I hear from you, is really not zoned for commercial use. And we have objections to the intended use which showed, if I read it right, was 50 trucks a day, five passengers per day. That's 250 vehicles operating on a gateway road with no cutout for entry or exiting. And that is a tremendous addition to the traffic on an already -busy road. If you come out of Wyndemere and turn left at seven in the morning, that's about all you can go in the winter. And you just -- traffic is backed up all the way to Golden Gate Parkway. So adding in trucks and 250 vehicles is going to cause some hazards, and we think that's going to cause accidents, or it will be an accident waiting to happen. We don't see it as something that we could live with because 1, personally, am 500 feet from there. We only have a 10 -foot wall. And any lighting that's 14 feet or higher, we're certainly going to see it like a circus, lit up. No fencing, no -- there may be even trailers put in there for all we know. There's been no mention of any trailers, because they're going to have to have some facilities for people that are -- that are working there. So we don't -- we're not in favor of this particular use, especially if it's that kind of vehicle use on that particular road. We've had the police, by the way, come into Wyndemere and tell us that Livingston Road average speed is now 60 miles an hour during the peak period. And I know it shouldn't be, but it is. So we're going to have vehicles stopped and block traffic, and I could just see it, our first rear -ender, which is not often, if they go ahead with this. We have Mr. LaBov, by the way, is our president of the homeowners association, and we had addressed some issues that we would have if, God forbid, anything goes ahead. And I will cede that particular position, but we hope that this is not going ahead with their original petition, because it's very misleading. I took pictures of the signs out there. If you look at the signs on Livingston Road, there is no way you would envision any operation happening on Livingston Road other than putting in two driveways. It's been very misleading. Thank you. C14ARZMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Confoy, is that your name? MR. CONFOY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you please educate me on Wyndemere? Are there any other points of ingress and egress down on Livingston? MR. CONFOY: Just at the light. Oh, no. We do have -- a little bit farther north we have a special entrance for trucks, commercial vehicles. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But everything is off Livingston? MR. CONFOY: Everything is off Livingston. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. LaBOV: Hi. I'm Les LaBov. I'm the president of the Wyndemere Homeowners Association, the president of the master association. Within Wyndemere we have 16 separate residential associations and one master that presides over the whole thing. I happen to be also the president of the Glen Meadow Association, which is one of the subdivisions. I'm basically going to reiterate everything Bill said. We have some very serious concerns. Our only Page 22 of 49 Packet Pg. 26 5.A.a November 1, 2018 entrance for the residents is directly across from this property. We're concerned about the traffic, the congestion, the safety. And then if this does go forward and you approve it, we would be very concerned about the aesthetics that goes with it: Signage, fencing, the lighting, like Bill said. If we're talking about 14 feet lighting, 14 -foot lighting, it would -- the entire Livingston Road residences will be looking at some bright lights. We're very concerned about that. So I would hope that you would take a very close look at this and make sure some of these concerns, that you consider these as you go forward. So thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I have a question as a followup. If the applicant were to sit with you to try to figure out how to manage some of the concerns you have, is your position that no use whatsoever should be there, or the use that's being proposed either is not clear enough or it appears to be more intense than you wish it to be? MR. LaBOV: I think more the latter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's kind of the frustration I've had. I have two thresholds. That was one. And had this come in as a PUDA with the use as part of that request, we would have gotten a site plan, and all the things that you're talking about could have been addressed. It's hard to do it now because staff doesn't analyze it that way, and we don't have a staff report reflecting a site plan or that analysis. So that's been part of the frustration I've seen in the way this was approached. But at the same time, too, my other frustration is the precedent -setting nature of this use being pulled out of the -- more or less, a community -related amenity section of the PUD and become a commercial use when it wasn't designated specifically as one, so I'm a little -- I haven't figured out how to overcome that yet. But the second one that I had was the one dealing with questions like you're asking, and that the applicant might be able to, with some time, sit down with you and figure out a solution where everybody could be happy in that regard. MR. LaBOV: We agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you, sir. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public here who wish to speak who have not? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Based on all the testimony and questions, I'm now confused. Is the use considered commercial, or is the use considered an ag, or is it -- it's considered -- I know what it says in the PUD, but does staff believe this is a commercial use, or is it a use that's allowed in an ag area? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The zoning ordinance for Collier County lists wholesale nurseries and retail nurseries as uses allowed in the agricultural zoning district, but they are also listed in some commercial zoning districts as well. They're also related to other similar operations, such as a garden shop, supply store. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I -- the nursery off of 951, is that on Palm, Sabal Palm Road, I mean, that's ag. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's strictly restricted to wholesale. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I can't drive in there and buy trees or bushes. MR. BELLOWS: Most of them are wholesale. There are a few that get the conditional use and can operate as a retail nursery in ag zoning. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But that, at Sabal Palm and 951, that's an agricultural zoned district, so it's allowed in that site. Would this -- this is in a PUD. Are you deeming this to be an ag use or a commercial use? MR. BELLOWS: Well, I think that's the purpose of the discussion today. Certainly, it's listed in the PUD as a permitted use -- Page 23 of 49 Packet Pg. 27 5.A.a November 1, 2018 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: As a permitted use. MR. BELLOWS: -- on that subject property as depicted on the master plan; however, was it contemplated historically with the approval of the PUD to be limited to the development of that PUD? There seems to be some record, as presented today, that would support that concept. But that wasn't what staff analyzed when it came in. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And if you were asked to do a zoning verification letter or an official interpretation, you would have to do the research now to verify that. MR. BELLOWS: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm not going to ask you whether -- what you would deem it to be, but -- MR. BELLOWS: I just received notice staff did research, and there has no (sic) been a zoning verification letter dealing with the landscape issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been none? MR. BELLOWS: There have been many done for this PUD but not dealing with this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Have you done a ZVL on this property, then, knowing that would be -- is "no" your answer to that, too? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to figure out. If you guys have had some time to analyze the use, it would have been helpful. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. We have only in the context of reviewing this petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Following up on Commissioner Schmitt's question, by virtue of adopting the PUD, they lose the benefits of agricultural zoning, correct? MR. BELLOWS: Unless the PUD makes concessions or allows certain agricultural activities. It is not unusual for a PUD to carry over some limited agricultural activities until certain tracts are developed or allow certain agricultural uses as part of the PUD as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But there's nothing inherent in the fact that it used to be agricultural but it gets to enjoy those benefits unless they're specified in the PUD? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. And then that fact, coupled with the motion that Commissioner Saunders made back in 1990 that this property would not be able to enjoy commercial usage, I'm not able to see how this use is appropriate under either designation. MR. BELLOWS: And it's an interesting point. I don't think we reviewed the historical context of the language that's in the PUD. We just reviewed the PUD that said that use is allowed, and that use, in my opinion, is an agricultural use as well as being listed in certain commercial zoning districts, but it is also allowed, a wholesale nursery, as an agricultural use at that site. So that's the context I was looking at this particular -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Just because the County Commission action goes back to 1990, it's still fully valid today. MR. BELLOWS: That's true. And the thing is, is this a commercial use or not? And that gets back to the question is -- a wholesale nursery is an ag use. Certainly, we would allow that in any agricultural district without having any public hearing. A public hearing is required for a retail aspect of a landscape nursery. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike? MR. BOSI: And just to clarify, that Section 4, which talks about the open space and the easement area where the FP&L area -- the area we're talking about, those uses in that -- in that section have a commercial component, and even the accessory uses says there are allowable commercial uses in this quadrant. So as we make these statements that there's no commercial or any commercial activity in this area, that's not a factual statement. There are provisions for some uses within that section that reference Page 24 of 49 Packet Pg. 28 5.A.a November 1, 2018 commercial. So we have to understand -- we have to understand that statement that was made, I believe -- I believe they were referring to none of the shopping, the commercial uses allocated by this PUD were going to be -- were going to be appropriate at this location. But at that location, they listed some uses, and even accessory uses, where they talk about commercial uses. Just so we're clear on the record, so we're making factual statements. That's all I wanted to provide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Mike, if you want to be clear on the record, then under permitted uses and accessory, you've got three categories. One you're talking about pro shop, practice drive range, cart barn, customary accessories, and it doesn't say much -- it just lists a bunch of them, golf course, range shelters, et cetera. Then number two, small commercial establishments including gift shops, golf and tennis equipment sales, restaurants, cocktail lounges and similar uses intended to serve the patrons of the golf course or other permitted recreational facilities. So there was a caveat in that commercial use. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's the piece that needs to be -- MR. BOSI: And I wanted -- that caveat is appropriate, but the statement that there's no commercial uses allocated into this area is -- on its surface, is not correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, that statement falls to the premise that I'm having the conflict with. If this was intended as a commercial use open to the public, it would have been under the commercial section or it would have been "C" on the master plan. Now, I don't know how to then now come back and say, okay, this restricted language means you can do commercial uses there or uses outside what's allocated for the community under basically community -orientated components. And I'm wondering where that's going to go, because it says, "storage, maintenance yards, and landscaping nurseries within the FP&L easement." So you could take that to another step and say, okay, FP&L's got the power lines here. There's a couple areas over here where they don't, kind of like Hiwassee up by Pine Ridge Road and Livingston. We can put storage facilities there. I don't think any of that was ever -- that was part of the intent at the time. And those are the pieces we've not clarified because of the way this was submitted. Just like the problems that the people over in Wyndemere are having. The way it was submitted doesn't help us and provide an avenue to start getting into some of these things. And the -- I'm worried about what's going to happen to other PUDs that have this language in the same locations if that exists. MR. BOSI: And I would agree with you. And what we -- our perspective was, that that wholesale nursery still fits within that category, because those are recreational uses. A golf course is considered a commercial operation. It's a golf course. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But they're accessory to the Grey Oaks people. MR. BOSI: It could be construed to be, but it's not obligated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, back up then. So from now on every PUD that comes in that has an amenity section, we are to look at a TIS incorporating a public use of that amenity section? Because that's going to change countywide the traffic components that come to us for approval. Traffic caps and everything else will be involved. So before we go there, we want to make sure you're -- because, I mean, I heard Norm say something yesterday that shocked me. In this particular case, the ITE manual isn't the right thing to use because these -- in so many ways he said that the ITE manual having one nursery to use didn't necessarily fit our area, so his argument was there's some adjustments that need to be made. And I'm paraphrasing, but I certainly intended Norm to come up and clarify that. But right now I know Jeffs anxiously waiting to say something. So, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. You know, look, the elephant in the room here is what uses are allowed on this property. I mean, this was a simple application for an access point, but that's not the real question here. If this was a PUDA, we could have gone through the process, and I think the applicant would have been -- at least have full assurance of what he could do. Page 25 of 49 Packet Pg. 29 5.A.a November 1, 2018 My concern here is that ultimately we're going to get a code complaint probably from the adjoining residents, and that's when the issue's going to come, after the applicant has expended considerable resources in developing this. And that's not fair to the applicant. It's not fair for the residents. That's not fair to anybody. One approach here, because staff is your staff, is to ask staff for a zoning verification, what can they do on this property, and come back to you, and then you can come back and form a decision on this. Just one approach. I know the applicant's not going to be all that happy with that, but we need clarity as to what this thing could do, and I've heard nothing that gives me any assurances that we have any clarity as to what they can do and what they can't do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point, Jeff. Thank you. And I have one other question of you, though. It involves my second concern. I think your statement just now would have addressed the second concern that I've spoke to with the Wyndemere folks, because we would have had all that on the table, and we could have then looked at it as a site plan, and here are the things we need to do to make this site plan compatible with the adjoining neighborhood. We didn't get that opportunity with the way this thing was submitted. But my second concern was precedent setting. In that same paragraph it says, storage facilities -- storage and maintenance facilities and landscape nurseries in the FP&L easement. And I'm worried more -- I saw a statement, I think it was in the NIM or something, made by one of the applicant's representatives, that they have a right to do storage and maintenance. Well, obviously, I think they're thinking they have the right for that because of that language because of their -- they want to have trucks come in, and they want to have people working out of there. But on the further strategy, down the road someone could say, we have a right to do storage facilities here. Now, that's a C4 and 5 use. I don't see how -- I want to make sure that if this has found a way to exist as a restricted operation for a nursery, that we don't later on open a can of worms to say, well, you allowed it for this. Now storage facilities and maintenance facilities have got to be allowed. Have you -- can you -- have you thought about that? MR. KLATZKOW: If you elect to ask staff to come back with a zoning verification, you could ask them, as part of that, to address the issue that you just raised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. Okay. And then that letter would stand against the property for future -- MR. KLATZKOW: And there's a process there. If the property owner disagrees with it, there's a process to get it to the Board of County Commissioners and ultimately a court for final -- you know, the decision, you know, there's no process here. If all we're going to do is say yes or no to an access point, then the property owner develops and they say, wait a second, that's not what we meant during a code case, that's just -- that's a recipe for an unfairness. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just to clarify, we are not -- if -- a vote of "yes" for this petition, we are not approving the use. We're just approving the access points. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. And my concern is that we're going to go down this highway, they're going to start developing, the residents will make a code complaint, and next thing you know we've got significant litigation with significant risk to both the county and the applicant. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. So a zoning verification letter, if, in fact, Wyndemere wants to appeal, there's an appellate process. MR. KLATZKOW: There's a process to it, and before anybody invests even more money into this, we would have clarification, final clarification of what you can and cannot do with this parcel. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Wouldn't a PUDA also resolve the problem? MR. KLATZKOW: It would do the same thing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. A PUD would resolve it. The more expedient approach would be a zoning verification letter because then that would determine the use. COMMISSIONER FRYER: PUDA, I think, would take it out of the potential litigation, would it Page 26 of 49 Packet Pg. 30 5.A.a November 1, 2018 not? MR. KLATZKOW: Both work. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Both work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One works differently than the other. A PUDA would then take all of the concerns of the neighborhood and the concerns we normally look at for compatibility, and we could address them through a site plan with characteristics on it like we always see when we look at uses of intensity levels. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. But you can't ask the applicant to recast this as a PUDA. You can ask staff to come back with a zoning verification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, if they come back with a ZVL and say it's in the applicant's favor, that's fine, and we've resolved that point. But then how do we fix the other things that, now that, okay, you can have that use there, it wasn't contemplated before, and the neighborhoods around it --just like the applicant said, their buyer may not have seen this. How would we expect the people in Wyndemere to know this could have been there? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't disagree with you, but you can't force the applicant to ask to amend the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I just wanted to understand the differences. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, we are being asked to do nothing more than to -- MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- locate two entrance points. If, in fact, we approve that, it's at the risk of the applicant that they may face further litigation or -- MR. KLATZKOW: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- other avenues that Wyndemere may take to oppose the use. They may have the access point, but they may not be allowed the use. MR. KLATZKOW: I concur with that, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I think, for clarity, again, though we may dispute the use, that's not part of the petition. The petition is, in fact, the access point, unless the Growth Management Plan amendment has an issue with implied use as well. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't think it does. MR. KLATZKOW: With the proviso that your decision as to one or two access points may ultimately ride on what the ultimate use of this property is. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We could do that as a, yeah -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How much time nowadays does a PUDA take? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm a little confused because the petition before you to do is a PUD amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But it's not for the use. It's for traffic points. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. So that's where -- CHARZMAN STRAIN: So now what we're suggesting is if there was ability to get a PUDA to contemplate the use with proper -- with site plans and all the other things, then everybody could weigh in on, including the people across the street and including the people within the development who may not realize the potential here. That was something that's missing for at least my review of it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It appears to be then -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If they were to submit, like, right now, how much time would it take? MR. BELLOWS: Well, I would recommend a continuance so we could analyze the information presented today and the historic application, or the intent of the PUD when it was first approved, because the application before you was deeming the uses allowed because it specifically says it's a use allowed on the property. But the question is, is this meant for internal use only to the PUD, developer and residents, or is this something that was intended to be allowing an outside wholesale landscape nursery to operate? Page 27 of 49 Packet Pg. 31 5.A.a November 1, 2018 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But you're talking a zoning verification. I'm asking -- MR. BELLOWS: Well, that's an interpretation I would -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- if they submit a PUDA right now. (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. BELLOWS: -- interpretation of the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, one at a time. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Stan's question, I think, is, is that if the applicant voluntarily withdrew this application today and tomorrow filed the more conventional type of PUDA, how long would it take from that point, roughly, to completion. MR. BELLOWS: I would say around -- we're basically dealing with a month or two or month and a half, because everything is done. I would recommend a continuance, and we just -- if you want them to go back and hold a new information meeting, we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll get to that in a minute. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think it's up to the applicant. If they want to take the risk and proceed with this amendment, it closes the amendment, and it basically either would approve or deny the relocation of the access points. If they wanted to go into now another change, it would be another PUD amendment, correct? MR. BELLOWS: Another fee -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If they withdraw now -- MR. BELLOWS: We're starting over again. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- or say continue but we want to deal with the use as well, it's just a continuance. Staff would have to go back and probably would involve a readvertisement, which they would do anyway if it's continued beyond, what, two weeks, I believe, and may have to do another neighborhood information meeting. But I think the risk that the applicant's taking is, yeah, we would approve this, and then they'd be in another situation if, in fact, somebody files a -- through Code Enforcement or another instrument, or Wyndemere can actually file for and request a zoning verification letter. They could ask for it to determine whether the zoning is allowed. MR. KLATZKOW: By the way, if there was a code case, the first thing my office would do would go to Mr. Bosi and say we'd like to get, you know, staff s decision as to what the zoning is before we do that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct, either an OI or -- MR. KLATZKOW: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are 10 minutes past our normal break time. I was thinking this was going to wrap up quicker, but I think we ought to just take a break right now and come back in 15 -- 14 minutes, which would be, what, five minutes to 11, and resume at that point; give the court reporter a break. (A brief recess was had.) C14ARZMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will please take their seats, we'd like to resume the meeting. We were in conversation about various options and things that could be done. Before we go any further with the -- going to rebuttal, I have a couple more questions I thought of. One of our staff, Trinity, if she could come up for a moment and answer a question, and then one of Norm Trebilcock, who's the traffic engineer for the applicant. MS. SCOTT: Yes, sir. C14ARZMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Trinity. And it's apparent today, but it's been kind of apparent in the past, but I really haven't figured out how to fix it, but I think I've got a solution. It's about the ways TISs are done. Norm's is a typical example. Wholesale nursery landscape contracting, and then he puts his traffic counts. And he uses the TIS -- the ITE reference, 818, I think he used in this case. Is there a way that your department could request that when the methodology is done and they do their TISs that they include the code that this board and the Board of County Commissioners is knowledgeable of, which is the SIC codes? I mean, if we had an SIC code to the uses in Norm's traffic TIS, it Page 28 of 49 Packet Pg. 32 5.A.a November 1, 2018 would certainly have been helpful for us to understand how it was coming together, because he described it to me yesterday -- I'm going to ask him to describe it again in a few minutes. But it would have been a little clearer if I wasn't seeing an ITE 818 but I saw an SIC whatever. It would have helped. Is that something that's realistic to -- MS. SCOTT: We could certainly request -- we have a standard methodology form. What I would do is also like to then include the planner in on that so that way we're kind of closing that loop as far as the SIC codes. Because we don't deal in SIC codes. We deal in ITE codes. So that would allow us to maybe close that gap with the planner as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I hate to -- there's somewhat of a disconnect at times, and this would -- you guys would be on the same page. The Zoning would then say, yep, Transportation's looking at it from the right code perspective, and the ITE reference that Norm uses then would be tied to something. And it, I think, would help us all if you would consider that. MS. SCOTT: What we could also do as well is -- because not always is an ITE code -- sometimes the descriptions are a little different. So if there was anything different, perhaps we could work with the applicant to have more of an explanation. That way it would kind of bridge that gap a little bit for you as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which Norm provided yesterday in a meeting which I want him them to articulate today. Anybody else? Ned. Trinity, hold on just a second. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There's been some talk about whether one or two uses here. Am I correct that if there were -- well, one use, the wholesale nursery, apparently would justify just one point of ingress and egress. Did I hear that correctly? MS. SCOTT: We don't look at uses. We look at what the TIS says, so -- of what's permitted or not. So if this came in as just one line in the TIS as wholesale nursery with 12 p.m. peak trips, while, yes, the access -management policy would allow them to have multiple access points based upon their frontage, from a staff perspective, if it was limited to those 12 p.m. peak trips, we would also look at their daily trips and make an assessment at that point. But if we're limited to a very small amount of trips, we'd look at the operations around, and most likely it would be one. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And so even though a second point of ingress and egress might not be unreasonable, nonetheless, it's also not necessary, is it? MS. SCOTT: Our access -management policy -- I'm actually going to pull it up so I can quote it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, basically, just because you can doesn't mean you should, though. MS. SCOTT: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SCOTT: And that's what our access -management policy, in laymen's terms, says. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, yeah. And I take it that you have not -- although, perhaps, it goes without saying, that with each additional point of ingress and egress on a road like Livingston, it's going to be just a little bit less safe. I think we could probably take some kind of judicial notice of that, could we not? MS. SCOTT: I wouldn't necessarily say that -- there are -- when we looked at this particular petition, knowing what type of vehicles that they were going to be utilizing at that spot, a left -in going northbound on Livingston makes some sense, and the reason it makes some sense is because all of the landscape trucks, presumably, with trailers, would have to go up to the next intersection, which is the Grey Oaks/Wyndemere intersection, and make a U-turn to come back to make a right into their location. Every time someone makes a U-turn, particularly with the longer vehicles, that takes green time -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. MS. SCOTT: -- to be able to do that. And if they start backing out, then we have to start cutting that southbound. And from a county perspective, we want that through movement to be moving. And you've seen possibly at some of our other public meetings that we've had where we're talking about some modifications that we're proposing to Pine Ridge Road where we're taking the lefts out of the main intersection, and you're making those lefts before you get to that main intersection, because it allows us Page 29 of 49 Packet Pg. 33 5.A.a November 1, 2018 to, essentially, double the through time and make those intersections work better. So when we looked at this, we looked at, that that left -in was pretty important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trinity, one thing I don't know if you had considered, the left -in going north for this particular opening, considering that it would have the applicant's TIS said 50 trucks, that means they're most likely trucks with trailers and most likely being what, 30, 35, something like that, long, the stacking, because they'll all be coming and going and at basically the same time, because that's the peak -hour traffic they were talking about, at some point will you guys take a look at the stacking potential for that kind of a rig compared to a simple small car? MS. SCOTT: Absolutely. When they come in for their Site Development Plan, they would be required to do that analysis based on the type of vehicles and essentially what they would be stacking, and they would -- Norm would design a turn lane to accommodate that, and our traffic engineering staff would review that. It would be done via right-of-way permit. There may be sight -distance triangles that need to be cleared based on the existing landscaping out of there. It would be coordinated through our landscape operations group to make sure proper sight distance is there, and our traffic engineering for proper stacking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. After listening to Trinity, I'm thinking the northern of the two entrances is strictly for the safety of the left -turning vehicles, because you don't want them to go up to the light and make a U-turn there, and the southern entrance is already there. So I don't see a problem with two entrances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The southern entrance is already there? MS. SCOTT: There is an existing access point that is there, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the one shared -- is that the one shared with FP&L? MS. SCOTT: No. It's actually just north of the FP&L. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it in use? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody's in there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a construction entrance. MS. SCOTT: According to the applicant, it was a construction entrance previously. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it in use? MS. SCOTT: It's open and available today if someone wanted to drive in and go nowhere. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It shows on Google Earth. MS. SCOTT: Yes, it's there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Trinity. Norm? And I -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rather than try to restate what you talked about yesterday, you had indicated, I believe, yesterday that when you did the 12 trips, it was from the ITE manual but it was relevant to one submittal that was received for that category, and you explained why that wasn't necessarily the best way to portray what your applicant was doing. Could you explain that again, please? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Sure, yes. So we use the ITE, and ITE, they're land -use codes and they suggest process -wise, too, when you have a real small sample size, sometimes you have to be cautionary on the trip generation from that, because it may not be completely representative as opposed to if you had 20 samples that were used to generate that ITE number. And so when we did originally submit, staff had brought, you know, concerns questioning the overall trip generation and uses. And so then the submittal was modified, and it included some other uses that staff then had deemed, said, hey, listen, these retail uses you were planning to do are not consistent, and they need to be removed, which they were. And so then what we did is then we stuck with the wholesale nursery use, which has been provided. Page 30 of 49 Packet Pg. 34 5.A.a November 1, 2018 But in using my judgment as an engineer, a transportation engineer, I looked at the 12 peak -hour trips and understanding how these uses and as I've provided to you with the depiction of, say, the Square site this was mentioned too, where they have landscape contracting as part of their wholesale operation, I deem that -- in talking with the applicant, that we should have a conservative number, which I mean as a high number, of potential trip generation especially in this era of having trip caps on projects. So based on that, we created this empirical number for the project, based on that aspect of it. But the whole idea is that really boils down to, in this last submittal of the TIS. This is the wholesale operations. And when you read the ITE land -use code, it does specifically state that this is a part of a wholesale use: Contracting and landscape services. And it's also consistent as what I've seen and observed of similar operations that I also provided to you this morning as well. So that's kind of where we came from. So there's -- the issue with ITE is their own recommendation. When you have a small sample size, you need to consider beyond that, and that's what your staff had indicated to us, too, and that's why we provided this, and I got with the client to come up with an empirical approach. We feel it's a much higher number, quite frankly, but I think it's, you know, incumbent on us to do that. And it was mentioned about the concerns with that northbound left, and we have, and I provided in the traffic study to you, you know, that existing turn lane out there is 550 feet long. That's a very long northbound left -turn lane. As staff said, we will evaluate that in the SDP, but it's a very long turn lane, and in our opinion and belief, it would be sufficient for this project as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, in the one sampling that was used in the ITE manual, are you saying, then, that they probably did not do the off -- the trailers and trucks and employees that your applicant's proposing? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, it's -- that -- I feel that that may be an area that it may not have been included. I didn't have the specific details on that particular study, but it was a 6 -acre site. This is a larger site. And then, again, with the understanding and sitting down with the applicant that runs this wholesale type operations, I was able to better understand. And I thought to myself, well, this is probably one area that maybe that was shy on. And when I ran the numbers -- and you can see it's a much higher trip generation that we had so, you know, I felt like, okay, well, maybe that -- we need to include that to, again, be conservative on the high side so that when we have these facilities, we know we're adequate and we size our turn lanes, because that's been a point of safety and concern. I mean, mentioned today about the traffic flow at 60 miles per hour. Well, quite frankly, when you put additional accesses in, that can help the operating speeds, because when you have -- you know, 1-75 is -- flows as fast as it does because there is no friction. You want to introduce a reasonable amount of friction, and that's why we have access -management criteria, and that's why your staff evaluates that, and it helps us, but that can help lower your operating speeds and increase safety. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, you're going way beyond the answer to my question. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. I'm sorry. But there were a lot of extraneous comments, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just sometimes when you ask -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when you answer with less verbiage, it sure helps a lot to understand what you're saying. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let me get back to where the question was. MR. TREBIL,COCK: Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 12 trips, you assume, then, maybe that qualifies as a small number of entries into the ITE manual; therefore, based on the language that they allow, you modified it by doing something more regionally located here in Collier County. Is that -- just yes or no, is that a fair statement? MR. TREBIL,COCK: Yes, sir. I used my professional judgment to do that, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You also said, I believe, yesterday that part of the reasoning was because we operate 12 months a year where sometimes they don't. MR. TREBILCOCK: I did not make that statement. I believe Wayne had mentioned it. I mean, you're -- Page 31 of 49 Packet Pg. 35 5.A.a November 1, 2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Wayne's not a traffic engineer, so I can now dismiss that as a traffic -engineering viewpoint? MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was getting at. Because if you said that, we would have a lot of fun going forward on every PUD you brought in because, basically, my argument for a long time has been that our manual may not be sufficient for our cases -- our situations here in Southwest Florida. But I understand now. That's okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't need -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Having fun. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I need, Norm. Thank you. Does anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Norm. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless the Planning Commission -- go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Looking at Google Earth, and the left -in here, I understand the reason -- well, there's, I guess, a U-turn. But why did they put a U-turn north of that? Does anybody know? I mean, I don't see any reason for it? The southbound U-turn on Livingston, there doesn't seem to be a reason for it. Why is it there? MR. TREBILCOCK: The southbound -- oh, south of the entrance. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: North of your -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Left turn in, there's a southbound U-turn. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. It just -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What's the reason for that? MR. TREBILCOCK: It just may have been, you know, that --I don't know. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I can't figure why. MR. TREBILCOCK: That's the best answer. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I can't figure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Bill, you can't speak from the audience. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It just doesn't make any sense that it's there. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sometimes, though, Stan -- or Commissioner, they'll do opposing lefts and that -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Stan will do. MR. TREBIL,COCK: -- is the case here, you know, that they saw that -- you know, having this north or southbound of the intersection. In particular, I don't know if there's a prohibition at Golden Gate to do a U-turn or not, but if there is, this would have been a good location for somebody that is traveling down, you know, that didn't make the left at the -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That forgot to make the left at Wyndemere? MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. That's the only reason I could see. MR. TREBIL,COCK: Yeah, I think you're right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Norm. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us to the applicant wrap-up or rebuttal or whatever you decided to do. I'm just going to suggest to you the issues that I had have not been resolved, and so I'm still perplexed on some of the outstanding issues that we talked about yesterday and that I brought up again today. Page 32 of 49 Packet Pg. 36 5.A.a November 1, 2018 So with that, Wayne, or who's going to do the rebuttal. Go ahead, Leo, thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mine are not either, Mr. Chairman. MR. SALVATORI: For the record, Leo Salvatori. Thank you again for your time. We discussed at the break and, with all due respect, here's how we would like to proceed. Well first, before I get into that, I respect your point of view. I understand your confusion. The confusion I'm having, though, is that we do have one clear statement in the PUD ordinance which says what this property can be used for. That term happens not to be defined, thus the exhibit that's behind me. I understand what you're saying, but using an analogy, I also looked under commercial, there's no golf course -- excuse me, there's no commercial designation on the golf course where the pro shop is. Pro shop is a commercial use. Last time I was there -- I know it's a commercial use. I clutched wallet and my chest, not necessarily in that order. My point is, though, when you have only one statement in the PUD as to the uses of this property, that happens to be under that recreational use, but that's where it's located, and it does incorporate the map in terms of where it's supposed to be. I think that's the zoning, but I don't think that's the issue that's here before us. I understand the issues that you have, and that's an issue that, I think, goes beyond our petition. How we would like to proceed is to, respectfully, request that -- a vote on the petition that's before you. We did speak with the Wyndemere folks at the break. We're more than happy to work with them, because I think a lot of what I'm hearing is concerns over the unknown. Our -- which I appreciate. Our clients are more than happy to work with Wyndemere. They'll reach an agreement, I'm sure, with Wyndemere. They're reasonable folks; our clients are as well. So I think we can resolve whatever issues they have. The issues that I think you're having of a precedent setting and all that such, I think that's beyond the scope of our petition. I think that's something you may have to work on internally and would appreciate your doing so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And with that, we close the public hearing. And I don't have any stipulations for the application as it exists today other than supporting staffs position on a recommendation, if there's a recommendation to approve. So I think we'll start out with discussion to see where this board wants to go. I mean, does anybody -- go ahead, Tom. MR. EASTMAN: If you're considering a motion for approval, I think it may be redundant, given Mr. Klatzkow's point earlier, but I think you should point out that this is strictly for the access and you're not approving any type of use on the site. The applicant would be proceeding at their own risk in the development of the site relative to its viable uses. C14ARUV AN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Tom. Anybody else? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would agree with exactly what Tom stated. I'm inclined to support this as written. It is a PUD amendment to move the access points and only the access points. The approval, at least from my perspective, does not, in any way, allow or condone or otherwise approve any type of use. That is up to staff to determine either through some other -- either official interpretation of the PUD or a zoning verification letter or the applicant reapplying for an amendment to the PUD. But, as written, I'm inclined to approve it solely based on that, and it does not, in any way, in my vote indicate approval of the commercial use. It is -- again, it's strictly just for the access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't believe the case has been made for two points of ingress and egress. In fact, I think, to the contrary, the case has been made that that is not necessary. Perhaps desirable for the owner of the property, but not desirable for the folks who travel on Livingston. And I don't -- I don't accept the concept that having people turning off of Livingston in any kind of a volume will slow traffic down. I think it could just as easily promote traffic accidents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Stan? Page 33 of 49 Packet Pg. 37 5.A.a November 1, 2018 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I don't agree with Ned. I think the case has been made for two points. That northernmost point is the left. And I looked on Google Earth, and it's a 550 -foot storage lane, decel and storage. And you would use that to -- you wouldn't use that as a U-turn. You would use that to turn into the project. And the southernmost entrance is already there. Why take it out when you could use either entrance to leave? So I respectfully don't agree with you, but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's why we're here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I respect you, too. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Of course. The fact that there is an existing road there doesn't mean anybody's traveling on it, but when you put in the improvements that are being talked about, people will travel on it. And so there are going to be people coming in and out of two roads the way this has been requested. So the fact that one is already there but not in use doesn't really seem to -- certainly doesn't influence me in my decision. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- you're talking one car, and whichever exit he uses, it's the same effect. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Who's to say one at a time, though? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I was going to second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait. Just let Karen, then Patrick. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Two access points are safer than one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I was just going to second that I respect Stan, too. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I respect everybody, just so you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a series of comments that I'm going to make: First of all, I agree with the petitioner's counsel that the best argument is in the section of the code he referenced, and the best argument is that that section of the code is for the internal improvements and amenities on the project and those items related to those and not for open commercial wholesale -- commercial operations, as was suggested. In fact, even under the accessory uses, it talks about regulated to the residents or members or something to that nature. So I agree that there's language there, but I don't agree the language is narrowly intended for outside that Planned Unit Development. Also, there's no evidence that this was ever contemplated as a public use. I've asked repeatedly for such evidence. All I find is evidence to the contrary. The master plan does not show it as commercial. And you know, as Planning Commission members, we have always had labels on the master plans that we've stuck to. In fact, changing a letter from S -- from an R to a C or something else requires a rezone. That's how hard that's been. This does not show C for commercial. The BCC in 1990 specifically excluded commercial from this corridor. We heard testimony from the Comprehensive Planning staff that such an operation would not still be allowed at that site, but it needed clarification, and that was suggested amiably by the County Attorney as maybe a possibility. The applicant has suggested they don't want to go that route. And during the initial PUDI and DRI review they found -- well, that was -- the comp plan inconsistent. Staff did not review this, by the way, today as for the use but only for the two entrances. For us to put blinders on -- after all the years I've been doing this, I've never put a blinder on. Everybody can tell you that. I bring in all kinds of information to understand a project better. I don't see why we can possibly put our blinders on today and say, oh, yeah, just because they want Page 34 of 49 Packet Pg. 38 5.A.a November 1, 2018 two entrances there, that's okay, and not address the use. I think that would be derelict in what we're here to do, and I cannot go along with that train of thought. And the ITE manual issue that was explained to us was noteworthy but, again, they modified the ITE number to basically follow along with what the actions are consistent with the applicant's intended use. I'm not sure that's the right way to go. I'm not saying it couldn't be described, it couldn't be discussed further, but with no opportunity to get into the issues of whether or not -- how the buildings, if there are any, are going to be, what kind of -- the security lighting, the height, the type, what the site plan is, the hours of operation, the types of fences and color of fences, as the one lady pointed out in the email, where the vehicle parking's going to go and how the -- is there going to be limited access to Grey Oaks Drive? All road systems are different. We didn't get into why these two entrances might be applicable on other types of roads like Airport and Golden Gate Parkway. So I'm -- there's too many things that have not been addressed here because of the way it was submitted. I think it was submitted inappropriately for what's being -- what has been since discovered in regards to uses. And if the applicant has refused to go there, then I would be in no position to recommend approval for either one of these to the Board. And that's my discussion. Anybody else have anything? Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One follow-up -- and I certainly appreciate your analysis and certainly can't argue. My only question is, I have to ask why the staff didn't raise these issues in its review process, and if they did, was the applicant advised of the issues? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was raised -- and this is not for -- I know you're standing there to take notes, Wayne. We closed the public hearing. I can tell you it was raised by the County Attorney's Office. I was told at one point Transportation raised it. I know I raised it. It's disappointing it still got this far without the applicant stepping back, but they -- I met with the applicant. I raised it with them. So it's been raised. Now, I still -- it's still here, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wouldn't that be justification for staff to recommend denial? That's where I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they're looking at how the application was put together. It was an application simply for two entrances. And staffs obligated, I believe, to analyze it as the way it came in. So it's kind of like, when Trinity was up here, just because you can doesn't mean you should. And I'm looking at it like that; okay, they can ask for more entrances, but for what? If you don't need them, why ask for it? And in this case, if the use is questionable and there's a discrepancy on how we can regulate that use to be compatible in this location, at least from my perspective, and the precedent -setting nature of this whole thing, all that bothers me. I can't get past that with what I've heard in discussion today. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I think it's valuable that all of that be part of the record to go before the Board of County Commissioners. C14ARUV AN STRAIN: Right. So at that point, we've had discussion. Is there a motion from anybody here on the Planning Commission? Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if you're not going to make a motion, I will. I make a motion -- I recommend denial based on the various items I've just articulated into the record. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. C14ARUV AN STRAIN: Seconded by. Ned. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion to deny, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 35 of 49 Packet Pg. 39 5.A.a November 1, 2018 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm opposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Two opposed, four approved the recommendation of denial. So it will go to the Board with that recommendation. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, can you reread the ballot count? I voted in favor with you and Ned. So I think that was three opposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, approving the recommendation of denial. It was four -- she was in favor of it as well, right, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Karen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it was four of us in favor of denial, two of us against denial. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And the only reason I voted not in favor is because of the way the petition was written. I think it's -- and the way it was advertised. But I think it's very valuable to bring all of the other issues to the Board. That's why we get paid the big bucks and we get the opportunity to serve at the pleasure of the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And I think it's safer with two entrances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with some of that, but I just can't get past the use issue that has to be brought into it. It was certainly discussed in various documents we received. So it's open for discussion. I'm not going to leave it -- I'm not going to pretend it's not there, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, thank you -all for attending on that issue. We will now move on to the next item on our agenda. Oh, I'm sorry. We've got to take a vote on both, the DRI and the PUD. The motion maker was myself. That motion was for the DRI, and second -- does the second accept that; Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the next motion will be for the same, a recommendation of denial for the same reasons we stated previously for the Grey Oaks MPUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by -- Ned seconded. Is there discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. C14ARZMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. C14ARZMAN STRAIN: Okay. Two opposed, four approve the motion of denial, both cases. Thank you. ***That takes us to Item 9A3 on our agenda, and it's the discussion of the proposed affordable housing density bonus revisions to the ordinance. And this is legislative in nature, Jeff, we don't need disclosures and all that then, do we? Okay. With that, we'll move right into the discussion, and I think staff s here to make a presentation, at least they better be. MR. JOHNSON: Good morning, Mr. Chair. For the record, Eric Johnson, principal planner in Zoning. This LDCA, Land Development Code Amendment, is basically -- there's many changes but, basically, to summarize, it's changing the definitions of the Land Development Code as well as increasing the maximum available affordable density -- housing density bonus from eight dwelling units per acre to 12 dwelling units. Page 36 of 49 Packet Pg. 40 5.A.a November 1, 2018 Your cover sheet shows that the item went before the DSAC in September, the DSAC LDR in August, and here we are before you today. We anticipate that this would go sometime in January. The cover sheet says that it would be December 11th before the Board of County Commissioners, but we have to do a request to advertise for that particular hearing. What we tried to do is -- throughout the process we make changes, a number of changes, and in an abundance of caution, we brought the item before the DSAC LDR a second time. It's the subcommittee. Unfortunately, they didn't have a quorum. But one of the changes that -- or we were highlighting the substantive changes. We highlighted the conditional use on Page 7 as a substantive change, but we didn't follow through with the other instances of conditional use. Either way it was underlined in their documents, and it didn't seem like they had an issue. On Page 7, with respect to the affordable housing density bonus table, if you -all could look at -- I'm sorry, Page 10, Page 10. What I wanted to bring to your attention is that in the "very low" category, in the "very low" category under 10 percent, you'll find that there's an NA there. That needs to be changed from NA to 7, okay. So NA to 7. And I think -- and I'll defer to Cormac on this, but I think he brought it to the attention of the -- either the subcommittee or the DSAC. MR. GIBLIN: I did. It was a scrivener's error at the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you identify yourself for the record first. MR. GIBLIN: For the record, Cormac Giblin, your Housing and Grant Development manager. That was a scrivener's error in flipping around the charts that I noticed at the DSAC meeting, and I brought it up then. It just didn't make the change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: So that was basically my presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'll start with questions of staff, who are the only ones here today. So, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: On Page 21 -- 124 of the packet. This has to do with Section 1.08.02, and specifically Sub B, I believe there's a logic error in the drafting here. A, you've got extremely low income households whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of the median; then B, very low income households whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent. I think what you need is the language "are greater than 30 percent but do not exceed 50." MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Commissioner, is that on Page 3 of the document? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, it's there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's new -- it's underlined, 1.08.02 definitions in Line 19. MR. JOHNSON: Line 19, okay. So you're suggesting different wording. How? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I think you need to just follow the wording that you used in C and D. In other words, whose income is greater than X but not greater than Y, for the first one. For A you don't need to do that because the baseline there is zero. But after A you need to have a spread of it -- needs to say, households whose incomes are greater than 30 percent but do not exceed 50 percent. MR. GIBLIN: That's not exactly correct. We have two definitions -- two uses for this definition. One is how we apply it programmatically, which is when we get into the density bonus provisions and other. There is -- simply put, there's no category in the density bonus chart that you'll see later for extremely low income. It's just very low income and less. So 50 percent and less. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Why do we have A in here, extremely low income? MR. GIBLIN: That's for definition purposes only for other types of things that we do for planning purposes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So the way this is set up, for whatever those purposes might be, if someone has 30 percent, they are categorized in both as extremely low and very low? MR. GIBLIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It doesn't make sense to me, but -- does it make sense to the County Attorney? Page 37 of 49 Packet Pg. 41 5.A.a November 1, 2018 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, we raised that as an issue that we preferred deletion because it is not referenced anywhere else in the section. Staff wanted to keep it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and we can -- MR. GIBLIN: I can follow your logic, and we could do the 30 to 50 and then 50 to 80. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, that would certainly take care of the logic, but if you're not using it anyplace else -- MR. GIBLIN: We use it in several places for other reasons than land development. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. Well, I was looking at it just from the point of view of draftsmanship. So if you can accept my -- MR. GIBLIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then -- let's see. On Page 132 -- MR. STONE: Excuse me, Mr. Commissioner. Scott Stone, for the record. If you were to create a category from 30 to 50 percent, then you'd also have to make several changes within the amendment itself because then you'd have a category between 0 and 30 percent that wasn't covered anywhere else. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Well, that's a substantive point. I'm not raising that, but I understand you have, and it sounds right to me. MR. STONE: So you can either delete extremely low altogether, or if you choose to have very low be 30 to 50, you'd have to go throughout the document and make changes to reflect -- to add in extremely low everywhere that it would be applicable. MR. GIBLIN: I think that would be the preferred method. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we restate it so we all understand it. So on A, how would you change A? COMMISSIONER FRYER: A would not change. MR. GIBLIN: A would not change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how would B change? COMMISSIONER FRYER: B would say very low income households whose incomes are greater than 30 percent but do not exceed 50 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the rest of it would stay the way it is? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would stay the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you're gong along with that? MR. GIBLIN: We can go along with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you guys are agreeing to stuff as we go along, I need to know so we haven't got to stipulate it. That's all I'm saying. If you're going to do that, you're on record, so that will take care of it. MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: And the other associated changes throughout that would remain consistent. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good. On Page 132 of the packet, this has to do with LDC 2.06 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 132? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Of the packet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. There's only 22 pages to this whole thing. That's why I was -- wow. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, you can refer -- you can find it if you do a search for 2.06.04, because it has to do with that. Let me see if I can give you a page number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. I'll -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's 11. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it 11? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Page 11. Page 38 of 49 Packet Pg. 42 5.A.a November 1, 2018 MR. JOHNSON: Yeah, Page 11. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I'm not saying that this needs to be changed, but I want to be sure we all recognize what this says and what it doesn't say. The way it's crafted, there is to be no role for the Planning Commission in AHDB development agreement approval processes. Is that -- was that your intention? MR. GIBLIN: That is not our intention. Can you specify the language? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I think my point is made by the fact that there is no reference to the Planning Commission step along the way, and we typically do not -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, we typically do not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, they are attached. When somebody's relying on affordable housing density bonus as a condition of more density, they are attached. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's attached to the petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But we're approving the petition. We're not approving the density bonus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, this really has to do with the development agreement, I guess. And I'm not advocating one or the other position. I'm just saying that right now there is no role for the Planning Commission in the approval of the development agreement. MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, if you look at Page 7 in the packet, No. 5, it's a paragraph entitled "Review and Recommendation by the Planning Commission." COMMISSIONER FRYER: Page 5. I'm on Page 11, so I need to go back six pages? MR. GIBLIN: Page 7. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Go back four pages. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: While you're doing that, Ned, just in the paragraph I think it's inherently included, because under 2.06.04.A -- and it says -- I'll just truncate here, BCC pursuant to the public -hearing process. CCPC is part of the public -hearing process. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The Planning Commission reviews the application and approves the application, but not the agreement. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And if that's what people want, I'm not advocating anything else. I just want to be sure that we understand that we're not going to be part of that process. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. It's typically included with the rezoning, but it's the Board that actually approves the agreement. C14ARUV AN STRAIN: And I'd be relieved if we aren't part of that process. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. And a case can be made for relief on that, but I just thought it should be pointed out. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let the Board do that. C14ARZMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Otherwise, I want a pay raise. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let's see. I go to Page 136 of the packet, which is LDC 2.06.05.B.1 through 3. It's a -- well, it's a three-step process for income verification and certification. And before going over these points, I wanted to say that my comments are not intended as criticisms of the affordable housing program. On the contrary, I get it. I understand the need for it particularly with respect to workforce needs. So I'm raising issues having to do with the detail of the language, not the overall affordable housing program. But having said that, I think that some points do need to be made. First of all, we're asking for an income certification. Should we not also be asking for an asset certification? MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. And an asset verification and verification of income from assets is part of Page 39 of 49 Packet Pg. 43 5.A.a November 1, 2018 our income certification. I brought with me today the -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: That actually doesn't address -- you can have a million -dollar asset that's not earning any income but considered a wealthy person. MR. GIBLIN: I'll show you the next page as well. I just wanted to point out that -- I'll put on the record that, yes, we verify assets, and we verify any income from those assets. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you verify assets that not necessarily -- MR. GIBLIN: And if there is no income taken, then we impute income from them. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, okay. MR. GIBLIN: That's on this next page here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think the point is, it needs to be in this language so it's clear. You don't have it here. MR. GIBLIN: It is staffs position that it is -- part of our routine income certification includes that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you wouldn't have any problem including it in this language, right? MR. GIBLIN: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had the same concern. In fact, it appears a couple different times in this document. And when I was -- before you were here, when I was with a different agency, these issues came up, and we found instances where people owned nice assets. They didn't really need to be getting the affordable provisions they were getting because the assets weren't reported. That's the clarification I was looking for, and Ned's already latched on to. MR. GIBLIN: And if they do, in fact, own assets that are not generating any income, as we've said -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's imputed? MR. GIBLIN: -- it's imputed. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But you'll put language in there to reflect it as well? MR. GIBLIN: Yes. We'll reference the way that we do it and that it does -- or we can just add verification of household income and assets. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That would do it for me. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's a great addition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: Is that acceptable to the Commission? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we're all on the same page. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And to clarify, assets to -- and not -- to include non -income-producing assets. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The next question I have -- and, again, I'm not suggesting that there would be a tendency toward commission of fraud, but you have to look at situations and be sure that the diligence you do is -- measures up to a reasonable level of diligence, and I'm thinking here about verification of income. It would be, I think, pretty easy to gin up what looks like a tax return without having to, let's say, offer an affidavit. And I don't know what your certification form looks like. If it takes -- if it uses language like "under penalties of perjury" and it's signed in front of a notary public, that would be an additional piece, rather than just nakedly providing the second page or the first two pages of a 1040. Could you clarify that for me, what you do? MR. GIBLIN: The income certification in terms of this process can take the form of a tax return. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Without a -- without a statement made by the applicant that the attached return is true and correct to the best of my knowledge? MR. GIBLIN: No, that is part of the application. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It is part of the application? MR. GIBLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. Is that -- I'm just curious, is it done before a notary public? Page 40 of 49 Packet Pg. 44 5.A.a November 1, 2018 MR. GIBLIN: I don't believe it's notarized. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. And I don't know whether that's necessary, but just -- I want to tee up the concern, the level of seriousness that somebody -- if they were to submit a false return, would know that this would be the equivalent of perjury. MR. GIBLIN: And there is language in there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. All right. Let's see. What happens -- and, again, I'm not suggesting that anything should, but I just believe this should be talked about. What happens if the buyer's income increases thereby placing him another category of affordability or capability? MR. GIBLIN: The lien would remain with the land. And if -- they are allowed to increase their income as they own their property. It simply would remain intact. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. On Page 137 of the packet -- and this continues the income certification or the overall certification issue. The word "family" is being changed to "household." And the County Attorney, at a couple meetings ago -- or I guess when this first came up in September -- made it clear that, really, it's impractical and ill-advised for us to intrude into the question of now what constitutes a family, and the household is sort of a more generic word, and I get all of that. But do we need to address beyond just the occupancy permit or the number of occupants that may lawfully be in a dwelling unit? Concerns about, A, an excessive number of people. How do we -- I guess we -- is there a way of policing that? Probably not as a practical matter. What about people who come and go with frequency, that the household definition changes as somebody comes in and somebody else goes out? Is that something that we should be concerned about? Is it, again, impractical to be concerned about it? And how do we keep up with the certifications? I understand from the material that we ask all occupants to make an income certification and now an asset certification, but is there a way of keeping track of who the occupants are from time to time and that we have the appropriate certifications from the appropriate people? MR. GIBLIN: There's two distinctions to be made. If it's a for -sale product, there's a one time check at time of closing. They can have a family member move in, move out. If they get overcrowding conditions, that's a code enforcement issue. They're subject to the same review and laws of any other residential unit. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: In a rental situation, there's a yearly monitoring -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I see. MR. GIBLIN: -- where all persons in that household are checked and monitored on a yearly basis. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Again -- and not being critical in any way. I just want to be sure I understand. The word "household" is meant to include people who are not related to one another at all. I mean, by affinity, consanguinity, nothing, right? MR. GIBLIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Those are the questions I had. C14ARUV AN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, we just need to revisit the definitions section that you just discussed and modified with respect to extremely low and very low, because with the change you made, there needs to be changes throughout the document to now separately categorize the extremely low category throughout the document; otherwise, you're excluding the bottom 30 percent. So I just wanted to make sure that you understand that that change will be made, and it will reflect the same numbers as the very low, correct? MR. GIBLIN: Correct. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But you have to add another category. Do you understand what I'm saying? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't. MR. STONE: So there are several provisions that -- there are several provisions that have a list of the categories were -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But let's start with the one we're correcting, and tell me what -- how A's changed by what we did with what we're suggesting. Page 41 of 49 Packet Pg. 45 5.A.a November 1, 2018 MR. STONE: It's not the definition. It's subsequent provisions. For example, Subsection 2.06.01.13.2.1). It's on Page 6 of the amendment. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Because you just changed the defmition of very low to be 30 percent to 50 percent, the prior definition included 0 to 50 percent, and so now you've broken it up. So either you drop the definition of extremely low and staff will have to look elsewhere for that definition or now the 0 to 30 percent has to be identified -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, let's say that we eliminate the concept of extremely low. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We support that, County Attorney's Office. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. So there's no other place in here where we need extremely low -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- as a differentiator from very low? MR. STONE: Not in this section, and not in the LDC, as I'm aware. MR. GIBLIN: Not in the LDC. But as I mentioned, we do -- for state reporting purposes, for federal reporting purses, we do use that category of extremely low income. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But this is our Land Development Code so, you know, he can look to state law or federal law for those distinctions. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I would say, then, we should remove the reference to extremely low and you report it the way you need to report it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would agree. If it's not needed in the LDC, remove it, and -- you have other reporting requirements; that's fine. You can track that for reporting requirements, but if it's not part of the LDC, it's language that's not needed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So I think to correct the problem, then, Heidi, we just eliminate that one sentence. (Multiple speakers speaking.) MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct, and I agree with that approach. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: So on page 3, you would eliminate A, and everything else would be A, B, C, D? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. GIBLIN: And then no other changes would be needed throughout. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's fine. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Other than the one change we discussed regarding assets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then -- we're not done yet. We're not nearly done yet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm just tracking those two for right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Cormac, did Eric brief you on the various issues I brought up -- MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for a meeting you didn't attend? MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. C14AHZMAN STRAIN: Then let's start with those on 1.08.02 definitions, affordable housing. The first sentence says, "Housing is deemed affordable when the cost of a residential dwelling unit does not exceed 30 percent of that amount which represents a percentage of the median annual gross income for the household." And I suggested adding at the end of that sentence, "for those individuals within the affordable income range," because we can have multi -millionaires in Port Royal who are living above their level and still be considered cost burdened, and I really don't want to mix that up if we don't have to. Do you have any problem adding that language? MR. GIBLIN: It's just a matter of defmition that affordable housing is a personal definition no matter what your income. If you spend less than 30 percent of your monthly income on housing, you are Page 42 of 49 Packet Pg. 46 5.A.a November 1, 2018 living in something that is affordable. What we've done is state that in the Paragraph 1, and then the next paragraph that's B -- now A through D specify the income categories that Collier County will consider when assisting or implementing any affordable housing policy. So those folks in Port Royal who choose to live unaffordably would not be part of our concentration of efforts, but those people who live in Port Royal and do spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing are living in affordable housing that is affordable to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I just want to keep that category out of the definition. Do you have a problem with that, since you're doing it anyway by what's down below? MR. GIBLIN: That would be okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the bottom line. Then it goes on in that -- MR. GIBLIN: I'm sorry, sir. I think that you -- when you added your -- the language, you used the word "individuals." Would it be a problem to use the word "households"? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, whatever category. I just was trying to get the gist of it there, and household would be fine. The second sentence, "The calculation of such costs shall include the monthly rent and utilities, (for rental units) or monthly mortgage payment, property taxes, special assessments, insurance, and other required condominium or homeowners association fees and assessments (for owner occupied units)." Now, I have a couple issues. First of all, I have been involved in what's included in homeowner association fees and condominium fees and assessments like that. They include -- Joe's a typical example where he lives. They have bundled cable. They have Internet. They have a guardhouse out front. They have guards doing all kinds of things for them. And I'm concerned that by putting that here, the costs of those become part of the cost -burdened calculation that really isn't something that should be considered as part of an affordable need. So how are we separating that out? How does this make that not happen? MR. GIBLIN: Two things. Number one, this was a specific addition by the Board of County Commissioners when they heard this item in February. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they want to include cable television, Internet connections, and guard security and other -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: CDD expenses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, all those. So they want to include those as part of the affordable -- MR. GIBLIN: What they wanted to do was capture the true cost of ownership. And if those are mandatory in that development, then they wanted to make sure they encompass the true cost of ownership. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's artificially inflating the number of people who are going to be cost burdened for things that should be optional in the real world. So why do they choose to live in a place that's above their means? I mean, I don't get the benefit of having those on my -- when my mortgage holder reviews it, they look at expenses for electricity and stuff like that. But if I tell them I want my Internet included in my mortgage, they're going to laugh me out of the unit. So why is that reasonable? MR. GIBLIN: I think it would be reasonable in terms of if you were to do a property search now of condominiums for sale, you might see a number of them for sale here in the Glades community that are -- at purchase price, look reasonable. They may even be less than $100,000. But when you add in all of those mandatory fees, you quickly determine that those fees outweigh even their cost of mortgage and insurance to make that home unaffordable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then they buy a different home. Because why are we encouraging people to qualify for a cost -burdening level to get grants and other things to help them with a new home with items like I've just suggested? I don't understand that. MR. GIBLIN: Maybe if I flipped it around it would make more sense. You cannot -- what we're saying with this language is that you should not consider a $100,000 condo in the Glade affordable if it comes with it, as mandatory, $1,000 a month in assessments. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Some subdivisions also include country club memberships that are mandatory. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct, mandatory club and spa fees -- Page 43 of 49 Packet Pg. 47 5.A.a November 1, 2018 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Grey Oaks probably does. MR. GIBLIN: What the Board was saying was that there was more to the cost of ownership than just the mortgage. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, could I say one thing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I feel like today, for some reason, I feel like I'm in a twilight zone. But I feel like we're saying the same things or similar things. What they're really trying to tell you and reiterate is that shouldn't even be a topic. If someone is looking for affordable housing, those type communities that have clubhouses and tons of amenities or bundled golf, et cetera, that definitely have very high fees -- which, by the way, we're in Naples, Florida, there are high fees all over the place in these HOAs -- that shouldn't even be in the same conversation with affordable housing because it defeats the purpose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But they're considered cost burdened. That was my concern. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Right. It shouldn't be in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. So we're on the same page? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: A hundred percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Joe, then Karen. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One of the reasons I thought why we -- this was something even on the Affordable Housing Committee, wanted to include all of these things is because you can go to the MLS and say, well, golly -- use my community. Fiddler's Creek, there's a condo for $150,000. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Fees, though, a thousand a month. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And you can say, well, look at all the affordable housing, but it isn't affordable when you add the CDD, the club and spa, cable, all the other things that's -- it's not affordable. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So that's what I believe, Cormac, we were trying to capture that, yes, it may look affordable if you just look at an MLS, but it's not affordable to the homeowner who is trying to purchase it and meet these requirements. And when you do an analysis, you look at the total cost of the -- to put that person or that family or that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're missing the point. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- amenity into the house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're going off on a different point than I was trying to make. By that calculation, we are artificially inflating the number of people that are cost burdened. That is going to be, then, the number used to say, oh, we have this huge shortage of something because we've artificially inflated the cost -burdening calculations. It's a different angle of what you're talking about, and that's the piece that I'm concerned about. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I do agree with you. If you include all those as part of the costs, then you're inflating the cost -burdened calculation. You're correct. MR. GIBLIN: I'll state for the record that we get our cost -burden numbers from the Shimberg Center for affordable housing at the University of Florida. Their methodology does include HOA fees, so they're already in our cost -burdened numbers. Now we're putting it into our definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it doesn't mean it's right. I'm just telling you I would -- I don't have cable television, and the reason I don't is because Comcast jacked it through the roof, and I'm not going to pay them, so I don't. So, you know, the fact that I don't have it -- I can live without it. I think other people can live without it. In fact, the world might be better if we didn't see all that violence going on half the time anyway. Stan, I'm getting off into one of your tangents now. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I just can't see acknowledging that as a criteria that ends up being used to determine a larger quantity of the public pool that is suffering because they've got these high level of expenses when some of those are nonnecessities like I've just suggested, and that's the piece I haven't figured Page 44 of 49 Packet Pg. 48 5.A.a November 1, 2018 out how to get around that yet, but it's one of those that concern me. Jeremy? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, I was just saying that you're hitting on a bigger, broader topic which is society today and Naples today, people are living beyond their means, but to categorize that like you're saying into this, it's going to sway those numbers and public perception of, man -- but it is what it is. There are so many properties that look on paper in MLS, affordable, under $200,000. But when you drill down, that percentage of available properties gets very minute from an affordability standpoint because of bundled golf, extra fees, CDD, et cetera. MR. GIBLIN: And, Commissioner, I think that's exactly why we have recommended this language is to acknowledge that. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: But what the Chairman's saying is, though, but then all of a sudden we're going to say, okay, but then those statistics are going to be used to say, wow, we've got so many more people that can't afford their properties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. It's the way the calculation then applies to the broader picture that I'm concerned over. MR. GIBLIN: But we don't make that calculation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's the calculation everybody uses. That's where all the arguments are all over. We've never got a true status because of things like this. And I'm just trying to make sure that when the Board has to make a decision -- and they're hard decisions to make, because you've got people on both sides constantly -- they've got a really validated number, they can deal with it, and this artificially changes that cost -burdening number in my opinion, because it's nonnecessities that we're getting into, and that's the piece that I'm -- and I was concerned about that when I was on the Affordable Housing Committee and I voiced that same concern then. It's not changed. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Is the calculation necessary to be in the definition of affordable housing for the purposes of coming up with the density bonus? MR. GIBLIN: I would think so, because someone could utilize the density bonus program and offer houses for sale or rent but then have excessive fees that -- so on the face they're offering affordable housing by the definition if you don't include those mandatory fees. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: And, Mr. Chairman, in all fairness to what he's saying now is -- what you're saying is absolutely right. The same thing can be said on the flip side is all of a sudden now everybody's going to be saying, oh, we have affordable housing when the reality is people can't afford $1,000 a month in fees when it's more than their $800 -a -month mortgage. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So there's a flip side to that. I mean, it could be misused on both sides, the information. C14ARZMAN STRAIN: Okay. But see, what drives everything in the affordable understanding in Collier County, it seems, is the numbers. You have political stances on both sides, and those numbers are critical, and the numbers aren't as real, I think, if we're including the nonnecessities in the cost -burdening calculation that then calculates the need. That's the piece I was arguing about when I was on the Affording Housing Committee, and that's the thing I'm still suggesting today. I don't -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I totally get it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't sit here and tell you a solution. I'm offering it as a concern that I don't know how to get around, but I think it's falsely stating some of the people that are cost burdened concerned to what we want to do with affordable housing. I'd rather get to the real true need without this kind of stuff and then focus on how do we get there, because even, I think, the true need in the county is going to change somewhat than what we keep hearing. I mean, this essential service and gap and workforce, I mean, that's the high end of the affordability. The low end of the affordability probably has got an issue we haven't addressed as much, so -- and this is not going to help any of that. I'm just concerned with it. So I'm -- I don't know what else to do with it. Cormac, I wanted to let you know what I said when I was on that committee, and I still am concerned about it. Page 45 of 49 Packet Pg. 49 5.A.a November 1, 2018 MR. FRANTZ: Commissioner, if I could offer an opinion. Jeremy Frantz, for the record, LDC manager. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. FRANTZ: So this language was reviewed by the Board previously, and that's why we brought it forward the way it is now. We tried to stick to what the Board reviewed as much as we could. They reviewed that language, I think, without a recommendation from the Planning Commission, so it may be that when they see this amendment again they need to see your recommendation regarding this -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm curious, when the Board focused on it, did they consider that this language would result in inclusion of what most people would consider luxury items? Was that discussed or contemplated? MR. GIBLIN: When the Board saw this, it did not have the associated mandatory -fees language with it. They added it on their own as part of their motion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But was there discussion with respect to mandatory country club memberships -- MR. GIBLIN: The question was capture the true cost of ownership of mandatory fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: Just to complicate things, not only are those fees related to luxury items like golf and clubhouses and spas, but they're also related to hurricane insurance and roof replacement and things that people would really feel are essential. There's no doubt that including them at some point at the margin is going to inflate the number, but I think it's a good point that you can use this in both directions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the insurance is listed as a separate item here, and I'm not questioning that one, Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I don't -- insurance is a given cost. You can't have a mortgage without the insurance. It becomes a monthly factor. You can have a mortgage without Internet. MR. EASTMAN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on. I had questioned with Eric the idea of including a reference to the -- and it carries throughout the document. The maximum density should be allowed pursuant to the GMP instead of stating 16. And Heidi was not at that meeting. She subsequently talked to me about it, her and Scott, I understand it better now, so as far as Cormac, I won't be having to get into that here. So that's going to take away quite a bit of the issues. Oh, then we get into -- this is on Page 11 of my document. It's under -- it's right after the tables that designate the maximum allowable density bonus. So it's the page after that. It's Number C. "The minimum number of affordable housing units that shall be provided in the development pursuant to this section shall be 10 percent of the total housing units." And my question at that time was, give me an example, because it appeared from computations, say, taking a 50 -acre tract, that if you decided to do more gap, you'd get a higher bonus than you would by using that computation. And I'm wondering if that was really helpful or hinder -- if it creates more affordable housing or reduces the amount that we could require for the density bonus that would be provided. And I asked if he could -- if you could bring an example. MR. GIBLIN: Let me clarify your question. Is it on Paragraph C? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. GIBLIN: Why are we changing to 10 percent rather than 10 units? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. GIBLIN: I think the first answer to that is if you look at the chart, 10 percent is the lowest category. There's nothing less than 10 percent. If someone came in and said they wanted to do a development at 6 percent affordable, there's really no corresponding number on the chart we can go to. So 10 percent is the de fact (sic) minimum in any category. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it only applies to that -- it only applies to that first category. So, I mean, you can do more, then you get more bonuses, but the minimum now you can do would be 10 percent Page 46 of 49 Packet Pg. 50 5.A.a November 1, 2018 instead of 10 units. MR. GIBLIN: Correct, and that's the change here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's fine. That helps. Thank you. Eric was kind of trying to fill in your shoes, and he was -- we were -- MR. GIBLIN: I did bring examples on how you can use the chart if you have questions on how -- its use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The next question is on Page -- MR. STONE: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. STONE: Since you're on the chart right now, I just wanted to point out a clean-up issue. On the chart that's being struck through, the very last row, which is very low, it doesn't appear to be struck through, and I think that should be struck through as well; is that correct? MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. MR. GIBLIN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Scott. The next question is on Page 14, a few pages down. We were on 11, so -- for those of you following along. And it's the top of the page. It actually starts on Page 13. It's No. 19, it talks about rental units. And we're extending the agreement to be deed restricted or restricted for 30 years instead of 15, and this document, I thought, was supposed to encourage affordable housing. That's a huge discouragement. How come? MR. GIBLIN: Again, that was specific direction by the Board of County Commissioners. They've recently seen a number of these 15 -year commitments expire, and so we have a constant battle of affordable units expiring and rolling off the rolls and allowing their rents to increase. So it was a direction by the Board to move to 30 -year restriction. Staff doesn't see too much of a problem with it specifically because it is only -- it is on the rental side. Most rental developments, most affordable rental developments that are developed, are going to incorporate other funding mechanisms, grants, state housing tax credits, which typically bring along with them 30- to 50 -year commitments, so we didn't see this as going -- necessarily asking the developments that are targeting for this to do anything outside what they would otherwise be required. But, again, it was specifically -- (Multiple speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it goes -- it does the opposite of incentivization. So I just didn't know if anybody was aware of that. Okay. On Number C on that same page -- oh, that's the same question. That's the same -- yeah, we just got done with that. Same question I previously had, so... And you've got the asset report, and -- oh, on Page 17, just before -- the paragraph just before 2.06.06, you talk about "The developer shall be deemed in compliance with the AHDB agreement if the developer has complied with the tenant eligibility and qualification requirements of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation by providing the county community," which I'm not sure what the county community -- is that the new name of your division, county community human services -- MR. GIBLIN: The county's Community and Human Service Department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. "A copy of the Annual Florida Housing Finance Corporation Compliance and Program Reports." What is the Florida Housing Finance Corporation Compliance and Program Reports? MR. GIBLIN: Florida Housing Finance Corporation is an agency of state government, and they're the ones who administer those grants and tax credits I just mentioned. The yearly monitoring for those properties is quite intense. And what this paragraph does is say that if we have a density bonus agreement with a development who is also monitored by the state, we can rely on those state monitoring reports for the yearly monitoring and qualification of tenants rather than needing to duplicate efforts and do it ourselves. There's actually a state statute that authorizes that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That helps. I wasn't -- I couldn't figure out what that was. Page 47 of 49 Packet Pg. 51 5.A.a November 1, 2018 And that's the last question I have, so... Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're -- now, we left off -- we asked for some clarifications that you've monitored, modification of the percentage of the affordable level, then omit the extremely low. Asset certification, including non -income-producing, and the other discussion we had was the issue of cost burdening. And I just would hope that you would relay that communication to the Board as far as getting it out on the table exactly what it is that that includes. I mean, I may not have been as clear that Internet fees and cable fees and all the -- all those other fees were part of it. I understand your argument, but at least maybe the Board, if they hear it, they might take a second look at it. So anybody else have anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It about sums it up. Is there a motion to send these recommendations to the Board? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion to send the LDC amendments as -- with -- including the changes we discussed to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ned. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We're still at 6 -- yeah, 6-0. Okay. Thank you, all. That takes us to new business; there's none listed. We previously discussed with staff about coming back and scheduling a meeting for sea level rise. Mike Bosi's here, and he's heard that. There's no old business listed. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just quite -- several, several months ago when we had -- emergency management had an issue about the number of cots that they had to provide. It was an assisted living facility, and I'd asked for emergency management to come back and discuss that. That has yet to have been scheduled. I missed the opportunity during the AUIR to ask Dan Summers, and I still think that he owes us an answer as to the methodology that he used and justification for that exaction that really had no justification. And I asked for something to clarify in regards to that. Though we did approve it, it seemed to be an exaction with no justification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that something that can be done with you and -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Dan instead of the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think it can be done separately. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi again, Planning and Zoning director. And we had a brief conversation with Mr. Summers after that, and he was aware of your concerns and request for that. We just haven't continued that moving it forward. I can contact Mr. Summers and coordinate with you, Joe, specifically for that information. Page 48 of 49 Packet Pg. 52 5.A.a November 1, 2018 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Send me a note. And I think if we're going to do that in the future, there ought to be something in the -- codified in our LDC that lays out that criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be great. Thank you. There's no members of the public here for public comment. So with that, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So moved by Ned. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Patrick. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. We're out of here, 6-0. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Hey, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: This guy scrivener makes a lot of errors. I think it ought to be reflected on his employee evaluation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be a really good idea. Oh, Stan, you add the levity that's needed. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:10 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 49 of 49 Packet Pg. 53 9.A.1 12/06/2018 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.1 Item Summary: VA-PL20180001748: A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, relating to a variance request from Section 5.03.06 E. of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum side yard setback for a boat dock facility from 7.5 feet to 1.3 feet on the north side of the proposed boat dock, and from 7.5 feet to 2.1 feet on the south side of the proposed boat dock, for property located at 37 Pelican Street, on the north side of Pelican Street, approximately 1000 feet west of Capri Blvd., in Section 31, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (This is a companion to Agenda Item PL20180001018) [Coordinator: Gil Martinez, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 12/06/2018 Prepared by: Title: — Zoning Name: Gilbert Martinez 11/02/2018 11:57 AM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning — Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 11/02/2018 11:57 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Zoning Michael Bosi Review item Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Zoning Michael Bosi Review Item Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending Completed 11/02/2018 3:02 PM Completed 11/05/2018 12:25 PM Review Item Completed Completed 11/15/2018 11:39 AM Completed 11/15/2018 1:08 PM Completed 11/19/2018 5:26 PM Completed 11/20/2018 9:53 AM 12/06/2018 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 54 Co =ier County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION- ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2018 SUBJECT: PETITION VA-PL20180001748; 37 WEST PELICAN STREET [COMPANION ITEM: BDE-PL20180001018] PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Mitchel and Karyn Cooper 37 West Pelican St. Naples, FL 34109 REQUESTED ACTION: Agents: Jeff Rogers Turrell, Hall & Associates Inc. 3584 Exchange Avenue. Naples, FL 34104 9.A.1.a To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for a variance from the minimum Riparian Side Setback of 7.5 feet from Section 5.06.06 Dock Facilities of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC); to allow for the provision of approximately 1.3 - foot setback from the northern riparian line and approximately 2.1 feet from the southern riparian line as measured from end of the boat. This variance seeks to reduce the riparian setbacks as there is not ample space between both riparian lines to allow for the construction of an LDC compliant Boat Dock Extension. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is 37 West Pelican Street, within the Isle of Capris Subdivision, Lot 80 (a portion on submerged lands westward of the property) in Section 31, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County (see location map on the following page) VA-PL20180001748 (37 West Pelican Street.) December 6, 2018 Page 1 of 7 Packet Pg. 55 m x J O m � � ti V w m r 7 LLcv � ic7� a N } Cj VA-PL20180001748 (37 West Pelican Street.) December 6, 2018 CL �C N 9.A.1.a 00 ti r O 0 0 CO f 0 J n L w M E z C O Q7 f Page 2 of 7 Packet Pg. 56 d V C 2 b- 0 0 d a 0 U M O N I- 9.A.1.a PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the petition is to request a reduction from the riparian setback for the construction of a three-foot wide 255 -foot -long boat dock which would permit for mooring of a 17 -foot skiff. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: a� This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding boundaries of the subject property: Y V O North: Pompano Bay, Zoned -Agricultural -Special Treatment District (A -ST) a O South: Pelican St. West (local road), Marco Towers, Zoned Residential Multi -Family U District (RMF -16) at (16 DU/AC) M 0 N ti East: Single-family residential, Zoned -Residential -Single Family District (RSF-4) at (4 a) DU/AC), within Isle of Capris No. 1 West: Single-family residential, Zoned -Residential -Single Family District (RSF-4) at (4 VA-PL20180001748 (37 West Pelican Street.) Page 3 of 7 December 6, 2018 Packet Pg. 57 9.A.1.a STAFF ANALYSIS: The requested variance is consistent and less restrictive than other variances which have been granted to neighboring properties with a Zoning Designation of RS -4 Single Family Residential from Section 5.03.06 E of the LDC. The following variances have been granted based on similar characteristics of the subject property (water depth and riparian lines are too restrictive to allow for the construction of a functional boat dock): ➢ Resolution 2011-25, VA-PL2010-739; Lot 81, Isle of Capris. Request: Variance from 7.5 feet riparian setback to zero side setback. ➢ Resolution 2005-150, VA -2004 -AR -6792; Lot 87, Isle of Capris. Request: Variance from 7.5 feet riparian setback to 2.5 feet side setback. ➢ Resolution 2003-91, VA -2002 -AR -33222; Lot 86, Isle of Capris. Request: Variance from 7.5 feet riparian setback to zero side setback. Due to expressed opposition by neighboring property owners, staff has determined that the appropriate forum for consideration of this petition is the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC). In accordance with LDC Section 9.04.03., the CCPC shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a dock facility extension request based on certain LDC criteria. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to these provisions and offers the following responses: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location, size, and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved? Yes, the primary conditions are narrow riparian lines, constricting neighboring docks, and a shoal along the property's shoreline, which cumulatively hamper the ability to construct a functional boat dock consistent with the Collier County LDC Section 5.03.06. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of the Variance request? Yes, as previously noted, the shoaling along the property's shoreline and narrow riparian lines require a variance from the County's LDC. C. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work an unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? Yes, denial of the variance request would adversely impact the property's ability to the benefit of boat dockage like that of their neighbors and continue the character of the housing stock in the Isle of Capris for properties Zoned Single -Family Residential. VA-PL20180001748 (37 West Pelican Street.) Page 4 of 7 December 6, 2018 Packet Pg. 58 9.A.1.a d. Will the Variance, if granted, be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety, and welfare? Yes, given the aforementioned encumbrances and as presented in the application, the requested would be the minimum Variance for the construction of a safe and functional boat dock. e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? No, as indicated in the body of this report and in the backup materials, other neighboring properties have received similar Variances for the construction of boat dockage. L Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Yes, the requested variance would be in harmony with the LDC and consistent with the character of neighboring properties. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? Yes, one element associated with the requested Variance to allow for the construction of a proposed 255 -foot boat dock is that it would require the removal of 135 sq. ft. of red mangrove. h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GMP)? Approval of this variance will not affect or change the requirements of the GMP. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: The EAC does not normally hear variance petitions. Because the subject variance does not impact any preserve area, the EAC did not hear this petition. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for PL20180001748 revised on October 24, 2018. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission approve Petition VA- VA-PL20180001748 (37 West Pelican Street.) Page 5 of 7 December 6, 2018 Packet Pg. 59 9.A.1.a PL20180001748, 37 West Pelican Street; Variance for a reduced side riparian line setback from 7.5 feet to 1.3 feet on the north and 2.1 feet on the south as measured from the end of the boat. To allow for the construction of a functional 255 -foot boat dock based on the following conditions: 1. All applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 2. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal. Attachments: A) Application & Support Material B) Correspondence VA-PL20180001748 (37 West Pelican Street.) Page 6 of 7 December 6, 2018 Packet Pg. 60 9.A.1.a PREPARED BY: 111'�64114- X-7, Gilbert "C& MaMinez, PRINCIPAL FLA ER ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: DAfFE 2�- /��B hr2719 RAYMO V. BELLOWS, - N MANAGER DATE ZONING IVISION MICHAEL BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION v' JAMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT VA-PL20180001748 (37 West Pelican Street.) Page 7 of 7 December 6, 2018 Packet Pg. 61 RESOLUTION NO. 19 - A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO A VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 5.03.06 E. OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A BOAT DOCK FACILITY FROM 7.5 FEET TO 1.3 FEET ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPOSED BOAT DOCK, AND FROM 7.5 FEET TO 2.1 FEET ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPOSED BOAT DOCK, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 37 PELICAN STREET, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PELICAN STREET; APPROXIMATELY 1000 FEET WEST OF CAPRI BLVD., IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20180001748] WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a variance from Section 5.03.06.E.5 of the Land Development Code, to permit a reduced side yard (riparian) setback for a boat dock facility from 7.5 feet to 1.3 feet on the north side of the proposed boat dock, and from 7.5 feet to 2.1 feet on the south side of the proposed boat dock as shown on the attached Exhibit "B", in the RSF-4 Zoning District for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 9.04.00 of the Zoning Regulations of said Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled, and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: Petition Number VA-PL20180001748 filed on behalf of Mitchel and Karyn Cooper by Jeff Rogers of Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc. with respect to the property located at 37 Pelican Street West, Isles of Capri, and further described in Exhibit "A", be and the same hereby is approved for a variance to reduce the minimum side yard setback for a boat dock facility from 7.5 feet to 1.3 feet on the north side of the proposed boat dock, and from 7.5 feet to 2.1 feet on the south side of the proposed boat dock, as shown on the attached Exhibit "B", in the RSF-4 [I 8 -CPS -0 1779/1444 10 1 /1 ] [18 -CPS -01779/1444101/1139 11/5/18 Cooper Setback Variance, PL20180001748 1 of 2 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 62 Zoning District wherein said property is located, and subject to the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto as Exhibit "C." Board. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote this day of .2019. ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK M , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: I1 V) t Scott A. Stone, Asst. County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A — Legal Description Exhibit B — Site Plan Exhibit C — Conditions of Approval [I 8 -CPS -0 1779/1444101/11 [18 -CPS -01779/1444101/1139 11/5/18 Cooper Setback Variance, PL20180001748 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 0 2of2 , Chairman 9.A.1.b Q [\ 'J Packet Pg. 63 Exhibit A 9.A.1.b �0 W 0za0 o Z o N If s s �' JON W Yw0 '' Y Fs Q m �Om�-W 2 gay �; WO r O a CD OUNLL W pZLL�OF W d FggB N ¢WNNO N C Cf7 34 Z O=J� U Q wzadQ N W y f Z 0 WFyW Zv>wW,0 � O oFOgi ai O {L Q�' O q NOO¢ Z 1 � Y • OUJ ikW � �C m Oa (n F pAJUJLL o O a .j fA owgaw U Q O¢x¢�a O j 0 • p LL yO`O a �a/�L Oa iQ FQm`0 Oa 00U? Im WZ U.wwa0 FW i cc II• V F m �P UM F �J O LL Q 4 W S aQ Ute -U o.. U� (D (0 Kik 1� N LL Q '70 W 300F'Wy EO QOj0 Q ¢ W,�Fm .. �Q.� 0�.=VQ>Q KN �N W m0 a- • 0~ ffi QQj� Qm WmWW J U= `JN4tiaK�0� y W Q O 2J W J SKmI-NFA ci i4 a SIS LL LL -j � ��m L Z O U coo 0 -J W 1oo�M60 W �o W =d 16 A F� � QyQ g�6o 0U M � i<ww�rc�w O F n E �% m y W Q W yQ C7Z_ rzw>QoSFO C7 O ¢ �% (f {� ¢ '� c� (� L ~ O W ~0 m wKUZON''' 0 m y O3 w i w ° ma zz w %= z z zd i =a= w 1:5 a> ° nn¢n�1¢¢¢¢¢ 7 3 4 w a o o o a 4 Y �` o _ i p �W. w w a r�UU = w i U ¢F p� 4 0 G�G ��uu ZO�.O� S�KNC Yn WZZ Q ¢ ajOKgp & ° yw C V H 0w atZwf N "# 'qs 9 ox��c�iw ¢ o oww ug 5� �� >w z -;0.a 'w w�w� m ONf-N Ztn. EU a�w O z02 �Vi w¢OKZ QUcV2 ONF �Sm ONZa NmKKWWw.°O o o �ywamz�w°o ,Yqy, Q SgWpNp y �NyYjVw�W2U wa <s �wmiz mFina osc2w�`w� w _.Ua�o z.aci��'�okp°>wTiW R o�'�500 ?z W o m ��uu z x rc z( ,�, ooh W§ w of " ZNF u�Uww zoo oao W -�n�w i o�x �iw Z.=yy- hoa o.' �a<w61°� z 9 33 �- �- "'� 2 5 W d O um -i i a �o �i- >�w- rc_ u mu`zg z w aoo¢o� Z° � o � �z�wWuw. z oo�[plzwyi y- m jw t(yy mho ZZ'.O FT °W�N 2 Oa.�F �� W2yJ0 in -F >KU U.S�wO p 1-- 2 Q f1 V- 7 U U O m'a�[" I $ g� o oQ 4m a� �.:� w W > Z U O m V m �- ()may = f N ° 1-U 6UDOdjm °U $wZUy w� `allos&F�&a< $ wU� yoR >oo � 3 5.3 aMm aF o>w °z-`zaoY° ario a o ° mo J a p��? P. r ° J wog � .� Ziy ZU J� �� z o F0,W. W'z S a w zwa�$44 y� Y U 0oor 2 W ✓i WWF i> (.Qw Z T °WY�r F K K 4 n �2$ Z ~OF FLLW iWi Ua CW y��j °O Oy0 N °OOmd O¢�Q� pmti OZaO WWN Oom~ y Zmb ¢N Tm Zu Z �~rSrC 200O> 2 WL?F mF1- . Z Jo<W W'a¢oc�LLi �uu�11w �a go z� �'< S �j�adou wo wGu< 2w2 wo� wk� o�.m �'o�o� oo �Z�W I4 xz� LL >OwHa2 LLZz iDo a`u aD �pW:ri�O O� <o s Fw°d5zeae((. L�XU Z �� �M1m KWUa Y OFIY Wg �u - �a FE Nwaou z aw pax a�w�w =�w�uo w w>T� i°iIODU z -+z z �4oaaL goo �k z of e�nnm oyyom oO. -`".0 xLL al -io ¢°z ��w agwwF'o'w >¢ wc`. "'a mU,w o`Wm'==w O FZyO i h`�O O �Z°2 NO.°Q w Ix-2� NVQ ZNY mOj Z �o"�o xa r;rcd a=aoao .cz hof �oS m��m3n �xmu��zm-z IXn 3Naso o • . Z.�.V-U.1 Qnm�"md 00�•p400�Wgdaaao„� 3i na uwo� M LL 0 W C9 Q Q_ HR - 0 O 2 <�,m ao LL i9W �� a8aa w3o3g a� os�sZ<Q Z �, zP8O R�TMM 6U_z OiaF- yJ0 W gZ`r du I CL PERCH AVE Packet Pg. 64 Exhibit B P:\1765 -Cooper Dock\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\1765-COOPER-COUNTY-VARIANCE.dwg LOCATION 8/28/2018 D 0 U Ln coM r M CZ"' z� w w� QO J J A A v v I 9.A.1.b I W Packet Pg. 65 1 Q COUNTY'1765-COOPER-COUNTY-VARIANCEAwg EXAERIAL z a z 0 3> '^<a O pa -7 w R�VK� Na Ozz� iiaa 0 ate= "rI WNNU ZU� +' a00 wa= wao=a xa> u�w¢ u¢i °wzmw°a3 �� n w a z_zo¢o3w� o0 �zNo�0>3gzz �o�i'aaZo03 ww�a allo_¢ W° F-tia¢u°i ¢w3F � z J J Q W of U z > O� I 9.A.1.b I 9 4l E Packet Pg. 66 Co O J X Q Z X Q 4 2i x M x .Yx x q x `$ x Q I V Y x d ❑ Q x W z J x X X I "'x M M X� X N 7 x z M x7o CO Q x x� x ry x „x\ x „ 0 II CL o �X X° M x > x Max \ N o � X x J r o 9 o 4 X X o X\ x X \ <o m 0 /� \ \ tOo � X N XX x o o V (n Z W 6P X� x p o x X N 4 J E Q a X o x @� X cO G o \a 0 x z J H (D U) zz_ ^^ W 3: x 10 z w U F_ U) U O Q ❑ X ❑ ❑ W Q O z_� F_ X W COUNTY'1765-COOPER-COUNTY-VARIANCEAwg EXAERIAL z a z 0 3> '^<a O pa -7 w R�VK� Na Ozz� iiaa 0 ate= "rI WNNU ZU� +' a00 wa= wao=a xa> u�w¢ u¢i °wzmw°a3 �� n w a z_zo¢o3w� o0 �zNo�0>3gzz �o�i'aaZo03 ww�a allo_¢ W° F-tia¢u°i ¢w3F � z J J Q W of U z > O� I 9.A.1.b I 9 4l E Packet Pg. 66 N \ Ow Z C J O� O O � z '1 C C� X z W� U) Z U) WCo W U Q C) QO O z� F- U) X w �._ LU O �z 11 c r O I v � Q LU Q U CO z �o M M-- y w zz1� Jao. wai �n` zu- * �tt=0 n.zZ ��~ 0 0 w D 3 U rr�00 X220. EE z o 3 n� w 0 0 >'"w¢ z w=a:�3 wQ ><>'SWw 3zgowo>o3S??owoo >V>aZoo=3ooaa X000 t-�aaN aw3� a�r�. o 0 w � ❑ ❑ U N Cu � / W LU O �z Q c z Cu \ U) z W 04 LL Lu cn Q r O O LU 00 0J O z Q Q} Woo U Y �O �< O z J �m O < o O o \ z0 Q 0� a 3 \ a- n r 0 O- \ 0 J V II II�� P:\1765-CooDer Dock\CAD\\PERMIT�C�OUNT/Y\1765-COOPER-COUNTY-VARIANCE.dwo B, MORIAL 8/28/2018 0- LU O �z Q c z z W 04 LL Lu cn Q r >wQ� O LU 00 O z Q Qo Woo z0 z a r < o � ° o \ CD II a 3 0 o \ 2 0 4) w U IL CD r V , Cu ++ � M 0 � w z C13w ¢; i. v cG00 f Packet Pg. 67 M. Q N MIONIH 4J twit gT� o °0M LL aw O N aZZz'jaa am z 0 azzU �K� OOM 11 SOS O .. to W T hIC' YLL Q Q 3w00 zw0�o3wr ww >>>3�� 3rn�To>¢ aaogr- r ¢z�OwrO�o?zow00 W OQ Wj�ioo=3 0>oaa ylwwo�NaNroom Oia-FF H�aat�n ¢'u531= a000 Z . � Q LU Z zJ � J � O LL - O w� O r_ o \ P:\1765 -Cooper Dock\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\1765-COOPER-COUNTY-VARIANCE.dwo RROYI I E W DEPTHS 8/28/2018 M===m Packet Pg. 68 Y > U0u 0 U� =°o- 0 � w or) Cl) 0 �� w Z r 00 W J � w O d- 0 0 d 0 U IL U U U U a.� o � 3 > Cl�w flu; dJW M I I �rnZ Packet Pg. 68 J v t - z yXt`► U Z Q _2 O z z w 0? U Z Q _2 W � r 0 n o n n N 0 a�cwi�' Na aLL w ZOwF Baa aa 4X ~ w O a w i a s LU g��V a?g .. o�Rw�a w N N� Z U� Q �Oz -03 } � � ¢ 0. ~ K ¢ 0 0 J LL > K�xO mWa F a a w> 2! o > oa>�ao-o'¢P z�w�zZ�aw��wUOza�O?Rxo W7 O P °°°WzC,0 ¢0QaZ3=�o�3��„wa°N 0ZN W ¢0=woDa00o�_ F l aaN aw3� LLr-r� 3 w z w y O Q m Z U 0 0 0 0 0 O U c� J Q ti w w T O > T W o Co Of L.L T LU T 0 a H O U w d 0 d Cf) U U U oz V cin Q vz Q C � w > v c � X � � W M P:\1765-C000er Dock\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\1765-COOPER-COUNTY-VARIANCE.dwo B!2UMMLAY 8/28/2018 1 Packet Pg. 70 9.A.1.b EXHIBIT C Conditions of Approval 1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 2. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Packet Pg. 71 CCPC PACKET BDE APPLICATION I��I�;IIIIIIIII�;a COOPER DOCK 37 PELICAN ST W NAPLES, FL PREPARED BY: TURRELL HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC 3584 EXCHANGE AVENUE NAPLES, FL 34104 I 9.A.1.c I Packet Pg. 72 BDE APPLICATION W/ PRIMARY &SECONDARY CRITERIA I 9.A.1.c I Packet Pg. 73 9.A.1.c tell Cr c0 " y COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION OR BOATHOUSE ESTABLISHMENT PETITION LDC Section 5.03.06 Ch. 3 B. of the Administrative Code THIS PETITION IS FOR (check one): ■❑ DOCK EXTENSION ❑ BOATHOUSE as c 0 PROJECT NUMBER > PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff 0 DATE PROCESSED a� a 0 0 v APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): Mitchel & Karyn Cooper 0 v Name of Applicant if different than owner: a Address: 37 Pelican Street West City: Naples State: FLZIP: 34113 E Telephone: Cell; Fax: U a E -Mail Address: Thatchoochoo@comcast.net Rogers Name of Agent(s): Jeff� L M Firm: Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.0. Address: 3584 Exchange AveCity; Naples state: FL ZIP: 34104 m Telephone: 239-643-0166 Cell: 239-784-0081Fax; 239-643-6632 E -Mail Address: Jeff@thanaples.com o PROPERTY LOCATION :P M .2 CLa Section/Township/Range: 31 51 S /26E property I.D. Number: 52343000003 a Subdivision: Isles of Capri Unit: Lot: 80 Block: Address/ General Location of Subject Property: 0 Q 37 Pelican Street West Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Property: Single-family Residential May 8, 2018 Page Iof6 Packet Pg. 74 9.A.1.c • Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6359 BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Narrative description of project (indicate extent of work, new dock, replacement, addition to existing facility, any other pertinent information): The proposed project will consist of constructing a new single-family docking facility located on Pompano Bay at 37 Pelican Street West. The dock with vessel will protrude approximately 255 -feet from the most restrictive point being the plotted property line. We are requesting a 235 -foot dock extension from the allowed 20-ffet into a waterway that is approximately 1,152 -feet wide. SITE INFORMATION 1. Waterway Width: 1,152 ft. Measurement from ❑ plat ❑ survey ❑ visual estimate ❑■ other (specify) aerial 2. Total Property Water Frontage: 70 ft. 3. Setbacks: Provided: 1.3&2-1 ft. Required: 15&15 ft. 4. Total Protrusion of Proposed Facility into Water: 255 ft, 5. Number and Length of Vessels to use Facility: 1. 17 ft. 2. ft. 6. List any additional dock facilities in close proximity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each: There are numerous other docking facilities on the same waterway that extend out past the allowed 20 -feel or much further as we are proposing. 7. Signs are required to be posted for all petitions. On properties that are 1 acre or larger in size, the applicant shall be responsible for erecting the required sign. What is the size of the petitioned property? 0.113 Acres May 8, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg. 75 Zoning Land Use N A -ST Special Treatment - Pompano Bay .S RMF -16 Marco Towers E RSF-4 Single-family Residential W RSF-4 Single-family Residential DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Narrative description of project (indicate extent of work, new dock, replacement, addition to existing facility, any other pertinent information): The proposed project will consist of constructing a new single-family docking facility located on Pompano Bay at 37 Pelican Street West. The dock with vessel will protrude approximately 255 -feet from the most restrictive point being the plotted property line. We are requesting a 235 -foot dock extension from the allowed 20-ffet into a waterway that is approximately 1,152 -feet wide. SITE INFORMATION 1. Waterway Width: 1,152 ft. Measurement from ❑ plat ❑ survey ❑ visual estimate ❑■ other (specify) aerial 2. Total Property Water Frontage: 70 ft. 3. Setbacks: Provided: 1.3&2-1 ft. Required: 15&15 ft. 4. Total Protrusion of Proposed Facility into Water: 255 ft, 5. Number and Length of Vessels to use Facility: 1. 17 ft. 2. ft. 6. List any additional dock facilities in close proximity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each: There are numerous other docking facilities on the same waterway that extend out past the allowed 20 -feel or much further as we are proposing. 7. Signs are required to be posted for all petitions. On properties that are 1 acre or larger in size, the applicant shall be responsible for erecting the required sign. What is the size of the petitioned property? 0.113 Acres May 8, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg. 75 9.A.1.c Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 8. Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes B■ No If yes, please provide copies. PRIMARY CRITERIA The following criteria, pursuant to LDC section 5.03.06, shall be used as a guide by staff in determining its recommendation to the Office of the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner will utilize the following criteria as a guide in the decision to approve or deny a particular Dock Extension request. In order for the Hearing Examiner to approve the request, it must be determined that at least 4 of the 5 primary criteria, and at least 4 of the 6 secondary criteria, must be met. On separate sheets, please provide a narrative response to the listed criteria and/or questions. 1. Whether or not the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use, and zoning of the subject property; consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical, single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi -family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate.) 2. Whether or not the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should show that the water depth is too shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s) described without an extension.) 3. Whether or not the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel.) 4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether or not a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages.) 5. Whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.) May 8, 2018 Page 3 of 6 Packet Pg. 76 9.A.1.c Co eT Claunty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 SECONDARY CRITERIA I. Whether or not there are special conditions, not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.) Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe, access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.) 3. For single-family dock facilities, whether or not the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) 4. Whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of either property owner.) 5. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with LDC subsection 5.03.06 I must be demonstrated.) 6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of LDC subsection 5.03.06 E.11. (If applicable, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.E.11 must be demonstrated.) May 8, 2018 Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 77 CIm r Coft2y COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Pre -Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: ❑ Dock Extension ❑ Boathouse Chapter 3 B. of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre -Application Meeting, and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Completed Application (download current form from County website) 1 Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Signed and Sealed Survey 1 Chart of Site Waterway 1 Site Plan Illustration with the following: • Lot dimensions; • Required setbacks for the dock facility; • Cross section showing relation to MHW/MLW and shoreline (bank, seawall, or rip -rap revetment); • Configuration, location, and dimensions of existing and proposed 1 ❑ facility; • Water depth where proposed dock facility is to be located; • Distance of navigable channel; • Illustration of the contour of the property; and • Illustration of dock facility from both an aerial and side view. Affidavit of Authorization. signed and notarized 1 ® ❑ Completed Addressing Checklist 1 ® ❑ Electronic copy of all required documents *Please be advised: The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all 1 U ❑ materials to be submitted electronically in PDF format. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: ■ Following the completion of the review process by County review staff, the applicant shall submit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. • Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. May 8, 2018 Page 5 of 6 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 78 Ar-�450�0u"�ty 9.A.1.c COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT MAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colllergov.net (239) 2524400 FAX: (239) 252-5358 PLANNERS — INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: ❑ Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: Executive Director ❑ Historical Review Addressing: Annis Moxam Parks and Recreation; David Berra ❑ City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director ❑ school District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart ❑ Conservancy of SWFL: Nlchole Johnson ❑ Other: ❑ Emergency Management: Dan Summers; and/or EMS: Artie Bay ❑ Other: FEE REQUIREMkENTS- ❑ Boat Dods Extension Petition: $1,500.00 ❑ Estlmated Legal Advertising flee for the Offi9e of the Fleming Examiner. $1,125.00 ❑ An additional fee for property owner notifications will be billed to the applicant prior to the Hearing Examiner gearing date. Fire Code Plans Review Fees are collected at the time of appikation submission and those fees are set Borth by the Authority having jurisdkdon. The land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notrfication mailers forAppikations headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the Information Indicated on this checklist is Included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal Information may result in the delay of processing this petition. Art checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department Planning and Regulation ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 q 4atof Peti er or Agent Die May 8, 2018 Page 6 of 6 Packet Pg. 79 9.A.1.c > TURRELL, HALL &ASSOCIATES, INC. MARINE & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 3584 Exchange Avenue • Naples, Florida 34104-3732 • 239-643-0166 • Fax (239) 643-6632 snick@TRAnaples.com Primary Criteria 1. Whether or not the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use, and zoning of the subject property; consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical, single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi -family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate.) The subject property is zoned for single-family residential use which warrants no more than 2 slips per CC -LDC. The applicant proposes to provide mooring for just one 17' vessel. 2. Whether or not the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should show that the water depth is too shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s) described without an extension.) The main reason for extending beyond the normal allowed protrusion limit is the lack of ample water depth. With a granted BDE, the applicant will be able to ingress, egress, and moor a single vessel without issue. 3. Whether or not the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel.) The area that the proposed dock will traverse is too shallow for any navigation to take place. Additionally, the project location is in the corner of a dead-end bay which experiences a relatively low amount of boat traffic 4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether or not a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages.) The dock location along with the neighboring docking facilities are all located along a corner of the bay in which the project will be located. The bay in which the project is located ranges from over 500 feet wide to 1200 feet wide. Packet Pg. 80 5. Whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.) Ingress and egress of the neighboring dock to the north will not be affected because the mooring slip is located at the end of the dock and rans in the same direction as the dock itself. The neighboring dock to the south is marginal and will not be affected by the proposed project. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 81 9.A.1.c - TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC, MARINE & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 3584 Exchange Avenue • Naples, Florida 34104-3732.239-643-0166 • Fax (239) 643-6632 •nick@THAnaples.com Secondary Criteria 1. Whether or not there are special conditions, not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcements shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.) The location and shape of the subject property, neighboring properties, and the associated riparian lines is such that the only way a dock can be constructed in this location with ample space for ingress and egress is if it is extended beyond the protrusion line. 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe, access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.) The dock width has been minimized as much as possible in order to reduce over - water structure while still maintaining safe access to the vessel's mooring location 3. For single-family dock facilities, whether or not the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) The proposed vessel may be under 50% of the applicant's shoreline, depending on the interpretation of the location of shoreline ownership. 4. Whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of either property owner.) There are already several similar docking facilities in close proximity to this project. Negative impacts to neighbors' views are therefore not anticipated. 5. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with LDC subsection 5.03.06 I must be demonstrated.) There are no seagrass beds present on the property nor on neighboring properties within 200 feet of the project site. Packet Pg. 82 9.A.1.c 6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of LDC subsection 5.03.06 E.11. (If applicable, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.E.11 must be demonstrated.) The proposed work pertains to a single-family docking facility and therefore not subject to the Manatee Protection Requirements. Packet Pg. 83 PROOF OF OWNERSHIP WARRANTY DEEDS I 9.A.1.c I Packet Pg. 84 w�{'gxgYy,Sn r.,, `•"h,M y i•x. q.M V7 min 'WITY &WRIUM DEED "ffi�7hls Indtll Wre. Made this 1st: day at Jim 1111111% Saw m KARYN A. COOPER, a startled wo+nan, farmody knua n as KARYN A. HIMIRL, a single person. FIRST PARTY, ar 37 w. PAw St, Nw N. FL SCM to McTf,`.11EL COOPER and KARYN /1. COOPER. husband and wife. of 37 W. Pilose St. NMIM FE asgaZ SECOND PARTY. W tl *NM. That ntid WA poly, for and In ovAidwaasn of the sum of TEN AND 0DhW9 (PUD) Ddlers in bond Pit! by 00 said =Wd padA the NOW whereof it looby adewwledpad. does hereby remise. rdnase and quh•clelm secondM C7 iota the add Puy forever, al The right, ft . dakm and demand whish the sold Srst party has In and to _ the fokwft dem bed bl. piece or pmod of lend. alhreue, tying and being in the Coony of COLLIER. Slate of FLORIDA. O m wl c'a 4W To comet a deed retarded In O.R. Beck 1888, Page 1208, Publia records of Collier County, Pfadds, to wit± Lot 80, isles of Capri No. 1, as recorded in Piot Book 3, Page 41. of the Public Records of Collier Courcy, Florida, together with that portion of Pompano Bay lying upland of the 1.0' contour contiguous with said Lot 80 as delineated on a survey by A. Tdgo & Assoatates which Is defined by a fine extending from the Northwest comer of said Lot 8o in a direction of North 55 50' 01" East to said mean high water line and a line extending from the Northeast comer of said Lot 81 in a dir*WDn of North 48 18' 25' East to sold moan high voter line, delineating the appro diode Ilmita of Riparian Frights. Adachad is Erdtibtt A, Consisting of 2 pages Of gamey dated May 20. 1891, prepared by A. Tdgo & Asocloos. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD are Anne r oss therando belonging or In anywise appedaioft and al the a 1*1 right, *,At . egwv and del ao said *9 party, s,Ther In low or eghdfil, to the a* proper use. he the said second In Mien Whwoa. d the an lrst above *Alen. Vaned. seded and detvwed our WiTir 0( 0 41 PO4 or%" r-arne 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 85 V10bess !2 Print at We came L L ] STATS OF FLORIDA OOI Y OF COWER The ipl Wit hagamwht aeda+owledysdi a this day of�ALf.1993 by KAREN A. 000PER, h paroona known td me s fessgoad as idoilMonimi and who Received SiD Docuislentary Stwp Taz Retained $ Liass 'G' 3h:-,.^.,SbiC so Property Tax 2 �L ,n M _Per :al DWIGHT E. CLE CIilCIFiT C(tdr.T NOTARY PUBLIC &2z&,WS-r l��%ION a` ibil'`, ST ,c. - PdrdatMmname Cda&a tC7 h m MEAL REMflREQ) CDMMI8&ON ..nmT BOROON STATE OF FLORIDA • . PREPARED 8Y. �cornm BONDED}/1/84 �} Hawardi J. Huegel 278 Capri Blvd, Naples, FL 33962 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 85 !to I x W4 tm C Packet Pg. 87 ........w.a..a- n ` ;t,- 'L!:40af" 4Z1: p f 1 f� T I 1988 116R -�9 PK. IfNEC � lnsht11nsnt was mpp.ned by. PRM'UIR COUNTY RECORDED isMM 9 r � lNHDDES d!211.461�511L Op. Lrys I r INT1• R a 110111140 into arrow - Ned. ....t MIND, FfdI M NMY (SiATIIfCR11 FODII—SEiTIUY i19.C! F3.) �•s-�++^.i+�.t �a'� ; f 16 3nbm wr, Mode this day of ! 19 Be , frtorrn' OPAL FORT, Lan Mrawarriad widow of the County of Collier State of Plorida , grantor", and O V XRRM S. f10 MM& a single pardon C O 'L whew post ofgs:a oddraa h 151 Channel Court, .Marco Inland, Florida 33937 O of an County of Collier . stale of F'lori$a grader', V '11ftlllJ M14, That sold grantor, for mid In consideration of the sum of ----__ .,,,, .__...� __-------------- ' O Q �• -- ANN 001100 ($10. 001 ---- — -------- — -- _„______. L and oihse pood and valuable co aldorations la mid grantor in hand paid• by sold grantee, the ra elpt whereof hr heri6y acknowledged, hun glanfed, bargained and sold fo the sold grantee, and grantee's heirs orad awgns forever, Ow folk*o Q 0 O dsscr•bsd land, dfuots, hung and being In' Collier County, Florida, to -wit. i " CO Lot 80 of IMMS OF 6AM NO. le according to the Plat thereof,-nccordea � Rai Q O is Plat sock 3, page 41, Collier Cotinty, Florida. cis v ffUSJ= to reatri!:tiona and asmon to the subdivisiori. Q :qj 80t31T=r to tazes for - 8 nl years. Re C mentooSIaMn Taff ' rM U. .✓i , , v T:3 co r.l a I c u F I` p I `a , tv to jr Cip Q and snit grantor don hembyt fully woman to sold laud, and d The some again" the lawful claims of all porstiae whomeneve!r. •'�. . O' s "<SraMr aand "gra fi \rls3. pluroi, M cw!tenl requires ear RMA Mblrraf for has hereunto grodare hand qnd seal the, day and your Bret o6ove written. s n lice, O Own . C — rsean O c Mean o M !seal=2 Q STATE OF. F t COlfrm of - FZ a a Cpi�� 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that an ibis day befma me, on afBpr duly quaYRad to fake admmovladgmsntr„' personally appeared ' C OPAL !'ORT d to me known to ho Ilie psnon" dewlbod In and who anea+fod the laregaino kaliument and, od!aawledgmd Were me fhat � I ' he *MwAoa int same. WITNESS mfr hand and offldol seal In the County and Slope 1.0 ld IM, !� do al V Imp a My eo!mniedon n!piroa CHR'f l . m1()pt:$,♦�apQ chary Pubic "We UMr or rtu1j. 1 Is gallins�iatTrP. tMM ta f..t.:: [ : �•. • � .+.t Wore ,:Iv+7 ... vaNK �1-.:^' ~• f a ��,�, � ' .� '. 1:.11'• :SSM' • y •: 1 ! - f y.. ` . •� :�h •. :.! y Packet Pg. 88 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM I 9.A.1.c I Packet Pg. 89 C. r -�9A�Cnuny COLLIFA COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWN MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT X800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-1400 FAIL: (239) 25Z-5358 PROPERTY OVI1i11ERSMIP DISCLOSURE FORM This Is a required farm with all land use pOWans, empt for Appeals and Zoning Verification Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it Is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use addltionaf sheets ff teary. a. If the property Is owned fee simple by an IND��1 tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such Interest: Dame and Address 96 or vwners"I a If the property is owned by a QORPQRATION, list the officers and ster*hnidare mnd them If the property Is In the name of a TR_TR_ USTEE. list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Name and Address Created 912812017 Page 4 of .%,. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 90 AT'45=ntz COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT d nW NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 341" (239) 2522400 FAX: (299) 252-6358 If the property is in the name of a GENS or LIMITI<D PARTNER5HIP list the name of the general and/car limited partners: Name and Address ss If there is a CONTRACT ER PURCHASER with an Individual or Individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the Date of Contmci: Marne and f. If arty contingency clause or contract terms Involve additional parties, list all individuals or i?ffICeTS, if a corporat;on, partnership, or trust: Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired . ❑ Leased: Term of lease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following; Created 9/2"17 Page x of 3 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 91 as c M M 0 0 L CD 0. 0 �0♦ V M 0 N COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT (DEPARTMENT 1Iamcolliemw,net Ar minty 2M NORTH HORSESHOE oRiYE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-,2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Oats of option: Dane option terminates: . or Anticipated closing date: AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERMIP INFORMATION Any pion ra InW to have Preparty Ownership Disdbsur% Will not be aaapted wltirout tMs Ibnn. Iilegr kament: for p types aro !Dated en the assodatad aPplkation form. Any change In mm erAlp whether Wvkk * or wth a Thwbm Company or other lowin d4widing party, must he dbdosad to Collier County i nnwdlataly if such Change occurs prior to the pedtions flnei pWWlc hearing, As the authorized Aligntlapplicant far this petition. I attest that all of the lnfnrnaation indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information meg result In the delay of processing this petition. The Completed application, all rewired submittal materials, and fees shall be submftted to. Growth Management Department ATTW. Business Center 28W North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34m Agent/owner nature 'A16-4clZ 4T A90WOwner Name (ple se print) 4 Cy , Created 9/28/2017 311 �/, g Page 3 of 3 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 92 AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION I 9.A.1.c I Packet Pg. 93 9.A.1.c AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) L p KaLr- +n iA C,00pieA' 100 e r (print name), as Q W rie-r- (title, If applicable) of (company, ff a licable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner® applicant=rontract purchaser=and that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. Ail answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed b the approv9d action. 5. Well authorize Ore t 'r,. to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition lnciuding 1 through 2 above. *Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation, then it Is usually executed by the corp, pres. or v. pres. • if the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's 'Managing Member_" • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the general partner" of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee": * In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated in it aro true. -7 Si ure rh +cFhell r3 aovpef- roft car - STATE OF FLOPJDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me on S ao a (date) by r �} Zw (name of person providing oath or affirmatiop), as G is personally known to me or who has produced _DIr'_ f.t C (type of identifi tion) as identification. STAMPISEAL 44 "- ;Rlvs Signature of Notary Pub c LEERFILMM EXPIRES: Oebber 30, 2017 t BmW rnm *Wy Pubic undrrwfts cr108-c:0A-0011511sS REV 3I M14 Packet Pg. 94 LOCATION MAP DRAWINGS I 9.A.1.c I Packet Pg. 95 Z W L!1 � nD n� go J V V 9.A.1.c Y U 0 0 w a 0 0 U a z O U O Packet Pg. 96 Qv \� w O Z x x Q 11. x , Y x O x % ¢ a I 4 4 W W 00 4 x x x\ xm m Z O Q❑ e 4 0 a x x a q F II q x x X X" Z O x4 .x x 4 22 w r2 N x x\w 4 x o " Ix 4 4 o x x LUx1p\ x m x Z Q Z e' 'J x x ': Q aF n m{ x x o M co c-• ❑ LL O J axmX� xm 4 4 II IJ7 Z anx x W z z� r.\x \ C C x Z (� 4rxX ` 1) IL I 4 4 W W 00 4 x x x\ xm m Z O Q❑ e 4 0 a x x a q F II q x x X X" Z O x4 .x x 4 22 w r2 N x Z � 4 U b X � MF x r XV \ 0 x x � O J a. � m nZLL a J W W J \ as co Z OD O J 9.A.1.c Ioeen Y U 0 0 w <�y W V WZ U) W 0 0 0 Packet Pg. 97 o " Ix 4 4 o x x o" Z x. /� 7C as Z x U O 1) ¢O w ` to Z � 4 U b X � MF x r XV \ 0 x x � O J a. � m nZLL a J W W J \ as co Z OD O J 9.A.1.c Ioeen Y U 0 0 w <�y W V WZ U) W 0 0 0 Packet Pg. 97 Z LU oa O C!) LL X Z W Z F N w 1-2 Up g❑ Co z Z U) X w N (V� Dib A rO LU COU ¢Fe a ae 6 p ' W� $R 66pp 7 LL o2zo lilt Z W 0107 77V F • S jK�O� a0 � F�ia Wy�rc Hfflgy WzW�oK�oKo 2'I�iO W •+W 4 FWLLZu G W ~�DZ �a~Z Ks LOPdgcppa as ryj N'Z21'2,1 H Ig6� � m z. s. 9.A.1.c Y 0. OC r� Z U CO) d Q M o \ U Q a CO O 4 v a. 'OA aZ o'er o 0 a ._ �z� z z z w� \ w wcn U ri ri OLLI Z Q Q 'U W r a 0E- Q w� Qo 0 ca \ Zo z WU Wa L \ \ Ow I IX uD 0 0 a _a Y \ "Cp if Z \ o N N V Cd M v ++ 4 x oj a w J 'OUNrr.dM MWMRInL iwirmo Packet Pg. 98 ei ! V i � Y W K u C U. 0 otPS 4,m Q L Y 0. OC r� Z U CO) d Q M o \ U Q a CO O 4 v a. 'OA aZ o'er o 0 a ._ �z� z z z w� \ w wcn U ri ri OLLI Z Q Q 'U W r a 0E- Q w� Qo 0 ca \ Zo z WU Wa L \ \ Ow I IX uD 0 0 a _a Y \ "Cp if Z \ o N N V Cd M v ++ 4 x oj a w J 'OUNrr.dM MWMRInL iwirmo Packet Pg. 98 Q m m yr x LU n \\ u; x O v °x M x? X O v Y? x a p x x N qIm `i I O d v x x a v x [O x N pp x i x N x w ry V z - ' xrn J '�nk.�, \ C; Z X m m Ci Q � 4 7r�Jx5. Q m W Z u Z iE —1F - LL 0 W ON 1.1� 'y� O Z � V 0 LO Q N O Q hr X 4k m X r � X J N M Xx \ X X m \X •p ..Mx x x x 0 0 z a �#.§ w o&'KZ wg Re aig- w k7�O FFwK�W1 ?ff as Y ZZUF 00 z m ; MIR $0 LLSC 2K Wwoet4 Cgrcrc Zz Fw & ~a7 wZ1°0Z��£3Saa www 1waawa9 S� e13 FUR sul, MUH Y . 9.A.1.c O LU z O � a O a U_ a d W Z u Z iE —1F - LL 0 W ON 1.1� 'y� O Z � V 0 LO Q N O Q hr X 4k m X r � X J N M Xx \ X X m \X •p ..Mx x x x 0 0 z a �#.§ w o&'KZ wg Re aig- w k7�O FFwK�W1 ?ff as Y ZZUF 00 z m ; MIR $0 LLSC 2K Wwoet4 Cgrcrc Zz Fw & ~a7 wZ1°0Z��£3Saa www 1waawa9 S� e13 FUR sul, MUH Y . 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 99 Y O O O U U_ CD v V a a ow i m LL w a WZ WW m WW 0 No a O m a m U U ft9 M m �Cy F0. O 2 o a en w= Q+ = E Z 0 m H -g 1 A ¢ E -- J LULU J a v, mQ z Lit Packet Pg. 99 w o _ z ki OUNTY%17a5-COOPER-cOUNTY.dwa SECTIONM 1ammia 9.A.1.c iLL 0 Z� ow Qo z i� m :r = f g O LL Z 0 D O It CL 0 Y V O ❑ ❑ X a ❑ 'i Q 0 z N vl a a ci i w o _ z ki OUNTY%17a5-COOPER-cOUNTY.dwa SECTIONM 1ammia 9.A.1.c ail -dwp m m Z 0 P W Cal (Dm z� �Q zg �a W J O W Z O ag 0 w r H N r LL LL Y N z� oW D �g z�z 9.A.1.c V Packet Pg. 101 zz 0 I� b LL LL Y N z� oW D �g z�z 9.A.1.c V Packet Pg. 101 w z=~ F -U LL Co v)C7LLa 1.G W O w IN rj) Q � z 0 W w - a �0 / z0aa 9.A.1.c 6 AAM WLU y S2 w O 5W /yL� W (� 0 U) m Ur 0 _ • lblpp _M2 c.i •Q. ~~ M fi.1 V WCD M o� W a WCD � CD z I,1 1 M coo / N Q WLU y S2 w O 5W /yL� W (� 0 U) m Ur 0 _ • lblpp _M2 c.i •Q. ~~ M fi.1 H I,1 1 M R El Packet Pg. 102 0 0 0 U U M ` rUl � O N v ,09 coE u v � a ° �o Z Q €� I❑ WWT U T a Ilkw J p FHS �B e LL .q O O0� �3W Z m �� 3 0��FJFpK�oKo w=� woW>WLLLL ORIMB4 0 W 0 N vi C MEJ Lo7�Y°�$�� E s m z yy��LU W �sss _ _ \ 22 =A- w a - o F i V Z . p o cPiR LU 0 4 30' 1 C) ,Y 0 0 0 U U M ` rUl � O N v a coE OY o5 �o Z Q WWT U T Q O0� m 0 U 0 cu rs E g Q h -<gz 22 =A- ti I ti ren Packet Pg. 103 I II N a Pi776S-C o-mr OodACADU-ERMi7-COUM-yyI 6S{OOPER-COUNTY.dxp HUMM y - Y U 0 a v W U) a fe CL 6 Cf 3� C7�oo�,� �pgpQQ gg 20Un'= aS gXw wz 7 U rLLWy o� `� -'% K �aO°�� M. www, w�zLLLL W 000H WDO HUM �M sIr F-1t-��N 66W�r Os SSO Z. 9.A.1.c V �a r oar � a w � s W u do 0. Q Y v � m z 5 F N K v K 0 _ M N 2 CL 'L CL LLLL r l. i Q o c Z > v C ��w..Z O Fwd m m w U W Q O oe°3o� o L Y 0 0 O U U M O Packet Pg. 104 N V �a oar � a w W 0. Y v � m 0 C 0 0 _ M N 2 CL M CL y � rn a. t 4d. z = v a M Packet Pg. 104 Lq \ rr r1p 1 r L `s e Z o �n F n acWirc� Wq75�. °�� i M K of s 1 581 111-5 a�ax0mall hmmr r��u tlo���ww� ��SOO g a r�oy aS ijqgj D. l �rJsaMg _. ,Fy—f -4 . Y U >- W 0 - LU CO 0w o a IL Ix o w a LU mco 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 105 SURVEY I 9.A.1.c I M O N ti a E a a T a Packet Pg. 106 PAGE 1 OF 3 LOT 82 2 i SCALE 1'= W POMPANO BAY �1 LOT 80 & PARCEL CONTAINS 0.28 ACRES OF LAND LIFT MORE OR LESS. POMPANO BAY i y / Ile r 1.T NORTH 1 ✓ OF RIPARIAN LINE NPPAARIINAN LIM i ✓ Lar m R9i11RUNLIN88 r / / / / /' RIPARIANLINBB ADJACENTmmfiwm ✓ '� / / / l ' ADAMENT LOT 84D= i ..� poac AREA Lcrr In / RIPARutMI�naTPORTION ae wme l i f AS IN OJZ BOOK 1897 G i ✓ / PG 06 i MJ_W. LINE ELEV. ■ -10 J1 (11-02017) / HOT ON M.N1. LINE ELEV.—OA 08 SHOT N 017 ADJACENT VYOOD DOCIQ8N1IN0 UFTB PRIVAGY WALL pamm OWNNBB'1:OOw P.O.B. P.O.T. Fila a!P IBm1 Fly raR1a P4 p�vr�Ierre Nora►Iowr4 80 Lor s1LOT AS DESCRATHATPOIBED LOT 79 BE CHNIN ( BP..& I= BllY.■Bee 0111'1000 ' ,.3W P.oe. BBB'189a1Ts (rte 70J10'[Pj � 889"1BOVE 240.� — LEGAL DESCRIPTION: CL PELICAN STREET LOT so, ISLES OF CAPRI NOA. AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3. PAGEW 41, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TOGETHER WITH (80' WIDE) THAT PORTION OF PAMPANO BAY LYING UPLAND OF THE 1.8' CONTOUR (ROADWAY, P.U.E.) CONTIGUOUS WITH SAID LOT BOAS DELINEATED ON A SURVEY BYA. TRIGO & ASSOCIATES WHICH IS DEFINED BY A LINE EXTENDING FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT so IN A DIRECTION OF NORTH W W 01" EAST TO SAID MEAN HIGH WATER LINE AND A LINE EXTENDING FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 80 IN A DIRECTION OF NORTH 48° IV 25" EAST TO SAID MEAN HIGH WATER LINE, DELINEATING THE APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS NOTES: 1.THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE CENTERLINE OF PELICAN 87REET 41 ODNT.BESF SHOWN COUYBMG %M SBD 19 EAST. 2,IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN ARE NOT A PART OF THIS SURVEY. 3 -SAID DESCRIBED LAND IS SUBJECT TO ALL SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, ZONING AND RIGHTB-OF- WAY OF RECORD. COATE OF FIELD SURVEY NOVEMBER Z Wff. B.THIS SURVEY MAP IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO SURVEY MAPS OR REPORT8 BY OTHER THAN THE SIGNING PARTY OR PARTIES IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE SIGNING PARTY OR PARTIES. &SUBSURFACE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WERE NOT EXAMINED AS A PART OF THIS SURVEY. NO STATEMENT IS MADE CONCERNING THE EXISTENCE OF UNDERGROUND OR OVERHEAD CONTAINERS, UTILITIES OR FACILITIES THAT MAYAFFECT THE USE OR DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY. 7 -ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE BASED ON NA.V.D. DATUM OF IN& DESCRIPTION OF BENCHMARK IS AS FOLLOW$: SET PKNAIL IN NORTH EDGE OF ROAD EAST PROP LINE EXT. ELEV. a 3.84' 8. THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY 16 TO SHOW THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AND THE VATER DEPTHS AT THE SHORELINE WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S BOUNDARY LINES 9.SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SITUATED IN FLOOD ZONE" "AS INDICATED ON FEMA FLOOD ZONE MAP PANEL NO DATED: BASE ELEVATION DETERMINED AT NIA 1 MNO TIME OPINION OR ABSTRACT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS BEEN PROVIDED. ALL INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY THE CLIENT. IT 18 POSSIBLE THAT THERE ARE DEEDS, EASEMENTS, OR OTHER INSTRUMENTS (RECORDED OR UNRECORDED) WHICH MAY AFFECTTHE SUBJECT PROPERTY. NO SEARCH OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS HAS BEEN MADE BY THE SURVEYOR. 11. THE LAND DESCRIPTION SHOWN HEREON 18 BASED UPON THE INSTRUMENT OF RECORD. LEGEND 0 - FOUND (') IRON ROLEGEND D (SURVEYOR 13 /) (PIR) ® - SET 112' IRON ROD (PSM rpBp%pIRC) M - SET 4' X 4" CONCRETE MONUMENT (PSM # MXWM) 17 - FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT (SURVEYOR 10 *VCM) * BENCHMARK (FOUND OR 89M RN - RIGHT OF WAY(R.M W.) 0 - FOUND NAIL OR PK NAIL AND DISC ( SURVEYOR ID S) (FPKN) 4) - SET PK NAIL AND DISC (PSM /8004) (SPKN&O) FD. - FOUND FN&TT - FOUND NAIL AND TN TAB SM ■ BENCHMARK QM)- FIELD MEASUREMENT (C)-CALCULATEDMEASUREMENT P.C.P. - PERMANENT CONTROL POINT (9) C.L.- CENTERLINE P.R.M. - PERMANENT REFERENCE MONUMENT (S) (PG) - PAGE (P) OR (D) - PLAT OR RECORDED(DEED) MEASUREMENT (PB) ■ PLAT BOOK PL EXT - PROPERTY LINE EXTENDED CMP - CORRUGATED METAL PIPE CATV -CABLE TV 19 - FINISHEDFLOOR U.T.S.- UNITED TELEPHONE RISER -WELL CONC - CONCRETE CO - CATCH BASIN OR INLET N - VYATERMATE VALVE R.C,P. - REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE SANTTARYSEWER PROP -PROPERTY X-SPOTELEVATTON PT OF COMMENCEMENT POB - PT OF BEGINNING POT■ PTOF TERMINUS BOB -BOTTOM OF SLOPE EO ■ EDGE OF CBS -CONCRETE BLOCK & STUCCO VG - VALLEY GUrMR ELEC. - ELECTRIC TRANS - TRANSFORMER JAC a JACL= DE ■ DRAINAGE EPEE ENT SINE - SIDEWALK EASEMENT LBE ■ LANDSCAPE BUFFER EASEMENT IE - IRRIG. EASEMENT PUE - PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT UE - UTILITY EASEMENT LMA(E)- LAKE MAINTENANCE ACCESS EASEMENT LME - LAKE MAINTENANCTe EASEAAENT A Er ACCESS EASEMENT 9.A.1.c MAP OF �PECIFIC PURPOSE SURVEI LOT 80 OF ISLES OF CAPRIS NO.1, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF PAMPANO BAY LYING UPLAND OF THE IM CONTOUR CONTIGUOUS WITH SAID LOT 80 AS DELINEATED ON A SURVEY BY A. TRIGO AND ASSOCIATES AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 PAGE(S) 41 AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 1837 PAGE954-957 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 37 PELICAN STREET WEST CERTIFIED TO: TURRELL-HALL AND ASSOCIATES CERTIFICATION: I CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY VMS MADE UNDER MY DIRECTION AND THAT IT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE SET FORTH BY THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS IN CHAPTER SJ -17, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 472.027, FLORIDA STATUTES. NOTA CERTIFICATION OF TITLE, ZONING, EASEMENTS OR FREEDOM OF ENCUMBRANCES. DW*�bjrC..tKQ"my C.«.rrs! o,«aFconKr.,y-y, x",.c wry L SIGNED �„„«W COURT H. GREGORY PSM #8004 DATE 07/27/2018 DATE OF FIELD SURVEY 11-07,2017 LB #7112 PSM # 8004 C.C.S. Cour! Gregory Surveying, 761 Teton Court Naples, Florida 34104 (239)643-7845 office Date 07/27/2018 cgs6004Qcomcast.net Job 0 EN40i46M (239)272-3707 Cell Fb EN4-31 Pg packet Pg. 107 .--,-qp ..+w PAGE 2 OF 3 POMPANO BAY`S /x4.0 LOT 80 & PARCEL CONTAINS 0.28 ACRES OF LAND ,5 MORE OR LESS. POMPANO BAY s r r r O � r r'r !fes 1.7 r / ! ! I 9 � x � r ! .61A 1,1 1,fl i x-rL9 moi`` f�r -3:6x�0 x x-,7 x-62 x 4L8 .x2.5SAA x.4.8 77 x .7,0 x 41 x2.7 x-7.0 r r!r /x2.1 x - / x-2.8 r !/ x _rte J/ x.2.6 x.7A x x 2.1 2.8///x 2A Iif / x28 - x.1.7 x42 x.�$ x-26 -09$0:9 r/! 40,7 'le x4.7 xZoe xas x2.9 $ 47 x -1.2 x 2 9 x 2-0.6 —4� x -2 2 0.2 / x -1,1 /d x 20 x•2.2 X a DENOTES SPOT ELEVATION (NAVD 1958) 18 f x2.1 / x -11 x1.60. x-, >A, I X140 w x1x tf 83 An 2Jk x2.4c190 _ r x s. x 2.0 !' A / X2,8 FIRC SW (# 3884) P.O.B. N8909WffW 70.00' (P) N89024'160W 70.16' (M) P.O.T. FIRC WS' (# ) (IMPROVEMENTS NOT SHOWN) LOT 80 & THAT PORTION w w ,� LOT 79 9 AS DESCRIBED $ FL �T �P gr Z� ello;c 2.0 x -22 �A 45 -1.8 SCALE I"= 30' MAP OF "PECIFIC PURPOSE SURVEY LOT 80 OF ISLES OF CAPRIS NO.1, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF PAMPANO DAY LYING UPLAND IF THE 1.B' CONTOUR CONTIGUOUS FITH SAID LOT 80 AS DELINEATED ON A SURVEY BY A. TRIGO AND ASSOCIATES AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 PAGE(S) 41 AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 1837 PAGE954957 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 37 PELICAN STREET WEST CERTIFIED TO., TURRELL-HALL AND ASSOCIATES CERTIFICATION: I CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY VMS MADE UNDER MY DIRECTION AND THAT IT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE SET FORTH BY THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS IN CHAPTER W-17, FLORIDAADMINISTRATIVE CODE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 472.027, FLORIDA STATUt£$ NOT A CERTIFICATION OF TITLE, ZONING, EASEMENTS OR FREEDOM OF ENCUMBRANCES. VkjN**y.dbyC—tH.Gr.q" SIGNED��� COURT H. GREGORY PSM 96004 DATE 07/27/2018 DATE OF FIELD SURVEY 11-02-2017 LB #7112 PSM # 6004 C.G.S. Court Qrogory Surveying, 761 Teton Court Naples, Florida 34104 (239)643-7845 office Date 07/27/2018 cgs6004GcomcasLnet Jab # EN40148M (239)272,3707 call Fb EN4-31 Pg 76 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 108 f P.O.T. FIRC WS' (# ) (IMPROVEMENTS NOT SHOWN) LOT 80 & THAT PORTION w w ,� LOT 79 9 AS DESCRIBED $ FL �T �P gr Z� ello;c 2.0 x -22 �A 45 -1.8 SCALE I"= 30' MAP OF "PECIFIC PURPOSE SURVEY LOT 80 OF ISLES OF CAPRIS NO.1, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF PAMPANO DAY LYING UPLAND IF THE 1.B' CONTOUR CONTIGUOUS FITH SAID LOT 80 AS DELINEATED ON A SURVEY BY A. TRIGO AND ASSOCIATES AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 PAGE(S) 41 AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 1837 PAGE954957 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 37 PELICAN STREET WEST CERTIFIED TO., TURRELL-HALL AND ASSOCIATES CERTIFICATION: I CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY VMS MADE UNDER MY DIRECTION AND THAT IT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE SET FORTH BY THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS IN CHAPTER W-17, FLORIDAADMINISTRATIVE CODE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 472.027, FLORIDA STATUt£$ NOT A CERTIFICATION OF TITLE, ZONING, EASEMENTS OR FREEDOM OF ENCUMBRANCES. VkjN**y.dbyC—tH.Gr.q" SIGNED��� COURT H. GREGORY PSM 96004 DATE 07/27/2018 DATE OF FIELD SURVEY 11-02-2017 LB #7112 PSM # 6004 C.G.S. Court Qrogory Surveying, 761 Teton Court Naples, Florida 34104 (239)643-7845 office Date 07/27/2018 cgs6004GcomcasLnet Jab # EN40148M (239)272,3707 call Fb EN4-31 Pg 76 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 108 sw 154) PAGE 3OF3 POMPANO BAY ✓ ✓ { 44 �. ✓ / /� x�8 9 -&4LOT 80 & PARCEL CONTAINS 0.28 ACRES OF LAND �% �-9� MORE OR LESS. POMPANO BAY f ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ / 6 .2 1 7 � � 4 .2.0';m- x -A -07 X -4.s ✓ /f th x'24 ' x-0.1 x-6.1 ✓ / j '�� x -1.6 B-&3 x �.z �, ✓ / % .� x -0.9 '1.6 x -3 2 x -4.2 x -04 ✓ ✓ / r5'c -0.8 // x -1.8 x -6 4 x-0.4 // x-1.1 ✓ ✓ // �x a6 x/ x-1.0 ✓ // x // x-0.9 x-0.4 x-0.7 4/x -0.0 x-06 // x4.8 x-0.6 �' x4.0 x4. x-07 x.18 x0A x-0.7 x -0.6 16 , / / X = DENOTES SPOT ELEVATION ADJUSTED TO MLW (-1.81) X" �/x-0A x-0.8 6 1 A x x 415 x3AZ x yejp6 x-06 x 3.1 $4 /! 2. 2 x-0.6 X 3.6XC . in J 4'c X4.035 ., _ 4 A2 x.4.6 A f xju / P.O.B. N8901 OMDN I P.O.T. FIRC 618' (9 3964) 70.00' (P) NW2*16`W 70.10' (M) (IMPROVEMENTS NOT SHOWN) LOT 80 & THAT PORTION w r. y AS DESCRIBED r WWW � r LOT 79 SCALE I"= 30' MAP OF PPECIFIC PURPOSE SURVE' LOT 80 OF ISLES OF CAPRIS NO.1, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF PAMPANO BAY LYING UPLAND IF THE 1.B` CONTOUR CONTIGUOU, vITH SAID LAT 80 AS DELINEATED ON A SURVEY BY A. TRIGO AND ASSOCIATES AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 PAGE(S) 41 AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 1837 PAGE954-957 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 37 PELICAN STREET WEST CERTIFIED TO. TURRELL-HALL AND ASSOCIATES CERTIFICATION: I CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS MADE UNDER MY DIRECTION AND THAT IT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE SET FORTH BY THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS IN CHAPTER 5J-17, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 472.027, FLORIDA STATUTES. NOTA CERTIFICATION OF TITLE, ZONING, EASEMENTS OR FREEDOM OF ENCUMBRANCES. oie n,.ca.e n. a�,y,.-cwn SIGNED��� COURT H. GREGORY PSM #6004 DATE 07/27/2018 DATE OF FIELD SURVEY 11-02-2017 LB #7112 PSM # 6004 C.G.S. Court Gregory Surveying, 781 Teton Court Naples, Florida 34104 (239)643-7845 oNice Date 07/27/2018 ogs8004Gcomcast.net Job # EN40146M (239)272-3707 oell Fb EN4-31 Pg 76 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 109 PRE -APP MEETING I 9.A.1.c I M O N ti a E a a T a Packet Pg. 110 Cofer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.collientov.net (239) 252-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Notes Petition Type: BDE Date and Time: 4/3/2018 9:00 AM Assigned Planner: JAMES SABO Engineering Manager (for PPL's and FP's): Project Information Project Name: COOPER DOCK BDE pL#: 20180001018 PropertylD#: 52343000003 Current Zoning: RSF-4 / A -ST 1 Project Address: 37 W. PELICAN STCity: NAPLES State: FL Zip. 34113-4021 Applicant: NICK PEARSON TURRELL,HALL & ASSOCIATES,INC. Agent Name: Phone: 239-643-0061 Agent/Firm Address: 3584 EXCHANGE AVE. City: NAPLES State: FL Zip: 34104 Property Owner: MITCHEL & KARYN COOPER Please provide the following, if applicable: I. Total Acreage: -18 ii. Proposed # of Residential Units: iii. Proposed Commercial Square Footage: iv. For Amendments, indicate the original petition number: W. If there is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please indicate the type and number: vi. If the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#: Updated 3/15/2018 9.A.1.c Z, c 0 .i- 0 0 0 `m 0. 0 0 v ch 0 N Packet Pg. 111 Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.coIjIe0M.net (239) 252-2400 Meeting Notes AS of 10/16/2017 all Zoning applications have revised applications, and your associated Application Is included In your notes; additionally a *new Property Ownership Disclosure Form is required for all applications. A copy of this new form is Included in your pre -app Note — link Is b s;Uwww.colliernov.net/Homel$howDocument?id=75093. Disclaimer Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checidists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 3/15/2018 Page 1 2 of 5 9.A.1.c r a 2 �L CM G CL Y V O m C M C O M V Q Q r-. C d E 0 M a Packet Pg. 112 CA: -r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www-gogemoymet Meeting Notes 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34304 (234) 252-2400 Disclalmer 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 LOC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what Is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to Provide all required data. Updated 3/15/2018 Pave 13 of 5 Q Z, c 0 0 Y 0 0 L 0 0 U a Packet Pg. 113 1 cofter County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.collle.rgov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 9.A.1.c I.. Storm Gewirtz, P.E. -Engineer! Pre -Application Meeting Sign -in Sheet 252-2434 storm.gewirtz@colliemountVfl.gov 11 PL# 20180001018 Zonin Division 252-2484 non .gundiach@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ 5har Hingson Greater Naples Fire District 774-2800 U Collier County Contact Information: Engineering Subdivision 252-5757 john.houldsworth@colliercountyfl.gDv ❑ Jodi Hughes Transportation Pathways 252-5744 lodi.hughes@colliercountyfl.gov L Alicia Humphries Name Review Discipline Phone Email Marcia Kendall ❑ David Anthony Environmental Review 252-2447 david.anthon @colliercauntyfl.gov 0 o ❑ Summer Araque Environmental Review 252-6290 summer.brownaraque@colliercountyfl.gov Q. thomas.mastroberto@colliercountyfi.gi E ' GMD Operations and Engineering Services 252-2911 0 ❑ Claudine Auclair Regulatory Management 1 252-5887 I claudine.auclair@colliercountyfl. ov 0 V ❑ Steve Baluch Transportation Planning 252-2361 stephen.baluch@colliercountyfLgov Updated 3/15/2018 I ! Ray Bellows Zoning, Planning Manager252-2463 raymond.beilows@colliercountyfl.gov 0 ❑ Laurie Beard PUD Monitoring252-5782 laurie.beard@colliercountyil. ov Q Crai Brown Environmental Specialist 252-2548 craig.brown@coiliercountyfl.gov Managing Asst. County m E ❑ Heidi Ashton Clcko Attorney 252-8773 1 heidi.ashton@colliercountyfl.gov U Thomas Clarke Operations Coordinator 252-2584 thomas.clarke@colliercountyfl.gov Q ❑ Kay Deselem Zoning Services 252-2586 kay.deselem@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Dale Fe North Collier Fire 5979227 dfey@northcoliferfire.com N ❑ Eric Fey, P.E. Utility Planning 252-1037 eric.fey@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Tim Finn, AICP0 Zoning Division 252-4322 timothy.finn@colliercountyfi.gov ❑ Sue Faulkner Comprehensive Planning 252-5715 sue.faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov j ❑ Paula Fleishman Impact Fee Administration 252-2924 Paula.fleishman@colliercountyfl. ov Growth Management Deputy ca ❑ James French Department Head 252-5717 ames.french@colliercountyfl.gov m Structural/Residential Plan I 0 0_ ElI Michael Gibbons oe.ae... .. � 'r ,... � ... _ ... _ - - I.. Storm Gewirtz, P.E. -Engineer! g 5tormwater 252-2434 storm.gewirtz@colliemountVfl.gov 11 Nan Gundlach, AICP, PLA Zonin Division 252-2484 non .gundiach@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ 5har Hingson Greater Naples Fire District 774-2800 shingson@gnfire.org ❑ John Houldsworth Engineering Subdivision 252-5757 john.houldsworth@colliercountyfl.gDv ❑ Jodi Hughes Transportation Pathways 252-5744 lodi.hughes@colliercountyfl.gov Alicia Humphries Right -Of -Way Permitting 252-2326 alicia.humphries@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Marcia Kendall Comprehensive Planning 252-2387 marcia.kendall@colliercountyff.gov ❑ John Kelly Zoning Senior Planner 252-5719 John.kelly@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Thomas Mastroberto Greater Na les Fire 252-7348 thomas.mastroberto@colliercountyfi.gi E ' Jack McKenna, P.E. Engineering Services 252-2911 ack.mckenna@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Matt McLean, P.E. Development Review Director 252-8279 matthew.mclean@colilercountyfi.gov ❑ Michele Mosca, AICP Capital Project Planning 252-2466 michele.mosca@colliercountyfl.gov Updated 3/15/2018 Page 1 4 of 5 Packet Pg. 114 .Sigter County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 Additional Attendee Contact Information: Updated 3/15/2018 Page 15 of 5 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 115 r— Receipt Number: Transaction Number: Date Paid: Amount Due: Payment Details: Amount Paid: Change / Overage: Contact: FEE DETAILS: Pre -application Meeting Cashier Name: Batch Number: Entered By: Collier County Growth Management Division 1800 Horseshoe Drive N. Naples, FL 34104 RECEIPT OF PAYMENT 2018489044 2018-027792 04/03/2018 $500.00 EAvmenLMathqAe b r Check $500.00 1654 $500.00 $0.00 ROGERS, JEFFREY R 5280 MYRTLE LN NAPLES , FL 34113 Ref 0dainal PL20180001olSfee$ 500.00 AlinaHarris 7220 ThomasClarke Amount CAccoun EM $500.00 131-138326-341276 9.A.1.c Iiiiii Packet Pg. 116 1 9.A.1.c Residential Boat Dock Extension Checklist Submerged Resources Survey Checklist 1. Is there an overlay? ST overlay needs an ST permit (much of Isle of Capri & Keewaydin has an ST Overlay over the water) 2. Seagrass or seagrass beds within 200 feet of any proposed dock facility shall be identified on an aerial photograph. (LDC 5.03.06 I) Provide a submerged resources survey from an Environmental Consultant done between P530 3. All proposed dock facilities shall be located and aligned to stay at least ten feet from any existing seagrass beds, or meet restrictions for continuous beds. (LDC 5.03.06 J.) P530 4. Provide complete answers to Secondary Criteria #5 & #6. (Use Misc in CV) 5. Demonstrate how negative impacts to seagrass beds and other native shoreline vegetation and hard bottom communities have been minimized. (LDC 5.03.06 3.4) P530 6. The dock shall be field adjusted to minimize impacts to mangroves. (LDC 5.03.06 I.2) Remove this checklist item — look at LDC? P530 7. Provide a clearing plan for removal of any vegetation related to the boat dock. This is simply an information exhibit being requested. (Use Misc in CV) 8. Are there any draft restrictions? Look at the MPP. (Use Misc in CV) Keewaydin: BDE not required for Keewaydin - Most always need an ST permit related to a Building Permit water and land have ST Overlay Seagrass: Light penetration is needed to survive, usually in more shallow areas Submerged Resources Survey: Read thoroughly Check location description for street & waterway (if given) Check to see if it was uploaded to CV Indicate in CV "Continents box" if one was done & if it was uploaded to CV *****SEE SUGGESTED FORMAT OF SUBMERGED RESOURCES SURVEY ON NEXT PAGE* * * * * Packet Pg. 117 MULTI SLIP DOCKING FACILITY • Look at supplemental criteria in 5.05.02 o Port of the Islands uses different Rating system — see MPP • See 5.03.06 E 11 and 5.05.02 for Manatee awareness requirements for multi-sfip dockiniz facilities Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this LDC. (If applicable, compliance with section 5.03.06(E)(1I) must be demonstrated). Packet Pg. 118 1 9.A.1.c SUGGESTION FORMAT AND INFORMATION TO INCLUDE IN SUBMERGED RESOURCES SURVEY ➢ Location of survey — property address and folio# o The survey shall indicate any seagrass or seagrass beds located within 200 feet on any proposed dock facility (5.03.06.4 In order for this to be accomplished, any within 204 feet of the proposed dock (within the riparian lines of the property and adjacent to the property) shall be surveyed. Who did the survey — which firm and their contact informatinn inclvdin nsme, address, Phone #, email ➢ What date was the survey conducted? o Weather conditions, water temperature, low tide & high tide times f Objective of Survey & Work done on the site o Was the site snorkeled? o What methodologies were used? o Was a GPS used? o Was an aerial photograph reviewed and used to establish survey transect lines? i Results o What was found? Substrate and what kind? Seagrass, shell, oysters? o What was along the shoreline? Mangroves, seawall, etc? o Why does the consultant think no submergerd resources were found? o Other observations When seagrass is found, include all requirements of LDC section 5.03.06. J. Y Conclusions o Were any submerged resources found? If yes, what? o Are any impacts to submerged resources expected or proposed? D Pictures (suggested angles) o Looking toward and away from the shoreline o The proposed location of the boat access o Observations in the water - Any oyster debris, shell, seagrass 503.06. J. (LDC section up to date as of 2016) Protection of seagrass beds. Seagrass or seagrass beds within 200 feet of any proposed docks, dock facilities, or boathouses shall be protected through the following standards: 1. Where new docking facilities or boat dock extensions are proposed, the location and presence of seagrass or seagrass beds within 200 feet of any proposed dock facility shall be identified on an aerial photograph having a scale of 1 inch to 200 feet when available from the County, or a scale of 1 inch to 400 feet when such photographs are not available from the County. The location of seagrass beds shall be verified by the County Manager or designee prior to issuance of any project approval or permit. 2. All proposed dock fact ities shall be located and aligned to stay at least 10 feet from any existing seagrass beds, except where a continuous bed of seagrasses exists off the shore of the property and adjacent to the property, and to minimize negative impacts to seagrasses and other native shoreline, emergent and submerged vegetation, and hard bottom communities. 3. Where a continuous bed of seagrasses exists off the shore of the property and adjacent to the property, the applicant shall be allowed to build a dock across the seagrass beds, or a docking facility within 10 feet of seagrass beds. Such docking facilities shall comply with the following conditions: a. The dock shall be at a height of at least 3.5 feet NGVD. b_ The terminal platform area of the dock shall not exceed 160 square feet. c. The access dock shall not exceed a width of 4 feet. d. The access dock and terminal platform shall be sited to impact the smallest area of seagrass beds possible. Packet Pg. 119 9.A.1.c The petiticne� shatl be required tc dernarrstrate hew negative PmWts to seagrass beds and other native 3hereline vogetatiori and hard bottom comms unities #gave been MInIMrzed prior to any project approve; or permit issuance. -- - – Y-. — Packet Pg. 120 9.A.1.c COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Coer County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 2S2-2400 FAX: (239) ZSZ-6358 DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION OR BOATHOUSE ESTABLISHMENT PETITION LDC Section 5.03.05 Ch. 3 B. of the Administrative Code THIS PETITION IS FOR (check one): ❑ DOCK EXTENSION ❑ BOATHOUSE PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: E -Mail Address: Name of Applicant/ Agent: Firm: Cell: Fax: Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: Cell: E -Mail Address: PROPERTY LOCATION Section/Township/Range: Subdivision: Address/ General Location of Subject Property: Fax: Property I.D. Number: Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Property: Unit: Lot: Block: BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. 8/U3/Z017 Page 1 of 6 Packet Pg. 121 9.A.1.c Coi[ier Cou"ty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N S E `1Ti DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Narrative description of project (indicate extent of work, new dock, replacement, addition to existing facility, any other pertinent information): SITE INFORMATION 1. Waterway VAdth: ft. Measurement frown Cl plant ❑ st,rveY ❑ Visual estimate ❑ other (specify) 2. Total Property Water Frontage: ft. 3- Setbncks: Provided: _ ft. Required: ft_ 4. Total Protrusion of Proposed Facility into Water: ft. 5. Number and Length of Vessels to use Facility: 1. ft. 2. ft. 6. List any additional dock facilities in close proximity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each: 7. Signs are required to be posted for all petitions. On properties that are 1 acre or larger in size, the applicant shall be responsible for erecting the required sign. What Is the size of the petitioned property? Acres 8. Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, please provide copies. 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg. 122 Cofr County 9.A.1.c COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34304 www.millorgov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 PRIMARY CRITERIA The following criteria, pursuant to LDC section 5.03.06, shall be used as a guide by staff in determining its recommendation to the Office of the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner will utilize the following criteria as a guide in the decision to approve or deny a particular Dock Extension request. In order for the Hearing Examiner to approve the request, It must be determined that at least 4 of the 5 primary criteria, and at least 4 of the 6 secondary criteria, must be met. On separate sheets, please provide a narrative response to the listed criteria and/or questions. 1. Whether or not the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use, and zoning of the subject property, consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical, single-family use should be no more than two slips, typical multi -family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate.) 2. Whether or not the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should show that the water depth is too shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s) described without an extension.) 3. Whether or not the proposed dock facility may have an adverse Impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not Intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel.) 4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether or not a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages.) Whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.) 9128124]7 Page 3 of 6 Packet Pg. 123 Coii'ier County 9.A.1.c COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2600 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.calliergay.net (239) 25Z-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 SECONDARY CRITERIA 1. Whether or not there are special conditions, not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property, these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.) 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe, access to the vessel for load!ng/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.) 3. For single-family dock facilities, whether or not the length of the vessel, or vessels In combination, described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) 4. Whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of either property owner.) 5. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with LDC subsection 5.03.061 must be demonstrated.) 6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of LDC subsection 5.03.06 E.11. (if applicable, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.E.11 must be demonstrated.) 9/28/2017 Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 124 .59ter County 9.A.1.c COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Pre -Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: ❑ Dock Extension ❑ Boathouse Chapter 3 B. of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre -Application Meeting, and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Completed Application (download current form from County website) i Property OwnershIR Disclosure Form 1 Signed and Sealed Survey ❑ ❑ Chart of Site Waterway Site Plan Illustration with the following: • Lot dimensions; • Required setbacks for the dock facility; • Cross section showing relation to MHW/MLW and shoreline (bank, seawall, or rip -rap revetment); • Configuration, location, and dimensions of existing and proposed 1 ❑ facility; • Water depth where proposed dock facility is to be located; • Distance of navigable channel; • Illustration of the contour of the property; and • Illustration of dock facility from both an aerial and side view. Affidavit of AuthorigglLon, signed and notarized i ® ❑ Completed Addressing Checklist i ® ❑ Electronic copy of all required documents *Please be advised: The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all 1 ❑ materials to be submitted electronically in PDF format. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: • Following the completion of the review process by County review staff, the applicant shall submit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. • Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. 9/28/2017 Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg. 125 Coen County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252.6358 PLANNERS — INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: FEE REQUIREMENTS: Boat Dock Extension Petition: $1,500.00 Estimated Legal Advertising fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner: $1,125.00 An additional fee for property owner notifications will be billed to the applicant prior to the Hearing Examiner hearing slate. Fire Code Plans Review Fees are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this flee is collected prior to hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included In this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department Planning and Regulation ATTN: Business Center 2NO North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Signature of Petitioner or Agent Date 9/28/2017 Page 6 of 6 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 126 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST I 9.A.1.c I •L Y V O O L Q O O U a T a Packet Pg. 127 9.A.1.c • Co ler County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and email to GMD Addressing a@colliergov.net or fax to the Operations Division at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Section at the above address. Form must be signed b Addressing personnel prior to pre -application meeting, lease allow 3 dmLs for Processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Section. PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) ❑ BL (Blasting Permit) ❑ SDP (Site Development Plan) El BD (Boat Dock Extension) ❑ SDPA (SDP Amendment) ❑ Carnival/Circus Permit ❑ SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ CU (Conditional Use) ❑ SIP (Site Improvement Plan) ❑ EXP (Excavation Permit) ❑ SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) ❑ FP (Final Plat ❑ SNR (Street Name Change) ❑ LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ SNC (Street Name Change — Unplatted) ❑ PNC (Project Name Change) ❑ TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ PPL (Plans & Plat Review) FEI VA (Variance) ❑ PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) ❑ PUD Rezone ❑ VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) ❑ RZ (Standard Rezone) ❑ OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description maybe attached) S31 T51 R2( ISLES OF CAPRI NO 1 LOT 80 & THAT PORTION LYING ELY OF LOT 80 DESC IN OR 37fo FOLIO (Property ID) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) 52343000003 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) 37 PELICAN ST W, NAPLES, FL 34113 LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of projectlsite in relation to nearest public road right- of-way • SURVEY (copy - needed only for unplatted properties) CURRENT PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Cooper BDE - 37 Pelican St. W PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Cooper BDE - 37 Pelican St. W PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) 37 Pelican St. W SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects(sites only) SDP-- orAR or PL # Packet Pg. 128 9.A.1.c co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.collieraov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) •L 0 0 L Please Return Approved Checklist By: N] Email ❑ Fax ❑ Personally picked up c 0 U Applicant Name: Nick Pearson / Jeff Rogers r, N ti Phone: (239) 643-0166 EmaiUFax: Nick@thanaples.com a r Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Division. FOR STAFF USE ONLY FolloNumber 52343000003 Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved Updated by: Date: 4/4/2018 IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED Packet Pg. 129 SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY I 9.A.1.c I Packet Pg. 130 COOPER RESIDENCE 37 PELICAN ST. W NAPLES, FL 34113 FOLIO #52343000003 SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY APRIL 2018 PREPARED n. y. V _- T uRRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC 3584 EXCHANGE AVENUE, STE 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 131 Table of Contents Introduction -....... ~-~~~~~~ '----~-'------' � 2 ..... ................ ,~^._-_-~-..................... -~._2 3 ~~...... .~.~°.~.~,.,,.,-'__---------_.--'.,.. ...3 4 '~`~`°~--'4 6 Photos ............. .......................... _-.�_-----~^--',--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'-~-~-'------~'~~~� I Packet Pg. 132 37 Pelican St. W Submerged Resource Survey April 2018 1 Introduction Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. (THA) has been contracted to provide environmental services in the form of a submerged resource survey (SRS) for the above referenced property. This survey will provide planning and review assistance to both the property owner and agency officers during the review process for the proposed project, which consists of constructing a new docking facility that will traverse a shallow shoaled area along the shoreline. The Cooper residence and associated docking facility is located at 37 Pelican St. W in Isle of Capris, Florida and can be identified by folio #52343000003. The property is located on the north side of Pelican St. W and backs up to a small bay area that connects to Bag Marco Pass and ultimately the Gulf of Mexico. The property is bound to the east and west by neighboring single-family residential developments and to the south by Pelican St. W, across which is a multi -family residential development. The SRS was conducted on March 23, 2018 at approximately 11:00 a.m. Site conditions consisted of clear skies, however, nearby fires casted a thick plume of smoke that choked out a significant amount of sunlight from the area, causing reduced visibility. The ambient air temperature was approximately 70 degrees Fahrenheit and wind speeds averaged approximately 5 to 10 mph out of the North and Northeast. High tide prior to the site visit was achieved at 6:53 am at approximately 1.9 feet above the mean low water mark. The tide was nearing low during the site visit at approximately 1.2 feet above the mean low water mark for the duration of the SRS and the official low tide was achieved at 11:44 am at 1.2 feet above the mean low water mark. The average ambient water temperature was approximately 69 degrees Fahrenheit. 1 Packet Pg. 133 37 Pelican St. W Submerged Resource Survey April 2018 2 Objective The objective of the SRS was to identify and locate any existing submerged resources within 200 feet of the proposed docking facility. Ordinarily, if seagrasses are present within the vicinity of a project area, an analysis will be required regarding species, percent of coverage, and impacts projected by the proposed project. The presence of seagrasses may be ample cause for re -configuration of the design for projects over surface waters in order to minimize impacts. The general scope of work performed during a typical submerged resource survey is summarized below: THA personnel will conduct a site visit and swim a series of transects within the project site in order to verify the location of any submerged resources. THA personnel will identify submerged resources within the vicinity of the site and produce an estimate of the percent coverage of any resources found. THA personnel will delineate the approximate limits of any submerged resources observed via a handheld GPS device. Packet Pg. 134 37 Pelican St. W Submerged Resource Survey April 2018 3 Methodology THA biologists intentionally designed the methodology of the SRS to cover not only the entire property shoreline for the proposed dock installation but also the area within 200 ft. of the proposed site. The components utilized for this survey include: • Review of aerial photography of the surveyed area. Establish survey transect lines (spaced approximately 10 feet apart) overlaid onto aerials. * Physically swim the transects, GPS locate the limits of any submerged resources found, and determine percent coverage within the area. • Document and photograph all findings The surveyed area was evaluated systematically by following the established transect lines throughout the project site as shown on the attached exhibit. Note that the survey area was expanded to a 200 -foot radius surrounding the proposed project in order to verify no other resources were found within the vicinity of the proposed work. Neighboring properties, docking facilities, and other landmarks provided reference markers which assisted in maintaining correct positioning over each transect. During this SRS, two THA staff members walked or swam the transect lines using snorkel equipment while a third remained on the boat taking notes and compiling findings on an aerial of the project site. Ordinarily, if any resources are found, they are photographed, GPS located, delineated, and analyzed for percent coverage within the area via a half meter square quadrant. 3 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 135 37 Pelican St. W Submerged Resource Survey April 2018 4 Results The substrate found within the surveyed area consists of silty sand. This type of substrate covers the entire site. Due to the shoaling found within much of the project area, most of the site is shallow enough to walls and can be seen clearly without utilizing a mask and snorkel. During the survey, several forms of macroalgae were observed growing along the bottom in addition to several large collections of detrital debris. The survey otherwise yielded no findings in the form of submerged resources within the vicinity of the project site location. The shoreline stabilizing the uplands of the site consists of a natural, mangrove habitat. Other neighboring properties have stabilized their shoreline with either vertical seawall, riprap, or both. The proposed project will impact some of the mangroves on-site with the construction of an access walkway. These impacts will be minimized as much as possible by reducing the width of the walkway to approximately 3 feet. 4 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 136 37 Pelican St. W Submerged Resource Survey April 2018 5 Results The submerged resource survey was conducted and completed throughout a 200 -foot radius surrounding the project site and yielded no results. Besides the mangroves present on the shoreline, no benthic invertebrate, seagrasses, or protected species were observed anywhere within the vicinity of the project site. The only living organisms found on-site were several colonies of macroalgae. Accordingly, negative impacts to submerged resources are not expected as a result of the proposed project. 5 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 137 37 Pelican St. W Submerged Resource Survey Apri12018 6 Photos 9.A.1.c M O N r a E M a a a Packet Pg. 138 ST APPROVAL PL20180002498 I 9.A.1.c I M O N ti a E a a T a Packet Pg. 139 C4� Growth Management Depa tment Development Review DlvWm August 28, 2018 COOPER, MITCHEL & KARYN A 37 W PELICAN ST NAPLES, FL 34113 RE: Special Treatment Permit No.PL20180002498 Property ID # 52343000003 Dear Applicant: Your request for a special treatment (ST) development permit for the above referenced property has been administratively approved pursuant to section 4.02.14 and 2.03.07.1) of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The attached site plan identifies site alterations authorized by this permit The following stipulations shall apply: • Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy (CO) all exotic vegetation, as defined in Division 1.08.02 LDC, shall be removed from the property. • Permits or letters of exemption from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be presented prior to issuance of a County building permit. • All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. • Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at Phone: or Sincerely, Die ,Rea*ioa Dtaoe'a " Growth Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, Florida 34104 239-252-2400 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 140 Aws 9.A.1.c moow Packet Pg. 141 °VERLAYAM Y U O 0 w gm O w a w O a J w CL w a F- L) LY m m 9.A.1.c Y U 0 o� w� a� 0 0 U L s i Packet Pg. 142 $ o �4 N ll;Va m pp 0 KmOB� LL a�UC�rKa zZa 7a Z°rc � a SX 7 Ma � 4. -Mt I t2 ia Ev22 g 201g32 ii ��K 0199 IMO 8$� a� IM 4 Z Z a� ■ �Ku IM �?u V00 �rw� f a�2 73 � ¢22$2x[0' ° Whim w K as � ���F OJ��aw ass 1011 _ ' S S Y U O 0 w gm O w a w O a J w CL w a F- L) LY m m 9.A.1.c Y U 0 o� w� a� 0 0 U L s i Packet Pg. 142 9.A.1.d Attachment B October 25, 2018 Collier County Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Re: Petition # VA-PL20180001748 Mitchel and Karyn Cooper (Petitioner) Request for Variance To Whom It May Concern: Please consider the following comments and materials with regard to the above-mentioned petition to be added to the hearing dated November 8, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. We are David and Laura Mikula, owners of Lot #78, Section #32, Two 51 South, Range 26 East, and are neighbors of the petitioners two doors up. (See Attachment # I for map of location of Lots.) We are concerned about the building of a dock by the Petitioner for several reasons: 1. Our lot is situated in the corner of Pompano Bay, the last lot on the street heading West with waterfront view and a legally permitted dock within standard parameters that did not require variance approval. Because Pompano Bay is a natural bay within Rookery Bay National Estuary Reserve, dredging for new dock facilities is not permissible, which would require the Petitioner to situate a dock far out into the bay to reach required minimum depths. It is our concern that the Petitioner's lot #80, which does not have a water view and with minimal access, would be able to build an extensive structure directly behind our house creating a major impact on our waterfront view, and thus our property value which is greatly factored on the view. The value of Lots #80 and #78 as stated on on the Collier County Property Appraiser website shows the great disparity of lot value of Lot#80 without view and minimal access and that of Lot# 78 which has both view and access. (See Collier County Property Appraiser Summary Sheets, Attachment # ). Also see Attachment # 3 A 3 6 photos showing the view from our lot and how a structure built out into the bay would greatly impact the view of Lot #78.) 2. Because of the shallowness of the bay in this corner, access to our boat dock is very limited and we are concerned the petitioner's intended structure would interfere with the use of our dock by hindering the navigability around said structure. (See Attachment # r which shows the low tide condition behind our house and the narrowness of the access.) 3. We are concerned that any structure built from Lot #80 would interfere with our riparian rights as described in the Boundary & Hydrographic Survey done in 2015 which shows our riparian lines based on the legal description of our lot. (See Survey, Attachment #�]. Because this corner of the bay has had previous contentions regarding ownership, use, etc., with neighbors West of Lot 78 which resulted in a lawsuit that involved the Petitioners (Mitchel and Karyn Cooper) and which was won by the previous owners of our Lot # 78 (Paul Hufnagel), attached is the Final Judgement for Case # 02 -1743 -CA that established Lot # 78's legal description to be such: "...All of that land lying NORTH of Lot 78, Isles of Capri, Florida, to the mean high tide line in government Lot 9, Section 32, Township south, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, Together with all riparian rights including all land or lands accrued by accretion or other natural phenomena...." thus establishing the current riparian lines as indicated on the survey (See Judgement, Attachment # Therefore, it is because we wish to preserve the view and value of Lot #78 not only for ourselves as current owner but also as a duty to any future owner of Lot#78; our concern about narrow navigability of the area around the proposed dock; and our concern that our lot's legal descriptioru rian rights not be infringed upon as afforded Lot#78 in the aforementioned judgemenwe are requesting that the above-mentioned petition be DENIED. Sincerely, David Mi Packet Pg. 146 9.A.1.d View Master Pro'ect ViewAlI Activities on this ADO ication Add new person or business to A Planning Application PROJECT: MP20180037150 - 52343000003 (Building) [ELECTRONIC] Planning Project PL20280001748 Application Number _ Type Variance Name Cooper Dock Variance (VA) Location Description Site Area (Acres) New Application (current project) New Application (no project Status Hearing Process - open for Uploal Planner Gilbert Martinez l Jurisdiction Collier County Project Description Cooper dock with variance for reduced riparian setback. Public Notice Summary I Total Estimated Valuation $ 0.00 Is this an EPR Hybrid? No Road District Location (from Portal Application) 37 Pelican St. W / 52343000003 . Perry/GIS attributes; Fire DistrictGreatGreat p Fire Commissioner District # I I Location Entered By Web Registered User Department Expiration Date Date Closed U c Date Entered 05/14/2018 Inspeetar Nc .� L U O 0 - L d O O U M Show More Fields Hide or Clear Field N ti Project Status Date 09/25/2018 ,,,% Electronic Documents E Yes Fire District Number Clear Locations I Add Related Parcels, Addresses and Owners Add Location To link a location to this application, enter location information below. CityView will suggest possible matches as you type: 37 Pelican ST W inary?1 Status_ © Active ...................................... 1`1 ;Active Contacts Add new person or business to Address Book Go to Alerts Add a Contact To link a contact to this application, enter contact information below. CityView will suggest possible matches as you type: COOPER, MITCHEL & KARYN A, Address:37 W PELICAN ST Go I Linkl Type Deacri tion ConbctAlert- I Prima ? Dis play' E ... 1 Property Owner _......_.............................m.......-.............-.....--..-.-- __.._..._._ _ ❑ _ ._. ...........................................I..............._. j......,..,......... » .............................., . Interested Party I' t ... ...... : El ❑ Applicant_ .� M„,.... _...W_�. _., ............ W..,. _ .© ' ❑ .., Engineer -.r� .W_....W ..._..., ,._...� ........- _ ....... ........ .........w,_..._........._... _ ....... .... Packet Pg. 147 {I r Property Summary Parcel No 52343000003 Site 37 PELICAN Site City NAPLES Address ST W Name / Address COOPER, MITCHEL=& KARYN A 37 W PELICAN ST City NAPLES Map No. Strap No. Section 61331 426400 8061331 31 State FL Township Range 51 26 Site Zone 34113 *Note Zip 34113-4021 Acres *Estimated 0.18 Legal ISLES OF CAPRI NO 1 LOT 80 & THAT PORTION LYING ELY OF LOT 80 DESC IN OR 3754 PG 2615 Mage Area O 91 Sub./Condo 426400 - ISLES OF CAPRI UNIT 1 Use Code O 1 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book -Page Amount 06/18/9383'I 7-954 $ 0 03/01/88 1333-1208 $ 30,000 Md1ag ;z0 C-41.rulations School Other Total 5.049 6.3222 11.3712 2018 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value $ 138,600 +) Improved Value $ 165,405 Market Value $ 304,005 -> Save our Home $ 124,766 Assessed Value $ 179,239 -� Homestead $ 25,000 School Taxable Value $ 154,239 t-� Additional Homestead $ 25,000 Taxable Value $ 129,239 If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll m c M .I- M LM 0 0 L d 0. 0 0 v CO) 0 N t.m. �6TIt-i0ti-4:p PLZD1 ?0 01-1 Packet Pg. 148 Property Summary ,9 Parcel No 52342920003 Site 33 PELICAN Address ST W Name / Address MIKULA, DAVID M=& LAURA 33 PELICAN ST W City NAPLES Map No. Strap No. Section 61332 426400 7861332 32 State FL 9.A.1.d Site City NAPLES Site Zone 34113 *Note Township 51 Zip 34113 Range Acres *Estimated 26 0.16 ISLES OF CAPRI NO 1 LOT 78 AND ALL THAT LAND LYING N OF LOT 78 TO THE Legal MHTL (1.50' MSL) IN GL9 SEC 32 TWP51 RNG 26 Millage Area O 91 Sub./Condo 426400 - ISLES OF CAPRI UNIT 1 Use Code O 1 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book -Page Amount 10/19/15 5208-1495 $ 875,000 05/12/15 5157-611 $ 0 02/01/13 4894-2119 $ 0 01/09/04 3481-2179 $ 0 06/06/91 1622-524 $ 0 03/01/89 1425-133 $ 60,000 06/01/84 1083-862 $ 32,000 07/01/77 697-968 $ 0 Millage Rates O "Caicvlati4ns School Other Total 5.049 6.3222 11.3712 2018 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value $ 496,895 M Improved Value $ 317,110 Market Value $ 814,005 -j Save our Home $ 65,561 Assessed Value $ 748,444 c-) Homestead $ 25,000 t=) School Taxable Value $ 723,444 -j Additional Homestead $ 25,000 Taxable Value $ 698,444 If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll m U c �L V 0 0 L d a 0 0 U M 0 N PL, Z 0) 8 (5U0 17 If Packet Pg. 149 9.A.1.d A -�-6ckmw� it—g- 5_4 a Idi acc�s� +G I-c>T 7 s rvn�IEd (Yv�aC�e �GCu � i15� h�/ l�-o)�( 4v G� UGL. m c c� �L m 0 L d 0 0 V CO) O N ti .4 AQVrU,K('MA7, I0CIdlo-I1 0� PeWlCM<-r'S dank- hosed pit A-�rcrrly` 'ode he( '9th P ? n I -,?0 -7 49-) Packet Pg. 150 N 14 +fv6rme f� .r—w— 2 9.A.1.d IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAUL A. HUFNAGEL Plaintiff, V. RAFAEL F. PUENTE and IDALIA PUENTE, his wife, and MPTCHEL COOPER and KARYN A. COOPER, husband and wife, and SCOTT K. HUEGEL and CARLENE HUEGEL, husband and wife, and FIELDVIEW, LLC, a Wisconsin Limited Liability Company JAMES A. HUGHES, JR. and ELEANOR D. HUGHES his wife, and HARRY R. WOOD, III and JULIE E. X01 husband and wife, tiV JAMES T. EASTMAN and DA STMAN, husband and wife, and WILBERT J. REGNET and B husband and wife � n Defendants. FINAL G THIS CAUSE was tried the Court sitting dh � The Court received 12 CIVIL ACTION CASE NO. 02 -1743 -CA a jury on June 28, 20C both the Plaintiffs and t Defendants' documents in evidence, listened to the oral argument of counsel and the Coi wishes to compliment both Counsels on their professional presentation of evidence a reviewed the Memoranda of Law submitted by counsel. Having reviewed all the evident the Court makes the following findings of fact: 1. This case involves an action to quiet title to the following described real property Collier County, Florida, to wit: Lot 78, Isles of Capri, No. 1, in accordance with an subject to .. the plat recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 41, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and Y V All of that land lying NORTH of Lot 78, Isles of Capri, No. 1, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 41, Official Records of Pe 4= 4;or W P 1_ Zol -Anno 17a 9, Packet Pg. 151 9.A.1.d Collier County, Florida, to the mean high tide line (1.50' MSL) in government Lot 9, Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Together with all riparian rights including all land or lands accrued by accretion or other natural phenomena 2. Defendants, RAFAEL F. PUENTE and IDALIA PUENTE, his wife, requested trial de novo following arbitration. Plaintiff, PAUL A. HUFNAGEL, an Defendants, RAFAEL F. PUENTE and IDALIA PUENTE, his wife, are the only remaining parties to this action to quiet title. 3. Plaintiff deraigns tide for a period in excess of seven (7) years prior to the filing i the Complaint in this action to quiet title setting forth the book and page of d records where each of the insu ments affecting the title is recorded. 4. The evidence of deeds or with clearness, accuracy and certain the validity of PWnti rty described above. 5. Defendants', and ID A UENTE, his wife, are not d rightful owners f 1 n e plat d 1 t of Lot 79, Isles of Capri N 1. Such land i pri a Whi f conveyances was conveys to Plaintiff, A Based on the findings of fact, . \11u� ORDERED AND AD D 1, The Court finds Plaintiff, P HUFNAGEL, and against t Defendants, RAFAEL PUENTE, his wife, on Plaintifi action for quiet title. 2. Pursuant to Section 65.061(2), Florida Statutes, Defendants are not the rights owners of the property lying outside the platted lot of Lot 79, Isles of Capri No. including a portion of the land lying North of Lot 78, Isles of Capri No. 1, of whi the Defendants have asserted a claim which casts a cloud on the title of Plainti PAUL A. HUFNAGEL, the rightful owner to the land lying North of Lot 78, Is] of Capri No. 1. 3. The title of Plaintiff, PAUL A. HUFNAGEL, to the following described n property in Collier County, Florida, Lot 78, Isles of Capri, No. 1, in accordance w: an subject to the plat recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 41, Public Records of Coll, County, Florida, and All of that land lying NORTH of Lot 78, Isles of Capri, No. as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 41, Official Records of Collier County, Florida, the mean high tide line (1.50' MSL) in government Lot 9, Section 32, Township South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Packet Pg. 152 9.A.1.d _.. VAt JOUJ EV• (.'il Together with all riparian rights including all land or lands accrued by accretion or other natural phenomena is a good title superior to the claims or purported claims of Defendants and all other parties claiming by, through, under, or against Defendants and these claims or purported claims are cancelled, and the title to the property is forever quieted in the Plaintiff. 4. The Court reserves Jurisdiction to award Court costs and Attorneys fees. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Naples, Collier County, Florida, this d,, of CA -1-L j U fit, 2005. alwAz�� Honor ble Daniel R. Monaco Circuit Court Judge Conformed copies to: William G. Morris, Esquire P.O. Box 2056 Marco Island, FL 34146 Raymond L. Bass, Jr., Esquire Bass & Chernoff The Moorings Professional B 2335 Tatnianri Trail North, S Naples, FL, 34103-4459 .Ap, co% Ald o� Esquire Center a� U c 0 0 a� CL 0 0 U M 0 N Packet Pg. 153 A H-06hme4I -9 S(, e-v'cv (Zo►S ) 1W UP' BUUNIJAKY & HYDROCTRAPIX SURVEY OF LOT 74 NZ OF CAPRI UMT NO 1 LYING Al SF.MON 3Z TOWNSHIP 51 SOUM RANGE 26 FAST COLLIER COUNTY, .FLORIDA LEGEND • - iw.o v6' A9KK N0 ar - 7r u ANI' Q • /e1/O yr i= - W mvprpl yi -rove v+'a.-- -W,,r iVl - IBO WAMM 00 rv�AMM I — SURVEYOR'S NOTES 1. BrAWW VOW PERM ARE 1"T LKSW TFC MWW L99 W Pa�CW SFRM A $'tR Or SW41VOV N DOW DW THE PW P' RECM x. Na lanx"MAU wwd:lmrrs DR FDdY6ugNs om 1DCA7a LayxR 114 SM:'E cr rw rAv+rr: 5 nRs PMGL tXs rK rEDDD 201E �' AS Alolar oR iPr nuc 7+saRAar� purr• 1pP port] rro7rcDl7611, am YIr UL 20111. na HLPCFL ws A BISE Fim rimroN OF 3o' {NAra I" + IpIImANT 1 mq V6" L&R47A4 15 SLIM Lane FIi A50= P(Ar A'$7 arAt DLCA1pIgN /�RNT a. Aa WA" Or n¢ ROX A-00 WAS PCWMO Or iHO slPhmA. PIEW wr m OR$R SFl9l•A'S Afq/ iAYmaArS Wr mUmpi FD pj1 gq/1rW S R8 MUI ABDRf55 S M s JrM 8.4K��F xww nasal .N4 +.3 0. W%UK Nt WMW TUM ARE L m r� WRrH rrnndL a?Lw Orsera (alo r, ! cltwlr+ols uat SISf➢ wuv its m n� ISnarx nrrAsr4Grt cr FAVATt4G7101V AW eaLV sawlr laic -W on�nURc [RTA C_r4W appnaowv sn`7tL [CPS) RTMW wrwo sL 7. ")WM KKT[R AND MEAN LOW WIS ELEK11M SHORN WaN ARE allM UPW TAE amew or Dat 01nw TROY TWL SIAMN 872-4991. a PER RECOLS7 WM ALJ 1EDAr. 9MWFMk5 RE;-= FGF m Sv&1ELT LOT 78AMOMW AMM M Am WA i t WT -' MSSRo DIrtR A AdPfYINTor Mr915E0 IA°aR RECUrE77T IF.1N !8^J7 tGrLR ldd ! OG ADN. 7NF $7' KItLr RYAIrW ACCL4 N AiONM h EM 3W LPRY A 9T M POgYMIFO Or A TRW A AZTES AND ftLV ¢D W aE SWAW OMfAS tor G 77 IN WMAL ALD30 BW 31 T9, PNCE 1AW W45 *PA7dR1' CPF.= Br A FRDWXS COUR JLWAiDFT HSSCD LW RIC LOPLrtBN DF RE " F6GL &M LIE AS TER A 9m4T s:im F4RrL4AA•D BY 1rD8['F KtXWK TW COLO AOY1r Nr AS RF07mTD M oFn= bX.Y 386,5, PAC£ iAer CMFNW RE U -W Dry AS SKW SUM AS BHT• TME [DOPFCr DFseRr'p7bv. ----1 a, nt s.uun PAR;t 90rF KD1AN Pw.,*ha air r., AN rrA I1Mr ILE IriAAO 004715 OF iW15 7a AvGItK1 Lor - tLU• NAy(A iR1E Cow T0. DE CSEO .RtCravr, N aRRl/L 7ELaROS Dow 2+22. PAC{ .7117 APPrARS f0 RTC. ALt CLA615 Rr fH $7A1E � RA701 TO TLtSE SLB 4W= LAND. arm PTU PaZWV AEMMIA ; Th r>E AgY,IYJY Ri4-] DIMERS, LEGAL DESCRIPTION EDT RL SUS Or DWI] tWr w T, AOCMM TO RAC PIAT ThC#5W REDDRL9� M Prat RoaS � pAa' r, Dr nE Pt9rx RECavDS ar CALLE7 rpsm 7ELnax i17GEq�1 KRn Trrur Lura lntl N[ARr [tr sw LD1 78 Lo RLC LiAN rd}r MArfR fArS A5 w GFSK•.µ REm�s nmr SiS7, pA'.£ SL 1, 117- L. L- t+- n 1 -2 ., 1 v r% ^ t-, , A /J. 7W Lor ec LDr r2 a LCT 78 liTj1 xx IP] 1rMraWv IOLI' a7 Ser r101 r`3Y R% rYf r/Tle'y1 9lT Drj 9.A.1.d la.n• LOT 77 Z Ia k Lor 76 see ede+u' I ne,e f - pace A Packet Pg. 154 i-�9 d i GRAPHIC SCAE.E he tix rnT p 1 1.h . SG (L K L Q IFMA? 1AY p °o fill ll M 0 N f` ~ ` V MOTH or WTO WY1 wY 1 !! F m TOTAL Lem or 57AMam, a4.5t, la.n• LOT 77 Z Ia k Lor 76 see ede+u' I ne,e f - pace A Packet Pg. 154 D e7vA i L- A -MA C�i M t�*J l 5 I -�QS5 1dAn>0 AREA 6 A POSE 1VEfdAF pF INYANO AND R191RM MOM (RING SEE suvoEYORS NOTE NO 6 WM IIM7I WATER LIE 1 CN an -t).+1' Am IV) .. AS LOPATED O8/!O/13 )F THIS &APPROU97E MEAN MW WATER LIE AS SHMW L�''�' ON A SNRVEY BY HOMAGE KMON DATED 09/25/89 IP CORNER OF CONCRETE WAIL 8.0, is 0.75' ww of PROFfRn' m EYOff OF EM THE AN T MEAN NA ' LOT COURT D ;IAL BEING ?S OF ;ORDS ESE LOT 80 T maim 4 7T A, Vr YFAN PER I POWANO BAY MEAN TAIV SUER — a- -1.6J (MM M) "SEE SURVEM NOTE NO. 6" 20' RIPARIAN ACCESS PER FRTOIT sow OF LOT 70 AS RMWOEO W OFRCAL RE'COM 8001[ 5119 11 AAIX 1850 9.A.1.d d V C EIEU WN I •L MmQ > NO 9 — - Y AS R EXW1M ON My I, I97A V IrroLIIV PAGE 1727 O 0 L 1 I I I I I0.6' .01 589'19'00"E 60.00' (P} --- - "A1°� 1°� - L5 S89'28'32 E 60.35' (P) S89'20'26 -E 59.97' (M) POOL ° . S89'28'32'E 60.35' (M) FACE OF CONCRE1F WW. REM AND GAP IS Or•F'gf S69' RUNS ALONG PROPERTY LANE OECR - r•J ' . FROM PROF'FRIY GORIER AND IS -+ . • ' . 7HO FLOGiI SALCIavI: 02' YA17 OF CALCLIATED PROPEAIY LASE 7.5' 18.1' - TiOOR ETfrt-+,r {NAw va} a - •?T,/ 000, �iui LOT 79ui '- ui 4 CORNER OF W41 15 0.1EAS! 7's ! .6� � d � : f In OF PROPERLY LVE O O ■o Z Z 0 7! Z Z '• • 7Lt5' LOT 78 N89' 19'00'W 70.00' (P) N89' 19'00 "W 60.00' (P) S89 -19'001I -E600' (P) . N89' 1655-W 69.98' (M) N89' 18'49 "W 59.97' (M) ---589'19'44-E 6 .05'-(M)'.. 589'19'00 E. 250.00' (P) } S89'19'00'E 249.95' (M) BEARING BASIS' r PAVED ; LOT 77 S89' 19'00'E 60.00' (P) S89'20'53'E 59.95' (M) 10 O O U ch O N FALE OF COYVORETE SEWU m MEW IOCN (INTER LEE a -a ++ WEAN LOW WATER TAE a=-1 a TOP OF WAWU CAP EL -21.1 Q) E t V Q V ��- o L 1 CN � .. c LOT 76 o !Z to d z o U Packet Pg. 155 A L -+-m .vs � L U Location Map e h #O)n N S po-` 9.A.1.d Petition Number:. PL20180001748 Zoning Map his i\V,v apas shy ii -w- e.0 ry y) j LayA cis 1s now moarkjeraves Packet Pg. 156 9.A.1.d V I VV LOT -P7 ►7 Packet Pg. 157 �r• '�41 � ~� •e n k 4 f tt - II va I/ Y4 �r• '�41 � ~� •e n k 4 f tt - II ;V�;� as Sincerely, a �L MartinezGilbert M Gil Martinez Principal Planner o 239-252-4211 From: MartinezGilbert Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 11:22 AM To: 'jhooley@napiesatty.com' Cc: SmithCamden; BellowsRay Subject: PL20180001018 Attachments: Attachment A.pdf; Attachment B.pdf, Staff Report.pdf Mr. Hooley, per your request, please find the attached staff report and back up materials. 1 Packet Pg. 159 as Sincerely, a �L M Gil Martinez Principal Planner o 239-252-4211 as 0. 0 0 0 C�ol epr coumtyM o T c CI) Growth Management Division E Exceeding Expectations, Every Day! v R NOTE: Emall Address Has Changed Q 2800 Horseshoe Dr. N v Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-4211 1 Packet Pg. 159 MartinezGilbert From: John Hooley <jhooley@naplesatty.com> Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 3:07 PM To: MartinezGilbert Cc: Diane Alderuccio Subject: RE: PL20180001018 Attachments: STORMWATER UTILITY ANALYSIS.pdf Mr. Martinez: Thanks for forwarding the materials. I really appreciate your help. Here is my evaluation of the proposal to charge all improved property owners a utility fee for storm water management. Let me know what you think. Thank you again. jo- h j. Jfool 1j, -f. D f C.S. til.tttindalc-I(ubtx�ll' ��tit�rr� NGLUMt n T. • • • ® 1` r rJ'grr t � x+`� • The Law Offices of John F. Hooley, P.A. 851 Fifth Avenue North, Suite 303 Naples, Florida 34102 Tel: (239) 234-2520 Fax: (239) 234-2521 The pages comprising this email transmission contain confidential information. This information is intended solely for use by the individual entity named as the recipient thereof. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any discfosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately. Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be used , to (1) avoid pan afties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice. From: MartinezGilbert [mailto:Gilbert.Martinez@colliercountyfl.gov) Sent: Thursday, November 1, 201810:23 AM To: John Hooley <jhoo ley@ na plesatty.com> Cc: SmithCamden <Camden.Smith@colliercountyfl.gov>; BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: PL20180001018 Mr. Hooley, per your request, please find the attached staff report and back up materials. 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 160 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACTS + FACTS AND HISTORY have lived in Naples since 1977. We had several events that caused flooding, including the No Name Storm, hurricanes Andrew, Wilma, Irma and most recently tropical storm Gordon. The County has an obligation to manage stormwater. The financial component of stormwater is in the transportation budget. This is because stormwater management primarily affects road flooding. Stormwater management is based on swales, ditches, canals, and drainage areas adjacent to roadways. 0 0 The County now wants to raise 18 million dollars and tell you that stormwater management is a utility service to your individual developed properties. This is o deceptive. The issue with flooding primarily affects our roads and streets. L) M The Stantec Report (p.18) explains how we arrived in this situation: ti In 2004, the Board of County Commissioner's approved a Stormwater Management Funding Policy which dedicated 0.15 mils of ad valorem solely to the funding of stormwater capital improvement projects. However, during the economic downturn following 2008, the funding levels were redefined by a resolution that would allow the County to fund "up to 0.15 mils per year." As a result of this change in the funding policy, the level of funding for stormwater management in the County in subsequent years ended up being significantly reduced. The County recognized that it needed $13 million/year for Stormwater Management. Instead of fully funding this important component of our community, they cut $7 million from the allocation for the last 7 years: Figure 3.1 - Historical Ad Valorem Funding for Stormwater Management $14 $12 $10 z0 $8 g $6 $4 $2 $0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 FISCAL YEAR Page 1 of 10 Packet Pg. 161 In fact the County reduced funding from 2017 — 2018 for stormwater management by over $1,700,000.00 as shown at page 60 of the 2018 Adopted Budget Summary: Summary of Budget by Fund FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 16117 FY 17118 1,627,000 4,268,000 2,000,000 4,268,000 1,000,000 Fund Adopted Adopted Budget Fund Title No. Budget Budget Change Storr•,�:atei Operations 1 (324) 1 926,800 I 42,000 Stcrr'::,3ter Capital Im�pro%sm-ent Projects (325) I 6,952,800 6,075,300 -95.47% -12.62% These two line items total $6,117,400. This figure should be increased by adding funding allocated by the County found on table 3.10 at the Stantec Report page 22: Table 3.10 - Revenue Projections Expenditure Type by Fund FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 General Fund (001) Incorporated General Fund (111) Unincorporated Big Cypress Basin 1,627,000 4,268,000 2,000,000 4,268,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 4,268,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 4,268,000 1,000,000 4,268,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Interest/Miscellaneous Gas Taxes (Road Maintenance) BP/Restore Act 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 870,000 870,000 870,000 870,000 1,000,000 870,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Total Annual Revenues $7,815,000 $8,688,000 $9,188,000 $9,188,000 $9,188,000 Table 3.10 uses only annual revenue from the general fund under items 111 and 001 to come up with the $7.8 million dollars. The 2018 Adopted Budget amounts on lines 324 and 325 should be added to that figure resulting in $13,932,300.00 that should be available for stormwater management. You should note in the summary of the Adopted Budget 2018, the County reduced the Stormwater Operations budget by 95%. The County paid $926,800 for Stormwater Operations in 2016-2017 and reduced it to $42,000.00. The County's allocation of $42,000.00 will not even pay for two employees with shovels and a pickup Page 2 of 10 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 162 truck to maintain swales and ditches. The County also took almost a million dollars out of Stormwater Capital Improvement Projects. The County needs to return to the funding levels of 2008 and 2009 to fulfill its obligation to the citizens and taxpayers of Collier County. UTILITY SCHEME The County proposes this scheme to raise over $18 million as new money instead of applying the present funding to meet an $18 million target. By raising $18 million with this fee, the County releases $13,832,300.00 to itself. The County takes this money and spends it elsewhere. So what does the County intend to use the money for? The Stantec Report at page 25 says the County needs 8 vacuum trucks, 15 dump trucks, 5 excavators, and some additional equipment. The capital cost of this equipment is 8 million dollars: Table 4.2 - Stormwater Maintenance Enhanced Level of Service Storm Sewer Vacuuming 8 Maintenance, Curb Inlet Cleaning 16 8 Equipment $664,000 8 Vac Trucks $4,160,000 Operators Catch Basin Cleaning 5 Heavy Equipment Operators, 5 15 Dump Roadside Swale 40 Crew Leaders, $1,765,000 Trucks, 5 $3,125,000 Cleaning 15 Maintenance, Excavators 10 Equipment Operators $45,000 Street Sweeping 1 1 Equipment Operator Alternative Outfall Ditches 1 3 Heavy Excavator, Long 3 Equipment $168,000 Reach $1,020,000 Secondary System Operators Excavator, Bull 60 sweeper that is currently not Dozer Total $2,642,000 $8,305,000 `The County has a street utilized and therefore just additional staffing is required to enhance level of service. Page 3 of 10 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 163 This is a non-recurring charge. We buy this equipment. We don't have to buy it every year. There is no annual component for the purchase of this equipment. Naturally, we are going to have to pay people to operate the equipment. The staffing estimate is $2.6 million. If the County replaced the $1.7 million that they took out of the Stormwater Operation and Stormwater Projects Capital and Improvements in 2018, there would be a shortfall of less than $1 million. If they returned to funding levels in place 10 years ago, the County would have unrestricted use of over $14 million to apply to Stormwater Management. This is more than enough money to cover the salaries of the people to operate the equipment, and buy the equipment outright. The County wants to create a new funding source for $18 million every year not linked to your taxes. This results in a new bureaucratic organization to assess collect, supervise and generate reports that are clearly not needed at this point. The Stantec report on page 48 has table 7.1 Stormwater Cost of Service: Table 7.1 - Stormwater Cost of Service Function Annual Cost* % of Total Type of Expenditure Customer Service / Admin 500,000 2.21% 1.20% System -Wide System -Wide Regulatory / Water Quality 300,000 Engineering / System Planning Pipes / Inlets / Catch Basins - O&M Swales - O&M Streets - O&M 1,200,000 5.72% System -Wide 1,900,000 8.59% Local 3,100,000 14.32% Local 200,000 0.76% Local Canals - O&M 1,200,000 5.53% Backbone Outfall Ditches/Secondary - O&M 900,000 3.93% Backbone Capital Total 12,500,000 57.74% Backbone $21,800,000 100.00% *Full annual costs, not including annual $1 million from Big Cypress Basin This table is inappropriately labeled "Stormwater Cost of Service" because it contains a Capital Projects component. The Capital Project charge is $12,500,000.00. Without that component, the annual cost of service for the stormwater is $9,300,000.00 Which does not include an additional $1 million being paid by the Big Cypress Basin. As you can see on table 3.6, the budgeted revenues are $8,299,200: Page 4 of 10 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 164 Table 3.6 - Total Historical and Budqeted Revenue Stormwater Revenues General Fund (001) Incorporated 4,939,343 4,843,790 1,776,764 2,752,000 f 1,865,800 General Fund (111) Unincorporated 1,300,000 1,000,000 1,050,000 1 4,011,800 4,172,000 4,267,900 Big Cypress Basin 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 I nterest/Miscellaneous 70,512 Gas Taxes (Road Maintenance) 858,600 Carry Forward 100,600 Total Annual Revenues $8,269,055 148,966 127,389 121,700 153,100 870,300 871,100 871,500 870,000' 122,800 64,900 267,400 143,500 $8,035,856 $7,851,953 $9,184,600 $8,299,200 "Table assumes backfill from road maintenance in FY 2018 budget This shows that the amount needed to meet the projected cost of service is just over $1 million. There is no reason for the County to be charging improved property owners $18 million every year for stormwater management. Finally, the report deals with levels of service and claims some arbitrary industry standard level of service that is greatly increased from what we currently have: Ta61e d_1 - Stormwater Infrastructure Maintsananr_R C:urrornt a -vel ref RPrvi-- Maintenance Activity Current Sti!ffffiritg (FTE's) Current Level of Service Typical Industry Standard Storm Sewer Vacuuming 26.7 Year Cycle 24.7 Year Cycle 5 to 10 Year Cycle 4 to 5 Year Cycle Curb Inlet Cleaning 4 Catch Basin Cleaning 37.2 Year Cycle 4 to 5 Year Cycle Hydro Dynamic Units Cleaning 1 Year Cycle Current Level Appropriate Roadside Swale Cleaning 14 56.5 Year Cycle 10 to 15 Year Cycle 2 Week cycle for all 30 Day cycle for all Street Sweeping 3 streets, 2 week cycle for high volume primary streets Contract Spraying - Inspected Monthly, Spray Current Level A Appropriate as Required Contract Mowing _ 2 Week cycle and 20 day Current Level Appropriate cycle Tree/Vegetation Removal - As Required Current Level Appropriate Outfall Ditches / Secondary 3 Defined 1, 5 and 10 year System digging cycle Pump, Equipment and4 Programmed Current Level Appropriate Structure Maintenance Maintenance The services are stormwater vacuuming, curb inlets cleaning, catch basin cleaning and roadside swale cleaning. If this is read in conjunction with table 4.2, it would seem that once the County gets its 8 vacuum trucks, 15 dump trucks, 5 Page 5 of 10 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 165 excavators and additional equipment for $8 million and has funding to pay the operators for 2.6 million dollars, those levels of service may be easily achieved. For the last 7 years the County has underfunded Stormwater Management by over $7 million each year. This means that $49 million has been taken from Stormwater Management. Now the Commissioners want you to pay for a stormwater management system that they failed to fund for 7 years. Stormwater management should be a priority with the County. Funds allocated to stormwater management should not be siphoned off to other pet projects like affordable housing initiatives, beautification, business development and other programs. In addition to not taking responsibly for the entire situation, the County and the Commission are planning to charge you an annual fee of $18 million to extend into the foreseeable future. NOT FAIR AND NOT REALITY BASED How does the County intend to sell this to you? They claim it is a utility. No one believes it's a utility. We all understand that we pay our water, sewer, electric and cable on a monthly basis because these are services delivered directly to our homes and businesses. For the County to claim that they are providing a service to homes and businesses based on stormwater runoff generated by impervious surfaces is false and deceptive. This is an excuse to make us feel like we should pay more money to the County. Resolution No. 2018-71 is the County's definition of Stormwater: (0) If rainfall were applied at a constant rate to an Impervious Area, the Stormwater runoff from such Impervious Area would eventually reach a rate equal to the rate of the rainfall. It is thus fair and reasonable to include 100% of the Impervious Area in determining such property's Stormwater contribution to the Stormwater Management Services. We all live in Collier County. We have hurricanes. Stormwater only happens when Collier County is hit by a significant rain event. The runoff is not generated by normal summer afternoon storms. We know at some point if continuous rain falls on our property, the amount of water falling on the property will equal the amount of water running off the property. This occurs when the underlying property becomes saturated. It doesn't matter if it's impervious or not. All property in Collier County generates this runoff. Page 6of10 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 166 The scheme to generate money exempts some properties from this calculation. All Collier County Public School property is exempt. All County owned property, vacant land and agricultural land is exempt. We know that all of these properties generate storm water runoff, yet none contribute to pay the "utility fee". The Stantec Report states that your property will be "Benefited Property". Your property will not be benefited by anything other than having passable roads after unusual and significant rainstorm events. The Notice to Property Owner implies that the US Environmental Protection Agency Natural Pollution Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Permitting Program as implemented by the FDEP mandates a dedicated funding source. That is not true. Only the County mandates a dedicated funding source. The Environmental Protection Agency does not want contaminated water discharged into the Gulf of Mexico. The largest contributor to contaminated discharge is agricultural property with pesticide, fungicide and fertilizer in stormwater runoff. Yet agricultural properties bear none of the expense in the scheme to create a separate fee. This is fundamentally unfair to everyone for the following reasons: a. Your property is not individually benefited as a result of the fee. b. The County is not charging anything to agricultural property, governmental property or vacant land. c. Agricultural land constitutes a significant portion of Collier County. d. Many properties have virtually no stormwater runoff, yet the County intends to charge them the fee with only a minor reduction. Many communities were required to form Community Development Districts to address issues of capital infrastructure and maintenance for stormwater management. The residents in these CDD's have already been taxed for both infrastructure and stormwater maintenance within their communities. Those communities retain stormwater in preserve areas and retention lakes. Absent a major hurricane, there will never be stormwater runoff. These communities have less impact on stormwater management system than vacant land. The County still wants to charge most of the fee to every member of the community and commercial property within that community. This substantiates the fact that this is an imaginary rationale for charging fees to property owners. The County does have some capital projects. These capital projects benefit certain areas of the County. The residents in areas benefited by capital projects need to have a special assessment. This will put them in the same situation as homeowners Page 7 of 10 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 167 in Community Development Districts. The assessments will be directly related to the impact their properties have on the stormwater management system. THE FUTURE The County agreed to postpone this until next year. The County reduced the Stormwater Utility Operations budget from $926,000 last year to $42,000 this year. They further reduced this amount to only $10,200 in the 2019 proposed budget because "Major funding source is User Fees": SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM JUNE WORKSHOP TO THE FY 2019 TENTATIVE BUDGET SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM JUNE WORKSHOP NET CHANGE TO FUND-ri-i-LEI(NUMBERt FUND TOTAL EXPLANATION Stormwater Utility Operations $ (1,630,000) On the revenue side, the transfer from the Stormwater Capital Fund 325 (103) decreased by $1,630,000. On the expense side, Capital Outlay decreased by Major funding source is User Fees S 1,630,000 as the expanded (new) vehicles planned for FY 19 were relocated to the Motor Pool Capital Fund 523 The same thing occurred regarding Stormwater Capital Improvement Projects: SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM JUNE WORKSHOP Page 8 of 10 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 168 TO THE FY 2019 TENTATIVE BUDGET SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM JUNE WORKSHOP NET CHANGE TO FUND-17TLE((NUNIBEIi) FUND TOTAL EXPLANATION Stormwater Capital (325) $ - On the expense side, the transfer to the Stormwater Operations Fund (103) was Major funding source is User Fees. decreased by $1,630,000 and the transfer to Motor Pool Capital Recovery Fund (523) increased by the like amount. This adjustment was needed when the vehicles were relocated from the Stormwater Ops Fund (103) to the Motor Pool Fund (523). Page 8 of 10 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 168 Collier County, Florida Fiscal Year 2018/2019 Summary of Budget by Fund i I FY 17/18 I FY 18/19 I % Fund Adopted Tentative Budget Fund Title No. Budqet Budqet Chance Capital Projects Funds Stormwater Operations (324) 42,000 Stormwater Capital Improvement Projects (325) 6,075,300 To summarize: Stormwater Operations 2016-2017 Budget $ 926,000. 2017-2018 Budget $ 42,000. Proposed 2018-2019 Budget $ 10,200. Stormwater Capital Improvement Projects 10,200 20,126,500 2016-2017 Budget $ 6,952,800. 2017-2018 Budget $ 6,075,300. Proposed 2018-2019 Budget $ 20,126,500. -75.71% 231.28% The increase from $6 million to $20 million is based on charging the utility fee of $18 million. Since this was not passed by the County Commission, the Capital Projects Component will remain unfunded. The trend is clearly to take money from stormwater management both in maintenance and capital projects. Assuming that the County minimally funds stormwater in 2019, they will present us with a crisis situation next year that they created. They will again ask us to charge ourselves user fees to make up for the problem county staff caused by failing to maintain the system. Page 9 of 10 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 169 CONCLUSION The only viable and fair way to address stormwater issues is to return to the 2008 and 2009 funding levels as shown in Figure 3.1 of the Stantec Report: Figure 3.1 - Historical Ad Valorem Funding for Stormwater Management $14 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 FISCAL YEAR 2014 2015 2016 2017 There is no reason why the County cannot return to the level of stormwater funding it maintained in 2008 and 2009. This is a problem with a clear and historic solution. Please contact your commissioners and explain that stormwater management is important. It needs to be funded out of general revenues because it affects and benfits all residents of Collier County by having stormwater draining quickly and efficiently from the roads and highways. Please explain to them that this is not some benefit that is conferred only to the owners of improved property. This is a primary responsibly of county government and not a utility to be paid for by owners of improved property. jo,n,r:.9%okY,, J. D. B.C.S. The Law Offices of John F. Hooley, P.A. 851 Fifth Avenue North, Suite 303 Naples, Florida 34102 Tel: (239) 234.2520 Fax: (239) 234.2521 Page 10 of 10 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 170 9.A.1.d Martinez0bert From: MartinezGilbert Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 2:53 PM To: 'cevgs5@yahoo.com' Cc: BelfowsRay; SmithCamden Subject: Cooper Dock Boat Dock Extension PL201 80001018; Variance PL20180001748 Attachments: Attachment A.pdf, Attachment B.pdf, Staff Report.pdf; Attachment A.pdf; Attachment B.pdf; Staff Report.pdf Hi David, per your request, please find the attached staff report and back up materials. Sincerely, Gil Martinez Principal Planner 239-252-4211 County Growth Management Division Exceeding Expectations, Every Day! NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2800 Horseshoe Dr. N Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-4211 Packet Pg. 171 MartinezGilbert �Ti�<< .4 ei►r r � vv From: David Swinehart <cevgs5@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, November 2, 2018 8:07 AM To: MartinezGilbert Subject: Re: Cooper Dock Boat Dock Extension PL20180001 018; Variance PL20180001748 Gill, Thanks for your help. Dave 0 On Thursday, November 1, 2018, 2:57:55 PM EDT, MartinezGilbert <Gilbert.Martinez@colliercountyfl.gov> wrote: M .I- M LM Hi David, per your request, please find the attached staff report and back up materials. o L d O O V Sincerely, 0 N ti Gil Martinez Principal Planner 239-252-4211 Growth Management Division Exceeding Expectations, Every Day! NOTE. Email Address Has Changed 1 Packet Pg. 172 MartinezGilbert From: MartinezGilbert Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 10:21 AM To: MartinezGilbert Cc: BellowsRay Subject: NOTE TO SELF, FOR THE RECORD: Cooper Dock Neighbor's Concerns 9.A.1.d On October 25, 2018, 1 received a phone call from MARY BETH SCHNELLER property owner at 39 Pelican Street West. Mrs. Schneller expressed her concerns and objection regarding the proposed dock extension. Gil Martinez Principal Planner 239-252-4211 co, �9-87 County Growth Management Division Exceeding Expectations, Every Day! NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2800 Horseshoe Dr. N Naples, Fl. 34104 Phone: 239-252-4211 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. Packet Pg. 173 9.A.1.d MartinezGilbert From: MartinezGilbert Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 11:22 AM To: 'jhooley@naplesatty.com' Cc: SmithCamden; BellowsRay Subject: PL20180001018 ' Attachments: Attachment A.pdf; Attachment B.pdf; Staff Report.pdf Mr. Hooley, per your request, please find the attached staff report and back up materials. 0 U c Sincerely, 1 Packet Pg. 174 M Gil Martinez U Principal Planner 0 o 239-252-4211 L a 0 0 � U county ty N C N Growth Management Division E t Exceeding Expectations, Every Day! U ca NOTE: Ematt Address Has Changed Q 2800 Horseshoe Dr. N 2 Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-4211 a. 1 Packet Pg. 174 MartinezGilbert From: John Hooley <jhooley@naplesatty.com> Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 3:07 PM To: MartinezGilbert Cc: Diane Alderuccio Subject: RE: PL20180001018 Attachments: STORMWATER UTILITY ANALYSIS.pdf Mr. Martinez: Thanks for forwarding the materials. I really appreciate your help. Here is my evaluation of the proposal to charge all improved property owners a utility fee for storm water management. Let me know what you think. Thank you again. B. C.S. ManindalNHul>tiell' oRit,� ■ t r' W PM Rated fa wt - 4r rr 2017 - of Pro'cssorsal Extrilcr+cc The Law Offices of John F. Hooley, P.A. 851 Fifth Avenue North, Suite 303 Naples, Florida 34102 Tel: (239) 234-2520 Fax: (239) 234.2521 The pages comprising this email transmission contain confidential information. This Information is intended solely for use by the individual entity named as the recipient thereof. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately. Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be used , to (1) avoid penatties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice. From: MartinezGilbert [mailto:Gilbert.Martinez@colliercountyfl.gov] Sent: Thursday, November 1, 201810:23 AM To: John Hooley <jhooley@naplesatty.com> Cc: SmithCamden <Camden.Smith@colliercountyfl.gov>; BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: PL20180001018 Mr. Hooley, per your request, please find the attached staff report and back up materials. 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 175 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACTS FACTS AND HISTORY I have lived in Naples since 1977. We had several events that caused flooding, including the No Name Storm, hurricanes Andrew, Wilma, Irma and most recently tropical storm Gordon. The County has an obligation to manage stormwater. The financial component of stormwater is in the transportation budget. This is because stormwater management primarily affects road flooding. Stormwater management is based on swales, ditches, canals, and drainage areas adjacent to roadways. The County now wants to raise 18 million dollars and tell you that stormwater management is a utility service to your individual developed properties. This is deceptive. The issue with flooding primarily affects our roads and streets. The Stantec Report (p.18) explains how we arrived in this situation: In 2004, the Board of County Commissioner's approved a Stormwater Management Funding Policy which dedicated 0.15 mils of ad valorem solely to the funding of stormwater capital improvement projects. However, during the economic downturn following 2008, the funding levels were redefined by a resolution that would allow the County to fund "up to 0.15 mils per year." As a result of this change in the funding policy, the level of funding for stormwater management in the County in subsequent years ended up being significantly reduced. The County recognized that it needed $13 million/year for Stormwater Management. Instead of fully funding this important component of our community, they cut $7 million from the allocation for the last 7 years: Figure 3.1 - Historical Ad Valorem Funding for Stormwater Management $14 $12 $10 z $8 O g $6 $4 $2 $0 — - - - 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 FISCAL YEAR Page 1 of 10 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 176 9.A.1.d Casa novaAlexand ra From: MartinezGilbert Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 9:07 AM To: Casa novaAlexandra Subject: FW: Submission to Application PL20180001018 and PL20180001748 Attachments: WarrantyDeed.pdf, ATT00001.htm; WarrantyDeed2.pdf, ATT00002.htm; 15175 08-20-15 SS 2.pdf, ATT00003.htm; Schuit's Survey.pdf, ATT00004.htm; JUDGEMENT 33 W Pelican.pdf, ATT00005.htm; DEP Inspection CooperSchuit.pdf, ATT00006.htm; IMG_0382 2 jpeg; ATT00007.htm; IMG_0373 jpeg; ATT00008.htm Thankyou Gil Martinez Principal Planner 239-252-4211 Collier County Growth Management Division Exceeding Expectations, Every Day! NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2800 Horseshoe Dr. N Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-4211 From: Dave & Laura Mikula <makomik1997@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 4:38 PM To: MartinezGilbert <Gilbert.Martinez@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Fwd: Submission to Application PL20180001018 and PL20180001748 Begin forwarded message: From: Dave & Laura Mikula <makomik1997Ca7gmaii.com> Subject: Submission to Application PL20180001018 and PL20180001748 Date: November 21, 2018 at 11:45:24 AM EST To: Gilbert. MartinexCakolliercount ll.goy November 21, 2018 Emailed to: Gilbert.Martinez@colliercountyfl.gov Packet Pg. 177 9.A.1.d Mr. Gilbert Martinez Collier County Growth Management 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: BDE-PL20180001018 PL20180001748 Dear Mr. Martinez: We are the owners of Lot 78 at 33 W. Pelican Street in Naples (Isles of Capri) and are submitting material for consideration by the Collier County Planning Commission at its meeting scheduled for December 6, 2018, at 9:00 a.m regarding the above petitions. We have several concerns that we have previously hand -delivered to your office when we received notice of the HEX meeting last month. We would like to resubmit our concerns in writing to your office in the event that those materials are not forwarded to the Planning Commission and to add pertinent information. Please find attached a copy of our recorded Warranty Deed for Lot 78 and a Final Judgement of 2005 that establishes the legal description of our lot to include own all lands accrued north of our lot to the MHW line. Also please find attached a signed and stamped copy of our Boundary and Hydrographic survey showing where the MHW line extends north to meet with the MHW line and riparian lines of Lot 80 (Cooper's property). This meeting point where riparian lines extend between our properties is not accurate on the application submitted by Turrell and Associates as this convergence point is further north than they indicate. The lot between us and Lot 80 (Lot 79 owned by Schuit) does not have MHW line as part of their lot description and their boundary is not to the water. They were erroneously assigned riparian lines by their surveyor based on old information prior the the civil case of 2005 which the then -owner Puente lost, and which was done by the same surveyor named in the case. The surveyor's information was inaccurate then (prior to 2005) which affected the outcome of the case and is inaccurate now in his latest version of the same survey and it only adds to the confusion. (See Lot 79's survey of 2015 attached which shows that their property does not extend to the water and yet has riparian lines.) We are requesting that this project be denied because this dock is within our legal property and riparian lines which extend to the riparian lines of Lot 80 at the MHW line. This alone should be reason enough to deny but there's more. Because of actions taken by the owners of Lot 79 (Schuit) and Lot 80 (Cooper) in order to obtain permits for their collaborative project of a boat launch (Permit application # PBD2018084709301) and Cooper's dock permit (above) a complaint was filed with Collier County Code and referred to the DEP by another neighbor (see DEP Complaint # 31482, Case # 18-0180 against both Cooper and Schuit which is still open for compliance issues) regarding non -permitted dredging of the bay and dumping of accreted material onto their respective lots. Because these applications are based on results of illegal activities, both projects should be denied by your department. Their efforts to remove our land and boundary is currently being reviewed for an impending civil lawsuit. You may be hearing more about this prior to the Planning meeting. Finally, we would also like to express our concern with the fact that a 235' monstrosity of a dock could be permitted to be built directly behind our house completely within our view, which affects not only the aesthetics of the bay, but also the value of our property whose value is established on having a long water view of a natural bay. Please notice that all of the other long docks to the north of us within our view have their dock within their OWN view as well out the back of their own property. In other words, owners of these docks have to look at their own dock Packet Pg. 178 9.A.1.d extending way out into their view at their own choice. (The exception is of the dock extending from Lot 81 that we don't mind because we purchased this lot with this dock in view and that dock was not contested by anyone at the time when it was permitted.) The issue is adding yet another giant structure that would be closing in more and more of the view in this corner of the bay. Lot 80 (Cooper) does not have a water view from the back of his property to affect. His proposed dock is solely and directly in the view our Lot 78 and therefore affects us 100% and him not at all. See photos attached of the view we have as it is now, which is the one we purchased in 2015 and the one we hope to preserve. Thank you for your consideration in this matter and I am requesting acknowledgment that you received this letter and attachments. Please let me know if I need to hand -deliver it to your office. I plan on presenting this information in person on December 6th as well. Sincerely, David Mikula 33 W Pelican St Naples, FL 34113 Attachments: Warranty Deed Lot 78 Boundary and Hydrographic Survey Lot 78 Lot 79's Survey Final Judgement 2005 DEP Compliant (Page 1) 2 Photos of View 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. Packet Pg. 179 INSTR 5188435 OR 5208 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK DOC@.70 $6,125.00 REC CONS $875,000.00 PG 1495 RECORDED 10/28/2015 10:03 AM PAGES 2 OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA $18.50 This Instrument Prepared by and Return to: Craig R. Woodward, Esquire Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, PA 606 Bald Eagle Drive, Suite 500 Marco Island, Florida 34145 Our File No.: 151339S Property Appraisers Parcel Identification (Folio) Number: 52342920003 Florida Documentary Stamps in the amount of S6,125.00 have been paid hereon. Space above this line for Recording Data Yrs' ARRA1 V T Y DEED THIS WARRANTY DEED, made the 19th day of October, 2015 by Aurora Hufbagel, a single person, whose post office address is 25 Point Lane, Arcadia, FL- 46030 hamin called the Grantor, to David M. Amula and Laura Mikula, husband and wife wino e Tkpfibc s5 33 Pelican Street W., Naples, FL 34113, hereinafter called the Grantees: '. (Wherever used herein the rermr"G tw�' red "Grantee" Include all the�¢rtfes\,fa this Instrument and the heirs, legal representatives and asslgnr oflndlal t tcessors and ass-" ofcarp rlonit) l WITNESSETH: That c r, r d kn sit . of Eight Hundred 5eventy•Fivc Thousand and 00/100 (5875,0001* d oth I Ie Esati , re iEt hereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sells, alvw, aad ,try the Grantee all that certain land situate in Collier County, State of', on Viz.: y Lot 78, ISLES OF CAPRI NO.1� ti fag to the map or p1a rea1'as rtcorded in Plat Book 3, rage 41, Public Records of Collier Can }°tlo . G thnt land lying Norih of said Lot 78, to the mean high tide line (i50' inn .o�rl 9 in Section 32, Townsitip 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. .�� Subject to easements, restrictions and reservations of record and taxes for the year 2015 and thereafter. The property described herein is not now, nor has it ever been, the homestead of the grantor, the grantor's spouse or grantor's minor children, if any, nor is the property contiguous to their homestead. TOGETHER, with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or to anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in fee simple forever. AND, the Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantees that the Grantor is lawfully seined of said land in fee simple; that the Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land, and hereby warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever, and that said land is free of all encumbrances, except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31, 2014. FileNo.: 1513395 ur 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 180 *** OR 5208 PG 1496 *** 73 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has signed and sealed these presents the day and year fust above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: L1�2- V Witness #1 Signature d Witness #1 Primed Name ��� s #2 Sigua re W' ass #2 Priname ^ • C'J yrr\ State of 0(' C County of 0 The foregoing instrument was ac 901 ged fare me this is personally known to me or has p u L . Ark MY COMMISSION #FF151ie19 EXPIRES September 10, 201a NOTARY STAMP/SEAL File Na: 151339S Lirri,r� ' . r r f ) _. anyf , 2015 by Aurora Hufnagel, who Printed Notary Name My Commission Exp: Or 9.A.1.d m U c �L U 0 0 `m 0 0 U M 0 N Packet Pg. 181 Found 1/2///�" / Iran Pin 6MKL5" N 45'20'J9' E See 2.92'(A4) Detell Rrev+ered ;r y 5/8 Iron .��e�r dy Pin ;43964 IAMM (Ear, ref' 51.It 96 2422 rd C 5D. Fr. y PRCPOSW POO. (Above) Plotted Lot Line S 8979'00" E 60.00(PL) S 8900'37' E Ra Recovered N2ID/ - Iron PTY Poin t of Begh-iDg GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 40 c0 NOTE cz.EVATIONS ARE 8A5ED ON THE NORTH AMERICAti VERTIM DATUM OF 1988(NAVD) FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION FLOOD ZONE:AE ELEV: 8'(NAVD) COMMUNITY: 120067 PANEL: 0826 H DATE: 5-16-2012 r 7.6' 0 said Lot 79 for a distance of 115.00 feet to the Northwest Corner of said Lot 79. 01sn being the Point of Beginning of the Parcel of land herein dcacric-d: !Hent* rw North 48'18'25'. along the Northweee* fins d the Tands dMnbed in OffiCiol R -words Book 2422 at Page 1227, Caller County, Florldd for a did once of 79.15 feet, thence run South 4704'16' East, for a distance of 2.05 leak to a Point on the extenolon of the Eaat line of acid Lot 79; thanes run South W41'00' Wast tar o d tense of 51 AS feet to 0.e Nartheaat Gomer of sold Lot 79; thence run North 891t$'00' West along the North lino of said Lai 79 for a distance of 60.00 feet to the Point of Be nnrng of the land$ herein deec,D@4. 2ontaininp 3I,8A0 square feet, more or Fess. POP �G PTY'• e Anchor 0, a *' Lot 79 LEGAL. DESCRIPTION c p Lot 79, !ales of Capri Unit One as recorded in .1�3 Plot Book 3 at Page 41 of the Public THERE MAY BE WDIr;ONAI Ac-4fAIMITS THAT ARE NOT R*cords 0f C011ier Courl:y. Florida. PU%JC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY. And VACANT I (AXI A portion at a parcat o1 land described in GERALD SCHUR AND MARY ANNE SCHUR OfficW Records Book $422 at Page 1227, 3 W5w County. Florida lying in Pompano O -O r, (Disturbed) NE -0.36' Section 31, Yownshlp 51 South. Range 25 AND MAPPER. Cost, Collier Coons Rondo, being more 01 PoNiculany dascr lace os fellows. Lol 78 Commence at the SwIrmest Comer of Lot I 79, Isles of Capri Unit One as recorded in 5/B' lrar Pfn Plot Book 3 at Popo 41 of the Public 'ernvxed Records of Callief GauntT. Florido: Dlence run 396Imn Pin North 06'41'00" East. aloe j the West bine 0T 3964 Cirde(Fe/d) Omlw - I" SURYEfOR Lg-uot SJ n: w - MUNI SMMMR�EVO4M ELCY - ELEVATION pre p;,a T -o, W Erev.- c J. 60'(NAW) R*aawred SITE PLAN S 003019' W 114.70'(M) 5/8' Iron No 10/ BOUNDARY SURVEY S 0041'00" W 115.00'(PL) 7.6' 0 said Lot 79 for a distance of 115.00 feet to the Northwest Corner of said Lot 79. 01sn being the Point of Beginning of the Parcel of land herein dcacric-d: !Hent* rw North 48'18'25'. along the Northweee* fins d the Tands dMnbed in OffiCiol R -words Book 2422 at Page 1227, Caller County, Florldd for a did once of 79.15 feet, thence run South 4704'16' East, for a distance of 2.05 leak to a Point on the extenolon of the Eaat line of acid Lot 79; thanes run South W41'00' Wast tar o d tense of 51 AS feet to 0.e Nartheaat Gomer of sold Lot 79; thence run North 891t$'00' West along the North lino of said Lai 79 for a distance of 60.00 feet to the Point of Be nnrng of the land$ herein deec,D@4. 2ontaininp 3I,8A0 square feet, more or Fess. POP �G PTY'• e Anchor 0, a *' Lot 79 C� c p E .1�3 Iron Pin THERE MAY BE WDIr;ONAI Ac-4fAIMITS THAT ARE NOT 12453 PU%JC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY. Recomrod VACANT I (AXI 5/8' Iron Pin GERALD SCHUR AND MARY ANNE SCHUR No 10/ 3 4 (Disturbed) NE -0.36' PRLWOSED RE901EN05) CE 14.8' PRDP SED AND MAPPER. Poin t of 01 BoundhAiNog 01 Elev. a0' I CES. ABSTRACT NOYDFTS NOT LCCATED UNLESS NOTED. 5/B' lrar Pfn Pr1'P*ad p d[ T"tn Tab () (NAW 88) sSETrV✓sJ. FOX �6R c.. - Pani r CURVATURE R rooFF-0T-wAr Cirde(Fe/d) Omlw - I" SURYEfOR Lg-uot SJ n: w - MUNI SMMMR�EVO4M ELCY - ELEVATION pre p;,a T -o, W Erev.- c J. 60'(NAW) ••r to SITE PLAN MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY DRAWN BY: iD SCALE: 1" - 20' � b 4 :s 7.6' a IV 004100' E 115.00'(PL) i N 00'41'29' f 114-96'(M) '0�" Lot 80 ea Mean Nigh V. Water Line tt ,; Elev.-a43'(NAW) (1/21/15) GdR k Yo. R 4701'10' E 206' w"I Detail '% 0.9, •Not to Scale* �k 27.J' 2 C� ISLES OF CAPRI, UNIT ONE 30.0' Found 5/8' Iron Pin THERE MAY BE WDIr;ONAI Ac-4fAIMITS THAT ARE NOT 12453 PU%JC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY. Recomrod FIR5T TITLE AND A85TRACT. INC. 5/8' Iron Pin GERALD SCHUR AND MARY ANNE SCHUR No 10/ UNDER MT U1FiECTrOH AHD MEETS THE I 4"OU TECHNICAL STAYOARDS AS PER GV•PTER 7J-17. FWMl3A AOMd16TRAMT CODE - (Disturbed) NE -0.36' ORIf■IAL SEAL OF THE FLORIDA. LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. Poin t of r �• P.LS. DATE L Commencement SW Comer Lot 79 +n CES. ABSTRACT NOYDFTS NOT LCCATED UNLESS NOTED. 5/B' lrar Pfn IS - Fot1.7 Irp•IIAE1rT MFRS - IpF,ASHRP M D - SET L17"WM NOr'*AE1N (L9 / N") rA. r CkCUATiED ■ - TppJND ply AYF O - OELTA AHTS % 3964) R - fa0N5 O P/ of Odphin G - MAID ORLL .ULE 141aucE Minor`R sSETrV✓sJ. FOX �6R c.. - Pani r CURVATURE R rooFF-0T-wAr Cirde(Fe/d) Omlw - I" SURYEfOR Lg-uot SJ n: w - MUNI SMMMR�EVO4M ELCY - ELEVATION LA -E iAKE WA LM£ - POPI Ii r MDOER EA9EAtW PL - KAT SWOCE - Iprt OFA 1r - rAae N not res vored lWE O P TME ] ir=-WATER wN1InI POW ■ a - spt SITE PLAN MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY 9.A.1.d DESCRIPTION: AS FURNISHED BY CLIENT LOT 79 ISLES OF CAPRI, UNIT ONE SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS RECORDED bN PLAT OF THE PUSUC RECMS OF C"Wer^COUN 'l, FLOR12A THERE MAY BE WDIr;ONAI Ac-4fAIMITS THAT ARE NOT RECORDED ON :H5 PLAT THAT MAY BE FOUND IN THE PU%JC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY. I HEREBY CERTIFY TO: FIR5T TITLE AND A85TRACT. INC. OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY GERALD SCHUR AND MARY ANNE SCHUR THAT A SIRVSY OF THE NEIdEON DFSCRIBRA PROPEM WAS "'AM UNDER MT U1FiECTrOH AHD MEETS THE I 4"OU TECHNICAL STAYOARDS AS PER GV•PTER 7J-17. FWMl3A AOMd16TRAMT CODE - 5J -17.0.51(3 0)4 - NOT VALID WFFHOUoff r TSNYATURE AND THE ORIf■IAL SEAL OF THE FLORIDA. LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. SJ -17=1(]59t )6 - ADOrrKM OR DELETIM TO 3UR0F( MQ -.OR REPORTS Err C111iR TIWI THE SCMW PARTY OR PAR11E5. IS PROHIBITED 1efI1) r WFUTlEN CORMS ffi Ttte PARrr OR PARTIES �• P.LS. DATE L FL P.5.8 M. N..'d. 2982 ENLY FOR THE LANDS AS DESCIIBED VRCIA2D UMF1CA110N OF TITLE 20M11C OR CES. ABSTRACT NOYDFTS NOT LCCATED UNLESS NOTED. •� Ra - WARPOG 64STS-PW IS - Fot1.7 Irp•IIAE1rT MFRS - IpF,ASHRP M D - SET L17"WM NOr'*AE1N (L9 / N") rA. r CkCUATiED ■ - TppJND ply AYF O - OELTA AHTS % 3964) R - fa0N5 ♦ - fl1NU F414its lA - 5LT WL C9 - CAM DENFM G - MAID ORLL .ULE 141aucE Minor`R sSETrV✓sJ. FOX �6R c.. - Pani r CURVATURE R rooFF-0T-wAr oA1 R.Y. - POW Or TA/Cpq � 01 - Aa9iT O< er1 L5- Omlw - I" SURYEfOR Lg-uot SJ n: w - MUNI SMMMR�EVO4M ELCY - ELEVATION LA -E iAKE WA LM£ - POPI Ii r MDOER EA9EAtW PL - KAT SWOCE - Iprt OFA 1r - rAae N A.R.O. RUTR -mt W1DAE xAt - Pr' OM uart�NFT+T a[ - PaA'7e E lWE O P TME ] ir=-WATER wN1InI POW ■ a - spt ■ « SrMrFFr U.E41 OUT - SNtlINl7 IIAr a10I.E - w• v s - SURVEY DATE: 1-5-1997 FlELD BOOK 410 PAGE 13-14 DRAWN BY: iD SCALE: 1" - 20' REVISIONS: 90010 PAGE 05/05/08 Add FIOU rya Boundary 0'5/19/% Re'iM Legal 9i/221IS UPdaEe Sone, k Taco 565 44 4 0 15 �. Plen 4 t5 RPSA5 Ste Plan 6 t 15 Ra.Aee AIA PI- A. TRIGO &ASSOCIATES, INC, intOFEMMRkOHAL LARD 3UAVL'YOB3 k 1l.VPPE[6 2223 TRADE CENTER TRAY HAPLM, FwBtmk 34209 L41iu 5FEMVEYnTG Bu! Olw S i 3064 FILE NO: 96.0775.01 Packet Pg. 182 q M 30 N b a � � d M 30 0 ;gym .a� 3 30 D N p 1 m t3 1W CC sc"9.A.1.d IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAUL A. HUFNAGEL Plaintiff, V. RAFAEL F. PUENTE and IDALIA PUENTE, his wife, and WrCHEL COOPER and KARYN A. COOPER, husband and wife, and SCOTT K. HUEGEL and CAR ENE HUEGEL, husband and wife; and FIELD .VIEW, LLC, a Wisconsin Limited Liability Company JAMES A. HUGHES, JR. and ELEANOR D. HUGHES his wife, and HARRY R. WOOD, III and JULIE E. cotj husband and wife., JAMES T. EASTMAN and DA STMAN, husband and wife, and WnZERT J. REGNET and S R husband and wife Defendants. ! f 1 1 THIS CAUSE was tried Athe Court sitting V� J The Court received CTVEL ACTION CASE NO. 02 -1743 -CA 0CP_ X % -•\ v =, G N =�N 'r b� ithout a jury on June 28, 2005. ,ed both the Plaintiff's and the Defendants' documents in evidence, listened to the oral argument of counsel and the Court wishes to compliment both Counsels on their professional presentation of evidence and reviewed the Memoranda of Law submitted by counsel. Having reviewed all the evidence, the Court makes the following findings of fact: 1. This case involves an action to quiet title to the following described real property in Collier County, Florida, to wit: Lot 78, Isles of Capri, No. 1, in accordance with an subject to the plat recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 41, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and All of that land lying NORTH of Lot 78, Isles of Capri, No. 1, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 41, Official Records of •L 0 0 Q 0 0 U M 0 N Packet Pg. 183 1W *** OR: 3863 PG: 2466 Together with all riparian rights including all land or lands accrued by accretion or other natural phenomena is a good title superior to the claims or purported claims of Defendants and all other parties claiming by, through, under, or against Defendants and these claims or purported claims are cancelled, and the title to the property is forever quieted in the Plaintiff. 4. The Court reserves Jurisdiction to award Court costs and Attorneys fees. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Naples, Collier County, Florida, this day Of V , 2005. Honor ble Daniel R. Monaco Circuit Court Judge Conformed copies to: William G. Morris, Esquire P.O. Box 2056 Marco Island, FL 34146 Raymond L. Bass, Jr., Esquire Bass & Chernoff The Moorings Professional B 2335 Tarniami Trail North, S Naples, FL, 34103-4459 Gotiy�x coU T 113 r� °\moi E C,% CO� Esquire Center Packet Pg. 184 COMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORT Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) South District Compliance Assurance Program 2296 Victoria Avenue, Suite 364 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 (239)344-5600 Inspection Type: 1 ®Complaint ❑DF Permit ❑Mangrove GP ❑ Mangrove IP Inspection Dates: Complaint No.: Site No.: Project No.: 01/10/2018 31482 361051 (Schuit) 359353 (Schuit) 360416 (Cooper) 378047 (Cooper) Activit / Site Address: Property Qwner's Name: Property Owner Contact Info: 35 Pelican St. W Mary Anne Louise Schuit ierr schuithomes.com Naples, FL 34113 A_etiyitu/ Site Address: Property Owner's Name: Proveq ProveOwner Contact Info: 37 Pelican St. W Mitchel & Karyn A. Cooper thatchoochoo@comcast.net Naples, FL 34113 Name DEP inspector(s): Description of Alleged Non-compliance Activities: Sam Troast, Jenny Gienger, Removed mangroves and installed boat ramp without permits Kelly Cramer Name of Waterbodv: Waterbod Class: ❑ 1 ® II ❑III ❑ IV Unnamed wetlands and State Lands: M Yes ❑No Pompano Bay OFW: R Yes ❑No Aauatic Preserve: ® Yes ❑No Name of Aquatic Preserve (if applicable): Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve Compliance Classification: ERP History: ❑ In Compliance ® Permitting ❑ None ❑ Minor Non -Compliance ❑ Compliance Assistance ❑ Other: ® Significant Non -Compliance ❑ Enforcement Environmental Resource Survey: Environmental resource impacts: 10 Yes ❑No Habitat Type (FLUCCS code): 621 Mangrove Swamp Investigation: 10/17/2017: The Department received a complaint about mangrove removal and the installation of a boat ramp at 35 Pelican St. W in Naples, FL. The complainant stated that the homeowner took gravel from the front of his home and filled the mangroves behind the house. It was also stated that the homeowner dug out mangroves with a backhoe and built a boat launch ramp. L11 /20/2017: The Department sent a site access letter to the property owner at 35 Pelican St. W in Naples, FL. Page 1 of 15 Packet Pg. 185 s k �;I i tri ��.9.1� a ��..�E.d ■ 4�17 Ft I $�_ I J�l 'oo�- ..art _ f mil Atli. ■ Casa novaAlexand ra From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Thank you Gil Martinez Principal Planner 239-252-4211 MartinezGilbert Thursday, November 29, 2018 9:07 AM CasanovaAlexandra FW: Permit # 2018084709301 Schuit's Survey.pdf, ATT00001.htm; 15175 08-20-15 SS 2.pdf, ATT00002.htm Collier County Growth Management Division Exceeding Expectations, Every Day! NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2800 Horseshoe Dr. N Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-4211 From: Dave & Laura Mikula <makomik1997@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 11:30 AM To: MartinezGilbert <Gilbert.Martinez@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Permit # 2018084709301 November 28, 2018 (Submitted via Email and USPS mail) Mr. Gilbert Martinez Collier County Growth Management 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Permit application # PBD2018084709301 Dear Mr. Martinez: 9.A.1.d It has come to our attention that our neighbor, Mary Anne Schuit (Lot 79) of 35 W Pelican Street, (Isles of Capri) Naples FL 34113, has submitted a permit through Imperial Marine Construction to build a "seawall at existing boat launch" behind their house that would exit directly behind our house. This is the same neighbor whom we had previously notified you that in cooperation with his neighbor, Cooper, who is applying for a dock variance, has caused problems with removing our land and boundary, dredging the bay, and has been reported to the DEP. With regard to the Permit Application 2018084709301 that is pending approval through your department, we noticed that they did not submit the latest survey with their application that they had done in 2015 when they purchased his property. He submitted a very old Packet Pg. 188 9.A.1.d one (from 1958) that is not accurate. It was done way before the property battles in this corner were settled in 2005. Their lot description does not contain the words "to the mean high water line" and is a dry lot. Their 2015 survey shows that they do not have water access and that they would have to cross over a piece of our property in order to launch a boat. (Their surveyor, A. Triago, who continues to make mistakes in this corner just as he did prior to 2005, erroneously assigned him 2' riparian rights on this survey, once again, based on old prior -to -2005 information.) And the neighboring property to them owned by Cooper (Lot 80) would also have to cross a piece of our land to have such a boat launch/ramp. Schuit is a home builder in Canada. He can read surveys and he knew his latest survey was not in his favor. We believe Schuit submitted this old survey and withheld the 2015 one intentionally to mislead your department in order to obtain their permit. If they were to have a survey done today, it would show a drastic change in that corner of the bay where Jerry Schuit removed our land and boundary in order to obtain water access behind his house using heavy machinery to dig out what was a narrow canoe path on Cooper's lot into a 22' wide boat launch over our property over at least 4 events in 2016/2017. The "existing boat launch" only exists because he dredged and dragged to create it prior to attempting to get a permit for it because he knew he would not achieve it any other way. Any survey done after his latest dredging in December 2017 would reflect the results of his illegal activity and would be contested by us immediately until we are able to have our land restored either through the DEP or through the courts. The one he should have submitted was the most recent and more accurate one in 2015 that reflects how the area was prior to his land/boundary m modification projects (minus the erroneously -assigned riparian rights). c Because of their dishonest attempt to obtain deceive your department for a permit for a seawall where there is no sea along an illegally, L created boat launch/ramp, and submitting what he knew to be an out-of-date survey, we are attaching their 2015 survey and ours around the same time for our Lot 78. This way your department will have the correct information to be able to reach an informed and c appropriate decision regarding this permit. Sincerely, L d o 0 U Dave Mikula N 33 W Pelican St ti Naples FL 34113 Ph: 412-337-6099 Attached: 2015 Survey Lot 79, 2015 Survey Lot 78 rn 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. Packet Pg. 189 NOT - 0 !-i6 .77 7 Od E aj mm Ar. 'Man It 0 a Y S 0 Y J� E Lkel a Jn�s Z B7 = J \ \ J Mean Rbfr leers a..,n1 ,� \ Platted Lot Line S 8979'00" E 60.00'(PL) 5 89170 J7" £ 6(1.317") Recovered N1D/2Pin Point of GRAPHIC SCALE D 20 aO ° NOTE E'LEVAT1OftS WE WED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTCAL OATW OF 198B(NAVD) FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION FLOOD ZONE: AE ELEV: 8'(NAVD) COMMUNITY: 120067 PANEL: 0826 H DATE: 5-16-2012 Antna` LEGAL. DESCRIPTION xt0_ $ Found 117• 47�s'ID' E 51.96 Iron Pin D. R. 2127 'A14 " N 4520'39' E See Pfw +�/ Recalls of Detail 2.92 (M) J Boundary FT. Rvco rered X Rr sj .y 40 :]0. 5/8" Iron land, described in Official Records Book 2L22 Pin /3964 D p. at Page t227, Colger County, Flmlda for o (NAM 88) Platted Lot Line S 8979'00" E 60.00'(PL) 5 89170 J7" £ 6(1.317") Recovered N1D/2Pin Point of GRAPHIC SCALE D 20 aO ° NOTE E'LEVAT1OftS WE WED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTCAL OATW OF 198B(NAVD) FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION FLOOD ZONE: AE ELEV: 8'(NAVD) COMMUNITY: 120067 PANEL: 0826 H DATE: 5-16-2012 Antna` LEGAL. DESCRIPTION xt0_ SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 79, 13189 of C=yn .:..It One as recorded in sold Lot 79 few distance Of 115.iJ0 lest !a the Nonh"51. Cornor of said Lat 79. also 96.9, Plot Soak 3 at =age A+. of the Public Collier Co -ern, Florida. being the Point of Segtr 3ng of the Parcel of I HERESY CERTIFY TO: Recalls of IoM herein dawlbed: menti fun North Lot 79 And 45'18'2$", afang Ute Narth.esuw* Nne of the PROPOSED POO, V14r4NT (Above) (AKA /35) 44.8' 3 3 land, described in Official Records Book 2L22 PROPOSEDRESOINCE PROA SEDFlaor' (:7ev. 80' A port3m Of a Portal of land described in at Page t227, Colger County, Flmlda for o (NAM 88) O1fICIat Records Saok 2422 at Pug, 1227, distance of 79.15 feet, thence run South V IS NOT F CaTIFICATON OF n11E. ZONING OR Corrie, County. Florida [yinq in Pompano SOT, Section 31, Township 51 South, Range 26 4TO4'10' East, for a dir3:Pnce Of 2.06 ice: to a Paint on the exten,lon of the East i[ne of East, Ca11[er County Florida, haft mare said Lot 7% thence nun South OT41'00' Wal Srvel d 76' •'' ea porIlcvlorly dCtlbed aR 1019"': for a dist.r.. of 51,96 feet to tRe Northeast N 00'41 '00' E 115.00'(PL) i Found 5/8' of sold Lot 7B: them ran North Lol 78Comer Carnmm"s at the Southwest Coiner of Lot 89•IVW West along the North line of ,aid SURVEY DATE: 1-5-1997 79, Istes a1 Capri unit One as recorded in Lot 79 for a dislonce of 6D.011 feel Lo the n P1PC,L-. Lot 80 INat Book 3 at Prigs 41 of the Public POW of Beglnang of the ianda heroin Recovered Records of Collier County. Florida: thence run deuribed.-Containing fl,rs40 square lest, 5A" '� P/n North OO'41'OO' Emt, atw9 the West lino of mora or I$". fj-q5e Mean High Line (Disturbed) N£=0.36' g (Diato.Ded) SE 0.40' Recovered r$ tier�r (1/21/15) Commencement w I S 0030.29_' W ir4-T40 5/8' Iron Pn NO ID/ P" �lc O. _ S 0041'00 W 1'S.00PL} N a^�L- fyi "tau Pelee I arNe1':n 7, 6' err - xt0_ SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS RECORCEO roe PLAT 8QQ1fFtA;E_THRS!T OF THE PUHIJC RECORDS OF C-ff-r COUNTY, FLORIOA 96.9, A, Pu9LIC RECORDS OF 13115 COUNTY - I HERESY CERTIFY TO: FIRST TM -E AND ABSTRACT, INC. OLD REPURUC NATIONAL TMX INSURANCE COMPANY Lot 79 � to � PROPOSED POO, V14r4NT (Above) (AKA /35) 44.8' 3 3 o � Benchmark it t PROPOSEDRESOINCE PROA SEDFlaor' (:7ev. 80' AO 7 Found Nod Ld Tab (NAM 88) 27Pn+PwM eve t Of U5 y £leve .160'(HAYD) to V IS NOT F CaTIFICATON OF n11E. ZONING OR OI z Co 4 r . M C RGMjn :r e - Ii1YtAlEM SL@ / 3964) CALL- G4A14GLE 0 roL 0 "C"7t: E ■ . !1j 5 . , PW A • DELTA AHnE - 5P7 kcw Rare Put 168 %ossa) CH Srvel d 76' •'' Q . FOUND OF%J, RDI( - �DRID"IE EASDIEO W7 DKL Naw 11.[. - v%w EASO M e- .D. . POW OF CUR03 K loft _ P.T. - POINT Or m4mef WW - RInR-oF-wAr N 00'41 '00' E 115.00'(PL) i Found 5/8' ma 0 N 00'41 29' E 114.96(A4) hon PJ 3 SOCIAM ■ -_ .." nFAu+ our - reir w1 IMt+Hc4s SvaA SURVEY DATE: 1-5-1997 x DRAWN BY: JD SCALE: 1" = 20' n P1PC,L-. Lot 80 Recv"red ?wk Lines 5/8' Iron Pin 1 011/18/% fforl t-wl 01/21 15 Uod A* Sw"Ir i Tap- No ID/ w Mean High Line (Disturbed) N£=0.36' g ' Waley acv.-0.43'(NAWD) Point of r$ tier�r (1/21/15) Commencement w I 2=3 77 -ADE CENTES :AY SW Comer Lot 79 y �lc O. FILE NO: 96.13775.01 N a^�L- fyi "tau 5/8" Iron Por Odphin Ctrcle(F7efd) not recovered 47 lk WWI 1%r. s' SITE PLAN etail *Not DtoScale* �� MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY DESCRIPTION: AS FURNISHED BY CLIENT LOT 79 ISLES OF CAPRI, UNIT ONE SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS RECORCEO roe PLAT 8QQ1fFtA;E_THRS!T OF THE PUHIJC RECORDS OF C-ff-r COUNTY, FLORIOA THERE 1,µT' 0E AAORiONAL (1E$fRPL77 THAT ARE NOT RECORDED ON 7}135 PLOT THAT IyY HE P1111UND IN THE Pu9LIC RECORDS OF 13115 COUNTY - I HERESY CERTIFY TO: FIRST TM -E AND ABSTRACT, INC. OLD REPURUC NATIONAL TMX INSURANCE COMPANY GER>fL7 SCHUrT AND MARY ANNE SCHUIT THAT A SUINFr' OF TNF: FffRELN OES RI6M PRCPrj`itY WAS 11.4 UNDER NY 01RE':TtON IVfO 9EET5 THE LWMU TECHNICAL STAHOAR, AS PER cR-=zR 5:-T7, romat AD.sa1GTwrvE c a -E. SJ -17.0.51(7 b)4 - NOT VAUD WTIHOUT THE SIWMTURE MID THE ORIDNAL SEAL OF THE FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. 5.3-17,051(3)fa}6 •- ADWicN OR DELETIONS M SLMVET NAPS OR NFRYM Lir 91166 TITAN TIE SIGNING P.uifr CR PARTES. 5 PROlgal WITHOUT WRnrEN CpN$EM OF THE PART' OR PARRIES P.L.S. PATE d 1 0 FL P,S k M. NO.V. . 2982 An DN 15 ONLY FOR THE LANDS AS DESCia0E0 4U?D�IWPROVEMENTS V IS NOT F CaTIFICATON OF n11E. ZONING OR N, ExCLIe RANCES. ABSTRACT NOT RENEWED, Nal LOCATED UNLESS NOTED r . M C RGMjn :r e - Ii1YtAlEM SL@ / 3964) CALL- G4A14GLE 0 roL 0 "C"7t: E ■ . !1j 5 . , PW A • DELTA AHnE - 5P7 kcw Rare Put 168 %ossa) CH & FOUND T . CROA0 O . 5SETNAILx�04M BE� a.L Q . FOUND OF%J, RDI( - �DRID"IE EASDIEO W7 DKL Naw 11.[. - v%w EASO M e- .D. . POW OF CUR03 K loft _ P.T. - POINT Or m4mef WW - RInR-oF-wAr 7.. ralsi pr rTTFRSE��,•,11d�/� TACO Et - Uwe alNEsM CBS. - COIICR A ffi.CCR S7RaL7aRE Pt + Fl{1'A1101t CTIM BLOCK LM.L - MAFfILuIKE EIupor1T R - PLAT M - rmr TV P.R.C. PORI AR pow F Vt POE PUbIPB.AA I'vat EXT rd71vol. P laH-0 a - COIL POAzw S R%£ R T FdT KZ NI !4 W.CP. PFja41.'iE}I! CCN1eaL PGefi r■ m BERT ULETRIC SCE ■ - A MCIER O •. SOCIAM ■ -_ .." nFAu+ our - reir w1 IMt+Hc4s SvaA SURVEY DATE: 1-5-1997 FIELD BOOK 410 PAGE 13-14 DRAWN BY: JD SCALE: 1" = 20' REViS30NSi S" ?wk 05/08/98 Aad ltyterw'rd Boundary 011/18/% fforl t-wl 01/21 15 Uod A* Sw"Ir i Tap- µ s x0 t5 5M Pin D/a 15 Rn uI Sl ie Ran {g 1115 Rsv9ae SiG Plan A T &ASSOCIATES, INC pavgeMsslaWA3. (AND sLmveLva3 x tLAPP3g1S 2=3 77 -ADE CENTES :AY NAPLES, FLARIDA 34[09 LAND 9ORVE:t R11SRTm ! OgDa FILE NO: 96.13775.01 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 192 9.A.2 12/06/2018 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.2 Item Summary: BDE-PL20180001018: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to a request for a 235 -foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 -foot limit allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code, for a total protrusion of 255 feet, to accommodate a new docking facility with one boat slip for the benefit of property located at 37 Pelican Street W., on the north side of Pelican Street W., approximately 1000 feet west of Capri Blvd., in Section 31, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to VA PL20180001748) [Coordinator: Gil Martinez, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 12/06/2018 Prepared by: Title: — Zoning Name: Gilbert Martinez 11/02/2018 11:45 AM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning — Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 11/02/2018 11:45 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Zoning Michael Bosi Review item Growth Management Department Zoning Planning Commission James C French Review Item Michael Bosi Review Item Mark Strain Meeting Pending Completed 11/02/20184:18 PM Completed 11/05/2018 12:15 PM Review Item Completed Completed 11/15/2018 11:39 AM Completed 11/15/2018 1:08 PM Completed 11/19/2018 5:25 PM Completed 11/20/2018 9:52 AM 12/06/2018 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 193 Co er County MEMORANDUM TO: COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER FROM: ZONING DIVISION — ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2018 SUBJECT: BDE-PL20180001018; 37 WEST PELICAN STREET [COMPANION ITEM: VA-PL20181748] PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Mitchel and Karyn Cooper 37 West Pelican St. Naples, FL 34119 REQUESTED ACTION: AGENT: Jeff Rogers Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples, FL 34104 9.A.2.a The applicant is requesting a 235 -foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code (LDC) to allow for a total protrusion of 255 feet in order to accommodate a new boat dock facility on a parcel zoned Single -Family Residential. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is 37 West Pelican Street, within the Isle of Capris Subdivision, Lot 80 in (a portion on submerged lands westward of the property) Section 31, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County (see location map on the following page). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the request is to allow an extension for a boat dock facility that protrudes 255 feet from the property line into the waterway in order to accommodate a 17 -foot long vessel. There are two relevant considerations which need to be evaluated when reviewing this petition: This petition is accompanied and contingent on approval of a variance request (PL20180001748) from Section 05.03.06E of the LDC, Riparian Line Side Setbacks. II. There are three properties within proximity of the subject property which have been recipients of similar variances as the one requested by the client. The variances that were granted to said properties allotted for the construction of boat docks of comparable length. BDE-PL20180001748 (37 West Pelican Street.) December 6, 2018 Page 1 of 8 Packet Pg. 194 9.A.2.a N CV � Z W O H O7 m rrnn J -i ti CO CO 00 CGu7 LU LL ¢ 0 m lLL�JJ1 nn � � O m � u m � oa 0 cv .0 N BDE-PL20180001748 (37 West Pelican Street.) Page 2 of 8 December 6, 2018 Packet Pg. 195 a F i7 x G W � F a d o J r � .0 N BDE-PL20180001748 (37 West Pelican Street.) Page 2 of 8 December 6, 2018 Packet Pg. 195 9.A.2.a SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the subject site. North: Pompano Bay, Zoned -Agricultural -Special Treatment District (A -ST) South: Pelican St. West (local road), Marco Towers, Zoned Residential Multi -Family District (RMF -16) at (16 DU/AC) East: Single-family residential, Zoned -Residential -Single Family District (RSF-4) at (4 DU/AC), within Isle of Capris No. 1 West: Single-family residential, Zoned -Residential -Single Family District (RSF-4) at (4 DU/AC), within Isle of Capris No. 1 Aerial (County GIS) BDE-PL20180001748 (37 West Pelican Street.) Page 3 of 8 December 6, 2018 Packet Pg. 196 9.A.2.a ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: Environmental Planning Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting of this request. The proposed dock is to be constructed through an existing mangrove fringe. The applicant is proposing a three-foot wide access walkway for the docking facility. A submerged resources survey provided by the applicant found no submerged resources in the area 200 feet beyond the proposed docking facility. Exhibit sheet seven of ten provides an aerial illustrating that no seagrasses were observed within 200 feet of the proposed structure. The proposed docking facility will be located within the ST overlay which, will require an ST permit be obtained prior to the issuance of the building permit. This project does not require an Environmental Advisory Council Board (EAC) review, because this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. STAFF ANALYSIS: Due to expressed opposition by neighboring property owners, staff has determined that the appropriate forum for consideration of this petition is the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC). In accordance with LDC Section 5.03.06.H., the CCPC shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a dock facility extension request based on certain criteria. In order for the CCPC to approve this request, at least four of the five primary criteria and four of the six secondary criteria must be met: Primary Criteria: 1. Whether or not the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use, and zoning of the subject property; consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical, single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi -family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate.) Criterion met: The proposed facilities will consist of one boat slip, which is appropriate in relation to the 70 feet of shoreline. 2. Whether or not the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should show that the water depth is too shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s) described without an extension.) Criterion met: There is inadequate water depth within the LDC allotted 20 feet for the BDE-PL20180001748 (37 West Pelican Street.) Page 4 of 8 December 6, 2018 Packet Pg. 197 9.A.2.a launching of a vessel as well as the issue of existing mangroves. 3. Whether or not the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel.) Criterion met: The applicant stated, "The area which the proposed docking will traverse is too shallow for any navigation to take place." Staff concurs. 4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether or not a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages.) Criterion met: The width of the waterway MHW to MHW is approximately 1,152 feet. With a total boat dock protrusion of 255 feet, there would be 897 feet of navigable waterway. Thus, no adverse impact on navigation is expected. 5. Whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.) Criterion met: The dock to the north of the property will not bear undue hardship as it relates to ingress and egress because its mooring slip is located at the end of the dock, similar to that of the subject property. As illustrated in the aerial, the property to the neighboring dock is marginal and will not be impeded of its functional ingress or egress. Please, see aerial photo in backup material provided. Secondary Criteria: 1. Whether or not there are special conditions, not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.) Criterion met: The location and shape of the subject property, neighboring properties, and the associated riparian lines is such that the only way a dock can be constructed in this location with ample space for ingress and egress is if it is extended beyond the protrusion line. It's also important to note that the proposed facility will traverse through 45 feet of mangroves. 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe, access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck BDE-PL20180001748 (37 West Pelican Street.) Page 5 of 8 December 6, 2018 Packet Pg. 198 9.A.2.a area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.) Criterion met: The proposed dock width has been minimized to three feet in order to reduce over -water structure while still maintaining safe access to the vessel's mooring location. 3. For single-family dock facilities, whether or not the length of the vessel or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) Criterion met: The proposed vessel is a 17 -foot skiff, the subject property waterfront is 70 feet. As proposed, the length of the vessel as it relates to the properties waterfront will be approximately 11.9% thus not exceeding the maximum 50%. 4. Whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of either property owner.) Criterion met: The design of the proposed facility is similar to that of existing surrounding boat docks, hence not expected to have an adverse impact on neighboring properties waterfront view. 5. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with LDC subsection 5.03.06 I must be demonstrated.) Criterion met: There are no seagrass beds present on the property nor on neighboring properties within 200 feet of the project site. 6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of LDC subsection 5.03.06 E.11. (If applicable, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.E.11 must be demonstrated.) Criterion not applicable: The proposed work pertains to a single-family docking facility and therefore is not subject to the Manatee Protection Requirements. Staff analysis finds this request complies with five of the primary criteria and five of the six secondary criteria. Therefore, under the LDC provisions, the installation of a new boat dock facility requires approval by the Collier County Hearing Examiner. The recommendation by staff is approval. BDE-PL20180001748 (37 West Pelican Street.) Page 6 of 8 December 6, 2018 Packet Pg. 199 9.A.2.a APPEAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the CCPC takes action, an aggrieved petitioner, or adversely affected property owner, may appeal such final action to the Board of County Commissioners. Such appeal shall be filed with the Growth Management Department Administrator within 30 days of the Decision by the CCPC. In the event that the petition has been approved by the CCPC, the applicant shall be advised that he/she proceeds with construction at his/her own risk during this 30 -day period. Any construction work completed ahead of the approval authorization shall be at their own risk. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney office has reviewed the staff report for PL20180001018 revised on October 24, 2018. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission approve petition BDE-PL20180001018 subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of this boat dock extension is contingent upon approval of the companion variance application (VA-PL20180001748) by the Board of Zoning Appeals. 2. The property owner obtains a Special Treatment (ST) Permit prior to the issuance of building permit for the boat dock. 3. All applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 4. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal. Attachments: A) Application & Support Material B) Correspondence BDE-PL20180001748 (37 West Pelican Street.) Page 7 of 8 December 6, 2018 Packet Pg. 200 PREPARED BY: Gilbert "G' Martinez, PRINCIPAL PLA ZONING VISION REVIEWED BY: RAYMON . BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER ZONING MVISION MICHAEL BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR ZONING DIVISION JAMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BDE-PL20180001018 (37 West Pelican Street.) December 6, 2018 9.A.2.a ! Z7// DA E 1 r/Z- 7 45 DATE 1(-Z-?- (g DATE 7/,1 DATE Page 8 of 8 Packet Pg. 201 9.A.2.b CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 18 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO A REQUEST FOR A 235 FOOT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE MAXIMUM 20 FOOT LIMIT ALLOWED BY SECTION 5.03.06 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, FOR A TOTAL PROTRUSION OF 255 FEET, TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW DOCKING FACILITY WITH ONE BOAT SLIP FOR THE BENEFIT OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 37 PELICAN STREET W., ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PELICAN STREET W., APPROXIMATELY 1000 FEET WEST OF CAPRI BLVD., IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [BDE-PL20180001018] WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of a 235 -foot extension over the maximum 20 -foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow for a 255 - foot boat dock facility in an RSF-4 (Single Family Residential) zoning district for the property hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 5.03.06; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission at a public hearing, and the Commission has considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Petition Number BDE-PL20180001018, filed on behalf of Mitchel and Karyn Cooper by Jeff Rogers of Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described as: See Attached Exhibit "A" [ 18 -CPS -01793/1444094/1 ] 1 Packet Pg. 202 be and the same is hereby approved for a 235 -foot extension of a boat dock over the maximum 20 -foot limit to allow for a 255 -foot boat dock facility, as shown on the Proposed Site Plan attached as Exhibit "B", in the RSF-4 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit "C". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this ATTEST: Thaddeus Cohen, Department Head Growth Management Department Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone, Asst. County Attorney day of , 2018. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Karen Homiak, Vice -Chairman Attachments: Exhibit A — Legal Description Exhibit B — Proposed Site Plan Exhibit C — Conditions of Approval [ 18 -CPS -01793/1444094/11 4 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 203 Exhibit A zw �o v o S O H w zC 10 W° a0. � fs ^ a m 0Nn'm �?FZO C)U�LL W OCLLKOF W E5 gFgg q N C N7M H Z Z �7 zd. w o, 0 0 ~ o `� S 5 gg iViVFJFJ q z `F Z �% J� wSw- ¢ wzaaa w vzxQ ■ e� owz FZ V WHtl! zvjW�o o a�osN d $ ° �w 16 y �► Q O �JpOJ nNoum ? LL > r/ c m O �=J IZ WQa wwW�aawLL W 0¢ pNiaza o > ■ �o OPLL O 0 L W F`�{HoNW N ?_ > a. (N U 0. d CoQ =a F m0 Oac=j�v� a~ w z 0>wwao ww 0� ai tk H a `o _ o UM- J IL a wSa Vti)—U C7 h mLL is F 0 t- m Z $}y w � mo z = J Fig s�ww 3 anO W 300E'Wy w0<0a a Q w��moF�U �� w CO U) 0 v C L J O O}d mpa0am U w= o°�xzaazm c9n LL -j (L ply n m G UA 4 ra jCC <'D J U � a�am"o� a m � Q H W Q !D DC F -m F� a ��oNo Fo p xo LL i z o$ W =d CDC gpmLLO r �Zroao9w W w w (� v E o Ib f�/�) ���ej p YI y a Q a� z 0 0 M D Z' M r -o 0 O¢ ¢ o- mar V a R z L. LLI oilzz W F°FNonU� � U o o L F 0 W ~O m Uce zo�~O� M N M 031 oaguJ<zu V 4 N 3 x o a o z UZ� ww Z a ¢ F a a o z E zdz 'z F�> p� w>m a f y c n Zza Wer yi >o> oz ¢rt $ z � z z �uZoZiwo$ y yyyy 6 o �md�z ��zW mo o S z W ul rwQ N aNa Nj �2 ZNWFVI D{�{//��w F 0 F,FN> NZQ W. g N om} O yQ =gO -WX WzN¢O 2OWU OWZV O W Nz n_SNNaOV 4z�LL~OjSW Z6F OwwN QOjm ^' NWK �a Z. p. mN�'`�Yl Wn W m N4 �woiw i so 4oW NNw o? circ a 2 -w - o go: w3wFW u R oNN- oo. z u Fz �" rc e 33 .. ±Wa w of n tzz�k mwmw zoo o $d oo�N�w O Qr<N w d h dm��zpraoU z w �oorcoF r o �m m u°" " ��izFs oaa =od w`w a��a x Z Z� xE i $ oowoamt m o oNz www zN. Fr wm 03¢ JFF w=N�o wa Ym> io gg��fwwo W Lu >1 5522 i w w o ��„ o`oizu u. a .00. moa wrvf o¢�eq� 'oo3g� 0050;� Noo NZNY� z W W'mo' m w i o m~U arca aN� a o$LN' j„ sww zz +� Op waQ¢ =zgm o>o ? zoFFtQ o��N?� 'x"o� mow ooa�a ao Jz� z arc�so=o i=8<w�6F ws yLLoww� uta Vaw x o F- �a o0 omo o'aowwj oo`-'o� h� ozo - o JZNwWork' �- u ..�k' gym a`2c�W uxi m? tm �rc"0Y o �o�LLz� gEm- az ism o c w amoi ow `� �pW �.NOLL ao ,. 6o S 'a �a zd a omw mw°d��'a ooF i� gaq�000 > ou' zzz� wa xN3 _ ¢N i�wzWF z ozn az 3-9,oat o u zgw F mwuo ok' owg m za uo u ON, -N azo U oow o axe z o�:`o oaoWam;�mx 8 d miwia� a N mWamw_ 2W ��N O J W z a Z Z Z F m o. �F$ o yNa°"N y�"wp , a° m' wk' cw"wo�tou �rc o wow �'o w ^��a�? ��� W dw I- FSO mZ Oji w �f�Fw a�a WE. 0 '�� OmFw �FF N e e m Nbe�.��n F NU NOz 6 00 F N�-�OY HN2 FLLF vOiOF 2N K a' .N C, �o"�o o a Fzzarc o a z .��.za oim °'�z 04)sOQ�0Sz� .EQ, itte&Woaowo�'af� oma hrcz 'a oaO aiz�os �'o_ o - ��zo. a s (d) an" 3.00.tMm za Fm I?o�� ba arnl A�60A6.00H �g s w ui Cl PERCH AVE 0 J � (a),00_ce J U 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 204 Cl PERCH AVE 0 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 204 :\1765 -Cooper Dock\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\1765-COOPER-COUNTY.dwg LOCATION 10/1/2018 Lr) M q n M tD w N Z w o� H 0 QO A n V V I 9.A.2.b I O ` O I •� wmoo .g i c I d Q W w Z W x K p Z I i� O U W 0 0 0 U 0 0 m O 0 0 0 L 0 N Q G U Z O � N ti W U N O 00 J o 0 o= 0� 0 N d U L) U a U v apM; U � O C�sU M U ci 7` ,= "5.Cn w r c, W > cC v II \� Packet Pg. 205 Q O X Z > LL o x X N O a_ Z /J o " X o� CO Z_ Uj " m CO U \\ N Z O i= U O c� Q ❑ x Z XN Q x� \�X Q a 0 W Q O O x X ? X v ?x X a v p U) X x N W > W X x Z CnZ J �-� v M N x ro\ry x. X o x CO (0 ❑ W O J Q � x � X� `- I rn �J ry X °'X\ x m 0 Q%.L,6 x ZX LL Q ZW N p O x> o O Z o Qm xx 4xZ O o x x oQo X X � n� / O X Z > LL o x X N O a_ Z /J o " X o� CO Z_ W CO U Z Y i= U O c� Q ❑ W Q O O Z� F- U) X W 0 dX C MX \ X % x X x x? Dock\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\1765-COOPER-COUNTY.dwg EXAERIAL 10/1/2018 vM 1K C \\ f zN-i 1 a Q LL AJU) W W Haa. M Q Z 1 00 F- 0 J I 9.A.2.b I Packet Pg. 206 Z J Orfa O O 5 (D z LL J U) Z X w 3: Un O z w H Un wU Q 00 Q O Z F^ U!! X W P \1765 -Cooper Dock\CAD\PERMIT N l 0� o� z �z 0 W �� LL w cn Q ww � Q� N O— wQ -�U W Z p �J Q w>- Qo W o QO N UQ O o0 Z > o \ \ >) C) a n r > O 0 \ = o \, :3 Q f > ��� 0 N \ � I\ � a or-) \ \ U Y a V ~> �. z �� � J w cn ` r r- (D z w - -)'\1765-COOPER-COUNTY.dwo M02WRIAL 10/1/2018 Packet Pg. 207 Z O 0 N j W V W 0 � O N O o a W ILQ w o � m F�NF Z Z w ❑ ❑ 0 O O Y Y L) O Qw 0LLL w o Z O J d w O O Q Q N 0 z 0 y 3 W Z r W u ❑ rroN U V. X W o� z �z 0 W �� LL w cn Q ww � Q� N O— wQ -�U W Z p �J Q w>- Qo W o QO N UQ O o0 Z > o \ \ >) C) a n r > O 0 \ = o \, :3 Q f > ��� 0 N \ � I\ � a or-) \ \ U Y a V ~> �. z �� � J w cn ` r r- (D z w - -)'\1765-COOPER-COUNTY.dwo M02WRIAL 10/1/2018 Packet Pg. 207 Y 0 0 O a o ILQ m mIm L Z �m o Y L) °O Qw 0LLL w o Z O J w O O Q Q o� z �z 0 W �� LL w cn Q ww � Q� N O— wQ -�U W Z p �J Q w>- Qo W o QO N UQ O o0 Z > o \ \ >) C) a n r > O 0 \ = o \, :3 Q f > ��� 0 N \ � I\ � a or-) \ \ U Y a V ~> �. z �� � J w cn ` r r- (D z w - -)'\1765-COOPER-COUNTY.dwo M02WRIAL 10/1/2018 Packet Pg. 207 X X \\ x X X v XN V N aT M V i IT x mX v x Q ? x t"cmo m ? X x \. v o w z X1 X Z Q X M J X ai n co X,q Q O N xx d Xcc! x X CJ X O W N \v X Z J coo Z ,- \ x co o X Q X M Q N O O r O 2 n x x M o x X co O \ o 0 X cr? o X o x c X O M O X o X o x q O X \ N X q o o X In O\ X O X ao' o M O s o s, X 6 X oo o x O a N Cl)00 Cl) x M mC X� \ _ X (D M NM M X \ � N M X X 0 N _ I W W Ur Z N v Z J X LL O N O W � N ti °04 m / r�,l�XEi�fi M cZi . V o P:\1765-C000er Dock\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\1765-COOPER-COUNTY.dwo M(IY20E W DEPTHS 10/1/2018 V ¢ _ g a oOiX�N 0 3� ¢ w � w f o���z LL lY�p 0 >-w6w..aiNx x j 220, �aaa 5. �KKV aaS �` Caja w w a azzzzo0 +':?ga www wwa f1w00 a'wS� Nr=W QQN w� <cz3) Opwpwa¢ woo U' Z Wp�SO�F�2aa7�woppwa aO. N y W<»>woo82zz-200HU y Wza>r=n��FF�gia¢aa N W W �JR aaNpa [YOW 888 S<7 aax p 000, F-F-aatn a¢w3� Z 0 ci U0 �m 2 � O W >_ O 0 a 0 I>— U W ti Wzv:, C)00 U) C2 O O � r O oo 3 0 Ua.U U � rNi V 6' un O U -Ri w Q � j W (A M x; AaLLui oho I Q J (n M Maa =- CMZ Packet Pg. 208 z o w m U. � C w a w � 0 w o C p f o O 0 0m p p f N (�7 Z < w i w ai m w � w o x l x ( X p U N W 0 ci U0 �m 2 � O W >_ O 0 a 0 I>— U W ti Wzv:, C)00 U) C2 O O � r O oo 3 0 Ua.U U � rNi V 6' un O U -Ri w Q � j W (A M x; AaLLui oho I Q J (n M Maa =- CMZ Packet Pg. 208 i Y- L) 0 w L co LL � w V) 0 e -_ d W' N�I � V 0 oW p WN QN a LL m ¢ o g Z N 0 Dock\CAD\PERMIT .dwq SECTION (2) 10/1/2018 Packet Pg. 209 9.A.2. b V 0 oW p WN QN a LL m ¢ o g Z N J Q a�> Q D � O i Q tt Q Q 304 U F N o C IR.O c W v O 0 U00 m Z V O o 0 o w U) L) U U O N WQv J � o LL r w 0 O o 0 N d L) U a U �•� M V] o d C> E O 5� w v 0 a r a� C , w M Packet Pg. 209 O , / , )� , // . // /, 00, z O a = r W z N Oh C x Z X Xyl N ~ y oc�7�a Co. c�zwc7 3waQ ¢ *'��ga oo° 0002 �zao o� ' K� OO w=xrr} FNZ ��To ..mmw¢ ¢ zz aozro o� 3:�Oo zzo�C, oowaODE gzmo... 83�zzo... 0 Dor z¢�^o¢33rooaa V of��wx aaN0��D o-n.x— X00 ¢a¢w3r-r P:\1765 -Cooper Dock\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\1765-COOPER-COUNTY dwq $R$/2CM/2018 9.A.2.b z w. N LU a � Q 0 0 K V; d 2 a o r m 0 3aow ate+ o U X U LU i 0 0 0 U0 Wm 0>0 �o 0�� w� U ° O o r+ (n C'4 WLU �w00 r� 0 W� 2ico o 0�0 �o y UU CL U bu 4 U 4 dc�,Q 6 g � U :Ej W i � w Packet Pg. 211 w w 3cl) Z H U w 0 0 0 CO 0 LL a- < Q p o 0 0-1 (DW N � w w Z � (1) 0 O CO - ry Z 0 d / O , / , )� , // . // /, 00, z O a = r W z N Oh C x Z X Xyl N ~ y oc�7�a Co. c�zwc7 3waQ ¢ *'��ga oo° 0002 �zao o� ' K� OO w=xrr} FNZ ��To ..mmw¢ ¢ zz aozro o� 3:�Oo zzo�C, oowaODE gzmo... 83�zzo... 0 Dor z¢�^o¢33rooaa V of��wx aaN0��D o-n.x— X00 ¢a¢w3r-r P:\1765 -Cooper Dock\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\1765-COOPER-COUNTY dwq $R$/2CM/2018 9.A.2.b z w. N LU a � Q 0 0 K V; d 2 a o r m 0 3aow ate+ o U X U LU i 0 0 0 U0 Wm 0>0 �o 0�� w� U ° O o r+ (n C'4 WLU �w00 r� 0 W� 2ico o 0�0 �o y UU CL U bu 4 U 4 dc�,Q 6 g � U :Ej W i � w Packet Pg. 211 oz e o ? w x ZO ? Q $A I "w ce oO�aJ tt.B .8 ar u.;-:, ti ��ww�¢�Na i>Ll w O�z0Oaa �X z o� _ m ~SwO �d�x w aU ww, WJ � � a w. zZU� +'>j=� azz S �a 06 _ '0122 W s O o K Ow �Z Z Z - i W O Z Z�W II II W 0. CD W Kz W37zz01 owoo aFaa0oro>aZOo=iOOMD,gV= WI=¢�DNaax�� KO~0o -�¢¢rn ¢aw3F arra 0 \ J .09 O W N Y \ \ 0 U U- U) 0 0 w 130 1 G� N !, \ i d w -� Z LLJ J Z \ 0 Q _ _ ti CD mn, LU J �[ P:\1765 -Cooper Dock\CAD\PERMIT .dwa AVJ12WZKS 10/1/2018 Packet Pg. 212 n, W P:\1765 -Cooper Dock\CAD\PERMIT .dwa AVJ12WZKS 10/1/2018 Packet Pg. 212 P:\1765-C0000rDock\CADTERMIT-COUNTY\1765-COOPER-COUNTY.dwq STUSTOLAY 10/1/201 9.A.2.b 0 s W N K r (\ a Ll 2 w Q o w 0 0 � � U v I U F � �0 O C'v, omo a F z zwor ( G1 1 wmw u x W Y 0 v O U m O m 0 0 L) O I a °O Q U W <3� O J t� W> LU o 00 CL ��00CD C O U O LU Co O N U L) U a U � o c c,3 v V i 00 n Packet Pg. 213 Lm U 2 O a z a N N S` > � � Z o 00: x � N .zz6caanx.a N zi zF'- =,aa Va �oas, = CV w Dw K V Q Q a:F t V w J a WNN ZZV� ��=K 008 ww"= Nc~.1gg ,9EI: OON� K'.00 ��xO v=i v=iwQ aNIz¢ 3�w0OO zzo�¢zz�w opp'wQ» w2o 0 o0> >3�zZ°fir aaz�ow��o 3ow0O Q�pp>zzouQ NOaa pl->�a¢z Op3 t/J 0zo>Wziv HQ�iaaaa ww�� as p Orr W M K<D p D T<99 � 000 j- I-aaN aaw3i- Z Q) 0 4f. H Iq k O C I 9.A.2.b I w .N w i C z z Q o W Y w 4a�pi x U N W 0 ci U 0 0 m OY 0 C 0 0 �o W U Q Q Q N W Qo Qo 0� 0 am U L) U a on M U � O U ca -a V d c Q z � w > kn � U 7 kn M P.\1765 -Cooper Dock\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\1765-COOPER-COUNTY.dwo TOMOMI/2018 1 Packet Pg. 214 9.A.2.b EXHIBIT C Conditions of Approval 1. Approval of this boat dock extension is contingent upon approval of the companion variance application (VA-PL20180001748) by the Board of Zoning Appeals. 2. The property owner shall obtain a Special Treatment (ST) Permit prior to the issuance of building permit for the boat dock. 3. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 4. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Packet Pg. 215 CCPC PACKET BDE APPLICATION I��I�;IIIIIIIII�;a COOPER DOCK 37 PELICAN ST W NAPLES, FL PREPARED BY: TURRELL HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC 3584 EXCHANGE AVENUE NAPLES, FL 34104 I 9.A.2.c I Packet Pg. 216 I 9.A.2.c I BDE APPLICATION W/ PRIMARY &SECONDARY CRITERIA Packet Pg. 217 tell Cr c0 " y COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION OR BOATHOUSE ESTABLISHMENT PETITION LDC Section 5.03.06 Ch. 3 B. of the Administrative Code THIS PETITION IS FOR (check one): ■❑ DOCK EXTENSION ❑ BOATHOUSE PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): Mitchel & Karyn Cooper Name of Applicant if different than owner: Address: 37 Pelican Street West Telephone: 239-248-7296 Cell: city: Naples E -Mail Address: Thatchoochoo@comcast.net Name of Agent(s): Jeff Rogers Firm: Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Address: 3584 Exchange Ave city. Naples Telephone: 239-643-0166 Cell: 239-784-0081 E -Mail Address: Jeff@thanaples.com PROPERTY LOCATION State: FL ZIP: 34113 Fax: State: FL ZIP: 34104 Fax: 239-643-6632 Section/Township/Range: 351 S /26E property I.D. Number: 52343000003 Subdivision: Isles of Capri Unit: Lot: 80 Block: Address/ General Location of Subject Property: 37 Pelican Street West Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Property: Single-family Residential May 8, 2018 Page Iof6 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 218 9.A.2.c • Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6359 BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Narrative description of project (indicate extent of work, new dock, replacement, addition to existing facility, any other pertinent information): The proposed project will consist of constructing a new single-family docking facility located on Pompano Bay at 37 Pelican Street West. The dock with vessel will protrude approximately 255 -feet from the most restrictive point being the plotted property line. We are requesting a 235 -foot dock extension from the allowed 20-ffet into a waterway that is approximately 1,152 -feet wide. SITE INFORMATION 1. Waterway Width: 1,152 ft. Measurement from ❑ plat ❑ survey ❑ visual estimate ❑■ other (specify) aerial 2. Total Property Water Frontage: 70 ft. 3. Setbacks: Provided: 1.3&2-1 ft. Required: 15&15 ft. 4. Total Protrusion of Proposed Facility into Water: 255 ft, 5. Number and Length of Vessels to use Facility: 1. 17 ft. 2. ft. 6. List any additional dock facilities in close proximity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each: There are numerous other docking facilities on the same waterway that extend out past the allowed 20 -feel or much further as we are proposing. 7. Signs are required to be posted for all petitions. On properties that are 1 acre or larger in size, the applicant shall be responsible for erecting the required sign. What is the size of the petitioned property? 0.113 Acres May 8, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg. 219 Zoning Land Use N A -ST Special Treatment - Pompano Bay .S RMF -16 Marco Towers E RSF-4 Single-family Residential W RSF-4 Single-family Residential DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Narrative description of project (indicate extent of work, new dock, replacement, addition to existing facility, any other pertinent information): The proposed project will consist of constructing a new single-family docking facility located on Pompano Bay at 37 Pelican Street West. The dock with vessel will protrude approximately 255 -feet from the most restrictive point being the plotted property line. We are requesting a 235 -foot dock extension from the allowed 20-ffet into a waterway that is approximately 1,152 -feet wide. SITE INFORMATION 1. Waterway Width: 1,152 ft. Measurement from ❑ plat ❑ survey ❑ visual estimate ❑■ other (specify) aerial 2. Total Property Water Frontage: 70 ft. 3. Setbacks: Provided: 1.3&2-1 ft. Required: 15&15 ft. 4. Total Protrusion of Proposed Facility into Water: 255 ft, 5. Number and Length of Vessels to use Facility: 1. 17 ft. 2. ft. 6. List any additional dock facilities in close proximity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each: There are numerous other docking facilities on the same waterway that extend out past the allowed 20 -feel or much further as we are proposing. 7. Signs are required to be posted for all petitions. On properties that are 1 acre or larger in size, the applicant shall be responsible for erecting the required sign. What is the size of the petitioned property? 0.113 Acres May 8, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg. 219 9.A.2.c Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 8. Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes B■ No If yes, please provide copies. PRIMARY CRITERIA The following criteria, pursuant to LDC section 5.03.06, shall be used as a guide by staff in determining its recommendation to the Office of the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner will utilize the following criteria as a guide in the decision to approve or deny a particular Dock Extension request. In order for the Hearing Examiner to approve the request, it must be determined that at least 4 of the 5 primary criteria, and at least 4 of the 6 secondary criteria, must be met. On separate sheets, please provide a narrative response to the listed criteria and/or questions. 1. Whether or not the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use, and zoning of the subject property; consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical, single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi -family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate.) 2. Whether or not the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should show that the water depth is too shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s) described without an extension.) 3. Whether or not the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel.) 4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether or not a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages.) 5. Whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.) May 8, 2018 Page 3 of 6 Packet Pg. 220 9.A.2.c Co eT Claunty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 SECONDARY CRITERIA I. Whether or not there are special conditions, not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.) Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe, access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.) 3. For single-family dock facilities, whether or not the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) 4. Whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of either property owner.) 5. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with LDC subsection 5.03.06 I must be demonstrated.) 6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of LDC subsection 5.03.06 E.11. (If applicable, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.E.11 must be demonstrated.) May 8, 2018 Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 221 CIm r Coft2y COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Pre -Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: ❑ Dock Extension ❑ Boathouse Chapter 3 B. of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre -Application Meeting, and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Completed Application (download current form from County website) 1 Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Signed and Sealed Survey 1 Chart of Site Waterway 1 Site Plan Illustration with the following: • Lot dimensions; • Required setbacks for the dock facility; • Cross section showing relation to MHW/MLW and shoreline (bank, seawall, or rip -rap revetment); • Configuration, location, and dimensions of existing and proposed 1 ❑ facility; • Water depth where proposed dock facility is to be located; • Distance of navigable channel; • Illustration of the contour of the property; and • Illustration of dock facility from both an aerial and side view. Affidavit of Authorization. signed and notarized 1 ® ❑ Completed Addressing Checklist 1 ® ❑ Electronic copy of all required documents *Please be advised: The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all 1 U ❑ materials to be submitted electronically in PDF format. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: ■ Following the completion of the review process by County review staff, the applicant shall submit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. • Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. May 8, 2018 Page 5 of 6 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 222 Ar-�450�0u"�ty 9.A.2.c COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT MAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colllergov.net (239) 2524400 FAX: (239) 252-5358 PLANNERS — INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: ❑ Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: Executive Director ❑ Historical Review Addressing: Annis Moxam Parks and Recreation; David Berra ❑ City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director ❑ school District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart ❑ Conservancy of SWFL: Nlchole Johnson ❑ Other: ❑ Emergency Management: Dan Summers; and/or EMS: Artie Bay ❑ Other: FEE REQUIREMkENTS- ❑ Boat Dods Extension Petition: $1,500.00 ❑ Estlmated Legal Advertising flee for the Offi9e of the Fleming Examiner. $1,125.00 ❑ An additional fee for property owner notifications will be billed to the applicant prior to the Hearing Examiner gearing date. Fire Code Plans Review Fees are collected at the time of appikation submission and those fees are set Borth by the Authority having jurisdkdon. The land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notrfication mailers forAppikations headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the Information Indicated on this checklist is Included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal Information may result in the delay of processing this petition. Art checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department Planning and Regulation ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 q 4atof Peti er or Agent Die May 8, 2018 Page 6 of 6 Packet Pg. 223 9.A.2.c > TURRELL, HALL &ASSOCIATES, INC. MARINE & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 3584 Exchange Avenue • Naples, Florida 34104-3732 • 239-643-0166 • Fax (239) 643-6632 snick@TRAnaples.com Primary Criteria 1. Whether or not the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use, and zoning of the subject property; consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical, single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi -family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate.) The subject property is zoned for single-family residential use which warrants no more than 2 slips per CC -LDC. The applicant proposes to provide mooring for just one 17' vessel. 2. Whether or not the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should show that the water depth is too shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s) described without an extension.) The main reason for extending beyond the normal allowed protrusion limit is the lack of ample water depth. With a granted BDE, the applicant will be able to ingress, egress, and moor a single vessel without issue. 3. Whether or not the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel.) The area that the proposed dock will traverse is too shallow for any navigation to take place. Additionally, the project location is in the corner of a dead-end bay which experiences a relatively low amount of boat traffic 4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether or not a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages.) The dock location along with the neighboring docking facilities are all located along a corner of the bay in which the project will be located. The bay in which the project is located ranges from over 500 feet wide to 1200 feet wide. Packet Pg. 224 5. Whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.) Ingress and egress of the neighboring dock to the north will not be affected because the mooring slip is located at the end of the dock and rans in the same direction as the dock itself. The neighboring dock to the south is marginal and will not be affected by the proposed project. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 225 9.A.2.c - TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC, MARINE & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 3584 Exchange Avenue • Naples, Florida 34104-3732.239-643-0166 • Fax (239) 643-6632 •nick@THAnaples.com Secondary Criteria 1. Whether or not there are special conditions, not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.) The location and shape of the subject property, neighboring properties, and the associated riparian lines is such that the only way a dock can be constructed in this location with ample space for ingress and egress is if it is extended beyond the protrusion line. 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe, access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.) The dock width has been minimized as much as possible in order to reduce over - water structure while still maintaining safe access to the vessel's mooring location 3. For single-family dock facilities, whether or not the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) The proposed vessel may be under 50% of the applicant's shoreline, depending on the interpretation of the location of shoreline ownership. 4. Whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of either property owner.) There are already several similar docking facilities in close proximity to this project. Negative impacts to neighbors' views are therefore not anticipated. 5. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with LDC subsection 5.03.06 I must be demonstrated.) There are no seagrass beds present on the property nor on neighboring properties within 200 feet of the project site. Packet Pg. 226 9.A.2.c 6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of LDC subsection 5.03.06 E.11. (If applicable, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.E.11 must be demonstrated.) The proposed work pertains to a single-family docking facility and therefore not subject to the Manatee Protection Requirements. Packet Pg. 227 PROOF OF OWNERSHIP WARRANTY DEEDS I 9.A.2.c I Packet Pg. 228 w�{'gxgYy,Sn r.,, `•"h,M y i•x. q.M V7 min 'WITY &WRIUM DEED "ffi�TIIIs Indtll Wrle, Made this 1st: day at Jim 111193, Saw m KARYN A. COOPER, a startled wo+nan, farmody knua n as KARYN A. HIMIRL, a single person. FIRST PARTY, ar 37 w. PAw St, Nw N. FL 33M to McTf,`.11EL COOPER and KARYN /1. COOPER. husband and wife. of 37 W. Pilose St. NMIM FE asgaZ SECOND PARTY. 9.A.2.c W tl *NM. That ntid WA poly, for and In ovAidwaasn of the sum of TEN AND 0DhW9 (PUD) Ddlers in bond Pit! by 00 said ee00nd padA the NOW whereof it looby adewwledpad. does hereby remise. rdnase and quh•clelm secondM C7 iota the add Puy forever, al The right, ft . dakm and demand whish the sold Srst party has In and to _ the fokwft dem bed bl. piece or pmod of lend. alhreue, tying and being in the Coony of COLLIER. Slate of FLORIDA. O m wl c'a 4W To comet a deed retarded In O.R. Beck 1888, Page 1208, Publia records of Collier County, Pfadds, to wit± Lot 80, isles of Capri No. 1, as recorded in Piot Book 3, Page 41. of the Public Records of Collier Courcy, Florida, together with that portion of Pompano Bay lying upland of the 1.0' contour contiguous with said Lot 80 as delineated on a survey by A. Tdgo & Assoatates which Is defined by a fine extending from the Northwest comer of said Lot 8o in a direction of North 55 50' 01" East to said mean high water line and a line extending from the Northeast comer of said Lot 81 in a dir*WDn of North 48 18' 25' East to sold moan high voter line, delineating the appro diode tlnrits of Riparian Frights. Adachad is Erdtibtt A, Consisting of 2 pages Of gamey dated May 20. 1891, prepared by A. TAgo & Asocloos. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD are Anne r 099 therando belonging or In anywise appedaioft and al the a 1*1 right, *,At . egwv and del ao said *9 party, s,Ther In low or eghdfil, to the a* proper use. he the said second In Mien Whwoa. d the an lrst above wrlien. Vaned. seded and detvwed our WiTir 0( 0 41 PO4 or%" r-arne Packet Pg. 229 V10bess !2 Print at We came L L ] STATS OF FLORIDA OOI Y OF COWER The ipl Wit hagamwht aeda+owledysdi a this day of�ALf.1993 by KAREN A. 000PER, h paroona known td me 0 fessgoad as idoilMonimi and who Received SiD Docuislentary Stwp Taz Retained $ Liass 'G' 3h:-,.^.,SbiC s0 Property Tax 2 �L ,n M _Per :al DWIGHT E. CLE CIilCIFiT C(tdr.T NOTARY PUBLIC &2z&,WS-r l��%ION a` ibil'`, ST ,c. - PdrdatMmname Cda&a tC7 h m MEAL REMflREQ) CDMMI8&ON ..nmT BOROON STATE OF FLORIDA • . PREPARED 8Y. �cornm BONDED}/1/84 �} Hawardi J. Huegel 278 Capri Blvd, Naples, FL 33962 Packet Pg. 229 !to 2 x LU 0 m 0 m 0 0 0 I x W4 tm C Packet Pg. 231 9.A.2.c • -. .:a4-.: ..... ........w.a..a- n ` ;t,- 'L!:40af" 4Z1: .'lw�r. k•: ti.. . NEC p f 1 f� T I 1988 lIIyR -�s ' PK. 1'>rl lnsht!msnt was by, r �' MUIR COUNTY . RECQRM lHno� A-TLF=ENr ATTORNLp .8 i1gJ w. 11h11l. r INT -Ned. Se 1140 ino : t a0, rAR10 A $110117Ar.w SiARY FOIiYI—SEiTIUY i19.C! F3.) �•s-�++^. i+�.t � a'� ; aDlciao a_c,s• �� ° f 16 3nbm wr, Mode this day of ! 19 Be , frtairrn' OPAL PORT, . an onrataarried widow of the CM* of Collier Slate of Plorida , geonlor", and XRRM S. flMMM, a single parson whasa post office address h 151 Channel Court, .Marco Inland, Florida 33937 of the County of Collier . stale of F'lorift'11gradve', V11lJ M14, That sold grantor, for mid In considemiian of the sum of _-----------_-- �N.^�_�..« As0 00/3-00 ($10.001 ^--- ^^ 'Odlars, and other Mood and valuable considerations la add grantor in hand paid- by said granMe, the resatpt whereof hr herby aeknowledge4 has granted, bargained and sold fo the sold graadae, and grontea's heirs and assigns forever, dna tolk*o Q descrbed land, ilwate, hung and being In' Collier County, Florida, to•wlt. M C� LLot So of IBL88 oF. CAM NO. 10 according to tate Plat thereof,-ztcorded � t� Plat sock 3, page a1, Collier COtinty, Florida. cis BUST= to reatri!:tiona and demon to the subdivisiori. :qj BUBJ CT to tazes for. 8 rel years. C meM1`+u?' St3rrin Tal Re It c U F i, o 52 N jr Q ca and said grantor don hembyt fully woman "lo said lard, and d The some signing the lawful detms of all persons whooenever. ' s "GmMar and "grafi. Ian pleroi, as cw!tenl requires RMA MbIr"itf for has haraunfa grodare hand qnd seal the, day and year first above women. s n osis, 11 Do Cir r s.,o,i owl) rsean . fsaan' lsaan STATE OF. F C COUK" OF" COL -4— � f FOREST CERTIFY that an this day blare me, on of ar duly qualified to fake admmrledgmena„' personally appeared OPAL !'ORT to me known to he fiie potion. desnibed In and who aeeculed the foragoing Insbumeid nod, adnowledgod before me Mat I ' he aoawt„il iM saen. WITNESS my hand and afflefol seal In the County and Stale too ld IM, do al ' My eosmniedoa n!piroa MMKwaftry Pubic { 11113Rt "We loth[ a M.N. } 1 Is gatlilnraatUP. ita 1..+.:: i : I•. COWERF!rvti:::it. k,LW.'a1 JA:.t! :: ,........ t ;RACK Packet Pg. 232 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM I 9.A.2.c I Packet Pg. 233 C. r -�9A�Cnuny COLLIFA COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWN MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT X800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-1400 FAIL: (239) 25Z-5358 PROPERTY OVI1i11ERSMIP DISCLOSURE FORM This Is a required farm with all land use pOWans, empt for Appeals and Zoning Verification Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it Is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use addltionaf sheets ff teary. a. If the property Is owned fee simple by an IND��1 tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such Interest: Dame and Address 96 or vwners"I a If the property is owned by a QORPQRATION, list the officers and ster*hnidare mnd them If the property Is In the name of a TR_TR_ USTEE. list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Name and Address Created 912812017 Page 4 of .%,. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 234 AT'45=ntz COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT d nW NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 341" (239) 2522400 FAX: (299) 252-6358 If the property is in the name of a GENS or LIMITI<D PARTNER5HIP list the name of the general and/car limited partners: Name and Address ss If there is a CONTRACT ER PURCHASER with an Individual or Individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the Date of Contmci: Marne and f. If arty contingency clause or contract terms Involve additional parties, list all individuals or i?ffICeTS, if a corporat;on, partnership, or trust: Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired . ❑ Leased: Term of lease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following; Created 9/2"17 Page 2 of 3 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 235 COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWN MANAGEMENT (DEPARTMENT 11 amcolliemw,net Ar minty 2M NORTH HORSESHOE oRiYE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-,2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Oats of option: Dane option terminates: . or Anticipated closing date: AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERMIP INFORMATION Any pion ra InW to have Preparty Ownership Disdbsur% Will not be aaapted wI&M tMs Ibnn. Iilegr kament: for p types aro !Dated en the assodatad aPplkation form. Any change In mm erAlp whether Wvkk * or wth a Thwbm Company or other lowin d4widing party, must he dbdosad to Collier County i nnwdlataly if such Change occurs prior to the pedtions flnei pWWlc hearing, As the authorized agerrtlapplirant far this petition. I attest that all of the lnfnrnaation Indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information meg result In the delay of processing this petition. The Completed application, all rewired submittal materials, and fees shall be submftted to. Growth Management Department ATTW. Business Center 28W North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34m Agent/owner nature 'A16-4clZ 4T A90WOwner Name (ple se print) 4 Cy , Created 9/28/2017 311 �/, g Page 3 of 3 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 236 AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION I 9.A.2.c I Packet Pg. 237 9.A.2.c AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) L p KaLr- +n iA C,00pieA' 100 e r (print name), as Q W rie-r- (title, If applicable) of (company, ff a licable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner® applicant=rontract purchaser=and that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. Ail answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed b the approv9d action. 5. Well authorize Ore t 'r,. to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition lnciuding 4 through 2 above. *Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation, then it Is usually executed by the corp, pres. or v. pres. • if the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's 'Managing Member_" • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the general partner" of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee": * In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated in it aro true. -7 Si ure rh +cFhell r3 aovpef- roft car - STATE OF FLOPJDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me on S ao a (date) by r �} Zw (name of person providing oath or affirmatiop), as G is personally known to me or who has produced _DIr'_ f.t C (type of identifi tion) as identification. STAMPISEAL 44 "- ;Rlvs Signature of Notary Pub c LEERFILMM EXPIRES: Oebber 30, 2017 t BmW rnm *Wy Pubic undrrwfts cr108-c:0A-0011511sS REV 3I M14 Packet Pg. 238 LOCATION MAP DRAWINGS I 9.A.2.c I Packet Pg. 239 Z W L!1 � nD n� go J V V 9.A.2.c Y U 0 0 w a 0 0 U a z O U O Packet Pg. 240 Qv \� w O Z x x Q 11. x , Y x O x % ¢ a I 4 9w 4 x x X\ xm Z O Q❑ e 4 0 I? x x X X" Z O x4 .x x 4 22 w r2 N x. x\w 4 x o " X 4 4 o X x LUX1p\ x m x Z Q Z oX c x . e' 'J 17 x x Xx M (p c-• ❑ LL O� axmX� xm 4 4 II IJ7 Z anx X W Z 7C as %% r.\x x W� C U O 1) IL I 4 9w 4 x x X\ xm Z O Q❑ e 4 0 I? x x X X" Z O x4 .x x 4 22 w r2 N x. e g O 7 J J C = a OPI o x �Uul7 11��2 Me 4M �4 M. zzs� os$ aiirg w65�L gg Olr 4w z. OD O J 9.A.2.c Ioeen Y U 0 0 w <�y W V WZ U) W 0 0 0 Packet Pg. 241 o " X 4 4 o X x o" " x x 4 . x `j oX c x . Z x. /� 7C as Z x U O 1) ¢O w ` to e g O 7 J J C = a OPI o x �Uul7 11��2 Me 4M �4 M. zzs� os$ aiirg w65�L gg Olr 4w z. OD O J 9.A.2.c Ioeen Y U 0 0 w <�y W V WZ U) W 0 0 0 Packet Pg. 241 Z �,_j \ , 04 O ZLL J X Z LU W ca Z F N w 1-2 Up go Co z z U) X w N LU COU 9.A.2.c u O ;f \ � Z d Q 0 p O a o m O o ,� a € v 0 a. in J O J J I N (� 0 O Q e LL w (1) Q a� WJ Q 1 o? 0 wQ pU w . 0E- H>- QD III O .�. 0 F -a W >- ZO y �U a Q z 10 IX -Fu to \ n a Q �Cp V Y if Z \ m � N N � � c ' CMN CL Q l a V o� N T tk % Z w \ J Wo MWMRInL M112Dte Packet Pg. 242 C �rv!e i K LU u o W W`� u G Y u O ;f \ � Z d Q 0 p O a o m O o ,� a € v 0 a. in J O J J I N (� 0 O Q e LL w (1) Q a� WJ Q 1 o? 0 wQ pU w . 0E- H>- QD III O .�. 0 F -a W >- ZO y �U a Q z 10 IX -Fu to \ n a Q �Cp V Y if Z \ m � N N � � c ' CMN CL Q l a V o� N T tk % Z w \ J Wo MWMRInL M112Dte Packet Pg. 242 Q m 0 m yr x LU n \\ u; x v .x M x? X v Y? x a y x x N qIm `i I O d U x x a x[O X Nm = x x N . O X w ry V z J \ C; Z•�nk.�, .� X m Q X .,T o Q � 4 7r�Jx5. Q m 0 O LU z � a U a CO a d U W Z u Z iE :3F - LL 0 W IN 1.1� O QZ 0 LO Q N O Q hr X 4k �Mr ;;X \ X ri. X m \X . )b m \ •° ..MX x x x 0 0 z a �#.§ w o&'KZ wg Re aig- w k��'a FFwg 42W1 ff as Y ZZUF ;�00 z m ; MIR $0 LLSC 2K Wwoet4 Cgrcrc Zz Fw & ~a7 wZ1°0Z�F3aa www 1waawa9 S� e13 FUR sul, MUH Y . 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 243 Y 0 O U !Z 0 CO O n X U a W o� G v = a m Z v WJ o a O •� a N0 L.L CCm G a � O Um Z Q C� PQ d V y H -W a I AZAA d mo LULU J a v, mQ z Packet Pg. 243 w ' o _ z t� rr ' OLINTri17a5-COOPER-COUNTY.dwp SECTION(Z 7ammia 9.A.2.c iLL 0 Z� ow Qo z i� m :r = f g 0 ' LL O D O It CL O Y O ❑ ❑ Lu X ❑ jI QI u� � z N vl a a ci i w ' o _ z t� rr ' OLINTri17a5-COOPER-COUNTY.dwp SECTION(Z 7ammia 9.A.2.c A b ail -dwp m m Z O P W W z�z 9.A.2.c V Packet Pg. 245 ZZ 0 I� b z�z 9.A.2.c V Packet Pg. 245 w z=~ F -U LL Co v)C7LLa g w o w IN rj) Q � z 0 w w — w Co 0 / z0a 9.A.2.c 6 AAM r�m GUN N � - 0 wo °' f0 :.% .2 W Q w C � CL m u 0 H 0CM w / Ww N E w a cU N m .g 0 /w W C 0� r�m R El Packet Pg. 246 GUN N � - or Q a f0 :.% .2 W Q w C � CL m c H I,1 1 M R El Packet Pg. 246 4 30' 1 Packet Pg. 247 ,09 u v � a ° €� I❑ a Ilk w H 7 FHd. RB J � O p tlo d 1 � Z �= 77 �F KF+�'}� 6:F,XXoKo Z 2 0W Wz=� wow>WLLLL dORIFRFF�WwB4 0926 W N vi C '^ F �`. ¢.g.WJillH tggllll OO ss� 8 19 o�Y°�$�� r s m z yy�� �sss F F -*Oa °d °dB§F aFFF 0 _ _ \Lu 7 � � w a - o F i V Z . p ocPi2j 4 30' 1 Packet Pg. 247 `sem II H a Pi776S-C o-mr OodACADU-ERMi7-00UM-yyI 6S{OOPER-COUNTY.dwq HUMM y - Y O a v W U) a fe CL 6 Cf 3� C7�oo�,� �pgpQQ gg 20Un'= aS gXw wz 7 U rLLWy o� `� -'% K H9 Krc i N ioKrny� Hit W t wow, W Wg3 W 000H WDO z r� r5� o rU y���i�����s��a���� 0 -WH z. 9.A.2.c � r a E u w WW � s LL Co Ag u 0 u O 0 N K v K F Um LU C to N hl U n ,e o O O _ C O� w Q i3n wm 0 0 w 90, o W Co Y 0 0 0 U0 � 0 U� o O a N � a E u WW a n � LL Co Ag 0 � 0 V Um C to N hl U n ,e C S^.-,� O _ c0 2 O� w Q i3n � a H M Packet Pg. 248 Lq \ rr _ r1p 1 r L `s e Z o �n F n acWirc� Wq75�. °�� i M K MWs 581 111-5 a�ax0mall hmmr r��u tlo���ww� ��SOO g a r�oy aS ijqgj D. l �r�saHu z. ,Fy—f -4 . Y U >- W 0 - LU CO 0 w o a IL Ix o w a LU mco 9.A.2.c 4 Packet Pg. 249 SURVEY I 9.A.2.c I a+ Q a Packet Pg. 250 PAGE 1 OF 3 LOT 82 2 i SCALE 1'= W POMPANO BAY �1 LOT 80 & PARCEL CONTAINS 0.28 ACRES OF LAND LIFT MORE OR LESS. POMPANO BAY i y / Ile r 1.T NORTH 1 ✓ OF RIPARIAN LINE NPPAARIINAN LIM i ✓ Lar m R9i11RUNLIN88 r / / / / /' RIPARIANLINBB ADJACENTmmfiwm ✓ '� / / / l ' ADAMENT LOT 84D= i ..� poac AREA Lcrr In / RIPARutMI�naTPORTION ae wme l i f AS IN OJZ BOOK 1897 G i ✓ / PG 06 i MJ_W. LINE ELEV. ■ -10 J1 (11-02017) / HOT ON M.N1. LINE ELEV.—OA 08 SHOT N 017 ADJACENT VYOOD DOCIQ8N1IN0 UFTB PRIVAGY WALL pamm OWNNBB'1:OOw P.O.B. P.O.T. Fila a!P IBm1 Fly raR1a P4 p�vr�Ierre Nora►Iowr4 80 Lor s1LOT AS DESCRATHATPOIBED LOT 79 BE CHNIN ( BP..& I= BllY.■Bee 0111'1000 ' ,.3W P.oe. BBB'189a1Ts (rte 70J10'[Pj � 889"1BOVE 240.� — LEGAL DESCRIPTION: CL PELICAN STREET LOT so, ISLES OF CAPRI NOA. AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3. PAGEW 41, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TOGETHER WITH (80' WIDE) THAT PORTION OF PAMPANO BAY LYING UPLAND OF THE 1.8' CONTOUR (ROADWAY, P.U.E.) CONTIGUOUS WITH SAID LOT BOAS DELINEATED ON A SURVEY BYA. TRIGO & ASSOCIATES WHICH IS DEFINED BY A LINE EXTENDING FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT so IN A DIRECTION OF NORTH W W 01" EAST TO SAID MEAN HIGH WATER LINE AND A LINE EXTENDING FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 80 IN A DIRECTION OF NORTH 48° IV 25" EAST TO SAID MEAN HIGH WATER LINE, DELINEATING THE APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS NOTES: 1.THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE CENTERLINE OF PELICAN 87REET 41 ODNT.BESF SHOWN COUYBMG %M SBD 19 EAST. 2,IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN ARE NOT A PART OF THIS SURVEY. 3 -SAID DESCRIBED LAND IS SUBJECT TO ALL SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, ZONING AND RIGHTB-OF- WAY OF RECORD. COATE OF FIELD SURVEY NOVEMBER Z Wff. B.THIS SURVEY MAP IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO SURVEY MAPS OR REPORT8 BY OTHER THAN THE SIGNING PARTY OR PARTIES IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE SIGNING PARTY OR PARTIES. &SUBSURFACE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WERE NOT EXAMINED AS A PART OF THIS SURVEY. NO STATEMENT IS MADE CONCERNING THE EXISTENCE OF UNDERGROUND OR OVERHEAD CONTAINERS, UTILITIES OR FACILITIES THAT MAYAFFECT THE USE OR DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY. 7 -ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE BASED ON NA.V.D. DATUM OF IN& DESCRIPTION OF BENCHMARK IS AS FOLLOW$: SET PKNAIL IN NORTH EDGE OF ROAD EAST PROP LINE EXT. ELEV. a 3.84' 8. THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY 16 TO SHOW THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AND THE VATER DEPTHS AT THE SHORELINE WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S BOUNDARY LINES 9.SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SITUATED IN FLOOD ZONE" "AS INDICATED ON FEMA FLOOD ZONE MAP PANEL NO DATED: BASE ELEVATION DETERMINED AT NIA 1 MNO TIME OPINION OR ABSTRACT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS BEEN PROVIDED. ALL INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY THE CLIENT. IT 18 POSSIBLE THAT THERE ARE DEEDS, EASEMENTS, OR OTHER INSTRUMENTS (RECORDED OR UNRECORDED) WHICH MAY AFFECTTHE SUBJECT PROPERTY. NO SEARCH OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS HAS BEEN MADE BY THE SURVEYOR. 11. THE LAND DESCRIPTION SHOWN HEREON 18 BASED UPON THE INSTRUMENT OF RECORD. LEGEND 0 - FOUND (') IRON ROLEGEND D (SURVEYOR 13 /) (PIR) ® - SET 112' IRON ROD (PSM rpBp%pIRC) M - SET 4' X 4" CONCRETE MONUMENT (PSM # MXWM) 17 - FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT (SURVEYOR 10 *VCM) * BENCHMARK (FOUND OR 89M RN - RIGHT OF WAY(R.M W.) 0 - FOUND NAIL OR PK NAIL AND DISC ( SURVEYOR ID S) (FPKN) 4) - SET PK NAIL AND DISC (PSM /8004) (SPKN&O) FD. - FOUND FN&TT - FOUND NAIL AND TN TAB SM ■ BENCHMARK QM)- FIELD MEASUREMENT (C)-CALCULATEDMEASUREMENT P.C.P. - PERMANENT CONTROL POINT (9) C.L.- CENTERLINE P.R.M. - PERMANENT REFERENCE MONUMENT (S) (PG) - PAGE (P) OR (D) - PLAT OR RECORDED(DEED) MEASUREMENT (PB) ■ PLAT BOOK PL EXT - PROPERTY LINE EXTENDED CMP - CORRUGATED METAL PIPE CATV -CABLE TV 19 - FINISHEDFLOOR U.T.S.- UNITED TELEPHONE RISER -WELL CONC - CONCRETE CO - CATCH BASIN OR INLET N - VYATERMATE VALVE R.C,P. - REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE SANTTARYSEWER PROP -PROPERTY X-SPOTELEVATTON PT OF COMMENCEMENT POB - PT OF BEGINNING POT■ PTOF TERMINUS BOB -BOTTOM OF SLOPE EO ■ EDGE OF CBS -CONCRETE BLOCK & STUCCO VG - VALLEY GUrMR ELEC. - ELECTRIC TRANS - TRANSFORMER JAC a JACL= DE ■ DRAINAGE EPEE ENT SINE - SIDEWALK EASEMENT LBE ■ LANDSCAPE BUFFER EASEMENT IE - IRRIG. EASEMENT PUE - PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT UE - UTILITY EASEMENT LMA(E)- LAKE MAINTENANCE ACCESS EASEMENT LME - LAKE MAINTENANCTe EASEAAENT A Er ACCESS EASEMENT 9.A.2.c MAP OF �PECIFIC PURPOSE SURVEI LOT 80 OF ISLES OF CAPRIS NO.1, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF PAMPANO BAY LYING UPLAND OF THE IM CONTOUR CONTIGUOUS WITH SAID LOT 80 AS DELINEATED ON A SURVEY BY A. TRIGO AND ASSOCIATES AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 PAGE(S) 41 AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 1837 PAGE954-957 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 37 PELICAN STREET WEST CERTIFIED TO: TURRELL-HALL AND ASSOCIATES CERTIFICATION: I CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY VMS MADE UNDER MY DIRECTION AND THAT IT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE SET FORTH BY THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS IN CHAPTER SJ -17, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 472.027, FLORIDA STATUTES. NOTA CERTIFICATION OF TITLE, ZONING, EASEMENTS OR FREEDOM OF ENCUMBRANCES. DW*�bjrC..tKQ"my C.«.rrs! o,«aFconKr.,y-y, x",.c wry L SIGNED �„„«W COURT H. GREGORY PSM #8004 DATE 07/27/2018 DATE OF FIELD SURVEY 11-07,2017 LB #7112 PSM # 8004 C.C.S. Cour! Gregory Surveying, 761 Teton Court Naples, Florida 34104 (239)643-7845 office Date 07/27/2018 cgs6004Qcomcast.net Job 0 EN40i46M (239)272-3707 Cell Fb EN4-31 Pg packet Pg. 251 .--,-qp ..+w PAGE 2 OF 3 POMPANO BAY`S /x4.0 LOT 80 & PARCEL CONTAINS 0.28 ACRES OF LAND ,5 4V_ MORE OR LESS. POMPANO BAY s r r i r O � r r'r rf� 1.7 r / � � I 9 r FIRC SW (# 3884) P.O.B. N8909'DO"W 70.00' (P) N89024'160W 70.16' (M) i x-rL9 moi`` f�r -3:6x�0 x x-,7 x-62 x 4L8 .x2.5SAA x.4.8 77 x .7,0 x 41 x2.7 x-7.0 r r!r /x2.1 x - / x-2.8 x _rte J/ x.2.6 x.7A fes` -1 x x2.1 2.8///x 2A Iif / x28 - x.1.7 x42 x.�$ x-26 -09$0:9 r/ 40,7 'le x4.7 xZoe xas x2.9 $��Q7 x -1.24r x2.9 x 2-0.6 —4� x -2 2 0.2 / x -1,1 /d x 2.0 x•2.2 X a DENOTES SPOT ELEVATION (NAVD 1958) 18 f x2.1 / x2t x 11 w // 0 9 x -2.1 X1x s rf t28 Vu x 2.4c1.9 ka x2a*A > / X2.8 f P.O.T. FIRC WS' (# ) (IMPROVEMENTS NOT SHOWN) LOT 80 & THAT PORTION w w ,� LOT 79 9 AS DESCRIBED $ FL �T �P gr Z� ello;c 2.0 x -22 �A 45 -1.8 SCALE I"= 30' MAP OF "PECIFIC PURPOSE SURVEY LOT 80 OF ISLES OF CAPRIS NO.1, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF PAMPANO DAY LYING UPLAND IF THE 1.B' CONTOUR CONTIGUOUS FITH SAID LOT 80 AS DELINEATED ON A SURVEY BY A. TRIGO AND ASSOCIATES AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 PAGE(S) 41 AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 1837 PAGE954957 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 37 PELICAN STREET WEST CERTIFIED TO., TURRELL-HALL AND ASSOCIATES CERTIFICATION: I CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY VMS MADE UNDER MY DIRECTION AND THAT IT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE SET FORTH BY THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS IN CHAPTER W-17, FLORIDAADMINISTRATIVE CODE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 472.027, FLORIDA STATUt£$ NOT A CERTIFICATION OF TITLE, ZONING, EASEMENTS OR FREEDOM OF ENCUMBRANCES. *ywda�x.Gmq" SIGNED��� COURT H. GREGORY PSM 96004 DATE 07/27/2018 DATE OF FIELD SURVEY 11-02-2017 LB #7112 PSM # 6004 C.G.S. Court Qrogory Surveying, 761 Teton Court Naples, Florida 34104 (239)643-7845 office Date 07/27/2018 cgs6004GcomcasLnet Jab # EN40148M (239)272,3707 call Fb EN4-31 Pg 76 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 252 sw 154) PAGE 3OF3 POMPANO BAY ✓ ✓ { 44 �. ✓ / /� x�8 9 -&4LOT 80 & PARCEL CONTAINS 0.28 ACRES OF LAND �% �-9� MORE OR LESS. POMPANO BAY f ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ / 6 .2 1 7 � � 4 .2.0';m- x -A -07 X -4.s ✓ /f th x'24 ' x-0.1 x-6.1 ✓ / j '�� x -1.6 B-&3 x �.z �, ✓ / % .� x -0.9 '1.6 x -3 2 x -4.2 x -04 ✓ ✓ / r5'c -0.8 // x -1.8 x -6 4 x-0.4 // x-1.1 ✓ ✓ // �x a6 x/ x-1.0 ✓ // x // x-0.9 x-0.4 x-0.7 4/x -0.0 x-06 // x4.8 x-0.6 �' x4.0 x4. x-07 x.18 x0A x-0.7 x -0.6 16 , / / X = DENOTES SPOT ELEVATION ADJUSTED TO MLW (-1.81) X" �/x-0A x-0.8 6 1 A x x 415 x3AZ x yejp6 x-06 x 3.1 $4 /! 2. 2 x-0.6 X 3.6XC . in J 4'c X4.035 ., _ 4 A2 x.4.6 A f xju / P.O.B. N8901 OMDN I P.O.T. FIRC 618' (9 3964) 70.00' (P) NW2*16`W 70.10' (M) (IMPROVEMENTS NOT SHOWN) LOT 80 & THAT PORTION w r. y AS DESCRIBED r WWW � r LOT 79 SCALE I"= 30' MAP OF PPECIFIC PURPOSE SURVE' LOT 80 OF ISLES OF CAPRIS NO.1, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF PAMPANO BAY LYING UPLAND IF THE 1.B` CONTOUR CONTIGUOU, vITH SAID LAT 80 AS DELINEATED ON A SURVEY BY A. TRIGO AND ASSOCIATES AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 PAGE(S) 41 AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 1837 PAGE954-957 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 37 PELICAN STREET WEST CERTIFIED TO. TURRELL-HALL AND ASSOCIATES CERTIFICATION: I CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS MADE UNDER MY DIRECTION AND THAT IT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE SET FORTH BY THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS IN CHAPTER 5J-17, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 472.027, FLORIDA STATUTES. NOTA CERTIFICATION OF TITLE, ZONING, EASEMENTS OR FREEDOM OF ENCUMBRANCES. oie n,.ca.e n. a�,y,.-cwn SIGNED��� COURT H. GREGORY PSM #6004 DATE 07/27/2018 DATE OF FIELD SURVEY 11-02-2017 LB #7112 PSM # 6004 C.G.S. Court Gregory Surveying, 781 Teton Court Naples, Florida 34104 (239)643-7845 oNice Date 07/27/2018 ogs8004Gcomcast.net Job # EN40146M (239)272-3707 oell Fb EN4-31 Pg 76 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 253 PRE -APP MEETING I 9.A.2.c I a+ Q a Packet Pg. 254 Cofer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.collientov.net (239) 252-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Notes Petition Type: BDE Date and Time: 4/3/2018 9:00 AM Assigned Planner: JAMES SABO Engineering Manager (for PPL's and FP's): Project Information Project Name: COOPER DOCK BDE pL#: 20180001018 PropertylD#: 52343000003 Current Zoning: RSF-4 / A -ST 1 Project Address: 37 W. PELICAN STCity: NAPLES State: FL Zip. 34113-4021 Applicant: NICK PEARSON TURRELL,HALL & ASSOCIATES,INC. Agent Name: Phone: 239-643-0061 Agent/Firm Address: 3584 EXCHANGE AVE. City: NAPLES State: FL Zip: 34104 Property Owner: MITCHEL & KARYN COOPER Please provide the following, if applicable: I. Total Acreage: -18 ii. Proposed # of Residential Units: iii. Proposed Commercial Square Footage: iv. For Amendments, indicate the original petition number: W. If there is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please indicate the type and number: vi. If the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#: Updated 3/15/2018 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 255 Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.coIjIe0M.net (239) 252-2400 Meeting Notes AS of 10/16/2017 all Zoning applications have revised applications, and your associated Application Is included In your notes; additionally a *new Property Ownership Disclosure Form is required for all applications. A copy of this new form is Included in your pre -app Note — link Is b s;Uwww.colliernov.net/Homel$howDocument?id=75093. V11,4490— 6) -1APhi 0A1 APPL oCr\03 '4 A"o . Disclaimer Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checidists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 3/15/2018 Page 1 2 of 5 9.A.2.c c 0 .N c a� X LU Y 0 0 0 m Y 0 0 a 0 0 U le Co N ti Q r C d E t V fC r-+ a U) 2 •L w CL Y m cu r- 0 r 0 .Q a a c a� E U 0 r Q Packet Pg. 256 Co19er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www-gogemoymet iiiiiiiiii Q 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34304 (234) 252-2400 Meeting Notes 0 c m x LU 0 0 M 0 M 0 0 L d 0 0 U 0 N 1- E E t V R r-+ a 2 •L w CL m cu r- 0 r 0 U a a a Discialmer Information provided by staff to applicant during the pre Application Meeting is a based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the E applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LOC dictates the regulations which all appikations 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 a Provide all required data. Updated 3/15/2018 Pave 13 of 5 Packet Pg. 257 j cofter County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.collle.rgov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Sign -in Sheet PL# 20180001018 Collier County Contact Information: 9.A.2.c c 0 .N x LU U 0 0 M 0 m lieU 0 D `m a 0 0 U 0 N ti Packet Pg. 258 10 Name IReview Discipline Phone Email ❑ David Anthony Environmental Review 252-2497 david.anthon @colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Summer Araque Environmental Review 252-6290 summer.brownaraque@coiiiercounty GMD Operations and ❑ Claudine Auclair Regulatory Management 252-5887 claudine.auclair@colliercountyfl. ov ❑ Steve Baluch Transportation Planning 252-2361 1 stephen.baluch@colliercountyfLgov I ! Ray Bellows Zoning, Panning Manager 252-2463 raymond.beilows@colliercountyfl. av ❑ Laurie Beard PUD Monitorin 252-5782 laurie.beard@colliercountyil. ov Craig Brown Environmental Specialist 252-2548 craig.brown@coiliercountyfl.gov Managing Asst. County ❑ Heidi Ashton Clcko Attorney 252-8773 heidi.ashton@colllercountyfl.gov V Thomas Clarke Operations Coordinator 252-2584 thomas.clarke@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Kay Deselem Zoning Services 252-2586 kay.deselem@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Dale Fey North Collier Fire 1 59792227 dfey@northcoliferfire.com ❑ Eric Fey, P.E. Utility Planning 252-1037 eric.fey@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Tim Finn, AICP Zoning Division 252-4312 ❑ Sue Faulkner Comprehensive Planning 252-5715 -timothy.finn@colliercountyfi.gov sue.faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Paula Fleishman Impact Fee Administration 252-2924 I paula.fleishman@colliercountvfl.gov Growth Management Deputy ❑ James French Department Head 252-5717 ames.french@colliercountyfl.gov Structural/Residential Plan ❑ Michael Gibbons Review 252-2425 michael-gibbons@colliercountyfl.gov F Storm Gewirtz, P.E. Engineering Stormwater 252-2434 ❑ Nang Gundlach,AICP,PLA Zoning Division 252-2484 _storm.gewirtz@colliemountvfl.gov nancy.gundiach@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ 5har Hingson Greater Naples Fire District 774-2800 shingson@ nflre.org ❑ John Houldsworth Engineering Subdivision 252-5757 john.houldsworth@colliercountyfl.gDv ❑ Jodi Hughes Transportation Pathways 252-5744 Jodi.hughes@colliercountyfl.gov Alicia Humphries Right -Of -Way Permitting 252-2326 alicia.humphries@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Marcia Kendall Comprehensive Planning 252-2387 marcia.kendall@colliercountyff.gov ❑ John Kelly Zoning Senior Planner 252-5719 john.kelly@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Thomas Mastroberto Greater Naples Fire 252-7348 thomas.mastroberto@colliercountyfi.gi E ' Jack McKenna, P.E. Engineering Services 252-2911 ack.mckenna@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Matt McLean, P.E. Development Review Director 252-8279 matthew.mclean@colliercountyfi.gov ❑ Michele Mosca, AICP Capital Project Planning 252-2466 michele.mosca@colliercountyfl.gov Updated 3/15/2018 Page 1 4 of 5 9.A.2.c c 0 .N x LU U 0 0 M 0 m lieU 0 D `m a 0 0 U 0 N ti Packet Pg. 258 10 .Sigter County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 Additional Attendee Contact Information: Updated 3/15/2018 Page 15 of 5 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 259 r— Receipt Number: Transaction Number: Date Paid: Amount Due: Payment Details: Amount Paid: Change / Overage: Contact: FEE DETAILS: Pre -application Meeting Cashier Name: Batch Number: Entered By: Collier County Growth Management Division 1800 Horseshoe Drive N. Naples, FL 34104 �70_7s7_7wnn RECEIPT OF PAYMENT 2018489044 2018-027792 04/03/2018 $500.00 EAvmenLMathqAe b r Check $500.00 1654 $500.00 $0.00 ROGERS, JEFFREY R 5280 MYRTLE LN NAPLES , FL 34113 Ref 0dainal PL20180001olSfee$ 500.00 AlinaHarris 7220 ThomasClarke Amount CAccoun EM $500.00 131-138326-341276 9.A.2.c Iiiiii 0 .N c m X LU 0 0 0 m Y 0 0 m Q. 0 0 U 0 N ti Packet Pg. 260 F 9.A.2.c Residential Boat Dock Extension Checklist Submerged Resources Survey Checklist 1. Is there an overlay? ST overlay needs an ST permit (much of Isle of Capri & Keewaydin has an ST Overlay over the water) 2. Seagrass or seagrass beds within 200 feet of any proposed dock facility shall be identified on an aerial photograph. (LDC 5.03.06 I) Provide a submerged resources survey from an Environmental Consultant done between P530 3. All proposed dock facilities shall be located and aligned to stay at least ten feet from any existing seagrass beds, or meet restrictions for continuous beds. (LDC 5.03.06 J.) P530 4. Provide complete answers to Secondary Criteria #5 & #6. (Use Misc in CV) 5. Demonstrate how negative impacts to seagrass beds and other native shoreline vegetation and hard bottom communities have been minimized. (LDC 5.03.06 3.4) P530 6. The dock shall be field adjusted to minimize impacts to mangroves. (LDC 5.03.06 I.2) Remove this checklist item — look at LDC? P530 7. Provide a clearing plan for removal of any vegetation related to the boat dock. This is simply an information exhibit being requested. (Use Misc in CV) 8. Are there any draft restrictions? Look at the MPP. (Use Misc in CV) Keewaydin: BDE not required for Keewaydin - Most always need an ST permit related to a Building Permit water and land have ST Overlay Seagrass: Light penetration is needed to survive, usually in more shallow areas Submerged Resources Survey: Read thoroughly Check location description for street & waterway (if given) Check to see if it was uploaded to CV Indicate in CV "Continents box" if one was done & if it was uploaded to CV *****SEE SUGGESTED FORMAT OF SUBMERGED RESOURCES SURVEY ON NEXT PAGE* * * * * Packet Pg. 261 MULTI SLIP DOCKING FACILITY • Look at supplemental criteria in 5.05.02 o Port of the Islands uses different Rating system — see MPP • See 5.03.06 E 11 and 5.05.02 for Manatee awareness requirements for multi-sfip dockiniz facilities Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this LDC. (If applicable, compliance with section 5.03.06(E)(1I) must be demonstrated). Packet Pg. 262 9.A.2.c SUGGESTION FORMAT AND INFORMATION TO INCLUDE IN SUBMERGED RESOURCES SURVEY ➢ Location of survey — property address and folio# o The survey shall indicate any seagrass or seagrass beds located within 200 feet on any proposed dock facility (5.03.06.4 In order for this to be accomplished, any within 204 feet of the proposed dock (within the riparian lines of the property and adjacent to the property) shall be surveyed. Who did the survey — which firm and their contact informatinn inrind' 1 name, addire hone ,email ➢ What date was the survey conducted? o Weather conditions, water temperature, low tide & high tide times f Objective of Survey & Work done on the site o Was the site snorkeled? o What methodologies were used? o Was a GPS used? o Was an aerial photograph reviewed and used to establish survey transect lines? i Results o What was found? Substrate and what kind? Seagrass, shell, oysters? o What was along the shoreline? Mangroves, seawall, etc? o Why does the consultant think no submergerd resources were found? o Other observations When seagrass is found, include all requirements of LDC section 5.03.06. J. Y Conclusions o Were any submerged resources found? If yes, what? o Are any impacts to submerged resources expected or proposed? D Pictures (suggested angles) o Looking toward and away from the shoreline o The proposed location of the boat access o Observations in the water - Any oyster debris, shell, seagrass 503.06. J. (LDC section up to date as of 2016) Protection of seagrass beds. Seagrass or seagrass beds within 200 feet of any proposed docks, dock facilities, or boathouses shall be protected through the following standards: 1. Where new docking facilities or boat dock extensions are proposed, the location and presence of seagrass or seagrass beds within 200 feet of any proposed dock facility shall be identified on an aerial photograph having a scale of 1 inch to 200 feet when available from the County, or a scale of 1 inch to 400 feet when such photographs are not available from the County. The location of seagrass beds shall be verified by the County Manager or designee prior to issuance of any project approval or permit. 2. All proposed dock fact ities shall be located and aligned to stay at least 10 feet from any existing seagrass beds, except where a continuous bed of seagrasses exists off the shore of the property and adjacent to the property, and to minimize negative impacts to seagrasses and other native shoreline, emergent and submerged vegetation, and hard bottom communities. 3. Where a continuous bed of seagrasses exists off the shore of the property and adjacent to the property, the applicant shall be allowed to build a dock across the seagrass beds, or a docking facility within 10 feet of seagrass beds. Such docking facilities shall comply with the following conditions: a. The dock shall be at a height of at least 3.5 feet NGVD. b_ The terminal platform area of the dock shall not exceed 160 square feet. c. The access dock shall not exceed a width of 4 feet. d. The access dock and terminal platform shall be sited to impact the smallest area of seagrass beds possible. Packet Pg. 263 9.A.2.c The petiticne� shatl be required tc dernarrstrate hew negative PmWts to seagrass beds and other native 3hereline vogetatiori and hard bottom comms unities #gave been MInIMrzed prior to any project approve; or permit issuance. -- - – Y-. — Packet Pg. 264 9.A.2.c COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Coer County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 2S2-2400 FAX: (239) ZSZ-6358 DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION OR BOATHOUSE ESTABLISHMENT PETITION LDC Section 5.03.05 Ch. 3 B. of the Administrative Code THIS PETITION IS FOR (check one): ❑ DOCK EXTENSION ❑ BOATHOUSE PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: E -Mail Address: Name of Applicant/ Agent: Firm: Cell: Fax: Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: Cell: E -Mail Address: PROPERTY LOCATION Section/Township/Range: Subdivision: Address/ General Location of Subject Property: Fax: Property I.D. Number: Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Property: Unit: Lot: Block: BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. 8/U3/Z017 Page 1 of 6 Packet Pg. 265 9.A.2.c Coi[ier Cou"ty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N S E `1Ti DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Narrative description of project (indicate extent of work, new dock, replacement, addition to existing facility, any other pertinent information): SITE INFORMATION 1. Waterway VAdth: ft. Measurement frown Cl plant ❑ st,rveY ❑ Visual estimate ❑ other (specify) 2. Total Property Water Frontage: ft. 3- Setbncks: Provided: _ ft. Required: ft_ 4. Total Protrusion of Proposed Facility into Water: ft. 5. Number and Length of Vessels to use Facility: 1. ft. 2. ft. 6. List any additional dock facilities in close proximity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each: 7. Signs are required to be posted for all petitions. On properties that are 1 acre or larger in size, the applicant shall be responsible for erecting the required sign. What Is the size of the petitioned property? Acres 8. Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, please provide copies. 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg. 266 Cofr County 9.A.2.c COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34304 www.millorgov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 PRIMARY CRITERIA The following criteria, pursuant to LDC section 5.03.06, shall be used as a guide by staff in determining its recommendation to the Office of the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner will utilize the following criteria as a guide in the decision to approve or deny a particular Dock Extension request. In order for the Hearing Examiner to approve the request, It must be determined that at least 4 of the 5 primary criteria, and at least 4 of the 6 secondary criteria, must be met. On separate sheets, please provide a narrative response to the listed criteria and/or questions. 1. Whether or not the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use, and zoning of the subject property, consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical, single-family use should be no more than two slips, typical multi -family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate.) 2. Whether or not the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should show that the water depth is too shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s) described without an extension.) 3. Whether or not the proposed dock facility may have an adverse Impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not Intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel.) 4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether or not a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages.) Whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.) 9128124]7 Page 3 of 6 Packet Pg. 267 Coii'ier County 9.A.2.c COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2600 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.calliergay.net (239) 25Z-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 SECONDARY CRITERIA 1. Whether or not there are special conditions, not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property, these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.) 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe, access to the vessel for load!ng/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.) 3. For single-family dock facilities, whether or not the length of the vessel, or vessels In combination, described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) 4. Whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of either property owner.) 5. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with LDC subsection 5.03.061 must be demonstrated.) 6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of LDC subsection 5.03.06 E.11. (if applicable, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.E.11 must be demonstrated.) 9/28/2017 Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 268 .59ter County 9.A.2.c COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Pre -Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: ❑ Dock Extension ❑ Boathouse Chapter 3 B. of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre -Application Meeting, and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Completed Application (download current form from County website) i Property OwnershIR Disclosure Form 1 Signed and Sealed Survey ❑ ❑ Chart of Site Waterway Site Plan Illustration with the following: • Lot dimensions; • Required setbacks for the dock facility; • Cross section showing relation to MHW/MLW and shoreline (bank, seawall, or rip -rap revetment); • Configuration, location, and dimensions of existing and proposed 1 ❑ facility; • Water depth where proposed dock facility is to be located; • Distance of navigable channel; • Illustration of the contour of the property; and • Illustration of dock facility from both an aerial and side view. Affidavit of AuthorigglLon, signed and notarized i ® ❑ Completed Addressing Checklist i ® ❑ Electronic copy of all required documents *Please be advised: The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all 1 ❑ materials to be submitted electronically in PDF format. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: • Following the completion of the review process by County review staff, the applicant shall submit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. • Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. 9/28/2017 Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg. 269 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill 9.A.2.c CAUT County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252.6358 PLANNERS — INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: FEE REQUIREMENTS: Boat Dock Extension Petition: $1,500.00 Estimated Legal Advertising fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner: $1,125.00 An additional fee for property owner notifications will be billed to the applicant prior to the Hearing Examiner hearing slate. Fire Code Plans Review Fees are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this flee is collected prior to hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included In this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department Planning and Regulation ATTN: Business Center 2NO North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Signature of Petitioner or Agent Date 9/28/2017 Page 6 of 6 Packet Pg. 270 I 9.A.2.c I IF 0 .y ADDRESSING CHECKLIST x W 0 0 0 m 0 0 L d Q 0 0 V a+ Q a Packet Pg. 271 9.A.2.c • Co ler County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and email to GMD Addressing a@colliergov.net or fax to the Operations Division at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Section at the above address. Form must be signed b Addressing personnel prior to pre -application meeting, lease allow 3 dmLs for Processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Section. PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) ❑ BL (Blasting Permit) ❑ SDP (Site Development Plan) El BD (Boat Dock Extension) ❑ SDPA (SDP Amendment) ❑ Carnival/Circus Permit ❑ SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ CU (Conditional Use) ❑ SIP (Site Improvement Plan) ❑ EXP (Excavation Permit) ❑ SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) ❑ FP (Final Plat ❑ SNR (Street Name Change) ❑ LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ SNC (Street Name Change — Unplatted) ❑ PNC (Project Name Change) ❑ TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ PPL (Plans & Plat Review) FEI VA (Variance) ❑ PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) ❑ PUD Rezone ❑ VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) ❑ RZ (Standard Rezone) ❑ OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description maybe attached) S31 T51 R2( ISLES OF CAPRI NO 1 LOT 80 & THAT PORTION LYING ELY OF LOT 80 DESC IN OR 37fo FOLIO (Property ID) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) 52343000003 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) 37 PELICAN ST W, NAPLES, FL 34113 LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of projectlsite in relation to nearest public road right- of-way • SURVEY (copy - needed only for unplatted properties) CURRENT PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Cooper BDE - 37 Pelican St. W PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Cooper BDE - 37 Pelican St. W PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) 37 Pelican St. W SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects(sites only) SDP-- orAR or PL # Packet Pg. 272 9.A.2.c co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.collierLrov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) Please Return Approved Checklist By: N] Email ❑ Fax ❑ Personally picked up Applicant Name: Nick Pearson / Jeff Rogers Phone: (239) 643-0166 EmaiUFax: Nick@thanaples.com Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Division. FOR STAFF USE ONLY FolloNumber 52343000003 Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved Updated by: Date: 4/4/2018 IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED Packet Pg. 273 SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY I 9.A.2.c I Packet Pg. 274 COOPER RESIDENCE 37 PELICAN ST. W NAPLES, FL 34113 FOLIO #52343000003 SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY APRIL 2018 PREPARED n. y. V _- T uRRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC 3584 EXCHANGE AVENUE, STE 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 275 Table of Contents Introduction -....... ~-~~~~~~ '----~-'------' � 2 ..... ................ ,~^._-_-~-..................... -~._2 3 ~~...... .~.~°.~.~,.,,.,-'__---------_.--'.,.. ...3 4 '~`~`°~--'4 6 Photos ............. .......................... _-.�_-----~^--',--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'-~-~-'------~'~~~� I Packet Pg. 276 37 Pelican St. W Submerged Resource Survey April 2018 1 Introduction Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. (THA) has been contracted to provide environmental services in the form of a submerged resource survey (SRS) for the above referenced property. This survey will provide planning and review assistance to both the property owner and agency officers during the review process for the proposed project, which consists of constructing a new docking facility that will traverse a shallow shoaled area along the shoreline. The Cooper residence and associated docking facility is located at 37 Pelican St. W in Isle of Capris, Florida and can be identified by folio #52343000003. The property is located on the north side of Pelican St. W and backs up to a small bay area that connects to Bag Marco Pass and ultimately the Gulf of Mexico. The property is bound to the east and west by neighboring single-family residential developments and to the south by Pelican St. W, across which is a multi -family residential development. The SRS was conducted on March 23, 2018 at approximately 11:00 a.m. Site conditions consisted of clear skies, however, nearby fires casted a thick plume of smoke that choked out a significant amount of sunlight from the area, causing reduced visibility. The ambient air temperature was approximately 70 degrees Fahrenheit and wind speeds averaged approximately 5 to 10 mph out of the North and Northeast. High tide prior to the site visit was achieved at 6:53 am at approximately 1.9 feet above the mean low water mark. The tide was nearing low during the site visit at approximately 1.2 feet above the mean low water mark for the duration of the SRS and the official low tide was achieved at 11:44 am at 1.2 feet above the mean low water mark. The average ambient water temperature was approximately 69 degrees Fahrenheit. 1 Packet Pg. 277 37 Pelican St. W Submerged Resource Survey April 2018 2 Objective The objective of the SRS was to identify and locate any existing submerged resources within 200 feet of the proposed docking facility. Ordinarily, if seagrasses are present within the vicinity of a project area, an analysis will be required regarding species, percent of coverage, and impacts projected by the proposed project. The presence of seagrasses may be ample cause for re -configuration of the design for projects over surface waters in order to minimize impacts. The general scope of work performed during a typical submerged resource survey is summarized below: THA personnel will conduct a site visit and swim a series of transects within the project site in order to verify the location of any submerged resources. THA personnel will identify submerged resources within the vicinity of the site and produce an estimate of the percent coverage of any resources found. THA personnel will delineate the approximate limits of any submerged resources observed via a handheld GPS device. Packet Pg. 278 37 Pelican St. W Submerged Resource Survey April 2018 3 Methodology THA biologists intentionally designed the methodology of the SRS to cover not only the entire property shoreline for the proposed dock installation but also the area within 200 ft. of the proposed site. The components utilized for this survey include: • Review of aerial photography of the surveyed area. Establish survey transect lines (spaced approximately 10 feet apart) overlaid onto aerials. * Physically swim the transects, GPS locate the limits of any submerged resources found, and determine percent coverage within the area. • Document and photograph all findings The surveyed area was evaluated systematically by following the established transect lines throughout the project site as shown on the attached exhibit. Note that the survey area was expanded to a 200 -foot radius surrounding the proposed project in order to verify no other resources were found within the vicinity of the proposed work. Neighboring properties, docking facilities, and other landmarks provided reference markers which assisted in maintaining correct positioning over each transect. During this SRS, two THA staff members walked or swam the transect lines using snorkel equipment while a third remained on the boat taking notes and compiling findings on an aerial of the project site. Ordinarily, if any resources are found, they are photographed, GPS located, delineated, and analyzed for percent coverage within the area via a half meter square quadrant. 3 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 279 37 Pelican St. W Submerged Resource Survey April 2018 4 Results The substrate found within the surveyed area consists of silty sand. This type of substrate covers the entire site. Due to the shoaling found within much of the project area, most of the site is shallow enough to walls and can be seen clearly without utilizing a mask and snorkel. During the survey, several forms of macroalgae were observed growing along the bottom in addition to several large collections of detrital debris. The survey otherwise yielded no findings in the form of submerged resources within the vicinity of the project site location. The shoreline stabilizing the uplands of the site consists of a natural, mangrove habitat. Other neighboring properties have stabilized their shoreline with either vertical seawall, riprap, or both. The proposed project will impact some of the mangroves on-site with the construction of an access walkway. These impacts will be minimized as much as possible by reducing the width of the walkway to approximately 3 feet. 4 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 280 9.A.2.c 37 Pelican St. W Submerged Resource Survey April 2018 5 Results The submerged resource survey was conducted and completed throughout a 200 -foot radius surrounding the project site and yielded no results. Besides the mangroves present on the shoreline, no benthic invertebrate, seagrasses, or protected species were observed anywhere within the vicinity of the project site. The only living organisms found on-site were several colonies of macroalgae. Accordingly, negative impacts to submerged resources are not expected as a result of the proposed project. Packet Pg. 281 9.A.2.c 37 Pelican St. W Submerged Resource Survey Apri12018 6 Photos Packet Pg. 282 ST APPROVAL PL20180002498 I 9.A.2.c I a+ Q a Packet Pg. 283 C4� Growth Management Depa tment Development Review DlvWm August 28, 2018 COOPER, MITCHEL & KARYN A 37 W PELICAN ST NAPLES, FL 34113 RE: Special Treatment Permit No.PL20180002498 Property ID # 52343000003 Dear Applicant: Your request for a special treatment (ST) development permit for the above referenced property has been administratively approved pursuant to section 4.02.14 and 2.03.07.1) of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The attached site plan identifies site alterations authorized by this permit The following stipulations shall apply: • Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy (CO) all exotic vegetation, as defined in Division 1.08.02 LDC, shall be removed from the property. • Permits or letters of exemption from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be presented prior to issuance of a County building permit. • All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. • Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at Phone: or Sincerely, Die ,Rea*ioa Dtaoe'a " Growth Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, Florida 34104 239-252-2400 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 284 Aws 9.A.2.c moow Packet Pg. 285 °VERLAYAM J w CL w a F- L) LY m m 9.A.2.c Y U 0 o� w� a� 0 0 U L s i G u D O F .0 a� x LU 2 V C G F u 2 V, m lie 0 0 0 G - U 0 N ti Packet Pg. 286 $ o �4 N ll;Va m pp 0 KmOB� LL a�UC�xa zZa �$S � a Sx m Z°rc ME a 4. -Mt I Q 22 °� u�rc� Evia gii 201g32 ��K O 8$�dez a� IMIM 4 Z a� ■ �Ku � � vOv�� IM �?u V0 �rw� f ag�2 73 cw � ° 0 ¢22$zx Whim 6 w K as � ���F OJ��aw ass 1011 _ ' S S J w CL w a F- L) LY m m 9.A.2.c Y U 0 o� w� a� 0 0 U L s i G u D O F .0 a� x LU 2 V C G F u 2 V, m lie 0 0 0 G - U 0 N ti Packet Pg. 286 9.A.2.d Attachment B October 25, 2018 Collier County Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Re: Petition # VA-PL20180001748 Mitchel and Karyn Cooper (Petitioner) Request for Variance To Whom It May Concern: Please consider the following comments and materials with regard to the above-mentioned petition to be added to the hearing dated November 8, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. We are David and Laura Mikula, owners of Lot #78, Section #32, Two 51 South, Range 26 East, and are neighbors of the petitioners two doors up. (See Attachment # I for map of location of Lots.) We are concerned about the building of a dock by the Petitioner for several reasons: 1. Our lot is situated in the corner of Pompano Bay, the last lot on the street heading West with waterfront view and a legally permitted dock within standard parameters that did not require variance approval. Because Pompano Bay is a natural bay within Rookery Bay National Estuary Reserve, dredging for new dock facilities is not permissible, which would require the Petitioner to situate a dock far out into the bay to reach required minimum depths. It is our concern that the Petitioner's lot #80, which does not have a water view and with minimal access, would be able to build an extensive structure directly behind our house creating a major impact on our waterfront view, and thus our property value which is greatly factored on the view. The value of Lots #80 and #78 as stated on on the Collier County Property Appraiser website shows the great disparity of lot value of Lot#80 without view and minimal access and that of Lot# 78 which has both view and access. (See Collier County Property Appraiser Summary Sheets, Attachment # ). Also see Attachment # 3 A 3 6 photos showing the view from our lot and how a structure built out into the bay would greatly impact the view of Lot #78.) 2. Because of the shallowness of the bay in this corner, access to our boat dock is very limited and we are concerned the petitioner's intended structure would interfere with the use of our dock by hindering the navigability around said structure. (See Attachment # r which shows the low tide condition behind our house and the narrowness of the access.) 3. We are concerned that any structure built from Lot #80 would interfere with our riparian rights as described in the Boundary & Hydrographic Survey done in 2015 which shows our riparian lines based on the legal description of our lot. (See Survey, Attachment #�]. Because this corner of the bay has had previous contentions regarding ownership, use, etc., with neighbors West of Lot 78 which resulted in a lawsuit that involved the Petitioners (Mitchel and Karyn Cooper) and which was won by the previous owners of our Lot # 78 (Paul Hufnagel), attached is the Final Judgement for Case # 02 -1743 -CA that established Lot # 78's legal description to be such: "...All of that land lying NORTH of Lot 78, Isles of Capri, Florida, to the mean high tide line in government Lot 9, Section 32, Township south, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, Together with all riparian rights including all land or lands accrued by accretion or other natural phenomena...." thus establishing the current riparian lines as indicated on the survey (See Judgement, Attachment # Therefore, it is because we wish to preserve the view and value of Lot #78 not only for ourselves as current owner but also as a duty to any future owner of Lot#78; our concern about narrow navigability of the area around the proposed dock; and our concern that our lot's legal descriptioru rian rights not be infringed upon as afforded Lot#78 in the aforementioned judgemenwe are requesting that the above-mentioned petition be DENIED. Sincerely, David Mi Packet Pg. 290 9.A.2.d Vi w Master Pro'ect ViewAlI Activities on this ADO ication Add new person or business to A Planning Application PROJECT: MP20180037150 - 52343000003 (Building) [ELECTRONIC] Planning Project PL20280001748 Application Number _ Type Variance Name Cooper Dock Variance (VA) Location Description Site Area (Acres) New Application (current project) New Application (no project Status Hearing Process - open for Uploal Planner Gilbert Martinez yI Jurisdiction Collier County Entered By Web Registered User Department 0 Expiration Date c a) Date Closed - x W Date Entered 05/14/2018 Inspector U 0 0 0 m 0 0 as CL 0 0 Show More Fields Hide or Clear Field U Project Status Date 09/25/2018 c N Electronic Documents E Yes T . m Project Description Cooper dock with variance for reduced riparian setback. Public Notice Summary i Total Estimated Valuation $ 0.00 Is this an EPR Hybrid? No Road District Location (from Portal Application) 37 Pelican St. W / 52343000003 . Perry/GIS att.ributest Fire DistrictGreatGreat p Fire Commissioner District # I I Location Fire District Number Clear Locations I Add Related Parcels, Addresses and Owners Add Location To link a location to this application, enter location information below. CityView will suggest possible matches as you type: 37 Pelican ST W inary?1 Status_ © Active ...................................... 1`1 ;Active Contacts Add new person or business to Address Book Go to Alerts Add a Contact To link a contact to this application, enter contact information below. CityView will suggest possible matches as you type: COOPER, MITCHEL & KARYN A, Address:37 W PELICAN ST Go I Linkl Type Deacri tion ConbctAlert- I Prim ? Display' E ... 1 Property Owner _......_.............................m.......-.............-.....--..-.-- __.._..._._ _ ❑ _ ._. ...........................................I..............._. j......,..,......... » .............................., . Interested Party I' t ... ...... : El ❑ Applicant_ .� M„,.... _...W_�. _., ............- W..,. _ .© ' ❑ .., Engineer -.r� .W_....W ..._..., ,._...� ........- _ _ ....... .... Packet Pg. 291 fl r r nc;►y nn r✓N � 9.A.2.d {I r Property Summary Parcel No 52343000003 Site 37 PELICAN Site City NAPLES Address ST W Name / Address COOPER, MITCHEL=& KARYN A 37 W PELICAN ST City NAPLES Map No. Strap No. Section 61331 426400 8061331 31 State FL Township Range 51 26 Site Zone 34113 *Note Zip 34113-4021 Acres *Estimated 0.18 Legal ISLES OF CAPRI NO 1 LOT 80 & THAT PORTION LYING ELY OF LOT 80 DESC IN OR 3754 PG 2615 Mage Area O 91 Sub./Condo 426400 - ISLES OF CAPRI UNIT 1 Use Code O 1 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book -Page Amount 06/18/9383'I 7-954 $ 0 03/01/88 1333-1208 $ 30,000 Md1ag ;z0 C-41.rulations School Other Total 5.049 6.3222 11.3712 2018 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value $ 138,600 +) Improved Value $ 165,405 Market Value $ 304,005 -> Save our Home $ 124,766 Assessed Value $ 179,239 -� Homestead $ 25,000 School Taxable Value $ 154,239 t-� Additional Homestead $ 25,000 Taxable Value $ 129,239 If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll �6TIt-i0ti-4:p PLZD1 ?0 01-1 Packet Pg. 292 Property Summary ,9 Parcel No 52342920003 Site 33 PELICAN Address ST W Name / Address MIKULA, DAVID M=& LAURA 33 PELICAN ST W City NAPLES Map No. Strap No. Section 61332 426400 7861332 32 State FL 9.A.2.d Site City NAPLES Site Zone 34113 *Note Township 51 Zip 34113 Range Acres *Estimated 26 0.16 ISLES OF CAPRI NO 1 LOT 78 AND ALL THAT LAND LYING N OF LOT 78 TO THE Legal MHTL (1.50' MSL) IN GL9 SEC 32 TWP51 RNG 26 Millage Area O 91 Sub./Condo 426400 - ISLES OF CAPRI UNIT 1 Use Code O 1 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book -Page Amount 10/19/15 5208-1495 $ 875,000 05/12/15 5157-611 $ 0 02/01/13 4894-2119 $ 0 01/09/04 3481-2179 $ 0 06/06/91 1622-524 $ 0 03/01/89 1425-133 $ 60,000 06/01/84 1083-862 $ 32,000 07/01/77 697-968 $ 0 Millage Rates O "Caicvlati4ns School Other Total 5.049 6.3222 11.3712 2018 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value $ 496,895 M Improved Value $ 317,110 Market Value $ 814,005 -j Save our Home $ 65,561 Assessed Value $ 748,444 c-) Homestead $ 25,000 t=) School Taxable Value $ 723,444 -j Additional Homestead $ 25,000 Taxable Value $ 698,444 If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll S 0 c a� X w 0 0 ca 0 m 0 0 L a� 0_ 0 0 U 0 N PL, Z 0) 8 (5U0 17 If Packet Pg. 293 9.A.2.d mss a Idi acc�s� +G I-c>T 7 s rvn�IEd (Yv�aC�e SI�t,Cu � i15 � h� l�-o)�( 4v G� UGL. 4r AQVrU,K('MA7, I0CIdlo-I1 0� RWlCM<-r'S doCk- hosed pit A-�rcrrly` 'ode he( '9th P ? n I -,?0 -7 49-) Packet Pg. 294 N 14 +fv6rme f� .r—w— 2 9.A.2.d IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAUL A. HUFNAGEL Plaintiff, V. RAFAEL F. PUENTE and IDALIA PUENTE, his wife, and MPTCHEL COOPER and KARYN A. COOPER, husband and wife, and SCOTT K. HUEGEL and CARLENE HUEGEL, husband and wife, and FIELDVIEW, LLC, a Wisconsin Limited Liability Company JAMES A. HUGHES, JR. and ELEANOR D. HUGHES his wife, and HARRY R. WOOD, III and JULIE E. X01 husband and wife, tiL JAMES T. EASTMAN and DA STMAN, husband and wife, and WILBERT J. REGNET and B husband and wife � n Defendants. FINAL G THIS CAUSE was tried the Court sitting dh � The Court received 12 CIVIL ACTION CASE NO. 02 -1743 -CA a jury on June 28, 20C both the Plaintiffs and t Defendants' documents in evidence, listened to the oral argument of counsel and the Coi wishes to compliment both Counsels on their professional presentation of evidence a reviewed the Memoranda of Law submitted by counsel. Having reviewed all the evident the Court makes the following findings of fact: 1. This case involves an action to quiet title to the following described real property Collier County, Florida, to wit: Lot 78, Isles of Capri, No. 1, in accordance with an subject to .. the plat recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 41, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and Y V All of that land lying NORTH of Lot 78, Isles of Capri, No. 1, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 41, Official Records of Pe 4= 4;or W P 1_ Zol -Anno 17a 9, Packet Pg. 295 9.A.2.d Collier County, Florida, to the mean high tide line (1.50' MSL) in government Lot 9, Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Together with all riparian rights including all land or lands accrued by accretion or other natural phenomena 2. Defendants, RAFAEL F. PUENTE and IDALIA PUENTE, his wife, requested trial de novo following arbitration. Plaintiff, PAUL A. HUFNAGEL, an Defendants, RAFAEL F. PUENTE and IDALIA PUENTE, his wife, are the only remaining parties to this action to quiet title. 3. Plaintiff deraigns tide for a period in excess of seven (7) years prior to the filing i the Complaint in this action to quiet title setting forth the book and page of ti records where each of the insu ments affecting the title is recorded. 4. The evidence of deeds or with clearness, accuracy and certain the validity of PWnti rty described above. 5. Defendants', and ID A UENTE, his wife, are not d rightful owners f 1 n e plat d 1 t of Lot 79, Isles of Capri N 1. Such land i pri a i f conveyances was conveys to Plaintiff, P UL AM Based on the findings of fact, . \11u� ORDERED AND AD D 1, The Court finds Plaintiff, P HUFNAGEL, and against t Defendants, RAFAEL PUENTE, his wife, on Plaintifi action for quiet title. 2. Pursuant to Section 65.061(2), Florida Statutes, Defendants are not the rights owners of the property lying outside the platted lot of Lot 79, Isles of Capri No. including a portion of the land lying North of Lot 78, Isles of Capri No. 1, of whi the Defendants have asserted a claim which casts a cloud on the title of Plainti PAUL A. HUFNAGEL, the rightful owner to the land lying North of Lot 78, Is] of Capri No. 1. 3. The title of Plaintiff, PAUL A. HUFNAGEL, to the following described n property in Collier County, Florida, Lot 78, Isles of Capri, No. 1, in accordance w: an subject to the plat recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 41, Public Records of Coll, County, Florida, and All of that land lying NORTH of Lot 78, Isles of Capri, No. as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 41, Official Records of Collier County, Florida, the mean high tide line (1.50' MSL) in government Lot 9, Section 32, Township South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. c 0 c a� X w 0 0 ca 0 m 0 0 L as a 0 0 U 0 N I Packet Pg. 296 9.A.2.d _.. VAt JOUJ EV• (.'il Together with all riparian rights including all land or lands accrued by accretion or other natural phenomena is a good title superior to the claims or purported claims of Defendants and all other parties claiming by, through, under, or against Defendants and these claims or purported claims are cancelled, and the title to the property is forever quieted in the Plaintiff. 4. The Court reserves Jurisdiction to award Court costs and Attorneys fees. DONE AND ORDER1;D in Chambers in Naples, Collier County, Florida, this �_ d,, of CA -1-L aU fit, 2005. If Honor ble Daniel R. Monaco Circuit Court Judge Conformed copies to: William G. Morris, Esquire P.O. Box 2056 Marco Island, FL 34146 Raymond L. Bass, Jr., Esquire Bass & Chernoff The Moorings Professional B 2335 Tamiami Trail North, S Naples, FL, 34103-4459 .Ap, co% Ald o� Esquire Center c O X W Y V O R O m 0 0 L a 0 U v 0 N Packet Pg. 297 A H-06hme4I -9 sue-v'cv (Zo►S ) mgr UP' BUUNIJAKY & HYDROCTRAPIX SURVEY OF LOT 74 NZ OF CAPRI UMT NO 1 LYING Al SF.MON 3Z TOWNSHIP 51 SOUM RANGE 26 FAST COLLIER COUNTY, .FLORIDA LEGEND • - � K� A1KIr kO CP _ ,LI Y ANI• Q • /A/O yr i= - W mvprpl yi -rove v+' a...e - - W ,,r iYl -IDA WAMM 00 rv�AMM NArm SURVEYOR'S NOTES 1. BrAWW VOW PERM ARE 1"T LKrW TME MWW L99 W P•TrC y SRRET A BI'tR cr 58e•/Iboi N DOW w THE PW ar RMM x. m 1aDr"MA U Kpi 0ou DA FCdY6ugra om 1DCA7O LayxR 114 %ac cr rw rAv+rT: 5 nRs PMNL IXs rK rECOD 2OrE �' AS SFlogl oR iEae1 nuc ++sawMx rurE 1pP port] rrwrcoelur, am YAr r4 20111. na HLPCTL ws A BISE Fim rimroN OF 30' {NAra regal +Ywmq V6" kO4'n4 15 SLIM LanTri A50= P(Ar A'$arA Aa WA" Or n¢ ROX A-00 WAS PCWMO Or i!O slPhmA. PIEW wr m OR$R SEl9l•A'S Afgf iAYmaArS Wr mUmpi rO TNa' S orW S R8 MUIABDRf55 S M s J:M 8.4K��r xww naaar .N4 1.3 0. W%UK I WMW MUM ARE W RE NLIROn AYE-0CW ynnr-4 paw Orsera (alo r, ! cltwlr+ols uar SISf➢ wuv its m THE Tlnarx nrrAsr4Grt cr AWAT1a4G7101V AW eaLV MWfr laic -W on�nURe [RMA C_r4W appnoom sn`7tL [LPS) Ra[I W wrwo sL 7. YEAH )WM MKT[R AND rEAll LOW IL17H ELEK11M SWMN HEREON ARE allM UPW TIE E7rr ew or rNa4 imm nm TOIL SIAMN 872-4991. a PER 7SCMV WM ALJ 1EDAr. 9MWFMk5 REAi = rap m susira Lor 78AMOMW AMM M AID WA i LDLWC - JMD/rR MSSM owr A mRftlnror rB{SEO IA°aR RECLRRaR LFAII HGT IGTLR ldd ! OG ADN. RLC $D' KY,E RYAIrW ACCL4 +lS AiONN h Ear 3W LPRY A 9A1Fr POWMIFO Or A P= A MSDCNTES AND ftLV ¢D W aE ■WAW OMrpp Lor 7e IN WMAL ALD30W BWSI T9. PNCE 1AW O45 *PA"Nny CPF.= Br A FRDW uS CIAW JWOW/r HSSCD LW W =Wk Lr RE " lege DOTER LIE AS MER A 9Nm4T slim PEArL4AED TO 1ID8['F KiLXWK TW COLD AOD1 tM AS JaEco D M oFn= BOGY 386,5, PAC£ ]ABI CMFNW RE IEWL AS SWMN SUM AS BHT• TrF CDatPEC7 DfSCgtP1LSy. ----1 a, TIt s.lwo PAR;t aHgrN KD1AN wl.eAw air a Apr rrA Rap TME IriAAO antra OF W15 It A1* Lar 79 YAr Ney(A iR1E — r0. TIE 1 .iiLravr, N OriOML lniBE Boat 2+22. PACE .7117 APPrARS r0 RMC. ALL 4i.LM1a Rr RF STA1E or RDROI TO gESE SLB 4W= LANN arm PTU PDZWV AEMMIA6 �h r>E AgY,IYJY Ri4-] OInD6. LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT RL SUS Or C4PI9 LWr W r, ACCMM TO THE PU1r ThC�5W REDORLe� ►r PSA. RaK � tHu r, or nE PL9rx 9EEaPas ar CDLLMR rpsm TELx:ax iA f7 Oi LTR TIAME wm6 l7atl ItFRr cr SIO LOT 79 Oo ROC arrwl rear nArfR fArS A5 OE3tR6m w oA2rccll RLm�s nmr SOS7, pA'.£ 601, 117- L. L- t+- n 1 -2 ., 1 v r% ^ 7-1 , A /J. i) a �3 7W Lor rz LDr a LOT 78 liTj1 xx IP] 1rMraWv IOLI' a7 Ser r101 r`3Y R% IYf r/Tle'y1 9lT Drj 9.A.2.d i-�9 ' 1 Iix rnT mE . SG (L K IFMA? 1AY p Mill MOTH OF WTOMY' 832' TOTAL Lem OF govam, a4.5r' La.n• LOT n �Iak Lor 76 see ede+u' I ne,e f - pace A Packet Pg. 298771 D e7vA i L- A -MA C�i M t�*J l 5 14I -t QS5 Ni11 M AREA IS A POSURE � CF LftW AAE Rl91 M MOM (RING SEE suvoEva s N0a Na 5 d - WM HW WAW? LK an -0.A.1' Am ver) ui AS LOCATED O8/r0/13 )F THIS ri ui AFPROU97E MEW HIGH VARR LIE AS SHOWN A SURVEY 8Y HOWE NYJ05W 347ED 09/25/89 7ON IP WRNER OF CONCREM VAU 8.0' Is a75' ww of FRorERn' m LOT 76 ,Lv LOT 77 L� A7. � O � � EYOff O OF EM THE AN T MEAN NA ' LOT COURT D ;IAL BEING ?S OF ;ORDS ESE LOT 80 1 maim 4 7T A, Vr YFAN PER 1 POWANO BAY MOM LOIr SUER — a- -I.BJ (MM W) "SEE SIAPVEIOR FI01E NO. e- 20' RIPARIM ACCESS PER FROR SURVEY OF !OT 79 AS REL"wo 91 OFF)M RECOW 8001[ 5119 11 PAIX 185D 9.A.2.d a N C tv x w Y L) aEI*WN 1 O n►>WA) o Na 9 - +, �a AS R EM91ED ON .111.Y I, I97A 0 6" PAGE 1727 m L) 589'19'00"E 60.00' (P} --- - L5 S89'28'32'E 60.35' (P) S89'20'26 -E 59.97' (M) FOOT. ° . S89'28'32 -E 60.35' (M) FACE OF CONCRE1E IMAIL REM AND CAPIS DrFSE1 5.69' RUNS ALONG PROPEXIY LW_ -.MhCAETE DECK - r I ' . FROM PROPERTY GORIER AW IS -+ . • ' . 7HO FLOGW EfiLCUYl; 02' NEST OF CVMAIED FROPEAIY LW 7.5' 7.5 FLDa LOT 794 _g ui h S 6 CORM OF MMLL 15 0.1' EAS! 7.5' J •. OF PROFEW LNIE .'L . 0 LOT 78 N89' 19'00'W 70.00' (P) N89' 19'00 "W 60.00' (P) S89' 19'00"E N89' 1655-W 69.98' (M) N89' 18'49 "W 59.97' (M) S89' 19'44 E S89'19'00 E . 250.00' (P) } S89' 19'00'E 249.95' (M) BEARING BASIS r ' PAVED S89' 19'00-E 60.00' (P) S89'20'53'E 59.95' (M) O d a O O U FACT OF CDMOREIE SE04U N LEAN NIGH NIum LEE a> a 1EAN Lar MUTER LM a=-1 IOP OF SM OU CAP a-21! m c ar E V r Q d - 3 ui s ri ui +' -.. E O LOT 76 ,Lv LOT 77 L� A7. � O � � ez O UI i O U S89' 19'00-E 60.00' (P) S89'20'53'E 59.95' (M) O d a O O U FACT OF CDMOREIE SE04U N LEAN NIGH NIum LEE a> a 1EAN Lar MUTER LM a=-1 IOP OF SM OU CAP a-21! m c ar E V r Q m E Q Packet Pg. 299 Pg. 2991 3 z� s ri ui +' -.. E O LOT 76 v � O � � ez O UI i O U m E Q Packet Pg. 299 Pg. 2991 A L -+-m .vs � L U Location Map e h #O)n N S po-` 9.A.2.d Petition Number:. PL20180001748 Zoning Map e.0 r�yjj Lam cis 1s now moarkjeraves Packet Pg. 300 9.A.2.d V I VV LOT -P7 ►7 Packet Pg. 301 �r• '�41 � ~� •e n k 4 f tt - II va I/ Y4 �r• '�41 � ~� •e n k 4 f tt - II MartinezGilbert From: MartinezGilbert Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 11:22 AM To: 'jhooley@napiesatty.com' Cc: SmithCamden; BellowsRay Subject: PL20180001018 Attachments: Attachment A.pdf; Attachment B.pdf, Staff Report.pdf T Mr. Hooley, per your request, please find the attached staff report and back up materials. a x LU Sincerely, 0 0 Gil Martinez 0 Principal Planner m 239-252-4211 c 0 L 1 Packet Pg. 303 Q 0 0 N ti Growth Management Division m Exceeding Expectations, Every Day! c NOTE: Emall Address Has Changed t v R 2800 Horseshoe Dr. N Naples, FL 34104 Q Phone: 239-252-4211 2 1 Packet Pg. 303 MartinezGilbert From: John Hooley <jhooley@naplesatty.com> Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 3:07 PM To: MartinezGilbert Cc: Diane Alderuccio Subject: RE: PL20180001018 Attachments: STORMWATER UTILITY ANALYSIS.pdf Mr. Martinez: Thanks for forwarding the materials. I really appreciate your help. Here is my evaluation of the proposal to charge all improved property owners a utility fee for storm water management. Let me know what you think. Thank you again. jo- h j. Jfool 1j, -f. D f C.S. til.tttindalc-I(ubtx�ll' ��tit�rr� NGLUMt n T. • • • ® 1` r rJ'grr t � x+`� • The Law Offices of John F. Hooley, P.A. 851 Fifth Avenue North, Suite 303 Naples, Florida 34102 Tel: (239) 234-2520 Fax: (239) 234-2521 The pages comprising this email transmission contain confidential information. This information is intended solely for use by the individual entity named as the recipient thereof. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any discfosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately. Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be used , to (1) avoid pan afties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice. From: MartinezGilbert [mailto:Gilbert.Martinez@colliercountyfl.gov) Sent: Thursday, November 1, 201810:23 AM To: John Hooley <jhoo ley@ na plesatty.com> Cc: SmithCamden <Camden.Smith@colliercountyfl.gov>; BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: PL20180001018 Mr. Hooley, per your request, please find the attached staff report and back up materials. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 304 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACTS + FACTS AND HISTORY have lived in Naples since 1977. We had several events that caused flooding, including the No Name Storm, hurricanes Andrew, Wilma, Irma and most recently tropical storm Gordon. The County has an obligation to manage stormwater. The financial component of stormwater is in the transportation budget. This is because stormwater management primarily affects road flooding. Stormwater management is based on swales, ditches, canals, and drainage areas adjacent to roadways. The County now wants to raise 18 million dollars and tell you that stormwater management is a utility service to your individual developed properties. This is deceptive. The issue with flooding primarily affects our roads and streets. The Stantec Report (p.18) explains how we arrived in this situation: In 2004, the Board of County Commissioner's approved a Stormwater Management Funding Policy which dedicated 0.15 mils of ad valorem solely to the funding of stormwater capital improvement projects. However, during the economic downturn following 2008, the funding levels were redefined by a resolution that would allow the County to fund "up to 0.15 mils per year." As a result of this change in the funding policy, the level of funding for stormwater management in the County in subsequent years ended up being significantly reduced. The County recognized that it needed $13 million/year for Stormwater Management. Instead of fully funding this important component of our community, they cut $7 million from the allocation for the last 7 years: Figure 3.1 - Historical Ad Valorem Funding for Stormwater Management $14 $12 $10 z0 $8 g $6 $4 $2 $0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 FISCAL YEAR Page 1 of 10 Packet Pg. 305 In fact the County reduced funding from 2017 — 2018 for stormwater management by over $1,700,000.00 as shown at page 60 of the 2018 Adopted Budget Summary: Summary of Budget by Fund FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 16117 FY 17118 1,627,000 4,268,000 2,000,000 4,268,000 1,000,000 Fund Adopted Adopted Budget Fund Title No. Budget Budget Change Storr•,�:atei Operations 1 (324) 1 926,800 I 42,000 Stcrr'::,3ter Capital Im�pro%sm-ent Projects (325) I 6,952,800 6,075,300 -95.47% -12.62% These two line items total $6,117,400. This figure should be increased by adding funding allocated by the County found on table 3.10 at the Stantec Report page 22: Table 3.10 - Revenue Projections Expenditure Type by Fund FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 General Fund (001) Incorporated General Fund (111) Unincorporated Big Cypress Basin 1,627,000 4,268,000 2,000,000 4,268,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 4,268,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 4,268,000 1,000,000 4,268,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Interest/Miscellaneous Gas Taxes (Road Maintenance) BP/Restore Act 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 870,000 870,000 870,000 870,000 1,000,000 870,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Total Annual Revenues $7,815,000 $8,688,000 $9,188,000 $9,188,000 $9,188,000 Table 3.10 uses only annual revenue from the general fund under items 111 and 001 to come up with the $7.8 million dollars. The 2018 Adopted Budget amounts on lines 324 and 325 should be added to that figure resulting in $13,932,300.00 that should be available for stormwater management. You should note in the summary of the Adopted Budget 2018, the County reduced the Stormwater Operations budget by 95%. The County paid $926,800 for Stormwater Operations in 2016-2017 and reduced it to $42,000.00. The County's allocation of $42,000.00 will not even pay for two employees with shovels and a pickup Page 2 of 10 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 306 truck to maintain swales and ditches. The County also took almost a million dollars out of Stormwater Capital Improvement Projects. The County needs to return to the funding levels of 2008 and 2009 to fulfill its obligation to the citizens and taxpayers of Collier County. UTILITY SCHEME The County proposes this scheme to raise over $18 million as new money instead of applying the present funding to meet an $18 million target. By raising $18 million with this fee, the County releases $13,832,300.00 to itself. The County takes this money and spends it elsewhere. So what does the County intend to use the money for? The Stantec Report at page 25 says the County needs 8 vacuum trucks, 15 dump trucks, 5 excavators, and some additional equipment. The capital cost of this equipment is 8 million dollars: Table 4.2 - Stormwater Maintenance Enhanced Level of Service Storm Sewer Vacuuming 8 Maintenance, Curb Inlet Cleaning 16 8 Equipment $664,000 8 Vac Trucks $4,160,000 Operators Catch Basin Cleaning 5 Heavy Equipment Operators, 5 15 Dump Roadside Swale 40 Crew Leaders, $1,765,000 Trucks, 5 $3,125,000 Cleaning 15 Maintenance, Excavators 10 Equipment Operators $45,000 Street Sweeping 1 1 Equipment Operator Alternative Outfall Ditches 1 3 Heavy Excavator, Long 3 Equipment $168,000 Reach $1,020,000 Secondary System Operators Excavator, Bull 60 sweeper that is currently not Dozer Total $2,642,000 $8,305,000 staffing is `The County has a street utilized and therefore just additional required to enhance level of service. Page 3 of 10 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 307 This is a non-recurring charge. We buy this equipment. We don't have to buy it every year. There is no annual component for the purchase of this equipment. Naturally, we are going to have to pay people to operate the equipment. The staffing estimate is $2.6 million. If the County replaced the $1.7 million that they took out of the Stormwater Operation and Stormwater Projects Capital and Improvements in 2018, there would be a shortfall of less than $1 million. If they returned to funding levels in place 10 years ago, the County would have unrestricted use of over $14 million to apply to Stormwater Management. This is more than enough money to cover the salaries of the people to operate the equipment, and buy the equipment outright. The County wants to create a new funding source for $18 million every year not linked to your taxes. This results in a new bureaucratic organization to assess collect, supervise and generate reports that are clearly not needed at this point. The Stantec report on page 48 has table 7.1 Stormwater Cost of Service: Table 7.1 - Stormwater Cost of Service Function Annual Cost* % of Total Type of Expenditure Customer Service / Admin 500,000 2.21% 1.20% System -Wide System -Wide Regulatory / Water Quality 300,000 Engineering / System Planning Pipes / Inlets / Catch Basins - O&M Swales - O&M Streets - O&M 1,200,000 5.72% System -Wide 1,900,000 8.59% Local 3,100,000 14.32% Local 200,000 0.76% Local Canals - O&M 1,200,000 5.53% Backbone Outfall Ditches/Secondary - O&M 900,000 3.93% Backbone Capital Total 12,500,000 57.74% Backbone $21,800,000 100.00% *Full annual costs, not including annual $1 million from Big Cypress Basin This table is inappropriately labeled "Stormwater Cost of Service" because it contains a Capital Projects component. The Capital Project charge is $12,500,000.00. Without that component, the annual cost of service for the stormwater is $9,300,000.00 Which does not include an additional $1 million being paid by the Big Cypress Basin. As you can see on table 3.6, the budgeted revenues are $8,299,200: Page 4 of 10 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 308 Table 3.6 - Total Historical and Budqeted Revenue Stormwater Revenues General Fund (001) Incorporated 4,939,343 4,843,790 1,776,764 2,752,000 f 1,865,800 General Fund (111) Unincorporated 1,300,000 1,000,000 1,050,000 1 4,011,800 4,172,000 4,267,900 Big Cypress Basin 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 I nterest/Miscellaneous 70,512 Gas Taxes (Road Maintenance) 858,600 Carry Forward 100,600 Total Annual Revenues $8,269,055 148,966 127,389 121,700 153,100 870,300 871,100 871,500 870,000' 122,800 64,900 267,400 143,500 $8,035,856 $7,851,953 $9,184,600 $8,299,200 "Table assumes backfill from road maintenance in FY 2018 budget This shows that the amount needed to meet the projected cost of service is just over $1 million. There is no reason for the County to be charging improved property owners $18 million every year for stormwater management. Finally, the report deals with levels of service and claims some arbitrary industry standard level of service that is greatly increased from what we currently have: Ta61e d_1 - Stormwater Infrastructure Maintsananr_R C:urrornt a -vel ref RPrvi-- Maintenance Activity Current Sti!ffffiritg (FTE's) Current Level of Service Typical Industry Standard Storm Sewer Vacuuming 26.7 Year Cycle 24.7 Year Cycle 5 to 10 Year Cycle 4 to 5 Year Cycle Curb Inlet Cleaning 4 Catch Basin Cleaning 37.2 Year Cycle 4 to 5 Year Cycle Hydro Dynamic Units Cleaning 1 Year Cycle Current Level Appropriate Roadside Swale Cleaning 14 56.5 Year Cycle 10 to 15 Year Cycle 2 Week cycle for all 30 Day cycle for all Street Sweeping 3 streets, 2 week cycle for high volume primary streets Contract Spraying - Inspected Monthly, Spray Current Level A Appropriate as Required Contract Mowing _ 2 Week cycle and 20 day Current Level Appropriate cycle Tree/Vegetation Removal - As Required Current Level Appropriate Outfall Ditches / Secondary 3 Defined 1, 5 and 10 year System digging cycle Pump, Equipment and4 Programmed Current Level Appropriate Structure Maintenance Maintenance The services are stormwater vacuuming, curb inlets cleaning, catch basin cleaning and roadside swale cleaning. If this is read in conjunction with table 4.2, it would seem that once the County gets its 8 vacuum trucks, 15 dump trucks, 5 Page 5 of 10 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 309 excavators and additional equipment for $8 million and has funding to pay the operators for 2.6 million dollars, those levels of service may be easily achieved. For the last 7 years the County has underfunded Stormwater Management by over $7 million each year. This means that $49 million has been taken from Stormwater Management. Now the Commissioners want you to pay for a stormwater management system that they failed to fund for 7 years. Stormwater management should be a priority with the County. Funds allocated to stormwater management should not be siphoned off to other pet projects like affordable housing initiatives, beautification, business development and other programs. In addition to not taking responsibly for the entire situation, the County and the Commission are planning to charge you an annual fee of $18 million to extend into the foreseeable future. NOT FAIR AND NOT REALITY BASED How does the County intend to sell this to you? They claim it is a utility. No one believes it's a utility. We all understand that we pay our water, sewer, electric and cable on a monthly basis because these are services delivered directly to our homes and businesses. For the County to claim that they are providing a service to homes and businesses based on stormwater runoff generated by impervious surfaces is false and deceptive. This is an excuse to make us feel like we should pay more money to the County. Resolution No. 2018-71 is the County's definition of Stormwater: (0) If rainfall were applied at a constant rate to an Impervious Area, the Stormwater runoff from such Impervious Area would eventually reach a rate equal to the rate of the rainfall. It is thus fair and reasonable to include 100% of the Impervious Area in determining such property's Stormwater contribution to the Stormwater Management Services. We all live in Collier County. We have hurricanes. Stormwater only happens when Collier County is hit by a significant rain event. The runoff is not generated by normal summer afternoon storms. We know at some point if continuous rain falls on our property, the amount of water falling on the property will equal the amount of water running off the property. This occurs when the underlying property becomes saturated. It doesn't matter if it's impervious or not. All property in Collier County generates this runoff. Page 6of10 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 310 The scheme to generate money exempts some properties from this calculation. All Collier County Public School property is exempt. All County owned property, vacant land and agricultural land is exempt. We know that all of these properties generate storm water runoff, yet none contribute to pay the "utility fee". The Stantec Report states that your property will be "Benefited Property". Your property will not be benefited by anything other than having passable roads after unusual and significant rainstorm events. The Notice to Property Owner implies that the US Environmental Protection Agency Natural Pollution Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Permitting Program as implemented by the FDEP mandates a dedicated funding source. That is not true. Only the County mandates a dedicated funding source. The Environmental Protection Agency does not want contaminated water discharged into the Gulf of Mexico. The largest contributor to contaminated discharge is agricultural property with pesticide, fungicide and fertilizer in stormwater runoff. Yet agricultural properties bear none of the expense in the scheme to create a separate fee. This is fundamentally unfair to everyone for the following reasons: a. Your property is not individually benefited as a result of the fee. b. The County is not charging anything to agricultural property, governmental property or vacant land. c. Agricultural land constitutes a significant portion of Collier County. d. Many properties have virtually no stormwater runoff, yet the County intends to charge them the fee with only a minor reduction. Many communities were required to form Community Development Districts to address issues of capital infrastructure and maintenance for stormwater management. The residents in these CDD's have already been taxed for both infrastructure and stormwater maintenance within their communities. Those communities retain stormwater in preserve areas and retention lakes. Absent a major hurricane, there will never be stormwater runoff. These communities have less impact on stormwater management system than vacant land. The County still wants to charge most of the fee to every member of the community and commercial property within that community. This substantiates the fact that this is an imaginary rationale for charging fees to property owners. The County does have some capital projects. These capital projects benefit certain areas of the County. The residents in areas benefited by capital projects need to have a special assessment. This will put them in the same situation as homeowners Page 7 of 10 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 311 in Community Development Districts. The assessments will be directly related to the impact their properties have on the stormwater management system. THE FUTURE The County agreed to postpone this until next year. The County reduced the Stormwater Utility Operations budget from $926,000 last year to $42,000 this year. They further reduced this amount to only $10,200 in the 2019 proposed budget because "Major funding source is User Fees": SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM JUNE WORKSHOP TO THE FY 2019 TENTATIVE BUDGET SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM JUNE WORKSHOP NET CHANGE TO FUND-ri-i-LEI(NUMBERt FUND TOTAL EXPLANATION Stormwater Utility Operations $ (1,630,000) On the revenue side, the transfer from the Stormwater Capital Fund 325 (103) decreased by $1,630,000. On the expense side, Capital Outlay decreased by Major funding source is User Fees S 1,630,000 as the expanded (new) vehicles planned for FY 19 were relocated to the Motor Pool Capital Fund 523 The same thing occurred regarding Stormwater Capital Improvement Projects: SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM JUNE WORKSHOP Page 8 of 10 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 312 TO THE FY 2019 TENTATIVE BUDGET SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM JUNE WORKSHOP NET CHANGE TO FUND-17TLE((NUNIBEIi) FUND TOTAL EXPLANATION Stormwater Capital (325) $ - On the expense side, the transfer to the Stormwater Operations Fund (103) was Major funding source is User Fees. decreased by $1,630,000 and the transfer to Motor Pool Capital Recovery Fund (523) increased by the like amount. This adjustment was needed when the vehicles were relocated from the Stormwater Ops Fund (103) to the Motor Pool Fund (523). Page 8 of 10 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 312 Collier County, Florida Fiscal Year 2018/2019 Summary of Budget by Fund i I FY 17/18 I FY 18/19 I % Fund Adopted Tentative Budget Fund Title No. Budqet Budqet Chance Capital Projects Funds Stormwater Operations (324) 42,000 Stormwater Capital Improvement Projects (325) 6,075,300 To summarize: Stormwater Operations 2016-2017 Budget $ 926,000. 2017-2018 Budget $ 42,000. Proposed 2018-2019 Budget $ 10,200. Stormwater Capital Improvement Projects 10,200 20,126,500 2016-2017 Budget $ 6,952,800. 2017-2018 Budget $ 6,075,300. Proposed 2018-2019 Budget $ 20,126,500. -75.71% 231.28% The increase from $6 million to $20 million is based on charging the utility fee of $18 million. Since this was not passed by the County Commission, the Capital Projects Component will remain unfunded. The trend is clearly to take money from stormwater management both in maintenance and capital projects. Assuming that the County minimally funds stormwater in 2019, they will present us with a crisis situation next year that they created. They will again ask us to charge ourselves user fees to make up for the problem county staff caused by failing to maintain the system. Page 9 of 10 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 313 CONCLUSION The only viable and fair way to address stormwater issues is to return to the 2008 and 2009 funding levels as shown in Figure 3.1 of the Stantec Report: Figure 3.1 - Historical Ad Valorem Funding for Stormwater Management $14 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 FISCAL YEAR There is no reason why the County cannot return to the level of stormwater funding it maintained in 2008 and 2009. This is a problem with a clear and historic solution. Please contact your commissioners and explain that stormwater management is important. It needs to be funded out of general revenues because it affects and benfits all residents of Collier County by having stormwater draining quickly and efficiently from the roads and highways. Please explain to them that this is not some benefit that is conferred only to the owners of improved property. This is a primary responsibly of county government and not a utility to be paid for by owners of improved property. jo,n,r:.9%okY,, J. D. B.C.S. The Law Offices of John F. Hooley, P.A. 851 Fifth Avenue North, Suite 303 Naples, Florida 34102 Tel: (239) 234.2520 Fax: (239) 234.2521 Page 10 of 10 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 314 9.A.2.d Martinez0bert From: MartinezGilbert Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 2:53 PM To: 'cevgs5@yahoo.com' Cc: BelfowsRay; SmithCamden Subject: Cooper Dock Boat Dock Extension PL201 80001018; Variance PL20180001748 Attachments: Attachment A.pdf, Attachment B.pdf, Staff Report.pdf; Attachment A.pdf; Attachment B.pdf; Staff Report.pdf Hi David, per your request, please find the attached staff report and back up materials. Sincerely, Gil Martinez Principal Planner 239-252-4211 County Growth Management Division Exceeding Expectations, Every Day! NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2800 Horseshoe Dr. N Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-4211 Packet Pg. 315 MartinezGilbert 1W ` �`' / 9.A.2.d .�Ti4<< .e �► r � o�— From: David Swinehart <cevgs5@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, November 2, 2018 8:07 AM To: MartinezGilbert Subject: Re: Cooper Dock Boat Dock Extension PL20180001 018; Variance PL20180001748 Gill, S Thanks for your help. 2 Dave X On Thursday, November 1, 2018, 2:57:55 PM EDT, MartinezGilbert <Gilbert.Martinez@colliercountyfl.gov> wrote: w 0 0 ca Hi David, per your request, please find the attached staff report and back up materials. m° 0 0 L Sincerely, o U 0 N 1-1 Gil Martinez M Principal Planner 239-252-4211 Growth Management Division Exceeding Expectations, Every Day! NOTE. Email Address Has Changed 1 Packet Pg. 316 MartinezGilbert From: MartinezGilbert Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 10:21 AM To: MartinezGilbert Cc: BellowsRay Subject: NOTE TO SELF, FOR THE RECORD: Cooper Dock Neighbor's Concerns 9.A.2.d On October 25, 2018, 1 received a phone call from MARY BETH SCHNELLER property owner at 39 Pelican Street West. Mrs. Schneller expressed her concerns and objection regarding the proposed dock extension. Gil Martinez Principal Planner 239-252-4211 co, �9-87 County Growth Management Division Exceeding Expectations, Every Day! NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2800 Horseshoe Dr. N Naples, Fl. 34104 Phone: 239-252-4211 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. Packet Pg. 317 9.A.2.d MartinezGilbert From: MartinezGilbert Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 11:22 AM To: 'jhooley@naplesatty.com' Cc: SmithCamden; BellowsRay Subject: PL20180001018 Attachments: Attachment A.pdf; Attachment B.pdf; Staff Report.pdf c O Mr. Hooley, per your request, please find the attached staff report and back up materials. X w Sincerely, o 0 Gil Martinez f° 0 Principal Planner 239-252-4211 0 0 L .Pam= O r ;y O County o 04 Growth Management Division Exceeding Expectations, Every Day! NOTE: Ematt Address Has Changed 2800 Horseshoe Dr. N Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-4211 1 Packet Pg. 318 MartinezGilbert From: John Hooley <jhooley@naplesatty.com> Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 3:07 PM To: MartinezGilbert Cc: Diane Alderuccio Subject: RE: PL20180001018 Attachments: STORMWATER UTILITY ANALYSIS.pdf Mr. Martinez: Thanks for forwarding the materials. I really appreciate your help. Here is my evaluation of the proposal to charge all improved property owners a utility fee for storm water management. Let me know what you think. Thank you again. B. C.S. ManindalNHul>tiell' oRit,� ■ t r' W PM Rated fa wt -4rrr 2017 - of Pro'cssorsal Extrilcr+cc The Law Offices of John F. Hooley, P.A. 851 Fifth Avenue North, Suite 303 Naples, Florida 34102 Tel: (239) 234-2520 Fax: (239) 234.2521 The pages comprising this email transmission contain confidential information. This Information is intended solely for use by the individual entity named as the recipient thereof. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately. Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be used , to (1) avoid penatties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice. From: MartinezGilbert [mailto:Gilbert.Martinez@colliercountyfl.gov] Sent: Thursday, November 1, 201810:23 AM To: John Hooley <jhooley@naplesatty.com> Cc: SmithCamden <Camden.Smith@colliercountyfl.gov>; BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: PL20180001018 Mr. Hooley, per your request, please find the attached staff report and back up materials. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 319 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACTS FACTS AND HISTORY I have lived in Naples since 1977. We had several events that caused flooding, including the No Name Storm, hurricanes Andrew, Wilma, Irma and most recently tropical storm Gordon. The County has an obligation to manage stormwater. The financial component of stormwater is in the transportation budget. This is because stormwater management primarily affects road flooding. Stormwater management is based on swales, ditches, canals, and drainage areas adjacent to roadways. The County now wants to raise 18 million dollars and tell you that stormwater management is a utility service to your individual developed properties. This is deceptive. The issue with flooding primarily affects our roads and streets. The Stantec Report (p.18) explains how we arrived in this situation: In 2004, the Board of County Commissioner's approved a Stormwater Management Funding Policy which dedicated 0.15 mils of ad valorem solely to the funding of stormwater capital improvement projects. However, during the economic downturn following 2008, the funding levels were redefined by a resolution that would allow the County to fund "up to 0.15 mils per year." As a result of this change in the funding policy, the level of funding for stormwater management in the County in subsequent years ended up being significantly reduced. The County recognized that it needed $13 million/year for Stormwater Management. Instead of fully funding this important component of our community, they cut $7 million from the allocation for the last 7 years: Figure 3.1 - Historical Ad Valorem Funding for Stormwater Management $14 $12 $10 z $8 O g $6 $4 $2 $0 — - - - 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 FISCAL YEAR Page 1 of 10 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 320 9.A.2.d Casa novaAlexand ra From: MartinezGilbert Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 9:07 AM To: Casa novaAlexandra Subject: FW: Submission to Application PL20180001018 and PL20180001748 Attachments: WarrantyDeed.pdf, ATT00001.htm; WarrantyDeed2.pdf, ATT00002.htm; 15175 08-20-15 SS 2.pdf, ATT00003.htm; Schuit's Survey.pdf, ATT00004.htm; JUDGEMENT 33 W Pelican.pdf, ATT00005.htm; DEP Inspection CooperSchuit.pdf, ATT00006.htm; IMG_0382 2 jpeg; ATT00007.htm; IMG_0373 jpeg; ATT00008.htm Thankyou Gil Martinez Principal Planner 239-252-4211 Collier County Growth Management Division Exceeding Expectations, Every Day! NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2800 Horseshoe Dr. N Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-4211 From: Dave & Laura Mikula <makomik1997@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 4:38 PM To: MartinezGilbert <Gilbert.Martinez@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Fwd: Submission to Application PL20180001018 and PL20180001748 Begin forwarded message: From: Dave & Laura Mikula <makomik1997Ca7gmaii.com> Subject: Submission to Application PL20180001018 and PL20180001748 Date: November 21, 2018 at 11:45:24 AM EST To: Gilbert. MartinexCakolliercount ll.goy November 21, 2018 Emailed to: Gilbert.Martinez@colliercountyfl.gov Packet Pg. 321 9.A.2.d Mr. Gilbert Martinez Collier County Growth Management 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: BDE-PL20180001018 PL20180001748 Dear Mr. Martinez: We are the owners of Lot 78 at 33 W. Pelican Street in Naples (Isles of Capri) and are submitting material for consideration by the Collier County Planning Commission at its meeting scheduled for December 6, 2018, at 9:00 a.m regarding the above petitions. We have several concerns that we have previously hand -delivered to your office when we received notice of the HEX meeting last month. We would like to resubmit our concerns in writing to your office in the event that those materials are not forwarded to the Planning Commission and to add pertinent information. Please find attached a copy of our recorded Warranty Deed for Lot 78 and a Final Judgement of 2005 that establishes the legal description of our lot to include own all lands accrued north of our lot to the MHW line. Also please find attached a signed and stamped copy of our Boundary and Hydrographic survey showing where the MHW line extends north to meet with the MHW line and riparian lines of Lot 80 (Cooper's property). This meeting point where riparian lines extend between our properties is not accurate on the application submitted by Turrell and Associates as this convergence point is further north than they indicate. The lot between us and Lot 80 (Lot 79 owned by Schuit) does not have MHW line as part of their lot description and their boundary is not to the water. They were erroneously assigned riparian lines by their surveyor based on old information prior the the civil case of 2005 which the then -owner Puente lost, and which was done by the same surveyor named in the case. The surveyor's information was inaccurate then (prior to 2005) which affected the outcome of the case and is inaccurate now in his latest version of the same survey and it only adds to the confusion. (See Lot 79's survey of 2015 attached which shows that their property does not extend to the water and yet has riparian lines.) We are requesting that this project be denied because this dock is within our legal property and riparian lines which extend to the riparian lines of Lot 80 at the MHW line. This alone should be reason enough to deny but there's more. Because of actions taken by the owners of Lot 79 (Schuit) and Lot 80 (Cooper) in order to obtain permits for their collaborative project of a boat launch (Permit application # PBD2018084709301) and Cooper's dock permit (above) a complaint was filed with Collier County Code and referred to the DEP by another neighbor (see DEP Complaint # 31482, Case # 18-0180 against both Cooper and Schuit which is still open for compliance issues) regarding non -permitted dredging of the bay and dumping of accreted material onto their respective lots. Because these applications are based on results of illegal activities, both projects should be denied by your department. Their efforts to remove our land and boundary is currently being reviewed for an impending civil lawsuit. You may be hearing more about this prior to the Planning meeting. Finally, we would also like to express our concern with the fact that a 235' monstrosity of a dock could be permitted to be built directly behind our house completely within our view, which affects not only the aesthetics of the bay, but also the value of our property whose value is established on having a long water view of a natural bay. Please notice that all of the other long docks to the north of us within our view have their dock within their OWN view as well out the back of their own property. In other words, owners of these docks have to look at their own dock Packet Pg. 322 9.A.2.d extending way out into their view at their own choice. (The exception is of the dock extending from Lot 81 that we don't mind because we purchased this lot with this dock in view and that dock was not contested by anyone at the time when it was permitted.) The issue is adding yet another giant structure that would be closing in more and more of the view in this corner of the bay. Lot 80 (Cooper) does not have a water view from the back of his property to affect. His proposed dock is solely and directly in the view our Lot 78 and therefore affects us 100% and him not at all. See photos attached of the view we have as it is now, which is the one we purchased in 2015 and the one we hope to preserve. Thank you for your consideration in this matter and I am requesting acknowledgment that you received this letter and attachments. Please let me know if I need to hand -deliver it to your office. I plan on presenting this information in person on December 6th as well. Sincerely, David Mikula 33 W Pelican St Naples, FL 34113 Attachments: Warranty Deed Lot 78 Boundary and Hydrographic Survey Lot 78 Lot 79's Survey Final Judgement 2005 DEP Compliant (Page 1) 2 Photos of View 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. Packet Pg. 323 INSTR 5188435 OR 5208 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK DOC@.70 $6,125.00 REC CONS $875,000.00 PG 1495 RECORDED 10/28/2015 10:03 AM PAGES 2 OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA $18.50 This Instrument Prepared by and Return to: Craig R. Woodward, Esquire Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, PA 606 Bald Eagle Drive, Suite 500 Marco Island, Florida 34145 Our File No.: 151339S Property Appraisers Parcel Identification (Folio) Number: 52342920003 Florida Documentary Stamps in the amount of S6,125.00 have been paid hereon. Space above this line for Recording Data Yrs' ARRA1 V T Y DEED THIS WARRANTY DEED, made the 19th day of October, 2015 by Aurora Hufbagel, a single person, whose post office address is 25 Point Lane, Arcadia, FL- 46030 hamin called the Grantor, to David M. Amula and Laura Mikula, husband and wife wino e Tkpfibc s5 33 Pelican Street W., Naples, FL 34113, hereinafter called the Grantees: '. (Wherever used herein the rermr"G tw�' red "Grantee" Include all the�¢rtfes\,fa this Instrument and the heirs, legal representatives and asslgnr oflndlal t tcessors and ass-" ofcarp rlonit) l WITNESSETH: That c r, r d kn sit . of Eight Hundred 5eventy•Fivc Thousand and 00/100 (5875,0001* d oth I Ie Esati , re iEt hereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sells, alvw, aad ,try the Grantee all that certain land situate in Collier County, State of', on Viz.: y Lot 78, ISLES OF CAPRI NO.1� ti fag to the map or p1a rea1'as rtcorded in Plat Book 3, rage 41, Public Records of Collier Can }°tlo . G thnt land lying Norih of said Lot 78, to the mean high tide line (i50' inn .o�rl 9 in Section 32, Townsitip 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. .�� Subject to easements, restrictions and reservations of record and taxes for the year 2015 and thereafter. The property described herein is not now, nor has it ever been, the homestead of the grantor, the grantor's spouse or grantor's minor children, if any, nor is the property contiguous to their homestead. TOGETHER, with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or to anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in fee simple forever. AND, the Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantees that the Grantor is lawfully seined of said land in fee simple; that the Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land, and hereby warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever, and that said land is free of all encumbrances, except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31, 2014. FileNo.: 1513395 ur 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 324 *** OR 5208 PG 1496 *** 73 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has signed and sealed these presents the day and year fast above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: L1�2- V Witness #1 Signature d Witness #1 Primed Name Sigua re �f ` -1-Mir 1 zviwyvj-� r W' fil m#2 grin ane ^ ���` C']� U/, State of 0(' C County of 0 The foregoiag instrument was ac gGii ged fare me this is personally known to me or has p u L . Ark DEMI CHRIM MER I I DLEa K j j �- �, MYCOMMISSION #FF11 EXPIRES September 10, 20IS NOTARY STAMP/SEAL File Na: 151339S day Printed Notary Name My Commission Exp: 2015 by Aurora Hufnagel, who Lr. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 325 10 0 p 01 s� 0 rtti Y a'` l UnitsZ7���4°/�/ t S 5}ty / 4 gem Nlgh Found 1/2///�" / Iron Pin 73MKL5" N 45'20'J9' E See 2.92'(A4) Detall Rrev+ered ;r y 5/8 Iron .��e�r dy Pin ;43964 s• sass. (Farr ref' � 1'4Oq^ tl'''J3- 7.6' 51.96 fi/ 2422 rd C 5D. Fr. y PROPOSM POO. (Above) Plotted Lot Line S 8979100" E 60.00(PL) S 8900'37' E Ra Recovered N2ID/ - Iron Pin POin It of Begh-iDg GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 40 c0 NOTE EIVAt[ONS ARE BASED ON THE NORTH AMERIGW VERTIM DATUM OF 1988(NAVD) FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION FLOOD ZONE: AE ELEV: 8'(NAVD) COMMUNITY: 120067 PANEL: 0826 H DATE: 5-16-2012 r 7.6' 0 said Lot 79 for a distance of 115.00 feet to the Northwest Corner of said Lat 79. Ow being the Point of Naginning of the parcel of land herein dencriyed: !Hent* rlul North 48'18'25'. slang the Northweee* fins d the Ioods dMnbed in OffiCiol Rewords Book 2422 at Page 1227, Caller County, Florldo for a did once of 79.15 feet, thence run South 4704'16' East, for a distance of 2.05 leak to a point on the extension of the East line of acid Lot 79; thanes run South W41'00' Wast tar o d tense of 51 AS feet to 0.e Nratheaat Garrey of saki Lot 79; thence run North 891t$'00' West along the North lino of said Lai 79 for a distance of 60.00 feet to the Point of Be nnrng of the land$ herein hb deeced. 2ontaininp 31,5{6 square feet, more ar fess. POP �G Pp'e e ,anene.�d, a *' Lot 79 LEGAL. DESCRIPTION c p Lot 79, !ales of Capri Unit One as recorded in .1�3 Plot Book 3 at Page 41 of the Public THERE MAY BE ADtkroNAI Ac-4fAIMITS THAT ARE NOT R*cords 0f C011ier f.ourl:y. Florida. PUBLIC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY. And VACANT I (AXA 05I A partion at a parcel of land described in GERALD SCHU(T AND MARY ANNE SCHUR Officio! Records Book $422 at Page 1227, 3 Ca 5w County. Florida lying in Pompano Boy: (Disturbed) NE -0.36' Section 31, T"6111I15 51 South. Range 25 AND MAPPER. Cost, Collier Coons Rondo, being more on poNiculany dascrBxE os "r*.Lol 78 Commence at the SwOmest Comer of Lot I 79, Isles of Capri Unit One as recorded in 5/8' lr& Pfn Plot Book 3 at Popo 41 of the Public 'ernvared Records of Collier GauntT. Florido: Bence run 396 Imo Pin North 06'41'00" East. aloe j the West bine 0T 3964 Cirde(Fe/d) Omm - I" SURM1+alr Lg - tJ of SJPn: w r D-EVATIaN - SCLV04ME pre T -o, £=a 4o' R*aawred SITE PLAN S 003019' W 114.70'(M) 5/8' Iron No Io/ BOUNDARY SURVEY S 0041'00" W 115.00'(PL) 7.6' 0 said Lot 79 for a distance of 115.00 feet to the Northwest Corner of said Lat 79. Ow being the Point of Naginning of the parcel of land herein dencriyed: !Hent* rlul North 48'18'25'. slang the Northweee* fins d the Ioods dMnbed in OffiCiol Rewords Book 2422 at Page 1227, Caller County, Florldo for a did once of 79.15 feet, thence run South 4704'16' East, for a distance of 2.05 leak to a point on the extension of the East line of acid Lot 79; thanes run South W41'00' Wast tar o d tense of 51 AS feet to 0.e Nratheaat Garrey of saki Lot 79; thence run North 891t$'00' West along the North lino of said Lai 79 for a distance of 60.00 feet to the Point of Be nnrng of the land$ herein hb deeced. 2ontaininp 31,5{6 square feet, more ar fess. POP �G Pp'e e ,anene.�d, a *' Lot 79 C� c p E .1�3 Iron Pin THERE MAY BE ADtkroNAI Ac-4fAIMITS THAT ARE NOT 12453 PUBLIC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY. Recomrod VACANT I (AXA 05I 5/8' Iron Pin GERALD SCHU(T AND MARY ANNE SCHUR No 10/ 3 4 (Disturbed) NE -0.36' PRLWOSED RE901ENCE 14.8' AND MAPPER. Poin t of on Bound Nog of FhbA Roar IF?- a0' I ENCuh®RANCES. ABSTRACT NOT RENEWED. D WPROVEMENTS NOT L COATED UNLESS NOTED. 5/8' lr& Pfn Prl'Poad in p d[ T"tn Tab () (NAW 88) 0 • Scr ole.{. Nae r [44GUIC" p [0oR-0r-mv .G. - POW Cirde(Fe/d) Omm - I" SURM1+alr Lg - tJ of SJPn: w r D-EVATIaN - SCLV04ME pre T -o, W Erev.- c J. 60'(NAVD) ••r t0 SITE PLAN MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY DRAWN BY: JD SCALE: 1" - 20' � b - 4 :s 7.6' a IV 004100' E 115.00'(PL) i N 00'41'29' f 114-96'(M) '0�" Lot 80 ea Mean Nigh V. Water Line Elev.-a43'(NAVD) (1/21/15) col k Yo. a R 4701'10' E 206' Ii Detail '% 0.9, •Not to Scale* �k 27.J' 2 C� ISLES OF CAPRI, UNIT ONE 30.0' Found 5/8' Iron Pin THERE MAY BE ADtkroNAI Ac-4fAIMITS THAT ARE NOT 12453 PUBLIC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY. Recomrod FIR5T TITLE AND A85TRACT. INC. 5/8' Iron Pin GERALD SCHU(T AND MARY ANNE SCHUR No 10/ LOUDER YT fpRECr'rOt+ AHD MEETS THE WROU l TECHNICAL STAYIMRSTS AS PER CK%PTER 7J-17, FWMl3A Aa"`5RATRE CCOE- (Disturbed) NE -0.36' OWf■IAL RAISED SEAL OF THE FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. Poin t of r - P.LS. DATE Commencement c SW Comer Lot 79 UP ENCuh®RANCES. ABSTRACT NOT RENEWED. D WPROVEMENTS NOT L COATED UNLESS NOTED. 5/8' lr& Pfn ■ - ro11.7 HpfIAE1r1 4FiAi - NEASI7RP Y D - SET CO"C17.TE wONIAEJa (1-9 1 3904) rr. r tlLLteA1T9 ■ - Axam " PW O - OELI A AN= (U] % 3904) A - f %ow SET 5 O P/ of Odphin 0 - Moo ORLL WI.E a.E.. L1g1aA10E EASOr6n UL - 0 • Scr ole.{. Nae r [44GUIC" p [0oR-0r-mv .G. - POW Cirde(Fe/d) Omm - I" SURM1+alr Lg - tJ of SJPn: w r D-EVATIaN - SCLV04ME LAKE WO UNI M LM£ - Luo Ii r ArOI ICE FCURAt r PL - KM "N - rAae N 5ERI CE - PgNt Or A AM pIRYwom not reo vored K O P TM scfm4TEA wHrl■1. PGr'r ■ a - spt SITE PLAN MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY 9.A.2.d DESCRIPTION: AS FURNISHED BY CLIENT LOT 79 ISLES OF CAPRI, UNIT ONE SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS RECORDED 'N PVT OF THE PUSUC RECORDS OF C"Wer^COUN 'l, FLORi7A THERE MAY BE ADtkroNAI Ac-4fAIMITS THAT ARE NOT RECORDED ON :H5 PLAT THAT MAY BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY. I HEREBY CERTIFY TO: FIR5T TITLE AND A85TRACT. INC. OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY GERALD SCHU(T AND MARY ANNE SCHUR THAT A SIRYSY OF THE NEIdEON DFSM"91) QTY WAS MADE LOUDER YT fpRECr'rOt+ AHD MEETS THE WROU l TECHNICAL STAYIMRSTS AS PER CK%PTER 7J-17, FWMl3A Aa"`5RATRE CCOE- SJ-17.051(3)(0)4 - NOT VALID WITHOUoff T TSNYLATURE AND THE OWf■IAL RAISED SEAL OF THE FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. 3J-17.051{3] 9t )6 - ADOrrKM OR DELETI M TO 3UINF( MQ -.OR RP_PORIS Br 1311iR THM THE S10MNC PARTY OR PARTIES, Is PRONWED fef11) r WFUTlEN CONSENT OF IND: PARTI' OR PARTIES - P.LS. DATE 0 FL P.5.8 M. No. 2982 IS ENLY FOR THE LANDS AS DESMBED 4,ATION N07 A CERriFTCATION OF TITLE 20fIANC OR Ur ENCuh®RANCES. ABSTRACT NOT RENEWED. D WPROVEMENTS NOT L COATED UNLESS NOTED. ' iia - WAFMOG tA4SIS-PIAr ■ - ro11.7 HpfIAE1r1 4FiAi - NEASI7RP Y D - SET CO"C17.TE wONIAEJa (1-9 1 3904) rr. r tlLLteA1T9 ■ - Axam " PW O - OELI A AN= (U] % 3904) A - f %ow SET 5 ♦ - 114L 4- 5r NUL CB - CAM DEAff"O 0 - Moo ORLL WI.E a.E.. L1g1aA10E EASOr6n UL - 0 • Scr ole.{. Nae r [44GUIC" p [0oR-0r-mv .G. - POW or P.Y. - PIM Or TyC.F)K, P1 - AaIHi O< a t9- Omm - I" SURM1+alr Lg - tJ of SJPn: w r D-EVATIaN - SCLV04ME LAKE WO UNI M LM£ - Luo Ii r ArOI ICE FCURAt r PL - KM "N - rAae N 5ERI CE - PgNt Or A AM pIRYwom A.R.O. n PaA'7r P(T.i xAL - ! Bart Y�H-0 lI - OM K O P TM scfm4TEA wHrl■1. PGr'r ■ a - spt ■ « SNKrNrr tl.E411 OOT - SINFNIY IIAIanOtE - - w• v s - SURVEY DATE: 1-5-1997 FIELD BOOK 410 PAGE 13-14 DRAWN BY: JD SCALE: 1" - 20' REVISIONS: 900K PAGE oS/DS/08 Add PIOU-yd Boundary 05/19/% Red" Legal 9i/221Is UPdaEe SuneT k Isco See 44 + O Poe„ 6 IS R►Aee Ste Plan 5 ReA 6 t 15 ASA4e 5114 PI*n A TRIGO &ASSOCIATES, INC, intOFEMMRkOHAL LARD sURPEYOBs k M.VPPE[6 2223 TRADE CENTER TFAY NAPLES, KDRIDA 34209 L41iD 5TRRYSYnn amIlwi Ss i 3084 FILE NO: 96.0775.01 Packet Pg. 326 q M 30 N b a � � 31 30 P M 0 ;gym � � A CN p 1 m t3 1W CC sc"9.A.2.d IN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAUL A. HUFNAGEL Plaintiff, V. RAFAEL F. PUENTE and IDALIA PUENTE, his wife, and WrCHEL COOPER and KARYN A. COOPER, husband and wife, and SCOTT K. HUEGEL and CAR ENE HUEGEL, husband and wife; and FIELD .VIEW, LLC, a Wisconsin Limited Liability Company JAMES A. HUGHES, JR. and ELEANOR D. HUGHES his wife, and HARRY R. WOOD, III and JULIE E. cotj husband and wife., JAMES T. EASTMAN and DA STMAN, husband and wife, and WnZERT J. REGNET and S R husband and wife Defendants. ! f 1 1 THIS CAUSE was tried �theourt sitting -- The Court received CTVEL ACTION CASE NO. 02 -1743 -CA N CP O X % -•\ v =, G N =�N 'r b� ithout a jury on June 28, 2005. ,ed both the Plaintiff's and the Defendants' documents in evidence, listened to the oral argument of counsel and the Court wishes to compliment both Counsels on their professional presentation of evidence and reviewed the Memoranda of Law submitted by counsel. Having reviewed all the evidence, the Court makes the following findings of fact: 1. This case involves an action to quiet title to the following described real property in Collier County, Florida, to wit: Lot 78, Isles of Capri, No. 1, in accordance with an subject to the plat recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 41, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and All of that land lying NORTH of Lot 78, Isles of Capri, No. 1, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 41, Official Records of Packet Pg. 327 1W *** OR: 3863 PG: 2466 Together with all riparian rights including all land or lands accrued by accretion or other natural phenomena is a good title superior to the claims or purported claims of Defendants and all other parties claiming by, through, under, or against Defendants and these claims or purported claims are cancelled, and the title to the property is forever quieted in the Plaintiff. 4. The Court reserves Jurisdiction to award Court costs and Attorneys fees. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Naples, Collier County, Florida, this day Of V , 2005. Honor ble Daniel R. Monaco Circuit Court Judge Conformed copies to: William G. Morris, Esquire P.O. Box 2056 Marco Island, FL 34146 Raymond L. Bass, Jr., Esquire Bass & Chernoff The Moorings Professional B 2335 Tarniami Trail North, S Naples, FL, 34103-4459 Gotiy�x coU T 113 r� °\moi E C,% CO� Esquire Center Packet Pg. 328 m z F ayn'antot psQ i COMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORT I 9.A.2.d I Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) South District Compliance Assurance Program 2295 Victoria Avenue, Suite 364 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 (239)344-5600 Inspection Type: 1 ®Complaint ❑DF Permit ❑Mangrove GP ❑ Mangrove IP Inspection Dates: Complaint No.: Site No.: Project No.: 01/10/2018 31482 361051 (Schuit) 359353 (Schuit) 360416 (Cooper) 378047 (Cooper) Activit / Site Address: Property Qwner's Name: Property Owner Contact Info: 35 Pelican St. W Mary Anne Louise Schuit ierr schuithomes.com Naples, FL 34113 A_etiyitu/ Site Address: Property Owner's Name: Proveq ProveOwner Contact Info: 37 Pelican St. W Mitchel & Karyn A. Cooper thatchoochoo@con-icast.net Naples, FL 34113 Name DEP inspector(s): Description of Alleged Non-compliance Activities: Sam Troast, Jenny Gienger, Removed mangroves and installed boat ramp without permits Kelly Cramer Name of Waterbodv: Waterbod Class: ❑ 1 ® II ❑III ❑ IV Unnamed wetlands and State Lands: M Yes ❑No Pompano Bay OFW: R Yes ❑No Aauatic Preserve: ® Yes ❑No Name of Aquatic Preserve (if applicable): Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve Compliance Classification: ERP History: ❑ In Compliance ® Permitting ❑ None ❑ Minor Non -Compliance ❑ Compliance Assistance ❑ Other: ® Significant Non -Compliance ❑ Enforcement Environmental Resource Survey: Environmental resource impacts: 10 Yes ❑No Habitat Type (FLUCCS code): 621 Mangrove Swamp Investigation: 10/17/2017: The Department received a complaint about mangrove removal and the installation of a boat ramp at 35 Pelican St. W in Naples, FL. The complainant stated that the homeowner took gravel from the front of his home and filled the mangroves behind the house. It was also stated that the homeowner dug out mangroves with a backhoe and built a boat launch ramp. L11 /20/2017: The Department sent a site access letter to the property owner at 35 Pelican St. W in Naples, FL. Page 1 of 15 Packet Pg. 329 of �I 1 � .41 1z,g 4 *Ne 41 1 Ala Casa novaAlexand ra From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Thank you Gil Martinez Principal Planner 239-252-4211 MartinezGilbert Thursday, November 29, 2018 9:07 AM CasanovaAlexandra FW: Permit # 2018084709301 Schuit's Survey.pdf, ATT00001.htm; 15175 08-20-15 SS 2.pdf, ATT00002.htm Collier County Growth Management Division Exceeding Expectations, Every Day! NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2800 Horseshoe Dr. N Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-4211 From: Dave & Laura Mikula <makomik1997@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 11:30 AM To: MartinezGilbert <Gilbert.Martinez@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Permit # 2018084709301 November 28, 2018 (Submitted via Email and USPS mail) Mr. Gilbert Martinez Collier County Growth Management 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Permit application # PBD2018084709301 Dear Mr. Martinez: 9.A.2.d It has come to our attention that our neighbor, Mary Anne Schuit (Lot 79) of 35 W Pelican Street, (Isles of Capri) Naples FL 34113, has submitted a permit through Imperial Marine Construction to build a "seawall at existing boat launch" behind their house that would exit directly behind our house. This is the same neighbor whom we had previously notified you that in cooperation with his neighbor, Cooper, who is applying for a dock variance, has caused problems with removing our land and boundary, dredging the bay, and has been reported to the DEP. With regard to the Permit Application 2018084709301 that is pending approval through your department, we noticed that they did not submit the latest survey with their application that they had done in 2015 when they purchased his property. He submitted a very old Packet Pg. 332 9.A.2.d one (from 1958) that is not accurate. It was done way before the property battles in this corner were settled in 2005. Their lot description does not contain the words "to the mean high water line" and is a dry lot. Their 2015 survey shows that they do not have water access and that they would have to cross over a piece of our property in order to launch a boat. (Their surveyor, A. Triago, who continues to make mistakes in this corner just as he did prior to 2005, erroneously assigned him 2' riparian rights on this survey, once again, based on old prior -to -2005 information.) And the neighboring property to them owned by Cooper (Lot 80) would also have to cross a piece of our land to have such a boat launch/ramp. Schuit is a home builder in Canada. He can read surveys and he knew his latest survey was not in his favor. We believe Schuit submitted this old survey and withheld the 2015 one intentionally to mislead your department in order to obtain their permit. If they were to have a survey done today, it would show a drastic change in that corner of the bay where Jerry Schuit removed our land and boundary in order to obtain water access behind his house using heavy machinery to dig out what was a narrow canoe path on Cooper's lot into a 22' wide boat launch over our property over at least 4 events in 2016/2017. The "existing boat launch" only exists because he dredged and dragged to create it prior to attempting to get a permit for it because he knew he would not achieve it any c other way. Any survey done after his latest dredging in December 2017 would reflect the results of his illegal activity and would be N contested by us immediately until we are able to have our land restored either through the DEP or through the courts. The one he should have submitted was the most recent and more accurate one in 2015 that reflects how the area was prior to his land/boundary x modification projects (minus the erroneously -assigned riparian rights). w Because of their dishonest attempt to obtain deceive your department for a permit for a seawall where there is no sea along an illegally, a created boat launch/ramp, and submitting what he knew to be an out-of-date survey, we are attaching their 2015 survey and ours around the same time for our Lot 78. This way your department will have the correct information to be able to reach an informed and m appropriate decision regarding this permit. Y 0 Sincerely, o L Q Dave Mikula 0 0 U 33 W Pelican St Naples FL 34113 Ph: 412-337-6099 Attached: 2015 Survey Lot 79, 2015 Survey Lot 78 0 N CO C N >_ M V r Q 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. Packet Pg. 333 0 Jr- 7,- . 74J A� Platted Lot Line S 8979'00" E 60.00'(PL) 5 89170 JY £ 6(1.317") Recovered NID/2Pin Point of GRAPHIC SCALE D 20 aO ° NOTE E'LEVAT1OttS WE WED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERT A_ OATW OF 198B(NAVD) FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION FLOOD ZONE: AE ELEV: 8'(NAVD) COMMUNITY: 120067 PANEL: 0826 H DATE: 5-16-2012 Antra` LEGAL. DESCRIPTION xw - $ Found 117• 47�s'ID' E 51.96 Iron Pin D. R. 2127 'A1C " N 4520'39' E See Pf:. +�/ Recalls of Detail 2.92(") J Boundary FT. Rvco rered Rr sj .y X40 5Q 5/8" Iron lands deacribed in Official Records Book 2222 Pin /3964 D p. at Page t227, Calger County, Florida for o P.L.S. PATE d 1 Platted Lot Line S 8979'00" E 60.00'(PL) 5 89170 JY £ 6(1.317") Recovered NID/2Pin Point of GRAPHIC SCALE D 20 aO ° NOTE E'LEVAT1OttS WE WED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERT A_ OATW OF 198B(NAVD) FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION FLOOD ZONE: AE ELEV: 8'(NAVD) COMMUNITY: 120067 PANEL: 0826 H DATE: 5-16-2012 Antra` LEGAL. DESCRIPTION xw - xt0_ Lot 79. Isles of C=yn .:..It One as recorded in the Public sold Lot 79 for a diaLance W 115.iJ0 ieet !a the Nonhee7t Cornor of said Lot 79. also THERE 1,µT' 0E AAOR:ONAL (1E$fRPL77 THAT ARE NOT Plot Bank 3 at =age A+. of Collier Ca:n::�, Florida. being the Point of Begin ing of the parcel °! 9d.9' Recalls of IoM herein d4wlbed: menti run North GER>fL7 SCHUrT AND MARY ANNE SCHUIT And 48'1B'2S", along Ute NarHlwesferfle Nne al the AS PER c14-=zq 5J -T7, romat An/ tsTwrvi: CCOE. SJ-17.051(7�(b)4 - NOT VAUD WaHOUT THE SIWMTURE MID THE lands deacribed in Official Records Book 2222 AND NAPPER. A portion Of a parcel of land described in at Page t227, Calger County, Florida for o P.L.S. PATE d 1 ONiCNet Records Book 2422 at Page 1227, distance at 79.15 feet, thence run South POO, (Ab..) co[Yar County, Florida [yinqq in Pompon¢ SOT, Section 31, Township 51 SauOI, Range 26 4TO4'10' East, for a diw-Wnco Of 2.06 ice: to a Point on the oxtenslon of the East t[ne of 1 Benchmark it t East, Ca1l[er County Florida, being mora said Lot 7% thence run South 0741'00' Wal AO paRlWlarty dvwCtH ed as tah9wa: for a distance f 51,96 feet to the Northeast (NA l9 88) 17Pr°PmAd .w rh- O1 Camay Of sold La! 79: theme ran North Lol 78 CarrlMm"s at the Southwest Coiner of Lot 89•ivw West. along the North line of so id .160'(HAYD) 79, Istes et Capri unit Ona as recorded in Lot 79 for a distance of EMOD feel La the zm Plot Book 3 at Prigs 41 of the Public Paint of Baglnang of the ianda heroin Recowred Records of Collier County. Florida: thence run described,-:Ontafning (1,540 square lest, 5/8' '� Pin Horth OO'4VOO' Emt, aton9 the West lino of mora or less. 695.8 s x0 t5 Su Flan (Diato.Ded) SE a4o' Remwred Recow518- N 00'41 '00' E 115.00 '(PL) i Found 5/8' 30.. 0 n Ph S 003029_' W fro-T4{M �PL} N° ID/ Pa.w �n PJ 3 _ S 0014i '00 W 115.00 f4ue A I 9.A.2.d DESCRIPTION: AS FURNISHED BY CLIENT ar n.m:n xw - xt0_ AS RECORCEO roe PLAT 8Q0XF'1A;E_TH4t5!T OF THE PUHIJC RECORDS OF C-ff-r COUNTY, FLORIOA THERE 1,µT' 0E AAOR:ONAL (1E$fRPL77 THAT ARE NOT RECORDED ON 7}135 PLOT THAT IyY BE P111UND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ITM COUNTY - 9d.9' FIRST TM -E AND ABSTRACT, INC. OLD REPUBUC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY GER>fL7 SCHUrT AND MARY ANNE SCHUIT THAT A S W ORI6M PRCPj`itY WAS M -DE If9NOES THE LWMU TECHNICAL STANIIAR, UNDER NYO AS PER c14-=zq 5J -T7, romat An/ tsTwrvi: CCOE. SJ-17.051(7�(b)4 - NOT VAUD WaHOUT THE SIWMTURE MID THE Lot 79 AND NAPPER. 5.:-17.051(3)fa}6 ADWio1 oR DELETIONS TO filRVET NAPS OR RUHyn Lir 91166 TITAN TIE SIGNING P.Mifr OR PARTES. 5 Pmvo.� P.L.S. PATE d 1 to o POO, (Ab..) V14r4NT (AKA /35) 44.8' 3 3 1 Benchmark it t r . M C rNaMe?7+T � IEAp1� - w. e e - Ii1YtAlEM SL@ / 3964) CALL- G4A14GLE 0 PROP floor (:7ev. CE PRCWOSED RESOINCE AO 7 Found Nod td Tab e- .D. . POW OF CUR03 K i�Nc _ P.T.- POINT Or mgmD ^r WW - RroR-oF-wAr mf1191.1 { (NA l9 88) 17Pr°PmAd .w rh- O1 y Elco. a 'ter O b PRJA - ✓ UbIM p.Y rsTEFVKZ NCI!4W %T I1 - CONC POAPR PRE P.CJ'. - POat+.'EMT COITIRM polla r ■ m - IYT.Eplzw SERWX ■ - Ave UL, a - ULCTRIC Sr"CT U5 OI .160'(HAYD) FIELD BOOK 410 PAGE 13-14 DRAWN BY: JD SCALE: 1" = 20' zm 4 ?wk Lor` p 27.Y 2 Seam d 76• µ s x0 t5 Su Flan D/a 15 ReTim Site Ran e I115 Fl -9- Sir. Pion 'o N 00'41 '00' E 115.00 '(PL) i Found 5/8' 30.. 0 tr 2=3 77 -ADE CEATES :AY N 00'41 29' E 114.96(A4) �n PJ 3 FILE NO: 96.13775.01 x n P1PC,L-. Lot 80 Recv"red Lines 5/8' Iron Pin 1 No ID/ w Mean High Line (Disturbed) N£=0.36' g ' Waley Point r$ acv.-0.43'(NAWD) of w tint�r (1/21/15) Commencement SW Come Lot 79 y I �1 O. V.� N fyi a r' a "tau 5/8" Iron Por 't4 O Pl o1.1. in "'✓ Ctrcle(F1Nd) not recovered 47 J ` 174�Y0' E x� 1% SITE PLAN *Not Dto Scale* etail r. s' �� MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY 9.A.2.d DESCRIPTION: AS FURNISHED BY CLIENT LOT 79 ISLES OF CAPRI, UNIT ONE SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS RECORCEO roe PLAT 8Q0XF'1A;E_TH4t5!T OF THE PUHIJC RECORDS OF C-ff-r COUNTY, FLORIOA THERE 1,µT' 0E AAOR:ONAL (1E$fRPL77 THAT ARE NOT RECORDED ON 7}135 PLOT THAT IyY BE P111UND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ITM COUNTY - I HEREBY CERTIFY TO: FIRST TM -E AND ABSTRACT, INC. OLD REPUBUC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY GER>fL7 SCHUrT AND MARY ANNE SCHUIT THAT A S W ORI6M PRCPj`itY WAS M -DE If9NOES THE LWMU TECHNICAL STANIIAR, UNDER NYO AS PER c14-=zq 5J -T7, romat An/ tsTwrvi: CCOE. SJ-17.051(7�(b)4 - NOT VAUD WaHOUT THE SIWMTURE MID THE ORIGINALRA15iD SEAL OF TQ FU*Mk UCFNSED SURVEYOR AND NAPPER. 5.:-17.051(3)fa}6 ADWio1 oR DELETIONS TO filRVET NAPS OR RUHyn Lir 91166 TITAN TIE SIGNING P.Mifr OR PARTES. 5 PROHIBIT -ED WRHOUT WRrTrEN CONSENT OF THE PARTY OR PARTIES P.L.S. PATE d 1 0 FL P,S k M. NO.V. . 2982 An ON IS ONLY FOR THE LANDS AS DESCRIE10 4U?D�IWPROVEMENTS V IS NOT F CaTIFiCATON OF T iLE, iONINC, OR ON, Excl w RANCES. Ail MAC T NOT RENEWED, 407 LOCATED UNLESS NOTED r r . M C rNaMe?7+T � IEAp1� - w. e e - Ii1YtAlEM SL@ / 3964) CALL- G4A14GLE 0 roL 0 "C"7E DELTA ■ - !lj 5 IRON PW A • Rkc MERE - 5P7 Ndrr Put ice %ave¢) CH & FOUND T . CROAM a . SET NAItR� a.L - a . FOUND LST1 RDI( DRADIME W7 DKL Naw 11.E - v%w EUSOMM e- .D. . POW OF CUR03 K i�Nc _ P.T.- POINT Or mgmD ^r WW - RroR-oF-wAr mf1191.1 { z . N ar1T pprr rT:fRSE�C;11dp/� LH. - LAAu iR.Ee $i/S.�E.S LS- - Uwe Suff s o CHS. - CWNCTIM BLOCK STRaL' M E3.LV - nEvATpIt LUZ - Lar[ ILAMDA&4CE Eti`E11Cf+T Pt - PLATP.R.C. pow OF 9E1iSRSE CURVATUrE M - CARE 1V 5ERYMM PRJA - ✓ UbIM p.Y rsTEFVKZ NCI!4W %T I1 - CONC POAPR PRE P.CJ'. - POat+.'EMT COITIRM polla r ■ m - IYT.Eplzw SERWX ■ - Ave UL, a - ULCTRIC Sr"CT ■ - SWa Apr CLEM OUT - °JMART kiNe xf SURVEY DATE: 1-5-1997 FIELD BOOK 410 PAGE 13-14 DRAWN BY: JD SCALE: 1" = 20' REViS10NS: S" ?wk 05/08/98 Add ltylerword Boundary 05/18/% fforr t-wl 01/21 15 UpEala Sw"Ir i Topp µ s x0 t5 Su Flan D/a 15 ReTim Site Ran e I115 Fl -9- Sir. Pion A T &ASSOCIATES, LNC pavl*eMsslaWAL (AND 311"eLva3 x xAPPsfrs tr 2=3 77 -ADE CEATES :AY NAPLES, FL D:9k 34[09 LAND 9ORVE:t R11SRTm ! 9ao4 FILE NO: 96.13775.01 I Packet Pg. 336 9.A.3 12/06/2018 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.3 Item Summary: PL20170004419: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Map Series to add the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict to the Urban Mixed -Use District, to allow up to 420 multi family dwelling units, and furthermore directing transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is located on the south side of Veterans - Memorial Boulevard, just east of Livingston Road, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 35.57± acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 12/06/2018 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior — Zoning Name: Marcia R Kendall 11/19/2018 10:04 AM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning — Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 11/19/2018 10:04 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department David Weeks Additional Reviewer Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Growth Management Department Zoning Planning Commission James C French Review Item Michael Bosi Review Item Mark Strain Meeting Pending Completed 11/19/2018 12:30 PM Review Item Completed Completed 11/20/2018 12:14 PM Completed 11/21/2018 9:24 AM 12/06/2018 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 337 COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 7 p11OT Lomwnan 2018 CYCLE 1 (FULL SCALE) AMENDMENT (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) Project/Petition #PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 CCPC: December 6, 2018, 2018 BCC: February 12, 2018 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 338 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2018 Cycle 1 GMP (Full Scale) Amendment [Transmittal Hearing] Project #PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 CCPC December 6, 2018 1) TAB. Transmittal Staff Report DOCUMENT: CCPCStaff Report PL20170004419/CPSP-2018-1 2) TAB: Resolution DOCUMENT: Transmittal Resolution with Exhibit "A" text (and/or maps): PL20170004419/CPSP-2018-1 3) TAB. Project PL20170004419/ Petition CPSP-2018-1 4) TAB. Legal Advertisement DOCUMENT: Application/Petition DOCUMENT: CCPC Advertisement PL20170004419/CPSP-2018-1 9.A.3.b r a Packet Pg. 339 Agenda Item 9.A.3 Co*ie-r CoH-rklty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: December 6, 2018 SUBJECT. PETITION PL20170004419 / CP -2018-1, 2018 CYCLE ONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE (FLUE) APPLICANT/AGENTS: Applicant: Keith Gelder, President SD Livingston, LLC 2639 Professional Circle, no. 101 Naples, FL 34119 Agents: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Hole Montes, Inc. 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property comprises 35.57 acres and is located in the southeast quadrant of the Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard intersection. The non -corner property fronts approximately 660 feet on east side of Livingston Road and 660 ft. on the south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard. The property lies within the North Naples Planning Community, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 —1— PL20170004419 / CP -2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 340 Agenda Item 9.A.3 REQUESTED ACTION: This petition seeks to establish a new Subdistrict in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) text, and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) by amending: 1) Policy 1.5 of the Urban - Mixed Use District to add the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict; 2) the Urban — Mixed Use District to establish the new Subdistrict provisions; 3) the Future Land Use Map Series listing to add the title of the new Subdistrict map; and, 4) the Future Land Use Map to depict the new Subdistrict and adding a new Future Land Use Map Series inset map that depicts the new Subdistrict. The Subdistrict language proposed by this amendment is found in Resolution Exhibit "A". PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petition proposes the new Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District that: allows residential density up to 12 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) yielding 420 DUs; requires the property to be rezoned to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD); limits allowable uses to multi -family rental dwellings; and, requires utilization of two Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. SURROUNDING FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS. ZONING AND LAND USES: Subject Property: The entire subject property, which comprises 35.57 acres, is designated Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, which generally provides for higher [land use] densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. The entire subject property lies within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA), an area where traffic management strategies are employed to reduce traffic impacts. This TCMA is bounded by the Collier -Lee County Line on the north side; 1-75 right-of-way on the east side; Pine Ridge Road on the south side; and, the Gulf of Mexico on the west side. From the Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard intersection, Livingston Road extends north beyond the Collier -Lee County Line and continues northerly in Lee County; Livingston extends south, approximately 10 miles, to terminate at its intersection with Davis Boulevard; Veterans Memorial Boulevard extends east approximately 4,400 ft. (.80 mi.), to terminate at entrances to residential developments on the west side of 1-75. Veterans Memorial extends west approximately 2,390 ft. (.45 mi.), to terminate at an entrance to a residential development. The 2040 Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTP), both Financially Feasible and Needs Projects, depict this road extending west to US 41. The approximate northerly 660 ft. portion of the property (17.25 ac.) is zoned A, Rural Agriculture, and is undeveloped. The southerly portion of the property is zoned RPUD, Della Rosa Residential Planned Unit Development, and is undeveloped. See the complete analysis of this PUD under the Background and Analysis section below. An ±8.5 -acre portion of the property is also designated ST, Special Treatment Overlay. —2— PL20170004419 / CP -2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 341 Agenda Item 9.A.3 Surroundina Lands: North: The Future Land Use Map designates land immediately north (and east) of the subject property Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. It is zoned RPUD, Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development, and is developed/developing with single-family dwellings. Land further to the north (and northeast) of the subject property, across Veterans Memorial Boulevard, is also designated Urban Residential Subdistrict, is zoned PUD, Mediterra, and is developed/developing with single-family dwellings. East: The Future Land Use Map designates land located immediately east of the subject property Urban Residential Subdistrict. It is zoned RPUD, Brandon, and is developed/developing with single-family dwellings. The Future Land Use Map designates land lying further east and northeast Urban Residential Subdistrict. This area is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and is undeveloped. South: The Future Land Use Map designates land lying immediately south (and southeast and southwest) of the subject property Urban Residential Subdistrict. It is zoned RPUD, Brandon, and is developed/developing with single-family dwellings. Land lying further to the southeast is zoned Royal Palm International Academy PUD and developed with a private school and residentially. A small property lying immediately south is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and is undeveloped. Another small property lying to the southwest (on Livingston Rd.) is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, with a Conditional Use for a fire station; it is developed with the North Collier District 48 Fire Station. West: The Future Land Use Map designates a small property lying immediately west of the subject property Urban Residential Subdistrict. It is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and is undeveloped. Adjacently north of this parcel, located at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, is another small property, designated Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict; it is zoned C-1, Commercial Professional and General Office, and is undeveloped. Land to the west (and northwest and southwest) of the subject property, across Livingston Road, is designated Urban Residential Subdistrict. These lands are zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and undeveloped - except for the entrance road to Veterans Memorial Elementary School, and zoned RMC -Enclave RPUD, and undeveloped. Further to the west, along the south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard, lies the North Naples Middle School, zoned A, Rural Agricultural, then the Sandlewood RPUD, developed residentially. Further to the southwest, across Livingston Road, lies Veterans Memorial Elementary School, zoned A, Rural Agricultural. Land to the northwest of the subject property, across Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, is zoned PUD, Mediterra, and is developed with a residential/golf course community. In summary, the existing and planned land uses, and zoning, in the area surrounding the subject property, are primarily urban residences or residential lots in all directions, with public services and schools located nearby, and one small commercial parcel. Criteria for GMP Amendments in Florida Statutes Data and analysis requirements for comprehensive plans and plan amendments are noted in Chapter 163, F.S., specifically as listed below. —3— PL20170004419 / CP -2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 342 9.A.3.c Agenda Item 9.A.3 Section 163.3177(1)(f), Florida Statutes: (f) All mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. Surveys, studies, and data utilized in the preparation of the comprehensive plan may not be deemed a part of the comprehensive plan unless adopted as a part of it. Copies of such studies, surveys, data, and supporting documents for proposed plans and plan amendments shall be made available for public inspection, and copies of such plans shall be made available to the public upon payment of reasonable charges for reproduction. Support data or summaries are not subject to the compliance review process, but the comprehensive plan must be clearly based on appropriate data. Support data or summaries may be used to aid in the determination of compliance and consistency. 2. Data must be taken from professionally accepted sources. The application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted may be evaluated. However, the evaluation may not include whether one accepted methodology is better than another. Original data collection by local governments is not required. However, local governments may use original data so long as methodologies are professionally accepted. 3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates o and projections, which shall either be those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research or generated by the local government based upon a professionally S acceptable methodology. The plan must be based on at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10 -year planning period unless otherwise limited under s. 380.05, including related rules of the Administration Commission. Absent physical -J limitations on population growth, population projections for each municipality, and the U- unincorporated area within a county must, at a minimum, be reflective of each area's al proportional share of the total county population and the total county population growth. 4_ - Section 163.3177(6)(a)2.: 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. —4— PL20170004419/ CP -2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE Packet Pg. 343 Agenda Item 9.A.3 f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community's economy. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. Section 163.3177(6)(a)8., Florida Statutes: (a) A future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land. The approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use shall be provided for the gross land area included in each existing land use category. The element shall establish the long-term end toward which land use programs and activities are ultimately directed. 8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. Also, the state land planning agency has historically recognized the consideration of community desires (e.g. if the community has an articulated vision for an area as to the type of development desired, such as within a Community Redevelopment Area), and existing incompatibilities (e.g. presently allowed uses would be incompatible with surrounding uses and conditions). It is incumbent upon the petitioner to provide appropriate and relevant data and analysis to address the statutory requirements for a Plan amendment, then present and defend, as necessary, that data and analysis. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: Residential development in the Urban - Mixed Use District is regulated by the FLUE's Density Rating System. A portion of the underlying property - 15.38 acres of the 35.57 -acre subject property - is zoned Della Rosa RPUD and approved for 107 DUs (7 DU/A). This density was derived using the Density Rating System as follows: Base Density of 4 DU/A + Residential In -fill Density Bonus = 7 DU/A. One Residential In -fill criterion is that the project must be twenty (20) acres or less in size. Because the entire subject site exceeds twenty acres, it is no longer eligible for the Residential In -fill bonus. Because market rate housing is proposed, the site is not eligible for the Affordable Housing density —5— PL20170004419 / CP -2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 344 Agenda Item 9.A.3 bonus. The only density bonus the site may be eligible for, if the criteria are met, is the TCMA density bonus of 3 DU/A. This petition requests 420 DUs; the net effect of this amendment is depicted below, with and without meeting the TCMA density bonus criteria. (Note: The Density Rating System states that density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each respective density bonus.) Density with TCMA Bonus GMP Amendment Increase 7 DU/A x 35.57 acres = 249 DUs 420 DUs requested — 249 DUs eligible = 171 DUs via GMPA Density without TCMA Bonus GMP Amendment Increase 4 DU/A x 35.57 acres = 142 DUs 420 DUs requested — 142 DUs eligible = 278 DUs via GMPA Appropriateness of the Site and the Change: The Meyers Research Rental Apartment Needs Analysis (June 2018), is part of the supporting data & analysis submitted with GMPA application materials (Exhibit V.D.1.). The Meyers Research analyzes the [specific] need for market -rate rental apartments, revealing that a healthy apartment market is evidenced by rental rates for market-based apartments that steadily increased from the beginning of 2011, by several projects at lease -up stage, and by market -rate rental apartments historically hovering near full occupancy rates. The Analysis indicates that the projected population growth provides sufficient demand for market-based apartments, with the ability to absorb from 14,900 (2020) to 16,700 residents. At the macro level at which a GMP amendment is reviewed, staff is of the opinion that the proposed GMP amendment is compatible with surrounding properties. The rezone petition to implement the proposed subdistrict will need to address specific compatibility measures. These could include maximum building height; landscape buffers, preserve area location, and open space; building locations and minimum setbacks; building massing and orientation. Traffic Capacity/Traffic Circulation Impact Analysis, Including Transportation Element Consistency Determination: The subject property lies within Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA), an area where intensive development exists, or such development is planned, bounded by the Collier -Lee County Line on the north side; the west side of the 1-75 right-of-way on the east side; Pine Ridge Road on the south side; and, the Gulf of Mexico on the west side. FLUE Policy 2.3: Deficiencies or potential deficiencies... [require] a developer to construct the needed facilities or defer development until improvements can be made or the level of service is amended to ensure available capacity. —6— PL20170004419 / CP -2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 345 Agenda Item 9.A.3 FLUE Policy 6.1: Development within a TCMA shall occur in a manner that... [ensures] an adequate level of mobility, discourages the proliferation of urban sprawl, [protects] natural resources' [and] historic resources, [maximizes] the efficient use of existing public facilities, and [promotes] public transit, bicycling, walking and other alternatives to the single occupant automobile. Transportation Element (TE) Policy 5.6, especially as it pertains to "requirements for utilizing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies" and its parallel FLUE Policy 6.5 state, "[i]n order to be exempt from link specific concurrency, new residential development or redevelopment within [TCMA] shall utilize at least two of the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, as may be applicable: a) Including neighborhood residential uses within a residential project. b) Providing transit shelters within the development (must be coordinated with Collier County Transit). c) Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connections to abutting residential properties. d) Providing vehicular access to abutting residential properties." The Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) Bonus is available to residential redevelopment or infill development that meets the criteria established in Policies 6.1 through 6.7 of the Future Land Use Element, and... may add three (3) residential units per gross acre. Staff previously suggested utilizing additional TDM strategies if the new Subdistrict was to allow residential density greater than the three (3) residential units [seven (7) DU/A total density] allowed by the TCMA Bonus. The Density Rating System does not provide for any additional density if more than the minimum required two criteria are met; staff was suggesting the petition go "above and beyond" and offer something extra to benefit the larger community rather than simply asking for additional density. Application materials do not offer any additional commitments, rather just request the greater density via this GMPA. A Transportation Impact Statement, dated May 25, 2018, prepared by TR Transportation Consultants, Inc., was submitted with this petition (Exhibit W.E.Y). Fully 100% of traffic accessing the property comes from Livingston Road (35% to/from the north; 65% to/from the south) Traffic on Livingston Road (generally) collects and distributes — to and from all directions — evenly at the Immokalee Road intersection. Collier County Transportation Planning staff reviewed this petition and provided the following comments: The use of internal driveways to provide vehicular access with the development to the commercial [and agricultural parcels to the west] however, this does not appear to meet the intent of the LDC or the GMP. Show a potential interconnection (vehicular or pedestrian) on the (companion Planned Unit Development) master plan to the commercial [and agricultural] parcels to the west, or, add language in your PUD document indicating a potential interconnection is possible. [Michael Sawyer, Project Manager, Transportation Planning Section] —7— PL20170004419 / CP -2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 346 9.A.3.c Agenda Item 9.A.3 Public Facilities Impacts: A Public Facilities Report, dated July 13, 2018 (Exhibit V.E.1), and a Public Service Facilities Map, dated July 11, 2018 (Exhibit V.E.2), were submitted with this petition. • Potable Water System: The subject project lies in the County's Water Service Area and development will be served by Collier County potable water treatment services. The anticipated average daily demand for potable water for the residential project is 147,000 gallons per day (gpd) [198,450 gpd "Peak"]. Collier County has sufficient capacity to provide water services. • Wastewater Collection and Treatment System: The subject project lies in the North County Wastewater Service Area and development will be served by Collier County wastewater collection and treatment services. The anticipated average daily demand for wastewater collection and treatment for the residential project is estimated at 105,000 gallons per day (gpd) [141,750 gpd "Peak"]. Collier County has sufficient capacity to provide wastewater services. • Solid Waste Collection and Disposal: The solid waste disposal service provider is Collier County Solid Waste Management. The 2018 AUIR notes that the County projects more than 50 years of remaining landfill capacity. • Stormwater Management System: The 2018 AUIR does not identify any stormwater management improvement projects in the vicinity of the subject property. Future development will comply with the SFWMD and/or Collier County rules and regulations that assure controlled accommodation of stormwater events by both on-site and off-site improvements. • Park and Recreational Facilities: The availability of community and regional park facilities is sufficient to meet the demand generated by proposed residential development. • Schools: The subject site is within the E8, Northwest Area 2 CSA for elementary schools, the M4 Northwest Area CSA for middle schools, and the H4 Northwest Area CSA for high schools. The E8 CSA includes two elementary schools, Laurel Oak and Veterans Memorial. They have a combined FISH capacity of 1,793 students, a 2016/2017 peak enrollment of 1,739 students, > and a projected 2021/2022 enrollment of 1,789 students (100% capacity). According to the J Collier County Public Schools Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for fiscal years 2018 through 2037, the opening of a new charter school in the 2017-2018 school year is anticipated to affect enrollment in this CSA. The enrollment at Laurel Oak is being monitored. Long-term re -locatable J classroom capacity was added to the permanent capacity in 2010. Z The H4/M4 CSA includes Barron Collier and Gulf Coast High Schools, and North Naples, Oakridge, and Pine Ridge Middle Schools. The high schools have a combined FISH capacity of 3,606 students, and a 2016/2017 peak enrollment of 3,888 students, and a projected 2021/2022 enrollment of 4,000 students (111% capacity). The middle schools have a combined capacity of 3,361 students, a peak enrollment in 2016/2017 of 3,015 students, and a projected 2021/2022 enrollment of 2,977 students (89% capacity). According to the CIP, enrollment at Gulf Coast HS is being monitored and temporary alternatives to address overcrowding may be implemented prior to permanent relief with the opening of a new high school in 2023. • Emergency Medical (EMS) and Fire Rescue Services: The subject property is located within the North Naples Fire & Rescue District, with collocated services at District Station 48, located at 16280 Livingston Rd., which is located along Livingston Rd., adjacent to the southwestern portion of the property. —8— PL20170004419 / CP -2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE Packet Pg. 347 Agenda Item 9.A.3 Collier County Public Utilities Department, Planning and Project Management Division staff reviewed this petition, and identified no issues or concerns regarding impacts upon potable water, wastewater collection and treatment or solid waste collection and disposal services. [Eric Fey, PE, Senior Project Manager, Public Utilities Engineering Department] Environmental Impacts: A Vegetation Map, Soils Map, and Listed Species Table, dated July 2018, prepared by DexBender Environmental Consulting, were submitted with this petition (Exhibits V.C, V.C.1 and V.C.2). Environmental review specialists with County Development Review Division, Environmental Planning Section reviewed these documents and provided the following comments: The subject property is 35.57 acres. The acreage of native vegetation on site has be field verified by staff during review the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the project. The existing ST Overlay located on the property will be removed as part of the PUD approval process. The proposed GMP amendment has no effect on the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP. Native vegetation on site will be retained in accordance with the requirements of CCME Policy 6.1.1 and Section 3.05.07 of the LDC. [Craig Brown, Senior Environmental Specialist Environmental Planning Section Development Review Division] NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING SYNOPSIS The application team held a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) in the Sugden Theater of the Collier County Public Library Headquarters, located at 2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples on September 6, 2018, at 5:30 p.m. as required by Section 10.03.05 F. of the LDC. This NIM was advertised, noticed and held jointly for this GMP amendment petition and companion PUD rezone petition [which is not under formal consideration with the transmittal hearing]. Approximately 60-80 members of the public attended the NIM, in addition to the applicant's team and County staff. The agent (Bob Mulhere) representing the applicant (Gelder) gave a presentation and responded to questions and comments. Mr. Mulhere pointed out location near Livingston Rd./Veterans Memorial Blvd. intersection. The location of the project's main access point is onto Veterans Memorial Blvd., with a point of egress only onto Livingston Road. He explained landscape buffer types (referencing a display panel); project development, with six buildings, with freestanding garages (referencing a display panel). Several members of the public spoke, asking questions/seeking more information, expressing concerns, and expressing opposition for the proposed project. Many of them identified themselves as being residents of the neighboring communities of Mediterra, Barrington Cove, Tallis Park or Sequoia Reserve (near school, west across intersection). Their comments and concerns included: • Traffic congestion; inc. the age and validity of the traffic counts used in the proosal's studies, and the additional traffic placed on the road system by the Seed to Table commercial location opening soon; the agent explained the County's requirements and standards for —9— PL20170004419 / CP -2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 348 Agenda Item 9.A.3 Transportation Impact Studies, and how County personnel account for each new development as it's proposed. • School population & student counts generated from this rental project; the agent answered that School District representatives review these proposals for the impacts on schools and have addressed these concerns. • Proposed 4 -story building heights, and the resulting loss of privacy imposed on neighboring properties; the agent addressed the project is designed with garage locations & setbacks designed to minimize this possibility. • Project characteristics, apartment unit sizes and the percentage of each, proposed; the agent described an upscale project, with about 35% 1 bdrm. and 55% 2 bdrm. apartment styles. Concerns regarding the general transient nature of tenancy, problems with management companies and the vetting of potential renters [shared personal worst-case scenarios], and lower standards rental properties; the agent and applicant addressed these concerns, with examples of their existing projects, general nature of their expected tenants, and their management offices. • The incompatibility of this high-density project with the established surrounding low-density residential area (single-family, coach homes), as now planned and expected by previous homebuyers and neighbors; the agent pointed out how the County's Plan, along with incentives within the TCMA's work to encourage such development. • Asked if the developers are prepared [or should be] with alternate plans to the high density/intensity of current proposal? • Impacts on the neighborhood taxes? The agent explained how affects are minimized, as Impact Fees paid by the developer absorb the costs of new or additional services required by the development. • Emergency services and the conflicts of introducing new traffic onto Livingston Road, are where problems already apparent; agent answered that Fire District representatives review these proposals for the impacts on their ability to provide services and are addressing these concerns. The strong consensus was expressed that developing the property was not opposed, but the proposed intensity and density of this project, and this specific development is opposed. The information meeting was ended at approximately 6:40 p.m. This synopsis provides the annotated NIM proceedings. An audio and a video recording of the entire Neighborhood Information Meeting are available on the County's "I" drive, at I:/GMD/Comprehensive Planning/NIM Recordings & PREAPP Notes. [Synopsis prepared by C. Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: • The subject site is undeveloped, partly zoned A, Rural Agricultural. The southerly portion of the property is zoned Della Rosa Residential PUD. An ±8.5 -acre portion of the property is also designated ST, Special Treatment Overlay. The entire site is designated Urban Residential Subdistrict on the FLUM, and lies within the Northwest TCMA, an area where traffic management strategies are employed to reduce traffic impacts. —10— PL20170004419 / CP -2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 349 Agenda Item 9.A.3 • Analysis indicates that projected population growth provides sufficient demand for market-based apartments. • At the macro level at which a GMP amendment is reviewed, staff is of the opinion that the proposed GMP amendment is compatible with surrounding properties. The rezone petition to implement the proposed subdistrict will need to address specific compatibility measures. • No issues or concerns regarding impacts upon potable water, wastewater collection and treatment or solid waste collection and disposal services have been identified. • The proposed GMP amendment has no effect on the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME). • The Barron Collier and Gulf Coast High Schools have a combined FISH capacity of 3,606 students, and a 2016/2017 peak enrollment of 3,888 students, and a projected 2021/2022 enrollment of 4,000 students (111 % capacity). Enrollment at Gulf Coast High School is being monitored and temporary alternatives to address overcrowding may be implemented prior to permanent relief with the opening of a new high school in 2023. • The use of internal driveways to provide vehicular access with the development [to the commercial [and agricultural] parcels to the west] does not appear to meet the intent of the LDC or the GMP. • The only density bonus the site may be eligible for, if the criteria are met, is the TCMA density bonus of 3 DU/A. This petition requests 420 DUs; the net effect of this amendment is to request an increase of 171 DUs or 278 DUs, with and without meeting the TCMA density bonus criteria, respectively. (Note: The Density Rating System states that density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each respective density bonus.) • People attending the Neighborhood Information Meeting expressed a strong consensus that developing the property was not opposed, but the proposed intensity and density of this project, and this specific development is opposed. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney's Office. The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element and map series are in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2 and 163.3177(6)(a)8, Florida Statutes. [SASJ STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: Based on the analyses provided within this report, staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, subject to the following revisions to the proposed subdistrict, mostly for proper format, use of code language, succinctness, and clarity. (Note: single underline text is added, as proposed by petitioner; double underline text is added, and double text is deleted, as proposed by staff.) —11— PL20170004419 / CP -2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 350 Agenda Item 9.A.3 Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict The Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict consists of +35.57# acres and is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard and is within a Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMAI.. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to allow for a multi -family development at a density of up to 12 units per acre and to fulfill the intent of the TCMA, as stated in FLUE Policy 6.1. Development in this Subdistrict shall be subject to the following: a. The Subdistrict site shall be rezoned to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). b. Allowable uses are limited to multi -family rental dwellings and shall not exceed 420 units. c. The RPUD shall demonstrate consistency with FLUE Policy 6.5 by providing two of following: A transit shelter within the RPUD in a location and design approved by Collier County Public Transit & Neiahborhood Enhancement (PTNE) Division: ii. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connection to the abutting commercial property to the west: and, iii. Vehicular interconnection to the abuttina commercial Droperty to the west. d. The RPUD shall include development standards and buffers to insure compatibility with surrounding land uses. Staff provides the following reminder: This GMP amendment follows the Expedited State Review process. Chapter 163.3184 (3)(c)1, Florida Statutes, provides that the County Board (local governing body) shall hold its Adoption (second public) hearing within 180 days after receipt of agency comments, unless extended by agreement with notice to the DEO (state land planning agency) and any affected person that provided comments on the amendment. This notification, review and comment process period is approximately 7.5 months (225 days) from the time the County Board holds its Transmittal (initial public) hearing. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] —12— PL20170004419 / CP -2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 351 PREPARED BY: 0� DATE: r CORBY SCHMIDT, AICP. PRINCIPAL PLANNER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: DATE - DAVID IN EKS, AICP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR, ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: JAMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PETITION No.: PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 Staff Report for the December 6, 2018, CCPC meeting. Agenda Item 9.A.3 11-15- -/S DATE: I t - 11- 4 DATE: //— /— NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the February 12, 2019, BCC meeting. GACDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\Comp Planning GMP DATA\Comp Plan AmendmentsO18 Cycles & SmallsO18 Cycle 1 - Feb\CP-18-1 Livingstn Mmrl Subd\CCPC\CP-18-1 CCPC stff rprt_FNLr.docx -13- PL20170004419/ CP -2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban - Mixed Use District in FLUE 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 352 RESOLUTION NO. 19 - A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND MAP SERIES TO ADD THE LIVINGSTON ROADNETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT TO THE URBAN MIXED-USE DISTRICT, TO ALLOW UP TO 420 MULTI FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF VETERANS - MEMORIAL BOULEVARD, JUST EAST OF LIVINGSTON ROAD, IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 35.57± ACRES. [PL20170004419] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, SD Livingston, LLC, requested an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series to add the Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict to the Urban Mixed -Use District; and WHEREAS, on December 6th, 2018, the Collier County Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section 163.3174, F.S., and has recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, on February 12th, 2019, the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing approved the transmittal of the proposed amendment to the state land planning agency in accordance with Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of Collier County's proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, various State agencies and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) have thirty (30) days to review the proposed amendment and DEO must transmit, in writing, to Collier County its comments within said thirty (30) days pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and [I 8 -CMP -0 1000/1443480/1197 11/1/18 Page 1 of 2 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 353 WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from DEO must adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment within one hundred and eighty (180) days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184, F. S.; and WHEREAS, the DEO, within five (5) days of receipt of Collier County's adopted Growth Management Plan Amendment, must notify the County of any deficiencies of the Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), F.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and other reviewing agencies thereby initiating the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan Amendment prior to final adoption. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote this day of , 2019. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk , Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney 9 11/1 " , Attachment: Exhibit A — Proposed Text Amendment & Map Amendment [I 8 -CMP -01000/1443480/1197 11/1/18 Page 2 of 2 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 354 Transmittal Exhibit EXHIBIT A FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY P L20170004419/C P-2018-1 *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** Policy 1.5 The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: A. URBAN — MIXED USE DISTRICT [Page 9] *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** 18. Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict 19. [RESERVED] 20. Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict Livinaston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** I. URBAN DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** A. Urban Mixed Use District [Page 49] *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict The Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict consists of 35.57± acres and is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to allow for a multi -family development at a density of up to 12 units per acre and to fulfill the intent of the TCMA, as stated in FLUE Policy 6.1. Development in this Subdistrict shall be subject to the following: a. The Subdistrict site shall be rezoned to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). b. Allowable uses are limited to multi -family rental dwellings. c. The RPUD shall demonstrate consistency with FLUE Policy 6.5 by providing two of following: i. A transit shelter within the RPUD in a location and design approved by Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement (PTNE) Division; ii. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connection to the abutting commercial property to the west; and, LO r 1 C�� Words underlined are added; words struGk through are deleted. Packet Pg. 355 Transmittal Exhibit P L20170004419/C P-2018-1 Vehicular interconnection to the abutting commercial property to the west *** *** *** *** text break FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES [Page 144] *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict Map East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Map G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\Comp Planning GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments\2018 Cycles & Smalls\2018 Cycle 1 - Feb\CP-18-1 Livingstn Mmrl Subd\Exhbt A txt & maps\18-1 trnsmttl txt exhbt A_drft.docx ti 00 r r O r r C O 3 O N O CD I T— Iq Iq 0 0 0 ti 0 N J a c m E U a a+ a+ Q 2 ,-- Words underlined are added; words stFUsk through are deleted. Packet Pg. 356 T46S I T47S I T48S I T49S T60S T61S T52S I T53S W a n W M K W W N w "ctVI. o oagm 5 z ^o^w z z°o z' a000� o o.o oaa�` wsw�.4 R-oaoaw$- meows ate$=oz'ag&°&wa _ ozf° o o V ZUZ-- ioi io mo o W a n W M K W W N w EXHIBIT A PL20170004419/CP-20 �•� LIVINGSTON ROAD / VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT 0/ COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA T Lo r tlm- ADOPTED - XXXX, XXXX LEGEND (Ord. No. XXXX-X) 0 250 500 1,000 Feet PROPOSED SUBDISTRICT o,...�,..a o.- "Ira I rQbnCL r -! J. JJO Pre -App PL20170004385 (Della Rosa PUD to PUD Rezone & AG to RPUD) & PL20170004419 (GMPA) — xxxxx, agent; James Sabo, planner. SCHMIDT Wednesday, January 10, 2018 1:30 p.m. -2:30 p.m. Conf. Rm. C. Requested by: xxx of xxxxx Phone: xxxxx; Email: xxx Representing: [per PAO GIS, owner: Marlac LLC, Mark L. Catalano Rev. Trust, Richard Alan Sommerville Trust, Doreen L. Parrish/Dennis G. Baar Rev. Living Trust] Folio #s: 00150520003, 00149200004, 00150560005, 00150280000, 00150160007, 00148280009 (missing folio #s for portion of existing PUD); Zoning: "A" & PUD, Della Rosa Location: E. side of Livingston Road and S. side of Veteran's Memorial Blvd., in 13-48-25 Project Description: 3 concurrent pre -application meetings for two rezones from PUD -to -PUD and "A" to RPUD (for multi -family development), and a large scale GMPA to create the Livingston -Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict. [per PAO GIS, 14.77 acs. zoned "A" and existing PUD is 15.38 acs.] Existing Application Name: N/A, properties are undeveloped POST PRE -APP COMMENTS: FLUM designation is Urban Residential Subdistrict; also, site is in NW TCMA. Agent notified of the need to address, as applicable: 9.A.3.e LO T_ t -7 - Ci M d a; Packet Pg. 359 • Compliance with the FLUE/FLUM (Urban Mixed Use District); • Compliance with FLUE Objective 5 and its applicable policies, esp. s/s 5.3, 5.6 (GMP consistency clause; LDC compatibility & complementary clause); [PUDZ] • Compliance with FLUE Objective 7 and its applicable policies 7.1 through 7.4 (Toward Better Places — Community Character Plan); [PUDZ] Address sections Chapter 163.3167(9), 163.3177, and 163.3184, Florida Statutes; Note particularly the requirement to provide appropriate data and analyses [the local government deems appropriate] to demonstrate the amendment is needed [demonstrating why the Urban Residential Subdistrict or another existing FLUE/FLUM designation does not suffice]. Provide proper data & analysis for the introduction and increase to residential density; If for rental apartments, owner - occupied condominiums, market rate units, or other certain segment of the multi -family residential market, then make sure data & analysis supports the specific market segment. Devote attention to accumulating the most recent housing data available, as certain market needs are being met at a rapid pace by new construction and units becoming available. Lies within Northwest TCMA, as seen on TE map TR -5. Compliance with Transportation Element (TE) Policy 5.6, esp. as it pertains to "requirements for utilizing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies" and its parallel FLUE Policy; Discuss these TDMs with Transportation Planning representatives; and, provide results of/outcomes from these discussions with application materials. [Staff suggests] utilizing additional TDM strategies if the new Subdistrict will allow residential density greater than the Urban Residential Subdistrict. Prepare separate narratives to address all impacts to the surrounding area [to accompany both GMPA & PUDZ application materials]. Explain how the new Subdistrict effects the purposes and intents, etc. of each of the surrounding designations. Explain how the new (Subdistrict- and PUD -allowed) development effects the existing and potential development of uses in these designations, including, but not limited to: • Appropriateness of uses/compatibility with surrounding area, and • Impact or unintended consequences on surrounding properties — addressing whether it will make them more, or less, developable under their present FLUM designation? Will it create a domino effect leading to future designation changes on the surrounding properties? Follow the established format of the FLUE for the text exhibit "to preserve the internal consistency" of the GMP and include: • A listing of new subdistrict name under Policy 1.1.2; • Proposed subdistrict provisions; and, • A listing of new subdistrict map under Future Land Use Map Series. Follow the established format of the FLUE for the map exhibits "to preserve the internal consistency" of the GMP and include: • A new subdistrict Inset Map; and, • An amended Countywide FLUM. 9.A.3.e LO ti Packet Pg. 360 9.A.3.e Staff notes: This GMPA will be a full-scale plan amendment. The amendment procedure requires both Transmittal and Adoption 4) phases per Florida Statute, while the procedure required of the companion future rezone places it in a schedule ti coinciding with the later Adoption phase (if petitioner desires companion review). The application and consideration of these companion items may require 2 separate NIMs.** W All Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) activities and reviews are arranged directly with the Comprehensive j Planning staff/the assigned Project Coordinator; these activities include: reviewing/approving the draft notification to pp surrounding property owners; reviewing/approving the draft newspaper advertisement; Lu reviewing/approving/coordinating proposed NIM meeting dates, times and locations; the draft NIM notification to N surrounding property owners; accepting/filing applicant -prepared Affidavit of Notification (from NDN), posted Public 0 Hearing sign photograph, and, NIM transcript/minutes/notes and clearly audible in its entirety, an audio/video m recording, PLUS, BEGINNING DECEMBER 2017: 3 flash drives containing the full. clear NIM audio recording.** Substantial changes to proposal after Transmittal will trigger need for an additional NIM prior to adoption hearings.** c The petition fee is $16,700.00, which is non-refundable, plus a proportionate share of the legal advertising costs (the R $500.00 pre -app meeting fee, which was received, is applicable to the petition fee if petition is submitted within 9 months y of the pre -app meeting date); a total of four (4) public hearings are held - Transmittal hearings (T) conducted in front of > CCPC and BCC, Adoption hearings (A) conducted in front of same two bodies; the estimated legal advertising costs r_ 0 will be provided, and payment will be required prior to advertising for any hearings; any refund due the applicant after y hearings are held will be provided at that time.** The thrice -annual amendment cycles are established by Resolution 12-234; submittal deadlines are 5:00 p.m. on the > last Friday in [soon anticipated to be reapproved for] February, June and October.** J Be sure of 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 T_ (e.g. specific LDC provisions); fully explain furtherance of existing GOPs relevant to the petition, and of any other plans ti or designations which are applicable or relevant to the petition (e.g. a redevelopment plan, corridor management plan, etc.).** All studies and analyses are to include the raw data used to support their conclusions, as copies from source o documents, attachments or appendices thereto, in order to facilitate a thorough substantive review; c It is important to carefully organize the amendment package; be sure all exhibits are consistently labeled, are in the r proper order, and are fully/correctly referenced on the pages of the application; be sure all mapping clearly identifies N the subject site, includes North arrow and scale, and source; a petition narrative is often helpful, and in this instance, J al recommended to provide the thorough explanation needed; for corporate ownership, it is not acceptable to only list the corporation name; in some instances, property is owned by a corporation that in turn is comprised of other corporations; it is necessary to provide a list of individuals as officers or stockholders of the corporation(s) for purposes of full o 0 disclosure; the objective of disclosure is to reveal the individuals with an interest in the property (including seeing if any staff or public officials are included).** 4) For a submitted petition, after the sufficiency review process is complete [outside CityView] and the petition package is y deemed sufficient, an electronic version of the entire submittal is needed, preferably in PDF format, preferably on a CD; The County has instituted an electronic (paperless) agenda process for the Board of County Commissioners' hearings; Note: ** denotes staff information / clarification provided post -pre -application conference. Agent asked about GMPA Cycles and their periodic deadlines. Application team thought they may be able to meet the first 2018 Cycle, submitting by end of February. The expectation of staff support for these applications or recommendations for approval are not implied or expressed 0 by comments made during this conference. cin M d a; Packet Pg. 361 Co*er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.collierrtov.net (239) 252-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Sign -In Sheet PL#20170004385 (RPUD), PL20170004419 (GMPA) Collier County Contact Information: Name Review Discipline Phone Email J David Anthony Environmental Review 252-2497 david.anthony@colliercountyfl.gov Summer Araque Environmental Review 252-6290 summer.brownaraque@colliercountyfl.gov Claudine Auclair GMD Operations and Regulatory Management 252-5887 1 Claudine.auclair@colliercountyfl.gov Steve Baluch Transportation Planning 252-2361 Stephen.baluch@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Ray Bellows Zoning, Planning Manager 252-2463 raymond.bellows@colliercountyfl.gov Laurie Beard PUD Monitoring 252-5782 laurie.beard@colliercountyfl.gov Craig Brown Environmental Specialist 252-2548 craig.brown@colliercountyfl.gov Heidi Ashton Cicko Managing Asst. County Attorney 252-8773 heidi.ashton@colliercountyfl.gov Kay Deselem Zoning Services 252-2586 kay.deselem@colliercountyfl.gov iJ Dale Fey North Collier Fire 597-9227 dfey@northcollierfire.com ❑ Eric Fey, P.E. Utility Planning 252-1037 eric.fey@colliercountyfl.gov Tim Finn, AICP Zoning Division 252-4312 timothy.finn@colliercountyn.gov LI Sue Faulkner Comprehensive Planning 252-5715 sue.faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Paula Fleishman Impact Fee Administration 252-2924 paula.fleishman@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ James French Growth Management Deputy Department Head 252-5717 James.french@colliercountyfl.gov LI Michael Gibbons Structural/Residential Plan Review 252-2426 michael.gibbons@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Storm Gewirtz, P.E. Engineering Stormwater 252-2434 storm.gewirtz@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA Zoning Division 252-2484 nancy.gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov 0 Shar Hingson Greater Naples Fire District 774-2800 shingson@gnfire.org ❑ John Houldsworth Engineering Subdivision 252-5757 _ john.houldsworth@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jodi Hughes Transportation Pathways 252-5744 jodi.hughes@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Alicia Humphries Right -Of -Way Permitting 252-2326 alicia.humphries@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Marcia Kendall Comprehensive Planning 252-2387 marcia.kendall@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ John Kelly Zoning Senior Planner 252-5719 john.kelly@colliercountyfl.gov !9 Thomas Mastroberto Greater Naples Fire 252-7348 thomas.mastroberto@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jack McKenna, P.E. Engineering Services 252-2911 jack.mckenna@colIiercountyfl.gov Matt McLean, P.E. Development Review Director 252-8279 matthew.mclean@colliercountyfl.gov Michele Mosca, AICP Capital Project Planning 252-2466 michele.mosca@colliercountyfl.gov =_1 Annis Moxam Addressing 252-5519 annis.moxam@colliercountyfl.gov Updated 1/9/2018 Page 1 4 of 5 9.A.3.e Ln ti M Q of Q Packet Pg. 362 CAY County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 J Stefanie Nawrocki Development Review - Zoning 252-2313 stefanie.nawrocki@colliercountyfl.gov NJ Richard Orth Stormwater Planning 252-5092 richard.orth@colliercountyfl.gov `I Brandy Otero Transit 252-5859 brandy.otero@colliercountyfl.gov J Brandi Pollard Utility Impact fees 252-6237 brand Lpollard @colliercountyfLgov D Fred Reischl, AICP Zoning Division 252-4211 fred.reischl@colliercountyfl.gov Todd Riggall North Collier Fire 597-9227 triggall@northcollierfire.com J Daniel Roman, P.E. Engineering Utilities 252-2538 daniel.roman @colliercountyfLgov J Brett Rosenblum, P.E. Development Review Principal Project Manager 252-2905 brett.rosenblum@colliercountyfl.gov Sabo, AICP Zoning Principal Planner james.sabo@colliergo.net Michael Sawyer Transportation Planning 252-2926 michael.sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov Corby Schmidt, AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2944 corby.schmidt@colliercountyfl.gov 10James 0 Chris Scott, AICP Development Review - Zoning 252-2460 chris.scott@colliercountyfl.gov Peter Shawinsky Architectural Review 252-8523 peter.shawinsky@colliercountyfl.gov 1 Camden Smith Zoning Division Operations 252-1042 camden.smith@colliercountyfl.gov 1 Scott Stone Assistant County Attorney 252-5740 scott.stone@colliercountyfl.gov Mark Strain Hearing Examiner/CCPC 252-4446 mark.strain@colliercountyfl.gov J Mark Templeton Landscape Review 252-2475 mark.templeton@colliercountyfl.gov Jessica Velasco Zoning Division Operations 252-2584 jessica.velasco@colliercountyfl.gov !.J Jon Walsh, P.E. Building Review 252-2962 jonathan.walsh@colliercountyfl.gov r David Weeks, AICP Comprehensive Planning Future Land Use Consistency 252-2306 david.weeks@colliercountyfl.gov J Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review 252-5518 kirsten.wilkie@colliercountyfl.gov I I Christine Willoughby Development Review - Zoning 252-5748 christine.willoughby@colliercountyfl.gov Additional Attendee Contact Information: Updated 1/9/2018 Page 1 5 of 5 9.A.3.e awl ;'� Clq CQA Ln ti M Q Q Packet Pg. 363 Name Representing Phone Email v aSkaIV-1 o\L wkt-t sY- �e�rel�.�edn�Sb the-Inmcx b l k�-� �¢ �o � �-s -'?.ala0 4a 4•e,.we— 1nr�e� . C ilri �i,%.1u.-[( �TCV4.•�� eN[u'�, `las -9! c.G� NJ �ra� S.,••'i� De,c�3�i.�es 334-3 CSrv'%�@�ewQes.co••, Updated 1/9/2018 Page 1 5 of 5 9.A.3.e awl ;'� Clq CQA Ln ti M Q Q Packet Pg. 363 9.A.3.e AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION Allura PUD (PL -20170004385) FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) & _ Liminaston Rd /veterans Memorial ; J vd E Residential Subdistrict GMPA (PL -20170004419) I, BRwNx.sronK (print name), as MoR (t)tls, If applicable) of SDUVINOBTON,tJa (company, If a (title, swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner✓ appllcantQcontract purchaser and that: ' 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to Impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. FJ. Well authorize ROBERT J. MULHERE,FAICP 3 RICHARD YOVANOVICH, ESQUIRE to act 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. pros. ® If the applicant Is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." Ln ® If the applicant Is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. ® if the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be Identified as the "general Q, partner" of the .named partnership, ® If the applicant is a trust, then they -must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee". In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., Individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then c 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 i re true. Signature r Date BRIAN K. STO K, MGR SD LIVINGSTON, LLC STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER (j c The f agoing instru e t w sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me on 43.�lp (date) by ° Vii,/ /� 2 j (name of person providing joathor affirmation), as t who Is personally known to_ms_or who has produced (type of identification) as identification. ai STAMP/SEAL Signatur of Notary Public a JUDITH M SEALE Notary Public - state of rlorida I Y P o = Cornmisslon # GG 027255 c My Comm. Expires Sep 28, 2020 Bonded throughNational Notary Assn. nun� c a) CP\08-COA-00115\155 E REV 3/24/14 V R a Packet Pg. 364 9.A.3.e CATALANO REDACTED AGREEMENT A.GIMTEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY This AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY (the "Agreement") is made and effective as of the 141ay of �jlP,der, 2017 (the "Effective Date") by and between Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust ("Seller"), and Stock Development, LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Buyer"). 7n consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, and for other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby mutually acknowledged, Seller and Buyer agree as follows: ARTME 1.2 THE PROPERTY t J. PROPERTY DESCRTPTION. Subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement, Seller agrees to sell and convey to Buyer, ;and Buyer agrees to purchase from Seller, that certain property located at in Collier County, Florida, compromising the propertyidentified as Parcel ID Nos. 00150560005, 00150160007, and 00149200004, more particularly described as follows (referred to as the "Property'): (a) That real property described in the attached Exhibit t°A" incorporated herein by reference, being approximately 7.5 acres of unimproved land, together with all rights, privileges, tenements, n hereditaments and appurtenances pertaining thereto (the "Land"); the Land shall include all interests, if any, of Seller in (i) stripq or gores, if any, hehveen. tbo J and and abutting properties, (ii) any Zmui lying in or under the bed of any street, alley, road or right-of-way, opened or proposed, abutting or adjacent to the Land; and (iii) all buildings, structures, and other improvements on the Land; and (b) All other privileges, easements, licenses, rights-of-way, riparian, littoral and water rights, minerals, oil, gas and other hydrocarbon rights and substances on the Land, development rights, air rights and all other rights, privileges and appurtenances owned by Seller and in any way related to, pertaining to or accruing to the use or benefit of the Property. 1.2 PROPERTY CONVEYANCE SURVIVES CLOSING. Seller's obligation to convey to Buyer all of the Property shall survive Closing, without merger into the deed, and Seller shall continue to be obligated to deliver and convey to Buyer such portions of the Property as may not be delivered and conveyed to Buyer prior to or at Closing as provided in this Agreement, AGREE6SENT POR PURCnASE AND SALE PAGE M Q 6 Q Packet Pg. 365 9.A.3.e 3.6 ZONING, ENTYFLEMENTS AND PERMITS. Provided Buyer has not otherwise rn terminated the Contract pursuant to Section 3.5, following the expiration of the Investigation Period, Buyer shall have twelve (12) months ("Approval Period') to obtain (i) stormwater and environmental resource c permits from the Southwest Florida Water Management District, (ii) regulatory permits from the Army o Corps of Engineers, (iii) non -appealable zoning, land use and development approvals by Collier County, c and (iv) any all other governmental, quasi -governmental or other permits, approvals, documents, consents, N and/or site development plans (collectively, the "Approvals") necessary for Buyer's proposed a development of the Property and the Additional Parcels as a multi -family development consisting of no less than 300 dwelling units and an amenity center to serve such units (the "Project'). Seller shall fully 2 cooperate with Buyer in Buyer's efforts to obtain the Approvals, including, without limitation, executing any and all required documentation, and/or authorizing Buyer in writing (in a form reasonably requested E by Buyer or as required by any such governmental or quasi -governmental agency) to act as Seller's agent in connection with obtaining such Approvals, grovided that, Seller shall not be required to expend any y amount or incur any fees (including attorneys' fees or fees of any other professions), costs or expenses in L connection therewith, and further provided that attendance at any meetings with governmental and quasi- Q governmental agencies shall be option for Seller. In addition, Seller shall not object to or otherwise hinder � Buyer's pursuit of or ability to obtain the Approvals. If Buyer does not obtain the Approvals within the Approval Period, Buyer may, within two (2) days after expiration of the Approval Period, (i) terminate this transaction by delivering written notice to Seller, whereupon the Deposit shall be returned to Buyer, and o Seller and Buyer shall be released from any and all finther obligations and liabilities arising under or out of this Agreement, (ii) extend the Approval Period by two (2) periods of six (6) months each (each an c "Extension'l, by providing written notice thereof at least fifteen (15) days prior to the expiration of the Approval Period and contemporaneous with said notice delivering directly to Seller a $25,000 extension J fee for each Extension (each an "Extension Fee"), which Extension Fee shall be in addition to, and not part Q of the Deposit or the Purchase Price payable by Buyer hereunder, and shall be paid directly to Seller upon a; exercising each said Extension, or (iii) waive such condition and proceed to close as set forth in Section 4.1 hereof. c J C AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE: E PAca 4 v Packet Pg. 366 ARTICLE 4.2 CONDITIONS 4.1 CONDMONS PRECEDENT TO BUYER'S OBLIGATION TO CLOSE. Buyer's obligation to consummate the transaction contemplated hereunder is conditioned upon satisfaction of each of the following conditions: (a) Buyer obtaining the Approvals or waiving said Approvals in accordance with Section 3.6; (b) None of the representations and warranties of Seller set forth herein shall be untrue or inaccurate in any material respect as of the Effective Date or as of the Closing Date; (c) Seller shall not have failed to perform or comply with any of its material agreements or obligations substantially in the manner and within the time periods provided herein, time being of the essence; (d) Buyer shall not have given written notice rightfully terminating this Agreement within the appropriate periods of time specified for the same; In the event that anyone or more of the above conditions contained in this Section 4.1 is not satisfied on or prior to the applicable Closing Date, Buyer may: (i) terminate this Agreement by notice to Seller, whereupon the Parties shall be released from all liability hereunder except those that specifically survive any termination hereof and this Agreement shall be automatically canceled and rendered of no further force and effect; (ii) if Seller proposes to cure or satisfy, extend the applicable Closing Date up to one hundred and eighty (180) days to allow additional time to satisfy the requirements; or (iii) waive such condition(s) precedent and close within fifteen (15) days thereafter. Nothing herein shall be deemed as a waiver or limitation of any remedy available to Buyer under this Agreement (including, without limitation, the right to bring an action for specific performance under Section 9.4(c) hereof) or under Florida law for a default by the Seller. AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGES 9.A.3.e M Q of Q Packet Pg. 367 ARTICLE 5.2 CLOSING, DOCUMTN'l'A'TION, AND POST -CLOSING 5.1 CLOSING AND CLOSING DATE. This transaction shall be closed and title to the Property conveyed from Seller to Buyer by delivery of the fully executed Deed and other closing documents, including, without limitation, those described below in Section 5.2, to Buyer from Seller (the "Closing") at the offices of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, Florida 34103, on the date that is the later of: (i) thirty (30) days following Buyer's receipt of the Approvals, or (ii) December 15, 2018; provided, however, in no event shall Buyer be required to close if the conditions precedent set forth in Section 4.1 have not been satisfied. 9.A.3.e Ln ti C AoREF.MENT FOR PURCHASE AND SAIF, E PAGE 6 t v Q Packet Pg. 368 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Agreement has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the day and year set forth below. WITNESSES: BUYER; STOCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC, rint Narrye:__t �?1, I aN --_ a Florida limited 'ability company �'it�' b Piet �, »c:.C�c-il_��'....___..-.-__.- — Irian K.� tock, tvfana ger [SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON FOLLOWING PAGEJ AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE. AND SALE PAGE 17 9.A.3.e Q Packet Pg. 369 Print SELLER. Fq . r,.., s>���___ ata o, as Trustee of the Marc L C-:. �rV � arc L. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust AGREEMENT FOP PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 18 9.A.3.e Q Packet Pg. 370 s MENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY TIPS AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT (" Amendment') is made this .g day of �)Ov -C'b 2017 by and between Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Inter V ivos Trust Iyer' j and Stock Development, LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Mover'). WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer entered into that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property dated the 15' day of November, 2017 ("Agreement"), for the purchase and sale of the real property described therein ("Pronertv'D; and WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer desire to amend the Agreement for the purpose of clarifying the same. NOW THEREFORE, is consideration of Ten Dollars ($10,00), the exchange of mutual promises, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Seller and Buyer hereby agree as follows: 1. Recitals, Definitions. The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated in their entirety into this Amendment. Any capitalized term not expressly defined herein shall have the meaning described thereto in the Agreement. 2. The Pronerty. The Parties agree and acknowledge that the Property, as defined in the Agreement, referred to the description shown on Exhibit "A", which was not attached to the Agreement in error. The Parties agree that the description of the Property on Exhibit,"A" attached hereto shall be incorporated into the Agreement by reference as if attached w the original Agreement, and hereby ratify the description of the Property as shown thercon. 3. Miscellaneous. Executed counter -part copies of the original of this Amendment shall be treated as if the original where so executed and shall bind the executing party and shall have the same force and effect as the original. Execution of this Agreement by facsimile shall be treated as an original. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between the terms and provisions of this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms and provisions of this Amendment shall control and be given effect IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed as of the date first written above. SELLER: Marc C*ano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust BUYER: STOCK EVELOP , C By: K. S k, Manager 9.A.3.e LO ti M d a; Packet Pg. 371 9.A.3.e Y UHIMITW Legal. Description P€�rcel..1: -V ,a _ 1 The Squthwest ,114 t a��`��� a 114 ' i the Northeast 1f4 of Section * 'Tri n hip S �n h, ��5 C tlier'County, Florida also known as ���fp�' � a Acres u i � i Parcel Id No.: 00150560005 Parcel 2: The Southeast the Northwest 1 loo e valwest 1/4 of the ~��`' r J Northeast 1/4 of I3, Township 4$�, '' wge 25 East, Collier County,Flog ` :fie eet th r fLO k), eeo, Parcel IDNa.: 00150160007 Parcel 3: The Northeast quarter (NES~p `o yMq4) ft*jWr (NW 114) of the Northwest quarter (N%V 114) of the Nurthell Section 13, Township 4$ South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, less the West thirty (30) feet thereof reserved for road right-of-way purposes, shown as Tract #2 of unrecorded plat of said Northeast quarter. Parcel id No.: 00149200004 M d Amendment to Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property J 2 `r c a� E t U a Packet Pg. 372 9ECOND AMENDMENT TO 4GREEMENT FOR PURCIMSE AND SALE F PROPERTY - THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE Gr - PROPERTY ("Amendin ') is made this 1—day of January, 2018 by and between Marc 1.. Caialaw, . as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable inter Vivos Trust (" '), and Stock Development; Lam. a Florida Limited liability company (`Bu err). WHEREAS, Seller and Buuver entered into that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property dated the 151" day of November, 2017. as subsequently amended (collectively, the. "ALD nrene% for the purchase and sale of the real property described therein ("Pr_. anerkY'); and WHEREAS. Seller and Buyer desire to amend the Agreement as expressly set forth herein, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00), the exchange of mutual promises, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Seller and Buyer hereby agree as .follows: 1. gecitals., "=. The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated in their entirety into this Amendment. Any capitalized term not expressly defined herein shall have the meaning described thereto in the Agreement 2. En=on of InvestiQa&n Period. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Agreement to the contrary, including, without limitation, Section 3.5 thereof, the Investigation Period is hereby extended and shall expire at 11;59 P.M. (Eastern Time) on February 15, 2018. Any and allreferences to "Investigation Period" in the Agreement shall mean and refer to the time period expiring on the date set forth in the immediately -preceding sentence. 3. Miscellaneous. Executed counter -past copies of the original of this Amendment shall be treated as if the original where so executed and shall bind the executing party and shall have the same force and effect as the original. Execution of this Agreement by facsimile shall be treated as an original. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between the terns and provisions of this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms and provisions of this Amendment shall control and be given effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. this Amendment has been duly executed as of the date first written above. SELLER: BUYER atalano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust SEn1NI1AIYMIQM Ef TT PAGE 1 STOCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Florida limited Uabffw company By: B ' K. S ger LO ti M d Packet Pg. 373 THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY ("Amendment') is made thi4A day of January, 2018 by and between Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust ("Seller"), and Stock Development, LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Amme")- WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer entered into that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property dated the 15`x' day of November, 2017, as subsequently amended (collectively, the "Agreement'), for the purchase and sale of the real property described therein ("Property'); and WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer desire to amend the Agreement as expressly set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00), the exchange of mutual promises, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Seller and Buyer hereby agree as follows: 1. Recitals; Definitions. The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated in their entirety into this Amendment. Any capitalized term not expressly defined herein shall have the meaning described thereto in the Agreement. Zoning Entitlements and Permits. Section 3.6 is hereby modified to add the following: "Buyer shall indemnify and hold Seller hannless from and against all loss, damage, liability and expense (including court costs and reasonable attorney's fees) arising out of or in any way connected with any actions, filings, submissions and/or representations made by Buyer in connection with or in order to obtain the Approvals being sought by Buyer; provided, however, that Buyer's duties to indemnify, defend, and hold Seller harmless excludes any liabilities arising out of the Seller's own fault, negligence and/or misrepresentation. The foregoing indemnification shall expressly survive any termination of the Agreement and/or the Closing of the transaction." 3. Miscellaneous. Executed counter -part copies of the original of this Amendment shall be treated as if the original where so executed and shall bind the executing party and shall have the same force and effect as the original. Execution of this Agreement by facsimile shall be treated as an original. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between the terms and provisions of this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms and provisions of this Amendment shall control and be given effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed as of the date first written above. SELLER: Marcc L. Ca, lano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Cata anoRevocable Inter Vivos Trust BUYER: STOCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Florida limited liability company M. Brian K. Stock, Manager 9.A.3.e LO ti M Q rn Q Packet Pg. 374 THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY ("Amendment") is made this _ day of January, 2018 by and between Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust (" eller"), and Stock Development, LLC, a Florida limited liability company WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer entered into that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property dated the 150' day of November, 2017, as subsequently amended (collectively, the "A_„gxeement"), for the purchase and sale of the real property described therein ("Pro a "); and WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer desire to amend the Agreement as expressly set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00), the exchange of mutual promises, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Seller and Buyer hereby agree as follows: I , Recitals, Definitions. The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated in their entirety into this Amendment. Any capitalized term not expressly defined herein shall have the meaning described thereto in the Agreement. 2. Zonin Entitlements and Permits. Section 3.6 is hereby modified to add the following: "Buyer shall indemnify and hold Seller harmless from and against all loss, damage, liability and expense (including court costs and reasonable attorney's fees) arising out of or in any way connected with any actions, filings, submissions and/or representations made by Buyer in connection with or in order to obtain the Approvals being sought by Buyer; provided, however, that Buyer's duties to indemnify, defend, and hold Seller harmless excludes any liabilities arising out of the Seller's own fault, negligence and/or misrepresentation. The foregoing indemnification shall expressly survive any termination of the Agreement and/or the Closing of the transaction." 3. Miscellaneous. Executed counter -part copies of the original of this Amendment shall be treated as if the original where so executed and shall bind the executing party and shall have the same force and effect as the original. Execution of this Agreement by facsimile shall be treated as an original. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, In the event of a conflict between the terms and provisions of this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms and provisions of this Amendment shall control and be given effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed as of the date first written above. SELLER: Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust BUYER: STOCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Florida limited lia lity company By: Z" Brian K. Sock, Manager 9.A.3.e Ln ti M Q of Q Packet Pg. 375 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMIENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY THIS FOURTH. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY ("Amendment") is made this 21stday of February, 2018, by and between Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust ("Seller"), and Stock Development, LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Buye "). WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer entered into that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property dated the 15111 day of November, 2017, as subsequently amended (collectively, the "ALrreemcitt'), for the purchase and sale of the real property described therein ("Pro a ').and WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer desire to amend the Agreement as expressly set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00), the exchange of mutual promises, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Seller and Buyer hereby agree as follows: 1. Recitals: Definitions. The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated in their entirety into this Amendment. Any capitalized term not expressly defined herein shall have the meaning described thereto in the Agreement. 2. Unowned Property. The Parties acknowledge that Seller does not currently own that certain real property located in Collier County, Florida, and more particularly described on Exhibit "A" , attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (collectively, the "Unowned Property'). Until the date that is one hundred twenty (120) days after the date of this Amendment ("Acquisition Period"). Buyer shall have the right to attempt to acquire clear and marketable, fee simple title to the Unowned Property. In connection therewith, Seller hereby assigns to Buyer any and all rights, title, and interest Seller may have in and to the Unowned Property, if any. If at any time during the Acquisition Period Buyer determines it will be unable to acquire clear and marketable, See simple title to the Unowned Property prior to expiration of the Acquisition Period, Buyer shall have the right by written notice delivered to Seiler to: (i) terminate the Agreement and receive an immediate refund of its entire Deposit (together with any interest accrued thereon), whereupon the Parties shall have no further rights, duties, obligations, or liabilities under the Agreement except those which expressly survive the termination thereof, or (ii) waive the contingency related to Buyer acquiring title to the Unowned Property and proceed to Closing as set forth in the Agreement, subject to the terms of this Amendment but without any right to cancel or terminate the Agreement as a result of or due to any failure to acquire the Unowned Property. In the event of Buyer's waiver pursuant to item (ii) in the immediately -preceding sentence, Seller shall: (a) continue to fully cooperate, without cost to Seller, with any of Buyer's continued efforts to obtain clear and marketable, fee simple title to the Unowned Property prior to or after Closing; and (b) execute and deliver to Buyer at Closing a quitclaim deed for the Unowned Property and a full assignment of any and all rights, title, and interest which Seller may have in and to the Unowned Property. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, in the event Seller acquires title to the Unowned Property at any time prior to Closing, Seller shall convey 'the same to Buyer as part of the Property at Closing without further consideration. For the avoidance of doubt, any and all consideration, fees, costs, and other expenses to be incurred or paid in connection with acquiring the Unowned Property as provided herein shall be borne and paid by Buyer, including, without limitation, any consideration to be paid to the unknown title holders of the Unowned Property. The terms of this Section 2 shall survive Closing and shall not be merged in the deed. 3. Miscellaneous. Executed counter -part copies of the original of this Amendment shall be treated as if the original where so executed and shall bind the executing party and shall have the same Fouwrn AMENDMEN1' 7'o AGREEMENT FOR PURci LAsr AND SALE Or PROPERTY PAGE 1 9.A.3.e LO ti Q Packet Pg. 376 force and effect as the original. Execution of this Agreement by facsimile shall be treated as an original. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between the terms and provisions of this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms and provisions of this Amendment shall control and be given effect. Signalures appear on the, following page. FOURTH AMLTIDMLN'T To AGREEMENT COR PURCHASE AND SALE, of PROPERTY PAGc 2 9.A.3.e LO r` Q Packet Pg. 377 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed as of the date first written above. SELLER: rc L. 5 talano, as Trustee of the are L. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust BUYER: STOCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Florida limited liability company Brian K. Stock, Manajer FOURTH AMENDMENT To AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE ANO SALE OF PROPERTY PACE 9.A.3.e Ln ti Q Packet Pg. 378 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed as of the date first written above. SELLER: Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee of the Marc L, Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust BUYER: STOCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Florida limited 'ability company (] r - By. r - Brian K. St c- , Manager Foum'II AAtENDM N7 To AORFt:! 1 -NT FOR PURCHASr- AND SAI,Ii OI' PROPERTY PAQF3 9.A.3.e Q Packet Pg. 379 EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description of U'nowned Property The westerly fifteen (15) feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 114 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of. Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Parcel Id No.: 00 150160007) TOGETHER WITH: The westerly thirty (30) feet of the Northeast quarter (NE 1/4) of the Northwest quarter (NW 1/4) of the Northwest quarter (NW 1/4) of the Northeast quarter (NE 1/4) Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, shown as Tract 42 of unrecorded plat of said Northeast quarter. (Parcel Id No.: 00149200004, together with that certain unnumbered Parcel immediately west of and adjacent to said Parcel Id No. 00149200004) I'Of IRl'm AMENDMENT TO AcmFi miwr FOR PURCHAsr ANO SM.r.OF PROPI.11TY PAGG 4 9.A.3.e Ln ti Q Packet Pg. 380 9.A.3.e ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY This Assignment of Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property ("Assignment") is made effective the JL�8ay of January, 2018, by and between Stock Development, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (" i nor'), and SD Livingston, LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Assi ee" ). WHEREAS, Assignor, as "Purchaser", and Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust, as "Seller", entered into that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property dated effective as of November 15, 2017, as amended ("Agree '% for the purchase and sale of certain real property situated in Collier County and more particularly described in the Agreement; and WHEREAS, Assignee is a permitted assignee of Assignor in accordance with Section 10.11 of the Agreement, and Assignor desires to assign the Agreement to Assignee. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) the mutual premises set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Assignor and Assignee agree as follows; 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated in their entirety in this Assignment. LO 2. Assignment and Acceptance. Assignor hereby assigns, transfers, sells, and conveys unto Assignee all of Assignor's right, title, and interest in, to, and under the Agreement and in and to the Property, a, including all deposits. Assignee hereby accepts the foregoing assignment, and hereby assumes and agrees to perform all of Assignor's duties, obligations, and responsibilities under the Agreement, o 3. Miscellaneous. This Assignment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. This Assignment shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. This Assignment may be signed in any number of counterparts, and the signature to any one counterpart shall be deemed the signature to all counterparts which, when taken together, shall constitute one instrument. Copies of signatures transmitted by electronic mail or facsimile shall be deemed originals for all purposes. Signatures appear on the following page, AssioNumNT OF AGREDaNr FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY PAM I Q Packet Pg. 381 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Assignment on the day and year first above written. ASSIGNOR: STOCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Floridalimited li ility company By: _ Brian K. Sfock, Manager ASSIGNEE: SD LIVINGSTON, LLC, a Florida limited liaUity company By: Brun K. St ck, Manager ASSIONMENT OF AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY PACE 2 9.A.3.e Q Packet Pg. 382 9.A.3.e SOMMERVILLE REDACTED AGREEMENT d Y C J C E AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE V PAGE 9734134.1 Q Packet Pg. 383 R AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY r C d .N This AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY (the "Agreement") is made a� and effective as of the`` day of ;r,, . 2018 (the "Effective Date") by and between Richard Alan Sommerville, Trustee of the Richard Alan Somerville Trust dated 4/26/2004 ("Setter"), and SD Livingston, LU LLC, a Florida limited liability company, or its permitted successors or assigns ("Bu er" ). In consideration of > the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, and for other good and valuable considerations, the m receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby mutually acknowledged, Seller and Buyer agree as follows: L 0 ARTICLE 1.2 m THE PROPERTY L 1.1 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION. Subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement, Seller d agrees to sell and convey to Buyer, and Buyer agrees to purchase from Seller, that certain property located in Collier County, Florida, compromising the property identified as Parcel ID No. 00150280000, more $ particularly described as follows (referred to as the "Property'): a� c (a) That real property described in the attached Exhibit "A" incorporated herein by reference, being approximately 2.50 acres of unimproved land, together with all of Seller's rights, privileges, tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances pertaining thereto (the "Land"); the Land shall include all interests, if any, of Seller in (i) strips or gores, if any, between the Land and abutting properties, (ii) any land lying in or under the —�`- bed of any street, alley, road or right-of-way, opened or proposed, abutting or adjacent to the Land; and (iii) all buildings, structures, and other improvements on the Land; and r (b) All other of Seller's privileges, easements, licenses, rights-of-way, riparian, littoral and water 0 0 rights, minerals, oil, gas and other hydrocarbon rights and substances on the Land, development rights, air c rights and all other rights, privileges and appurtenances owned by Seller and in any way related to, pertaining � to or accruing to the use or benefit of the Property. a� 1.2 PROPERTY CONVEYANCE SURVIVES CLOSING. Seller's obligation to convey to Buyer 0 all of the Property shall survive Closing, without merger into the Deed, and Seller shall continue to be m obligated to deliver and convey to Buyer such portions of the Property as may not be delivered and conveyed to Buyer prior to or at Closing as provided in this Agreement. y c ca L ARTICLE 2.2 > c 0 al c J M Q 07 d Y C J C E AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE V PAGE 9734134.1 Q Packet Pg. 383 9.A.3.e 3.6 ZONING, ENTITLEMENTS AND PERMITS. Provided Buyer has not otherwise terminated the Contract pursuant to Section 3.5, following the expiration of the Investigation Period, Buyer shall have twelve (12) months ("Approval Period") to obtain (i) stormwater and environmental resource permits from the Southwest Florida Water Management District, (ii) regulatory permits fiom the Army Corps of Engineers, LO (...) Pp g� p PP Y Y� m non -appealable zoning, land use and development approvals b Collier Count and (iv) any all other —�`- governmental, quasi -governmental or other permits, approvals, documents, consents, and/or site development CD plans (collectively, the "Approvals") necessary for Buyer's proposed development of the Property and the r Additional Parcels as a multi -family development consisting of no less than 300 dwelling units and an amenity c center to serve such units (the "Project"); provided, however, that Buyer shall have the right to commence its efforts to obtain the Approvals at any time. Seller shall reasonably cooperate with Buyer in Buyer's efforts to 0 obtain the Approvals, including, without limitation, executing any and all required documentation, attending a meetings with governmental and quasi -governmental agencies, and/or authorizing Buyer in writing (in a form i reasonably requested by Buyer or as required by any such governmental or quasi -governmental agency) to act 6 as Seller's agent in connection with obtaining such Approvals; provided that Buyer shall reimburse Seller for `o its reasonable and verified out of pocket expenses paid to third parties, including professionals and attorneys, in E m connection with such cooperation in an amount not to exceed $2,500.00, which payment shall be made by Buyer to Seller within five (5) days after demand thereof. As requested by Seller, Buyer shall provide updates as to the status of the Approvals. In addition, Buyer shall provide Seller with not less than five (5) days prior written notice of any in-person scheduled meetings and/or hearings with a governmental agency regarding the r Approvals, and Seller and Seller's attorney shall have the right to attend and participate in such meeting(s). In > connection with Buyer's pursuit of the Approvals, Buyer shall not be permitted to burden the Property with any "Irrevocable Obligation" (as defined below) that does not presently exist and which would remain in effect if � the Closing on the Property does not occur, without Seller's prior written consent, which consent may be N withheld by Seller for any reason. T.he term "Irrevocable Obligation" means (a) an obligation which cannot c be removed by Seller without cost or liability for which Buyer has not provided Seller with security and >_ adequate assurances, satisfactory to Seller, that such obligations affecting the Property will be paid or released if Buyer does not close on the Property; or (b) any obligation which requires the owner of the Property to ``i contribute or dedicate money or a portion of the Property or to construct, install or maintain any improvements of a public or private nature on or off the Property. Additionally, notwithstanding any provision in any permit, license, approval or other Approval to the contrary, all commitments and development obligations that are a Y requirement of the "Permitee", "Applicant", or "Land Owner" or Approval shall be the sole responsibility of Buyer as to the Property while this Agreement remains in effect and after Closing. Itis expressly agreed and acknowledged by Buyer that Buyer shall be solely and absolutely responsible for all costs and expenses c a� E AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 4 9734134.1 Q Packet Pg. 384 9.A.3.e incurred by or on behalf of Buyer and arising out of or related to Buyer's pursuit of and compliance with the Approval for the Property and the Project. Buyer agrees that it shall not undertake any development work or improvements on the Property until after Closing. If Buyer does not obtain the Approvals within the Approval Period, Buyer shall, by no later than 5:00 P.M. on the date of expiration of the Approval Period, provided that Buyer is not in default of this Agreement: (A) terminate this Agreement by delivering written notice to Seller, whereupon the Deposit shall be returned to Buyer and Seller and Buyer shall be released from any and all further obligations and liabilities arising under or out of this Agreement, other than other than obligations under this Agreement that survive termination of this Agreement, (B) extend the Approval Period by two (2) periods of three (3) months each, by providing written notice thereof at least fifteen (15) days prior to the expiration of the Approval Period, subject to payment of the extension fee, or (C) waive such condition and proceed to close as set forth in Section 4.1 hereof. If Buyer elects to extend the Approval Period pursuant to subsection (B) above, then Buyer shall immediately pay to Seller an extension fee equal to Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), which fee is immediately earned by Seller, non-refundable (except in the event of a Seller default) and shall not be a credit against the Purchase Price. If Buyer fails to timely elect one of the options set forth in subsections (A), (B) or (C) above, then Buyer is deemed to have elected the remedy set forth in subsection (A). Ln r` ARTICLE 4.2 CONDITIONS 4.1 CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO BUYER'S OBLIGATION TO CLOSE. Buyer's obligation to consummate the transaction contemplated hereunder is conditioned upon satisfaction of each of the following conditions, unless said conditions is waived by Buyer in writing: (a) Buyer obtaining the Approvals; (b) None of the representations and warranties of Seller set forth herein shall be untrue or inaccurate in any material respect as of the Effective Date or as of the Closing Date; (c) Seller shall not have failed to perform or comply with any of its agreements or obligations in all material respects within the time periods provided herein, time being of the essence; (d) Buyer shall not have given written notice rightfully terminating this Agreement within the appropriate periods of time specified for the same; (e) Closing under the Acquisition Contracts (defined below) shall have occurred and been consummated by Buyer or shall occur simultaneously with the Closing of the Property. Seller acknowledges M that Buyer has or intends to contract for the acquisition of the parcels set forth on Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference ("Additional Parcels") via separate sales contracts (collectively, the "Ac(luisition Contracts"). Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, Buyer's Y obligation to close is expressly contingent upon Buyer acquiring fee simple title to the Additional Parcels prior to or simultaneously with the Closing on the Property. In connection therewith, should Buyer fail to acquire fee simple title to the Additional Parcels on or prior to the Closing Date (as defined below and as may be W E AGREEMENT FORPURCHASE AND SALE V PAGE5 R 9734134.1 Q Packet Pg. 385 extended in accordance with this Agreement), or if any of the Acquisition Contracts should be terminated, Buyer shall have the option, in the exercise of its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement by providing Seller with written notice thereof, and upon Seller's receipt of written notice from Buyer, this Agreement shall terminate and be of no further force and effect, and the parties hereto shall be relieved of all further obligations or liability under this Agreement, except those obligations and liabilities that expressly survive termination of this Agreement. In the event that any one or more of the above conditions contained in this Section 4.1 is not satisfied or waived by Buyer in writing on or prior to the applicable Closing Date and so long as Buyer is not in default under this Agreement, Buyer may: (i) terminate this Agreement by written notice to Seller, whereupon the parties hereto shall be released from all liability hereunder, except those obligations and liabilities that expressly survive termination of this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be automatically canceled and rendered of no further force and effect; (ii) extend the applicable Closing Date up to one hundred and eighty (180) days to allow additional time for Seller to satisfy the requirements set forth in Sections 4.1(b) and (c) above; or (iii) waive such condition(s) precedent and close within fifteen (15) days thereafter. If any of the foregoing conditions have not been satisfied due to a default by Buyer, then Seller's rights and remedies shall be determined in accordance with Section 9.2 herein. Nothing herein shall be deemed as a waiver or limitation of any remedy available to Buyer under this Agreement (including, without limitation, the right to bring an action for specific performance under Section 9.4(c) hereof) or under Florida law for a default by the Seller. 4.2 Intentionally Omitted. ARTICLE 5.2 CLOSING,_ DOCUMENTATION. AND POST -CLOSING 5.1 CLOSING AND CLOSING DATE. This transaction shall be closed and title to the Property conveyed from Seller to Buyer by delivery of the fully executed Deed and other closing documents, including, without limitation, those described below in Section 5.2, to Buyer from Seller (the "Closing") at the offices of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, Florida 34103, on the date that is thirty (30) days following the earlier of: (i) Buyer's receipt of the Approvals, or (ii) expiration of the Approval Period, provided Buyer has not terminated the Agreement; provided, however, in no event shall Buyer be required to close if the conditions precedent set forth in Section 4.1 have not been satisfied or waived (the "Closing Date"). The Closing shall automatically be extended to allow for expiration of the applicable title cure periods set forth in Section 3.4 herein. AGRr..EMEN'r PUR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 6 9734134.1 9.A.3.e Ln ti Q Packet Pg. 386 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Agreement has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the day and year set forth below. W7rrNTL 6ra`VQ. 9734134.1 BUYER: SD LIVINGSTON, LLC, a Florida limited lia ility company By: in'1 Brian K. St k, Manager [SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON FOLLOWING PAGE] AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 18 9.A.3.e LO ti Q Packet Pg. 387 AGP,M!FN!T FOR PUjt(MASE.-tND SALC P,%Gb 1) 993/:13.1.1 k t 1 I Packet Pg. 388 EXHIBTT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Northwest one-quarter(N I/4) of the Northeast one-quarter (NEI /4) of the Northwest one-quarter (NAV I/4) of the Northeast one-quarter (NEI /4) of Section 131 Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. 9.A.3.e LO ti C E t AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE U PAGE 20 rte+ 9734134.1 Q Packet Pg. 389 9.A.3.e PARRISH-BARR REDACTED AGREEMENT R r C d AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY � This AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY (the "Aereement'D is made co and effective as of the day of ift cr9' 2018 (the "Effective Date") by and between Doreen L. UJ Parrish, an unmarried woman, and Dennis G. Haar, as Trustee of the Revocable Living Trust of Dennis 4. Baar, dated March 28, 2013, as tenants in common (collectively, the "Seller"}, and SD Livingston, LLC, a to Florida limited liability company, or its permitted successors or assigns ("Buver'1. In consideration of the L mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, and for other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby mutually acknowledged, Seller and Buyer agree as follows: ARTICLE 1.2 c L THE PROPERTY 1.1 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION. Subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement, Seller r agrees to sell and convey to Buyer, and Buyer agrees to purchase from Seller, that certain property located in Collier County, Florida, compromising the property identified as Parcel ID No. 00148280009, more �_ particularly described as follows (referred to as the "Pro a D: > J (a) That real property described in the attached Exhibit "A" incorporated herein by reference, , being approximately 5.00 acres of unimproved land, together with all of Seller's rights, privileges, tenements, ti hereditaments and appurtenances pertaining thereto (the "Land'; the Land shall include all interests, if any, of Seller in (i) strips or gores, if any, between the Land and abutting properties, (ii) any land lying in or under the bed of any street, alley, road or right -o£ --way, opened orproposed, abutting or adjacent to the Land; and (iii) all c buildings, structures, and other improvements on the Land; and c r` T (b) All other of Seller's privileges, easements, licenses, rights-of-way, riparian, littoral and water N rights, minerals, oil, gas and other hydrocarbon rights and substances on the Land, development rights, air J rights and all other rights, privileges and appurtenances owned by Seller and in any wayrelated to, pertaining a to or accruing to the use or benefit of the Property. 0 •L 0 1.2 PROPERTY CONVEYANCE SURVIVES CLOSING. Seller's obligation to convey to Buyer m all of the Property shall survive Closing, without merger into the Deed, and Seiler shall continue to be 2 obligated to deliver and convey to Buyer such portions of the Property as may not be delivered and conveyed to c Buyer prior to or at Closing as provided in this Agreement. P (D r a� c 0 a� c J M d a; J C AGRuamENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE t PAGE 9926975.1 � a Packet Pg. 390 3.6 ZONING, ENTITLEMENTS AND PERMITS. Provided Buyer has not otherwise terminated the Contract pursuant to Section 3.5, following the expiration of the Investigation Period, Buyer shall have twelve (12) months ("Approval Period") to obtain (i) stormwater and environmental resource permits from the Southwest Florida Water Management District, (ii) regulatory permits from the .Army Corps of Engineers, (iii) non -appealable zoning, land use and development approvals by Collier County, and (iv) any all other governmental, quasi -governmental or other permits, approvals, documents, consents, and/or site development plans (collectively, the "Approvals") necessary for Buyer's proposed development of the Property and the Additional Parcels as a multi -family development consisting ofno less than 300 dwelling units and an amenity center to serve sueb units (the "Proicet"); provided, however, that Buyer shall have the right to commence its efforts to obtain the Approvals at any time. Seller shall reasonably cooperate with Buyer in Buyer's efforts to obtain the Approvals, including, without limitation, executing any and all required documentation, attending meetings with governmental and quasi -governmental agencies, and/or authorizing Buyer in writing (in a form reasonably requested by Buyer or as required by any such governmental or quasi -governmental agency) to act as Seller's agent in connection with obtaining such Approvals; provided that Buyer shall reimburse Seller for its reasonable and verified out ofpocket expenses paid to third parties, including professionals and attorneys, in connection with such cooperation in an amount not to exceed $2,500.00, which payment shall be made by Buyer to Seller within five (5) days after demand thereof. As requested by Seller, Buyer shall provide updates as to the status of the Approvals. In addition, Buyer shall provide Seller with not less than five (5) days prior written notice of any in-person scheduled meetings and/or hearings with a governmental agency regarding the Approvals, and Seller and Seller's attorney shall have the right to attend and participate in such meeting(s). In connection with Buyer's pursuit of the Approvals, Buyer shall not be permitted to burden the Property with any "Irrevocable OUP-ation" (as defined below) that does notpresently exist and which would remain in effect if the Closing on the Property does not occur, without Seller's prior written consent, which consent may be withheld by Seller for any reason. The term "Irrevocable Obligation" means (a) an obligation which cannot be removed by Seller without cost or liability for which Buyer has not provided Seller with security and adequate assurances, satisfactory to Seller, that such obligations affecting the Property will be paid or released if Buyer does not close an the Property; or (b) any obligation which requires the owner of the Property to contribute or dedicate money or a portion of the Property or to construct, install or maintain any improvements of a public or private nature on or off the Property. Additionally, notwithstanding any provision in any permit, license, approval or other Approval to the contrary, all commitments and development obligations that are a requirement of the "Permitee", "Applicant", or "Land Owner" or Approval shall be the sole responsibility of AQREEmBNT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE Q 9926975.1 9.A.3.e J Packet Pg. 391 9.A.3.e Buyer as to the Property while this Agreement remains in effect and after Closing. It is expressly agreed and acknowledged by Buyer that Buyer shall be solely and absolutely responsible for all costs and expenses incurred by or on behalf of Buyer and arising out of or related to Buyer's pursuit of and compliance with the Approval for the Property and the Project. Buyer agrees that it shall not undertake any development work or improvements on the Property until after Closing. If Buyer does not obtain the Approvals within the Approval Period, Buyer shall, by no later than 5:00 P.M. on the date of expiration of the Approval Period, provided that Buyer is not in default of this Agreement: (A) terminate this Agreement by delivering written notice to Seller, whereupon the Deposit shall be returned to Buyer and Seller and Buyer shall be released from any and all further obligations and liabilities arising under or out of this Agreement, other than other than obligations under this Agreement that survive termination of this Agreement, (B) extend the Approval Period by two (2) periods of three (3) months each, by providing written notice thereof at least fifteen (15) days prior to the expiration of the Approval Period, subject to payment of the extension fee, or (C) waive such condition and proceed to close as set forth in Section 4.1 hereof. If Buyer elects to extend the Approval Period pursuant to subsection (B) above, then Buyer shall immediately pay to Seller an extension fee equal to Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), which fee is immediately earned by Seller, non-refundable (except in the event of a Seller default) and shall not be a credit against the Purchase Price. If Buyer fails to timely elect one of the options set forth in subsections (A), (B) or (C) above, then Buyer is deemed to have elected the remedy set forth in subsection (A). LO r` ARTICLE 4.2 CONDITIONS 4.1 CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO BUYER'S OBLIGATION TO CLOSE. Buyer's obligation to consummate the transaction contemplated hereunder is conditioned upon satisfaction of each of the following conditions, unless said conditions is waived by Buyer in writing: (a) Buyer obtaining the Approvals; (b) None of the representations and warranties of Seller set forth herein shall be untrue or inaccurate in any material respect as of the Effective Date or as of the Closing Date; (c) Seller shall not have failed to perform or comply with; any of its agreements or obligations in all material respects within the time periods provided herein, time being of the essence; (d) Buyer shall not have given written notice rightfully terminating this Agreement within the appropriate periods of time specified for the same; M (e) Closing under the Acquisition Contracts (defined below) shall have occurred and been Q consummated by Buyer or shall occur simultaneously with the Closing of the Property. Seller acknowledges that Buyer has or intends to contract for the acquisition of the parcels set forth on Exhibit "W', attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference ("Additional Parcels") via separate sates contracts (collectively, the "Acquisition Contracts'. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, Buyer's obligation to close is expressly contingent upon Buyer acquiring fee simple title to the Additional Parcels prior c a� AGREEMENT COR PURCHASE AND SALE E PACE V 9926975.I Q Packet Pg. 392 9.A.3.e to or simultaneously with the Closing on the Property. In connection therewith, should Buyer fail to acquire fee simple title to the Additional Parcels on or prior to the Closing Date (as defined below and as may be extended in accordance with this Agreement), or if any of the Acquisition Contracts should be terminated, Buyer shall have the option, in the exercise of its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement by providing Seller with written notice thereof, and upon Seller's receipt of written notice from Buyer, this Agreement shall tenninate and be of no further force and effect, and the parties hereto shall be relieved of all further obligations or liability under this Agreement, except those obligations and liabilities that expressly survive termination of this Agreement. In the event that any one or more of the above conditions contained in this Section 4.1 is not satisfied z or waived by Buyer in writing on or prior to the applicable Closing Date and so long as Buyer is not in default under this Agreement, Buyer may. (i) terminate this Agreement by written notice to Seller, whereupon the parties hereto shall be released from all liability hereunder, except those obligations and liabilities that expressly survive termination of this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be automatically canceled and > rendered of no further force and effect; (ii) extend the applicable Closing Date up to one hundred and eighty r (180) days to allow additional time for Seller to satisfy the requirements set forth in Sections 4.1(b) and (c) tM above; or (iii) waive such conditions) precedent and close within fifteen (15) days thereafter. If any of the c foregoing conditions have not been satisfied due to a default by Buyer, then Seller's rights and remedies shall be determined in accordance with Section 9.2 herein. Nothing herein shall be deemed as a waiver or limitation J of any remedy available to Buyer under this Agreement (including, without limitation, the right to bring an , action for specific performance under Section 9.4(c) hereof) or under Florida law for a default by the Seller. ti ARTICLE 52 CLOSING DOCUMENTATION AND POST-CLOSWG 5.1 CLOSING AND CLOSING DATE. This transaction shall be closed and title to the Property conveyed from Seller to Buyer bydelivery of the fully executed Deed and other closing documents, including, without limitation, those described below in Section 5.2, to Buyer from Seller (the "Closing) at the offices of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, Florida 34103, on the date that is thirty (30) days following the earlier of (i) Buyer's receipt of the Approvals, or (ii) expiration of the Approval Period, provided Buyer has not terminated the Agreement; provided, however, in no event shall Buyer be required to close if the conditions precedent set forth in Section 4.1 have not been satisfied or waived (the "Closing Date"). The Closing shall automatically be extended to allow for expiration of the applicable title cure periods set forth in Section 3.4 herein. AoREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SATE PACE6 9926975.1 M d a; Packet Pg. 393 Prinf.'N ao: J �� r m viol i?ordiis Cr, Boar, ua 1 motee of the PzVo sable Living Twat of Dennis G. Saar, d" Mmh 28, 2013 AGREEMENT FOR PURaWs my SALE PAGE 19 QMMI I 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 394 02/09/2018 2,33 PM FAX ++++2062575429+ WITKESM: Print Namt. P Mt Name: Print Nnnx i a"$ I CODD SELURS- 1?orrea G. Parrish 000440- Bear as Trvstoc of the Rtvacabk- Living Tnut of D=is G. Saar, Omcd Mmb 28, 2013 AakwmwirmK PUlIcwi. erre s" Dice 19 la 0003/0003 9.A.3.e T" LO T— r` Q Packet Pg. 395 EX -MIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION The Southeast a t� t eat quarter of the Northwest quarter t o r h q a t v AND the Southwest quarter of the Nort th ast quarter, of the Northeast quarter, on 13, Towns p8 o h, Range 25 East of Collier County, Flor`-+-1/ 9.A.3.e LO ti C AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 20 9926975.1 Q Packet Pg. 396 510811*-C�Oun�ty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 PERTY',OWNEFtSNI.P..' DISCLOSUREFORM ". This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a, If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the ercemage or sucn inzeresi; Name and Address % of Ownership b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the ercentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address % of Ownership C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Name and Address % of Ownership Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 397 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 0 e. f. Go ier Coul�ty 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 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 SD LIVINGSTON, LLC 2639 PROFESSIONAL CIRCLE, SUITE 101 NAPLES, FL 34119 BRIAN K. STOCK, MANAGER 100% 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 tticers, stockholders, beneticiaries, or partners: Name and Address % of Ownership Date of Contract: If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or of racers, IT d cvUPUrduUn, ILI uterJnIP/ vi Liu bL. Name and Address Date subject property acquired ❑ Leased: Term of lease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 9.A.3.e E •; I J c Page 2 of 3 E Q Packet Pg. 398 CA,r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-240.0 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Date of option: Date option terminates: _, or Anticipated closing date: AFFi6tM PROPERTY OW,NERSHIP;INF011 ATI0 Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure,. will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change In ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest -holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is Included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to Include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 At-44Z Agent/Owner Signature Date Brian K. Stock, MGR Agent/Owner Name (please print) SD LIVINGSTON, LLC Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 9.A.3.e rn 0 o; o' r` 0 N J a. 7 L 0 E as N C ca L CD `CD N� I.L O Y Im r_ 2 J M Q 07 d Y C J c CD E t U Q Packet Pg. 399 CATALANO -V County 4 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2600 NORTH HOP ESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPART ENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 54104 w i.collieMy.net (239) 252-2400 i PX: (239) 252-63SS PI OPERvT' 1'pVNERS IP This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters, Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the 11 C. ercentage OT such Interest: Name and Address 96 of Ownershin If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the iercentage or stock owned Dy earn: Name and Address % of Ownership If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Nance and Address % of Ownership Marc L Catalano, as Trustee of the.Marc L. Catalano Revocable Intervivios Trust dated November 23, Z004 100% e Southwest of the Northeast 114 of the Northwest 1/4 of a Northeast 114 ot Section 13, Town Florida, also known as Lot 11 in unrecorded Bryan Acres subdivision AND hip 48 South, Range 2 t, , e Southeast 114 o—fWe—N-3rTRx—We&T174 o e Northwest o e or east o ecuon ota Florida, LESS the Westerly 15 feet thereof AND p ou ange Marc L. Catalano, individually and as Trustee of the Marc l., Catalano Revocable Intcrvivios'fmst dat d Novennher 11. 20(),l 100% The Northeast quarter 1/4) ofthe Northwest quarter (NW 114) a t e Northwest (MV 1/4) of I Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, LESS the Westerly thirU• (30) feet thereof 4ortheast quarter ( 1 4 of S erved for road right-of--wav Created YMMW :117. of unrecorded plat of said Northeast quarter. Page 1 of 3 9.A.3.e flier County, M d Mier County, 0i d Y coon 13, C J C CD E' s V W Q Packet Pg. 400 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Rhu*10 001 W, G41iar County 2800 WORTH F30RSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 752-2463 FAX: (239) 252-GBSS d. If the Property isinthe name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. list the name of the reneral and/or limited partners: F- Name and Address % of 0 w n—e —rs h -1—D 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 itticers, stockholders, beneficlarles, or partners: F— Name and Address % of 0wne`rsh--'1a7 IMMMOM11701 f. If anv contingencv clause or contract terms involve additional Darties. list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired n Leased: Term of lease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 (D :2, W 4) evW 0 E > r 0 r Ln CD T1 - Q Q tiN 20 I- 0 E (D 2 4) .I.. 4) 0 -J M 4) E I Packet Pg. 401 9.A.3.e M COi.UM COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2300 FMPJH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTIVIENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 24104 www.colliergay.nat (239) 252-2400 FM (239) 252-63507 Date of option: Date option terminates: , or Anticipated closing date: February 2019 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 forma. Allay change In ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest -holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County Immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand thatfailure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. t.m. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Agent/0 ner Signature Date .Marc L_ Catalano Agent/Owner blame (please print) Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 d E s Q Packet Pg. 402 PARRIS11111AAR doler County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.collier ogy_net (239) 252-2400 FAX. (239) 252-6358 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest: Name and..Address. % of Ownership Doree0 I., Porrish. on unmarried woman o Dennis G. Boar, as Trustee of the Revueable LW14 `frust ofDennls G. Roar, dared March 2N, 2013 The Snuihcust quarter of Ih<Nonhenst quarter;)f the Nor thwcsI gL'aner of t sc Nurthtust gvurtet; AN 2 t e Sum nvcstquarter Orth -L7 �ytarwr of the Northenst quarter of the Northeast quarter or Section 13. Township 48 South Wmge 25 East, Collier Coualy, Flurlda. b. if the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address % of Ownership C. If the property is In the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the ercentage UT interest: Name and Address % of Ownership Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 wrlhwest 9.A.3.e Ln ti Q Packet Pg. 403 Colk.,err �:: -r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliarkov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 d. if the Property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. list the name of the 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 -s, stocicnowers, oeneticiaries, or partners: Name and Address _ % of Ownership -J Date of Contract: f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or 01 titers, it a corporation, partnership, or trust: Name and Address 9. uate suDject property acquireo Leased: Term of lease - years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, Indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 9.A.3.e Ln ti Q Packet Pg. 404 Co'~.i `er county COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www,colliercoy,net Date of option: Date option terminates: Anticipated closing date: robmary200_ 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 or AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form, Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether Individually or with a Trustee, Company or other Interest -holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County Immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, 1 attest that all of the Information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package, I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result In the delay of processing this petition. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 4/26/2018 Agent/Owner Signature Date Doreen L. Parrish Agent/Owner Name (please print) 5IgnMury Date Amnf:s G. Iia;11. Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 9.A.3.e LO rn 0 0 0 n 0 N J a O E d to C L CD `CD N� N O E J M Q 07 d Y C J C O E t V R Q Packet Pg. 405 • r y P'xPRIS111rw4AR C ffie* r CbUnty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 w w,collierRov,net 1239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-635.8 PRUPEK'ri' OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petition's, ekeept 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 responsibifity of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interestform. Please -Complete the following, ufe additiotial'sheets if necessary. a. If the property is owned.fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL. tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or Joint tenahcy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest, Name and Address Ye of Ow»ership� -Sk,(c }(1. Parnxh.an vnmanlcd +nm+.x. J •� i)ennSt C. i11J1'. Jf tfume eflhe Rn M.4 ih•(ng�rrLAOI DcIInt1 U.1.,JAW Ml hCR, 2013. 'h:<Saulbral.- 1:uiirr e7ibr Koi115en`,iry�srr�Tu 1m Nann+rem, ng—, UM :wnhea,r qu.nsr Nllnu nwi+w �>I qu;,nernl the -yu.t�ernf+h.•?:h:ehro<r „ua+r.r nl Abe Vnrtl:ru..I n,arm.al:W::nnn 1?,'I'u,vn.hi:+.h S+woA. N:m res ��i.::nOte, Y•ounrc MaHJa. i 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 i C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, 113t the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage ofinterest: Created 9/28%2017 Page 1 of 3 :nnh,:i.1 9.A.3.e Q Packet Pg. 406 Name and Address. 9%-o�fOwnershf �., ` AAS -me AMf i2,�&Al fUo�1Nf1 ae'7'n s `f /4-j - -_ , 1,._ - -- r, A (11 a iJ+1' A I"f C r hf " - tis o i Created 9/28%2017 Page 1 of 3 :nnh,:i.1 9.A.3.e Q Packet Pg. 406 Col7er Cnunty COLUER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE bRiVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www collfer._�ov,net (239) 252-2400 PAX. (2391 252-6358 M If the property is in the.name of a GENERAL or LIMMI) PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners: _ Name and Address f % of ownership If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE. With an individual or Individuals, a Corporation,. Trustee, ora Partnership, list the.name's of the contract purchasers below, including the Date of Contract: If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: ��--- Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired C] Leased: Term of lease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the fo{lowing: created 9128/2017 Page 2 of 3 9.A.3.e V— LO r ti M Q 07 Q Packet Pg. 407 9.A.3.e Cofflar County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 28DO NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 341b4 www.collleraoy.net (239) 252.2400 FAX-. (239) 252-G3S8 Date of option: Date option terminates: or Anticipated closing date: J-omwy-aoty AFFIWA PRCPERTY OVvNISRSH1P ii LFORIMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form, Requirements for petition typesare located ontheassoclated app(icatlon form. Anychange in ownershlpwhe'ther individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest -holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately lfsuch change occurs priorto the petltlon's final public hearing. As the authorized agent[dppilcant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on thls checklist Is included in this submittal package.1 understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result In the delay of processing this petition. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: > Growth Management Department J ATTN: dvslness Center 2.800.North Horseshoe Drive r Naples, Fl 34104 W) r ti Agent/Owner Signature Date M LLi ""e Pm:tah Agent/dwner Name (please p(int) nJl!^ Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of M Q 07 Q Packet Pg. 408 COLLIER COUNTY C70VHRNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 1�?VdW,Ct�IIiP,.i'gOV Mlr?� SOMMi?RVIL,I Ti A kv County 28001 NORTH HORSr.SHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 2.52-6358 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP 1:1[jC10SURE FORM — This is a required form with all lane{ use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a, if the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the b, C. 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 _............. ----.... ........._.................... .____....... ............ ........ _ __-......-_i if the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the r ;*�� tet. T-.-_-y-�� -�- t;i LCIIIQsC Vt IU tcicx. _-,T 'A _ Name and Address Richlyd r11au Sommeni.11e,'trustee of the Richard Alam Sommerville Trust dated —• _% of Ownership /2612004— 100% See Iega1 description below Created 9/28/2017 Nage a of 3 The Northwest one-quarter (NW 114) of the Northeast one-quarter (NE 114) of the Northwest one-quarter (N%!' Ito) of the Noriheast one-quarter (NE 114) of Sedion .13.1-ownship 48 youth, Range ZS Hast, Collier County, Florida. 9.A.3.e M d _ CD E M V M r Q Packet Pg. 409 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AwhL oltl�.r. tuV.ttIt. Q e. f o i �County 2300 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (283) 252.-G400 FAX: (239) 2.52-6358 if the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the neral ana/or umiieo partners: ---._....._..___._ Name and Address of 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, includingthe officers stockholders beneficiaries, or partners: Name and Address _,.,_.__ % of ownership Date of Contract: If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all Individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust___..._......___._._.-._._..._..._...•._.__..........-.___.--•__---...-.._ I.--- -.._--`..___... dame and Address g. Date subject property acquired Leased: Term of lease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Created 9/28/2027 Page 2 of 3 9.A.3.e i ti w 0 0 0 ti 0 N J (L I 20 I- 0 O E (D c ca L 4) `4) N�N I.f. _ Im _ J M d 0i m J _ m E s Q Packet Pg. 410 ��""''.� 11 , COLLIFR COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH liOnSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Ntmpas, FLORIDA 34104 rinh!w_< il,iPrf �v.rse (239) 252.1 ,100 FAX: (239) 257..-6358 Date of option: Date option terminates: or Anticipated closing date: April 2419 AI`FIRih/i PROPERTY OVJNERI HW 11%,117 RMATION Any petition required to have property ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form, Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest -holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition, Tho completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN:BUSIness Center 2804 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 7 Agent/owner Signature Date Richard Alan St MMMil c Agent/owner Name (please print) Created 5/2$/2017 Page 3 of 3 9.A.3.e LO r` Q Packet Pg. 411 INSTR 5587588 OR 5534 PG 186 RECORDED 7/18/2018 9:32 AM PAGES 3 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $18,200.00 REC $27.00 CONS $2,600,000.00 ATTACHMENT "A" This Document Prepared Without Opinion of Title By: Carlo F. Zampogna, Esquire Zampogna Law Firm 1112 Goodlette Road North, Suite 204 Naples, Florida 34102 Telephone: (239) 261-0592 ParcelID No: 00150600004,00149080004,00150440002,00150520003,00150400000,00149840008 Deed Consideration: $2,600,000.00 Documentary Stamps Due on Transfer: $18,200.00 THIS INDENTURE, Florida limited liability co Hawthorn Woods, IL 60047, company as GRANTEE*, I Naples, FL 34119. barrawj#Deed J is ay of 1 21 i M.ies"ost office ad ess ivingr] WITNESSETH, tha �hr - tor, To—f and -m onsirat ($10.00), and other good and ble considerations . ai G z the receipt whereof is hereby wledged, has gran rg and Grantee's heirs and assigns r the following d sGib the County of Collier, State of Flo t cc See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made apart hereof. 8, between NURLAC LLC, a s: 25397 North Northbridge, LC, a Florida limited liability P fessional Circle, Suite 101, f the sum of TEN DOLLARS I r in hand paid by said Grantee, Xed and sold to the said Grantee, land, situate, lying and being in SUBJECT TO taxes for the year 2018 and subsequent years not yet due and payable; zoning, building code, and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority; outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any; and restrictions, reservations and easements common to the subdivision. TOGETHER WITH all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. And the Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that the Grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. To have and to hold in fee simple forever. *Singular and plural are interchangeable as context requires. **The subject property is not the homestead of the Grantor. 9.A.3.e LO Q Page i of 3 Packet Pg. 412 OR 5534 PG 187 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: MARLAC LLC, a Florida limited liability company ----_ .. By: Witness'#1 John ach I Its: Man ging Member Print N iQ-,,: 5V; Witness #2 i Print Name STATE OF 1 LOU t COUNTY OF LriLCR � g ~ day of July 2018 by �' The foregoing instru �'�" was acknowled e o e is John Lach, as Managing Mem MAR LAC LLC, l ited liability company, who is [� personally kn raj to me xf who [ produced otary Public �ignature KATIE R MOODY Printed Name: _ tQ Official Seal Commission No.: AZ 5! 3 C7 Notary Public — State of Illinois 1 My Commission Expires Aug 27, 2019 My Commission Expires: c9-1*y` ©z, , (SEAL) 9.A.3.e Ln ti Q Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 413 *** OR 5534 PG 188 *** EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1: The West % of the Southwest 1/ of the Northwest 1/ of the Northeast 1/ of Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. PARCEL 2: The Northeast % of the Southwest % of the Northwest % of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. PARCEL 3: The Southwest % of the Southeast '/ of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/ of Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. PARCEL 4: The Southeast'/ of the Southwest % of the Northwest 1/ of the Northeast % of Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 Eas% (o lorida. PARCEL 5: The Northwest 1/ 1#a0.'s'L-QQ.11ier utheast 14of the st 1/of the Northeast 1/of Section 13, Township 48 South, Rang County, Flo 'da. PARCEL 6: The Northeast 13, Township 48 South, Ra of the Northeast 1/ of Section 9.A.3.e Ln T-- Q Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 414 INSTR 5587586 OR 5534 PG 181 RECORDED 7/18/2018 9:32 AM PAGES 2 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $175.00 REC $18.50 CONS $25,000.00 This Document Prepared Without Opinion of Title By: Carlo F. Zampogna, Esquire Zampogna Law Firm 1112 Goodlette Road North, Suite 204 Naples, Florida 34102 Telephone: (239) 261-0592 Parcel ID No : 00148200005 Deed Consideration: $25,000 Documentary Stamps Due on Transfer: $175.00 aCnt Deed J Ln THIS INDENTURE, %% c eJ s ay of July'20�8, �etween LIVVET LLC, a Florida limited liability company, wh¢se t -a fe address is: 18 st ne Way, North Barrington, IL a, 60010, as GRANTOR*, IId i sto LIrC, a Flo 'da imited liability company as GRANTEE*, whose post of ice �q ins. l , cle, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34119. o WITNESSETH, th t' G tot' i const etic vi.Q' the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00), and other good anl a e coni era tion o sai r i in hand paid by said Grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby owledged, has gra ar n and sold to the said Grantee, and Grantee's heirs and assigner, the following 'd and, situate, lying and being in the County of Collier, State of r�p,�o-wit: The Northwest '/ of the NortL"oCt� J west % of the Northeast '/a of Section 13, Township 48 South, Rang, e 5 East, Collier County, Florida. SUBJECT TO taxes for the year 2018 and subsequent years not yet due and payable; zoning, building code, and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority; outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any; and restrictions, reservations and easements common to the subdivision. TOGETHER WITH all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto E 2 belonging or in anywise appertaining. M And the Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that the Grantor is lawfully seized of Q said land in fee simple; that the Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against Y the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. J To have and to hold in fee simple forever. E *Singular and plural are interchangeable as context requires. **The subject property is not the homestead of the Grantor. Q Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 415 *** OR 5534 PG 182 *** IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: Witnes s #1 Print Wi s #,,i " � � J Print Name STATE OF COUNTY OF The foregoing in! John Lach, as Managing personally :Notary AiTIE,•R MOODY Official Seal ublic -State of Illinois Msion Expires Aug 27, 2019 LIVVET LLC, a Florida limited liability company By: 4&d John ach Its: Managing Member of LIVVET LLC to me �, as identifi! �L' C s 1 day of July 2018 by } ted liability co any, who is ho r produced Notary Public Signature Printed Name: It4�OdQl_ - Commission No.: SU- S 13 a My Commission Expires: 06 1 Page 2 of 2 9.A.3.e Ln ti Q Packet Pg. 416 3686584 OR: 3816 PG: 1542 RICORDID in OIPICIAL 11CORD3 of COLLA! COMM, It 08/25/2005 at 02:07PK DVIGH? 1. SIM, CURL RDC M 35.50 Prepared bv. Record &Return to DOC -.70 .70 Santiago Eljaiek III, Esq. Reta: Alvarez, Taylor, Eljaiek & Rodriguez, P.L, ALVARIi IWAI1I 17 AL 2601 South Bayshore Drive 2601 3 BAT88011 DR #700 Suite 600 KIAKI PL 33133 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Property Appraisers Parcel I.D. (Folio) Number(0 Folio No.:00150560005 WARRANTY DEED THIS WARRANTY DEED' is made as of the d Y day of J'L,t Y . --, 2005 by Marc Catalano, a married man (the "Grantor"), whose mailing address is 11935 SW 15' Court, Davie, Florida 33325, to Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Intervivios Trust dated November 23, 2004 (the "Grantee"), whose mailing address is 11935 SW 15' Court, Davie, Florida 33325, WITNESSETH: That Grantor, f d-in-cr Dollars ($10.00) and for other good llc are hereby conclusively acknowl�+l' ereby gr 1 conveys and confirms unto Granie t successors and situate in Collier County, Florida, 4',lnore particuW The Southwest 1/4 of Section l also known as 1 referred to on of the sum of Ten and No/ 100 the receipt and sufficiency of which sells, aliens, remises, releases, or ver, all that certain real property ped follows: 1/4 �f the Northeast Ilier County, Florida THIS CONVEYANCE�,LECT 1. Taxes and assessments foevquent years, which are not yet due and payable. 2. Covenants, easements, and restrictions ofrecord and all matters appearing on the Plat, without intending to reimpose the same. 'Note to Examiner: THIS CONVEYANCE IS TO TRUSTEES NOT PURSUANT TO A SALE, THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE RULE 12B -4.014(2)(b), THIS CONVEYANCE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAXES. 9.A.3.e Ln Q Packet Pg. 417 OR: 3876 PG: 1543 3. Zoning restrictions and conditions imposed or required by any governmental authority and matters appearing on the plat or common to the subdivision, including utility easements, if any, without intending, to reimpose any of the same. TOGETHER, with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto or appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, in fee simple forever. AND Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to the Property and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. AND GRANTOR hereby confirms and certifies that the subject Property is not and has never been the homestead property of Grantor as defined in Article X, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution , nor contiguous to his homestead, and that neither Grantor nor any member of his family (or any person claiming by, thro g, or) resides, nor has ever resided, ,at the subject Property, and that Grantor's eT1 1 ted at 11935 SW 15" Court, Davie, Florida. 9' �a Full power and autho ' is erbbb ante to s Grante (he einafter also referred to as the "Trustees") to either protect co d -4 r t encumber, or to otherwise manage and dispose said Pr4e oto o t s r o do s to purchase, to sell on any terms, to convey either with r t fz ss d r into coy s i(d roperty or any part thereof to a successor or successors in t o grant to such ' cces or cessors in trust all of the title, estate, powers and authorities in said Trustees, n to dicate, to mortgage, pledge or otherwise encumber said Prope y part thereof, t lis i real estate or any part thereof, from time to time, in possession r on, by leases t nce in praesenti or in futuro, and upon any terms and for any period or rice -ding in the case of any single demise the term of ninety-nine (99) years, and to tett" leases and to amend, change or modify leases and the terms and provisions thereof, to contract to make leases and to grant options to lease and options to renew leases and options to purchase the whole or any part of the reversion, and to contract respecting the manner of fixing the amount of present or future rentals, to partition or exchange said Property or any part thereof for other real or personal property, to grant easements or. charges of any kind, to release, convey or assign any right, title or interest in or about said Property or any part thereof, and to deal with said Property in every part thereof in all other ways and for such other considerations as it would be lawful for any person owning the same to deal with the same, whether similar to, or different from, the ways above specified, at any time or times hereafter. In no case shall any party dealing with the said Trustees in relation to said Property or to whom said Property or any part thereof shall be conveyed, contracted to be sold, leased or mortgaged by said Trustees, be obliged to see the application of any purchase money, rent, or money borrowed or advanced on said premises, or be obliged to see that the terms of Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Intervivios Trust dated November 23, 2004 (the "Trust") have been complied with, or be obliged to inquire into the necessity or expediency of any act of said 9.A.3.e Ln M Q Cn Q Packet Pg. 418 OR: 3876 PG: 1544 Trustee, or be obliged or privileged to inquire into any of the terms of said Trust; and every deed, trust deed, mortgage, lease or other instrument executed by said Trustees in relation to said Property shall be conclusive evidence in favor of every person relying upon or claiming under any such conveyance, lease or other instrument (a) that at the time of the delivery thereof, the trust created by this Deed and by said Trust was in full force and effect, (b) that such conveyance or other instrument was executed in accordance with the Trust's conditions and limitations contained in this Deed and in said Trust and binding upon all beneficiaries thereunder, (c) that the Trustees were duly authorized and empowered to execute and deliver every such deed, trust deed, lease, mortgage or other instrument, and (d) if the conveyance is made to a successor in trust, that such successor or successors in trust have been properly appointed and are fully vested with all the title, estate, rights, powers, duties and obligations of the said predecessor in the Trust. Any contract, obligation or indebtedness, incurred or entered into by the Trustees in connection with said Property may be entered into by them in the name of the then beneficiaries under said Trust, as their attorney-in-fact, hereby irrevocably appointed for such purpose, or, at the election of said Trustee, in his own n s express Trust and not individually, and the Trustees shall have no obligati ener-wp to any such contract, obligation or indebtedness, except only so far rust property an in the actual possession of the Trustees shall be applicable for e d discharge the of, d all persons and corporations whomsoever and whatsoever all a dharg d wiTi oCi of this on 'tion from the date of the filing for record of this Deed. ��.- ��-� 7 IN WITNESS F tbry.*x ted i w ty deed the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered G in presence of: P t Name: S .o AlAlekZ rZOAA1 Print Name: rc C talano (Notary acknowledgment on the next page) 9.A.3.e LO Q Packet Pg. 419 9.A.3.e *** OR: 3876 PG: 1545 *** STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) SS COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 4W day of 2005, by Marc Catalano. He is personally known to me of-hrm prodIed 0& iderttiftes�. tary Public, State of Florida Print Name: Sy P,9A) HOLTZ/AAk) My Commission Expires: Commission/Serial No.: _ C0 its• sTA 11R4 E5 06107/2005 �� GO o�iE M d _ _ -.- __ Packet Pg. 4 0771 Prepared by. Record &Return to: Santiago Eljaiek III, Esq. Alvarez, Taylor, Eljaiek & Rodriguez, P.L. 2601 South Bayshore Drive Suite 600 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 9.A.3.e Property Appraisers Parcel I.D. (Folio) Number(s) Folio No.:0015008006 and 00150160007 3686585 OR: 3876 PG: 1546 RICORDID in OPPICIAL UCORDS of COLLIIR COUNTY, PL 08/25/2005 at 02:07PK DWIGHT 1. BROCX, CTJ1X RIC PU 35.50 DOC -.It .70 Retn: ALYAUZ RJAIII IT U 2601 3 BAYSHOU DI 1700 KIAKI PL 33133 WARRANTY DEED THIS WARRANTY DEED' is made as of the d/ day of .7'01-Y 2005 by Marc Catalano, a married man (the "Grantor"), whose mailing address is 11935 SW 15' Court, > Davie, Florida 33325, to Marc L. Catal o---as-Tr..usttee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable J Intervivios Trust dated November i t whose mailing address is 11935 SW 15' Court, Davie, Florida 33325. �® o� WITNESSETH: Th G r or d-H'1sidera 'on f the sum of Ten and No/ 100 Dollars ($10.00) and for othe goo and val c nsi erkLw e r eipt and sufficiency of which o are hereby conclusively ac o e re s, se Is, aliens, remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto ran e, its c es o s ass' n fo v , all that certain real property N situate in Collier County, Fl o i ly d follows: The Southeast the Northwest 1/4 t#e west 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of c ' 13, Township 48 p�u ange 25 East, Collier County, Flo ' t,,feet thereof, and The Southwest 1/4 (SW 1/4) of—the Northwest 1/4 (NW 1/4) of the Northwest 1/4 (NW 1/4) of the Northeast 1/4 (NE 1/4) of Section 13, Township 48, South, Range 25, East, Collier County, Florida. Subject to a,15 foot easement running along the easterly boundary for road right-of-way purposes (Hereinafter referred to as the "Property"). 'Note to Examiner: THIS CONVEYANCE IS TO TRUSTEES NOT PURSUANT TO A SALE, THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE RULE c 12B4.014(2)(b), THIS CONVEYANCE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF J DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAXES. c as E Q I Packet Pg. 421 OR: 3876 PG: 1547 THIS CONVEYANCE IS SUBJECT TO: 1, Taxes and assessments for 2005 and subsequent years, which are not yet due and payable, 2. Covenants, easements, and restrictions of record and all matters appearing on the Plat, without intending to reimpose the same. 3. Zoning restrictions and conditions imposed or required by any governmental authority and matters appearing on the plat or common to the subdivision, including utility easements, if any, without intending to reimpose any of the same. TOGETHER, with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto or appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, in fee simple forever. AND Grantor hereby fully the lawful claims of all persons yd AND GRANTOR never been the homestead Constitution , nor contigui family (or any person claii subject Property, and that Florida. and will defend the same against s thata bject Property is not and has icl X, Section 4 of the Florida Viscat e Gr for nor any member of his e ,nor has ever resided, at the 11935 SW 15'h Court, Davie, /C) Full power and authority i j rantedto said (hereinafter also referred to as the "Trustees") to either protect, conse e, or to encumber, or to otherwise manage and dispose said Property or to c t o grant options to purchase, to sell on any terms, to convey either with or without consideration, to convey said Property or any part thereof to a successor or successors in trust, and to grant to such successor or successors in trust all of the title, estate, powers and authorities vested in said Trustees, to donate, to dedicate, to mortgage, pledge or otherwise encumber said Property or any part thereof, to -lease said real estate or any part thereof, from time to time, in possession or reversion, by leases to commence in praesenti or in fuluro, and upon any terms and for any period or periods of time not exceeding in the case of any single demise the term of ninety-nine (99) years, and to renew or extend leases and to amend, change or modify leases and the terms and provisions thereof, to contract to make leases and to grant options to lease and options to renew leases and options to purchase the whole or any part of the reversion, and to contract respecting the manner of fixing the amount of present or future rentals, to partition or exchange said Property or.any part thereof for other real or personal property, to grant easements or charges of any kind, to release, convey or assign any right, title or interest in or about said Property or any part thereof, and to deal with said Property in every part thereof in all other ways and for such other considerations as it would be lawful for any person owning the same to deal with the same, whether similar to, or different from, the ways above specified, at any time or times hereafter. 2 9.A.3.e Ln ti Q . .. Packet Pg. 422 9.A.3.e OR: 3876 PG: 1548 In no case shall any party dealing with the said Trustees in relation to said Property or to whom said Property or any part thereof shall be conveyed, contracted to be sold, leased or mortgaged by said Trustees, be obliged to see the application of any purchase money, rent, or money borrowed or advanced on said premises, or be obliged to see that the terms of Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Intervivios Trust dated November 23, 2004 (the "Trust") have been complied with, or be obliged to inquire into the necessity or expediency of any act of said Trustee, or be obliged or privileged to inquire into any of the terms of said Trust; and every deed, trust deed, mortgage, lease or other'instrument executed by said Trustees in relation to said Property shall be conclusive evidence in favor of every person relying upon or claiming under any such conveyance, lease or other instrument (a) that at the time of the delivery thereof, the trust created by this Deed and by said Trust was in full force and effect, (b) that such conveyance or other instrument was executed in accordance with the Trust's conditions and limitations contained in this Deed and in said Trust and binding upon all beneficiaries thereunder, (c) that the Trustees were duly authorized and empowered to execute and deliver every such deed, trust deed, lease, mortgage or other instrument, and (d) if the conveyance is made to a successor in trust, that such successor or successors in trust have been properly appointed and are fully vested with all the title, estate, rights, powers, duties and obligations of the said predecessor in the Trust. Ln Any contract, obligatio �i ebtedness, inc entered into by the Trustees in connection with said Property ay ee d into by them ' th name of the then beneficiaries under said Trust, as their atto ey n -fay , re irr ably a of ed for such purpose, or, at the election of said Trustee, in s o eni e- s st and not individually, and o the Trustees shall have no li tin a o vv r e t an such contract, obligation or indebtedness, except only s tl s an the actual possession of the N Trustees shall be applicable paymen and discge re o all persons and corporations a. whomsoever and whatsoever e charged with nof ition from the date of the filing i for record of this Deed. o E IN WITNESS WHEREQ rat C 's warranty deed the day and year first 2 above written. c Signed, sealed and delivered GRANTOR: in presence of: c 0 P t Name: SY�CyAi✓ N. Ziac rzill�� N c 2 J /11 cli Print Name: ,j- v/, .OG7_ talano of as c J [Notary Acknowledgment to follow on next page] as E Q Packet Pg. 423 *** OR; 3876 PG; 1549 *** STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) SS COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this �5� day of Juni , 2005, by Marc Catalano. He is personally known to eet -ter ide "4i". N ary Public, State of Florida Print Name: _s yt vq,V W 0 4Tx 1AA/ My Commission Expires: Commission/Serial No.: Ov Gs" PrttEs 4 9.A.3.e M d Packet Pg. 424 INSTR 4635827 OR 4744 PG 3049 RECORDED 12/9/2011 4:29 PM PAGES 4 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $840.00 REC $35.50 CONS $120,000.00 Record and return to: Santiago Eljaiek 111, Esq. Marin, Eljaiek & Lopez; P.L. 2601 South Bayshore Drive Suite 700 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Property Parcel I.D. (Folio) No. 00149200004 TRUSTEE'S DEED 14, THIS TRUSTEE'S DEED, made the �9 day of November, 2011, by and between Richard J. Steinlen, a single man, individually and as Successor Trustee of the Emma M. Steinlen Irrevocable Trust Agreement dated July 17, 1998 (Mda Emma M. Steinlen Revocable Trust Agreement dated Jul 9s address is 12107 Hitching Post Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20852-4427 • 1 a� TOR") and Marc L. Catalano,. a married man, individually a t s ee of the 1V3a atalano Revocable Intervivios Trust dated November 23, 0 ollectively, the "GRA EE , whose address is 11935 SW 15a' Court, Davie, Florida 33 25. WITNESSETH: T at , " n o t era ion of the sum of Ten and 00/100, ($10.00) Dollars, a d o a go d n v l a co i era i n to the GRANTOR in hand paid by the GRANTEE, th red ack a does hereby remise, release and quit claim unto GRAN all of GRANTOR' ' ht tit , terests, claims and demands in and to the following desc ' real property, situ i being in St. Lucie County, Florida, to wit (the "Property" The Northeast quarter (NE o�r (NW 1/4) of the Northwest quarter (NW 1/4) of the Northeas a Section 13, Township 48 South, Range g 25 East, Collier County, Florida, less the West thirty (30) feet thereof reserved for road right-of-way purposes, shown as Tract #2 of unrecorded plat of said Northeast quarter. SUBJECT TO: Taxes for the year 2012 and all subsequent years, which are not yet due and payable. 2. Conditions, restrictions, limitations, easements, dedications, agreements, reservations and other matters of record; as well as all matters disclosed on the above-described plat; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not serve to impose or re -impose same. 3. Applicable zoning and governmental regulations affecting the Property, without intending to reimpose any of same. ATTACHMENT "A" 9.A.3.e Ln ti Q Packet Pg. 425 OR 4744 PG 3050 TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same together with all and singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest, lien, equity and claims whatsoever of the GRANTOR, either in law or in equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behalf of the GRANTEE forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the GRANTOR has executed this instrument as of the day and year above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in presence of. Jcc , ' Name � co Print Name Vichad J. S inl n, individually and as (�otooftheEmma M. Steinlen {cTstgreement dated July 17, [Notary Acknowledgment to follow on next page] 9.A.3.e Ln Q Packet Pg. 426 OR 4744 PG 3051 �ISTn't•ts--i' of col-uMMin... STATE OF I ^ r� ti N be- - ss COUNTY OF ) Q The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this OO day of November, 2011, by Richard J. Steinlen, a single man, individually and as Successor Trustee of the Emma M. Steinlen Irrevocable Trust Agreement dated July 17, 1998, who is personally known to me or who has produced J'� �iP✓ S 0116 ;E as identification and who di id not take an oath and executed such instrument for the purposes therein stated. �FTFIE Ci.RL� ate of 11S►rw Expires: al No. ONALD DA'f• "' `• ELIC p:STP.ICTO1 CO!V�S;4" 1 r' se, 21314 9.A.3.e Ln ti Q Packet Pg. 427 INSTR 4635826 OR 4744 PG 3042 RECORDED 12/9/2011 4:29 PM PAGES 7 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REC $61.00 Record and return to: Santiago Eljaiek III, Esq. Marin, Eljaiek & Lopez, P.L. 2601 South Bayshore Drive Suite 850 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 STATE OF MARYLAND ) )SS COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY) Before me, the undersigned Trustee of the Emma M. Steinle Revocable Trust Agreement dat deposes and states: i 1. That the Affiant has 2. That Affiant, as property, to -wit: TRUSTEE'S AFFIDAVIT 4rsonally appearedhh, ,,abjcAust Agreement dell M. 1998'fthe-4f-rukt). who Steinlen ("Affiant") as Successor (17/1998 f/k/a Emma M. Steinlen Eby me first duly sworn, on oath, following described real The Northeast quarter 417 f the Northwest q�u eov 1/4) of the Northwest quarter (NW 1/4) of the No s arWXZE-1' `` fioon 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, ' � (30) feet thereof reserved for road right-of-way purposes, shown as Tract #2 of unrecorded plat of said Northeast quarter. (the "Property"). 3. That Affiant is the sole Trustee of the Trust and that, acting as Successor Trustee, has full power and authority to sell, convey and transfer the property and there are no contrary powers or provisions of the Trust. 4. That the Property is not the homestead property of the Successor Trustee or any member of the Trustee's family, nor does it lie adjacent or contiguous thereto. 5. That attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit "A" is a true, correct, and complete copy of the excerpt pages from the Trust, confirming the name of the Trustee and her authorization to dispose of the Property. 6. Affiant further states that he/she is familiar with the nature of an oath and the penalties provided by the State of Florida for falsely swearing to statements made in an instrument of this nature. Affiant further certifies that he/she has read or has had read to him/her the full facts of this Affidavit and understands its contents. 9.A.3.e Ln M Q of Q Packet Pg. 428 9.A.3.e OR 4744 PG 3043 This affidavit is given for the purpose of clearing any possible question or objection to the title to the above referenced property and, for the purpose of inducing Marin, Eljaiek & Lopez, P.L and Fidelity National Title Insurance Company to issue title insurance on the subject property, with the knowledge that said title companies are relying upon the statements set forth herein. Seller hereby holds Marin, Eljalek & Lopez, P.L and Fidelity National Title Insurance Company harmless and fully indemnities same (including but not limited to attorneys' fees, whether suit be brought or not, and at trial and all appellate levels, and court costs and other litigation expenses) with respect to the matters set forth herein. "Affiant", "Seller" and "Buyer" include singular or plural as context so requires or admits. Seller further states that he/she is familiar with the nature of an oath and with the penalties as provided by the laws of the United States and the State of Florida for falsely swearing to statements made in an instrument of this nature. Seller further certifies that he/she has read, or heard read, the full facts of this Affidavit and understands its context. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit and that the facts stated in it are true. co Ln i� Ri and J. S inle , Successor/Trustee 0 State of 0.r &that County of MDt The foregoing instrument was s 0 subscribed before a ay of November, 2011 by Richard J. Steinlen, as Successor rustee, under the Em Inlen Irrevocable Tr a gr ment dated July 17, 1998, who L] is personally • known or has produced a driver's lic icatio V [Notary Seal] Notary Public �LLE� Printed Name: (i,�iG�teiiC �e- N1Xur Publlc A-k� (I 20 t5 lilontpptnuy co" My Commission Expires: -d 101"Ind M ComNs:ion Facpir$ 17 2015 Q Packet Pg. 429 OR 4744 PG 3044 11/18/2011 07:41 FAX 2029669012 PHILIPS&STEINLEN X002 EMMA M. STEINLEN REVOCABLE TRUST AGREEMENT THIS TRUST AGREEMENT entered into on this /7 day of u� 19, by and between EMMA M. STEINLEN, as GRANTOR and EMMA M. STEINLEN, as TRUSTEE. - WITNESSETH: That the GRANTOR has this day delivered to the TRUSTEE one hundred dollars ($100.00_and the TRUSTEE agrees to hold, ` '- administer and distra � foresaid assets (together .� with all addition Preto and all e vestments thereof) as the corpus of a r st�a�te,{ fo the b nefit of the. GRANTOR in accordance wi h h e�Cm$ n s ons herein set out 'the �� GRANTOR intendin C. y► u NTOR'S lifetime, to create a Grantor T I - LE I - F'ID ES As set forth inthlA eement, the term "TRUSTEE" shall include and apply to the TRUSTEE or TRUSTEES, as the case may be, and to their successors as set forth herein in this Trust Agreement. ARTICLE II - GRANTORS As set forth in this Trixst Agreement, the term "GRANTOR" v shall include and applyito the GRANTOR or GRANTORSr as the case may bei as set forth therein. 1 EXHIBIT `A !! 9.A.3.e Ln ti Q Packet Pg. 430 OR 4744 PG 3045 11/13/2011 07:42 FAX 2029663012 PHILIPS&STEINLEN X1011 ARTICLE VI --TRUSTEE POWERS ThE GRANTOR hereby grants to the TRUSTEE the continuing, absolute, discretionary power to deal with any property, real or personal, held in Trust, as freely as the GRANTOR might in handling the GRANTOR's own affairs. Such power may be exercised independently and without the prior or subsequent approval of any court or judicial authority, and no person dealing with the TRUSTEE shall be re ed.,,to inquire into the propriety of any of its ac � qt �� an way limiting t Y Y m ing the generality of the f egoing,' the GR mO hereby grants to the TRUSTEE hereunde , he fo 'n ec" is powers and authority in addition to nd of i0s i n o powers conferred by C� F-4law, and the stat of the Stat of FY'�r a; A. To compr e, settle o any claim or demand by or against the state o agree to any recision or modification of any con �f� agreement. B. To retain any security or other property owned by the GRANTOR at the time of the GRANTOR'S death, so long as such retention appears advisable, and to exchange any security or property for other securities or properties and to retain such items received in exchange. C. To sell, exchange, assign, transfer and convey any securities or properties, real or personal, held in the GRANTOR'S Trust Estate, at public or private sale, at such time and price and upon such terms and conditions as it may' determine, and to register and carry any property in its own name but without thereby increasing or decreasing its liability as fiduciary. 4 9.A.3.e R 0114 Ln ti Q Packet Pg. 431 OR 4744 PG 3046 11/18/2011 07:42 FAX 2029689012 PHILIPS&STEINLEN U009 ARTICLE'IX - AMENDMENT OR REVOCATION The GRANTOR expressly reserves the right at any time or from time to time during the GRANTOR'S life by a notice in writing signed and acknowledged by the GRANTOR in the manner required by the Laws of the State of Florida for the recording of a deed of real property and filed with the TRUSTEE, to withdraw all or part of the principal free and discharged of the terms and conditions of this Trust Agreement, and of the Trusts hereby created x � v� nd amend this Agreement, and to alter and te37fix to the Trusts re'y created. This agreem nt a 1 a n d a d regulated in all respects by the La h a f The TRUSTEE h � accepts th r reby created. ART C I - :,UCC RUST in the event of n,. disability or death of the GRANTOR, GRANTOR hereby nominates, constitutes and appoints as SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE the first in the order named who is able and willing to serve of the following: first, the GRANTOR'S son R CHID J. STEINLEN a£ Rockville, Marylari , second, the GRANTOR'S daughter, JANE M. STEINLEN of Tampa, Florida, and third, the GRANTOR'S son, MICHAEL G. STEINLEN of Dunnellon, Florida. 10 9.A.3.e Ln ti M Q 07 Q Packet Pg. 432 OR 4744 PG 3047 11/18/2011 07:44 FAX 2029660012 PHILIPS&STEINLEN 2022 IN' WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunder set their hands and seals this �-(� day of 9vA4 , signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: EAz, ) (WI ESS) EMMA M. STEINLEN (GRANTOR) Sa.gr►ed, sealed, puclvji�Y.�cYeelared by the above, named GRANTOR, EKKA. M. STEINLEN, as and for her Trust Agreement, and we after she. signed her name thereto, in our presence, at her request and in the presence of each other, have affixed our names as witnesses on this ! 7fk day of , 19 `?$ 20 9.A.3.e Ln ti Q Packet Pg. 433 *** OR 4744 PG 3048 *** 11/18/2011 07:42 FAX 2029889012 Ak*Ai ccen Cc-wvx\vN PHILIPS&S1'EINLEN 1 1 (CITY, STAT ) {wITNES (CITY, S T STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH on the (7i before me person known to be the same or who pro who executed the 21014 My Commission Expires: OFFICLALNCTARY SEAL GREGG G HECKLEY VOTARY PUBLIC SPATE OF FLORIDA "COMM IZION NO. CC59"S6 MYCOMMISSION FXP. NOV.21 21 9.A.3.e ti Q Packet Pg. 434 Prepared without opinion by: Mark J. Alderuccio 5425 Park Central Court Naples, Florida 34109 Return to: Mark J. Alderuccio 5425 Park Central Court Naples, FL 34109 Grantee #1 S. S. No. Grantee #2 S. S. No. Property Appraiser's Parcel Identification/Folio No. 00150280000 W (STAT] This Indenture, made thi and SUSAN B. SOMME SOMMERVILLE, TRUSE Fl DATED 4/26/2004, (with fu lease. convey, grant, encurn otherwise to herein) , whose residence a d dress is 1 GRANTEE'S*, 3504559 OR: 3675 PG; 1026 11COIDID iD 011ICIAL 11C01DS of COLLIII COOMTT, TL 11/01/2004 at 02:46PI DRUT 1. BROCL, CLII[ He 111 16.50 DOC -.70 .70 1etD: IA11 J AU110CCID 5415 PARI CIRIAL CT LAMS IL 34109 EED W.02,F.S.) BARD A. SOMMERVILLE esidence and address is 3580 and RICHARD ALAN SOMMERVILLE TRUST tee to protect, conserve, sell, of the real property described Witnesseth that said Grantor, for 'ak0%�bh, t, Of the sum of TEN Dollars, and other good and valuable considerations to said grantor in hand paid by said grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold to the said Grantee, and Grantee's heirs and assigns forever, in fee simple, the following described land, situate, lying andbeing in Collier County, Florida, to -wit: Northwest one-quarter(NW1/4) of the Northeast one -quaver (NEI/4) of the Northwest one-quarter (NW 1/4) of the Northeast one-quarter (NE1/4) of Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Grantor states that the above described property is not their homestead, nor the homestead of their spouses, nor the homestead of any of their children, nor is the property contiguous thereto and Grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against Iawful claims of all persons whomsoever. Grantor states above described property is vacant land. **"Grantor" and "Grantee" are used for singular or plural, as context requires. 9.A.3.e Ln ti M d rn a Packet Pg. 435 9.A.3.e *** OR: 3675 PG: 1027 *** In Witness Whereof, Grantor has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written, Signed, sealed, and delivered in our presence: Witness as to bdth printed name: Az - - a i Witness as printed name: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER THE FOREGOING INS] 2004 by RICHARD A. S known to me or who has identification. RICHARD A. SOMMERVILLE, % � �y�y"� e � o/ggy�' /fin//l7 SUSAN B. SOMMERVILLE this ay of October, RVILLE, who is personally as J-alP(ncfz2J M-ary Public My commission expires: �a`�PY•p �B<% DIANE SALVATORE * MY COMMISSION $ DD 166789 EXPIRES: December 17, 2006 U�1711 101 emd&dNuBWgMN%aryScrOms M d Packet Pg. 436 INSTR 4824667 OR 4908 PG 204 RECORDED 4/15/2013 11:11 AM PAGES 2 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT CQYRT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $0.70 REC $18.50 A, . Return Address: Codd Law Offices 15401 First Ave. South, #A Seattle, WA 98148 QUIT MUN DEED THE GRANTOR, DENNIS G. BAAR, a Trustor of the Revocable Living Trust off, Agreement dated ASMARCH am consideration - transfer in ownership identity - �ys and `q as Trustee of the Rev e Living Trust his interest in the 01. �scri d Collier County, Flor d 1 The Southeast q atO-J t Northwest quarter t e�J r h quarter of the Nort 'ua e Northeast quarter, on 13, Towns Collier County, Flor The above describ erty is not encumbered. This de 4 ane transfer to revocable livin ,� s single person and Dennis G. Baar, under the consideration of no ng Trust and mere change 'ms to DENNIS G. BAAR, ennis G. Baar, all of e 1 roperty situate in fea�as tquarter of the AND the Southwest 7 tquarter, of the 8 h, Range 25 East of � 4 ntor's homestead and e in ownership via a ere is no consideration. Together with all the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances belonging or in any way appertaining to it, and all the right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever which grantor has in and to the property. Property,Appraisers ted this ,a6Ti.day of Witness 41 gnature Print ed.4am J. Codd Rzn-st-ss $'L signature Printed name: W. Tracy Codd Quit Claim Deed Page 1 of 2 Parcel ID # 00148280009. M� KC= -N ,. 2013. DENNIS G. BAAR, Trustor. 9.A.3.e Ln ti M Q rn Q Packet Pg. 437 *** OR 4908 PG 205 *** STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. County of King } I, Julie M. Codd, Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, do hereby certify that on this a�_ day of iyl2013, personally appeared before me DENNIS G. BAAR, to me knowh to be the individual described in and who executed the within instrument and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes herein mentioned. GI EN UNDER MY HAND AN O�EFFICIAL SEAL this -� day of Quit Claim Deed Page 2 of 2 9.A.3.e ti Q Packet Pg. 438 PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES' DEED This indenture made this ay of November, 2005, BETWEEN Doreen L. Parrish and Dennis G. Baur, as Personal Representative of the Estate of George Bear, deceased, referred to below as "Grantor," and Doreen L Parrish, a married woman, whose postal address is P.O. 240602, Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 and Dennis G. Baur, an unmarried man, as tenants in common, whose postal address is P.O. Box 933, Seahurst, Washington 98062, referred to below as "Grantee," (wherever used here, the singular shall include the plural and gender shall include vcuGne, fentts»ine, and neuter as the context requires) 3774823 OR: 3972 PG: 2069 RICORDID in 011ICIAL RI CORDS of Ct1111IR COURT, 1L 01/2112006 at 10:56AK D11&Hf 1. 110CI, CLIRI RIC 116 IBM DOC -.10 t0 ROM SIISIi PILON IT AL 1000 1AKIAKI !R 11201 HAMS 1L 11102 trta AFAR 43 WITNESSE M: 'nut the Gnutkw, acting under authority granted in an order entered in the Estate of Georg 4kov, deceased, Case No. 05 -CP -463, Probate Division, Circuit Court for Lee Canty, Florida, dated January 27, 2005, and in consideration of the premises for and in consideration ofthe stmt ofTEN DOLLARS AND NU 100, plus odx r good and valuable cmWkrstieo, to it in hand paid by the Grantee, the reoeipt whereof is bereby aciatowlodged, has granted, bargunod and sold to the G►anfoe, its sumessm and assigns forever, the follawing described land situate, lying and being in the County of Collier end the State of Florida, to -wit: The Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter, AND the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter, Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East of Collier County Florida. Subject to easements, restrictions, reservations of record common to the subdivision and taxes for the current year and subsequent years. The above described property is not to the beneficiaries named under th Property Appraisers Parcel Together with all the tenements, all the right, title, interest, claim IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: wtno"M Suture' Print name - ttness g2 Signature Print name LWch. G Whssrvi Witne. #2 Signature Print names�� Personal Rep Deed M 00148280009 Page 1 of 2 encumbered. This deed is from theEstate IGear¢e Baer for minimal consideration. or in anyway appertaining to it, and and to the property. the day and year above written. DoreenL. Parrish, mbercepaaty as UO-Ve Representative, GRANTOR M'a noi[�ttrnNlvc•rA . CZ -11- —'- lb Dennis G. Baar, in his capacity as Co -Personal Representative, GRANTOR 9.A.3.e Q Packet Pg. 439 *** OR. 3972 FG; 2070 *** STATE OF IARQ SOITA COUNTY OF DAKOTA IHEREBYCERT1FYtitatondWdnybeforeme moffwadulyqualiGodtotekoaclmowledlPnaNapasmellY�pamdDOKP IL.PARRISH tome known to be the prison described in and wbo acoauted the fix egos* matmaent or who has produced as idwti6cstiom and who aclmowledsod W= me that she mooted the same. WffNESS ray hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid tbis RE x- day of n/.' &,ex , 2005. (SEAL) r { hint.– int NGY►itlfl{lRIC-STA . Pant. 49�r/�.4J" v`"r_i�✓_G.'V ... _ W GMti t� 34 2910, My Cammieain Cxpasa; STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNIY OF KING 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that on Ibis day before me, an offiw duly qualified to take acknowledgments, pmonelly appeared DENNIS G. BAAR, tome mown to be the pervan described in" who cwmded the foregoing inaturnent w+ufiobvrPmdmxd is 1541 n 40 A§ � void—t; catiewr]n r orad who aawiodged before the that he exeeu>ed the satno, W IHSS my hand and official aml in the (SEAL) Prepared Without Opinion By, PATRICIA I POTTER, M. 1000 N. Tamian i Trail N., Suite 201 Naples, FL 34102 (239) 263-8282 Personal Rep Deed ID 00148280009 Page 2 of 2 �vfO ,663. yt4 t •S Ola 9.A.3.e M d J _ CD E t V m r Q Packet Pg. 440 9.A.3.e Attachment "B" Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Justification & Summary of Supporting Data and Analysis Current FLUE Designation: The proposed Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict is 35.57± acres in size. The proposed Subdistrict is designated Urban, and located within the Urban Mixed Use District and the Urban Residential Subdistrict. The Collier County Future Land Use Element reads as follows (highlighting added for emphasis): Urban designated areas will accommodate the following uses: (IV) a. Residential uses including y single family, multi family, duplex, and mobile home. The maximum densities allowed are c' identified in the Districts, Subdistricts and Overlays that follow, except as allowed by certain policies under Objective 5. Ln The "Urban Mixed Use District This District, which represents approximately 116, 000 acres, is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses, including mixed- use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. o The purpose of this [Urban Residential] Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. This Subdistrict comprises approximately 93,000 acres and 80% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Maximum eligible residential density shall be determined through the Density Rating System but shall not exceed 16 dwelling units per acre except in accordance with the Transfer of Development Rights Section of the Land Development Code. Proposed Designation: The proposed 35.57 acre Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict includes the 15.38 acre Della Rosa PUD as well as 20.19 acres of adjacent A - Agriculture zoned lands. The proposed Subdistrict, if approved, will be rezoned under the companion Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) petition - All -Lira RPUD. The proposed Subdistrict allows for up to > 420 residential multi -family dwelling units (DUs) which is 12 units per gross acre. J cli Q Consistency with FLUE Objective 5: m Implement land use policies that promote sound planning, protect environmentally sensitive lands and habitat for listed species while protecting private property rights, ensure compatibility of land uses and further the implementation of the Future Land Use Element. W E 1 Q H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubnuttal\Attaclnnent B Justification and Supplemental Information (revised 5-24-2018).doex Packet Pg. 441 9.A.3.e Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Justification & Supplemental Information, Continued Policy 5.2: Land use policies supporting Objective S shall continue to be implemented upon the adoption of amendments to the Growth Management Plan. Policy 5.3: All rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. Policy 5.4: All applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with this Growth Management Plan, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. The companion RPUD can be deemed to be consistent with all applicable Goals, Objective, and Policies of the GMP, assuming the amendment establishing the Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict is adopted. Policy 5.5: Discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl in order to minimize the cost of community facilities by: confining urban intensity development to areas designated as Urban on the Future Land Use Map .... The Subdistrict is located with the Counties Urban designated area and within a designated J TCMA. Consistency with the Policies under Objective 6 of the FLUE discourages urban sprawl. LO Policy 5.6.• New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code. The RPUD and LDC include development and design standards that ensure that development within the PUD will be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding area. Site Environmental Considerations: As part of the supporting data and analysis for this GMPA to establish the Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict, we have provided a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment with companion PUDZ petition, as well as Exhibits C, C-1 and C-2 addressing listed plants and species. The site contains 33.49 acres of native vegetation (by Collier County definition). Therefore a minimum of 8.37 acres of native vegetation must be retained (25% of the existing native vegetation on site). The PUD proposes to retain 14.76 acres (44% of existing native on-site vegetation).The jur4isdicational wetland impacts as well as any potential impacts to listed species or listed species habitat are addressed through the state and/or federal agency review and/or permitting processes. Transportation/Traffic Considerations: The Subdistrict is located at the south east intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans M Memorial Dive East. The roadways are presently operating at acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) and with the proposed maximum density of 12 units per acre (420 units), these roadways still operate at an acceptable level of services (see Transportation Analysis). J C Page 2 of 6 E H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubmittal\Attachment B Justification and Supplemental Information (revised 5-24-2018).doex V R El Packet Pg. 442 9.A.3.e Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Justification & Supplemental Information, Continued The Subdistrict is also located with a TCMA (established by Collier County pursuant to FLUE Objective 6.) The Subdistrict requires that the property be rezoned to an RPUD and that the RPUD demonstrate consistency with the applicable Policies under Objective 6 for consistency with TCMA objectives. FLUE Objective 6: Designate Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) as geographically compact areas where intensive development exists, or such development is planned Policy 6.1: New development within a TCMA shall occur in a manner that will ensure an adequate level of mobility (as defined in Policy 5.8 of the Transportation Element) and further > c the achievement of the following identified important state planning goals and policies: discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl, protecting natural resources, protecting historic resources, maximizing the efficient use of existing public facilities, and promoting public transit, '— J bicycling, walking and other alternatives to the single occupant automobile. Transportation Element Policy 5.8 Should the TIS for a proposed development reflect that it will impact either a constrained roadway link and/or a deficient roadway link within a TCMA as determined in the most current Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), by more than a de minimis amount (more than 1 of the maximum service volume at the adopted LOS), yet continue to maintain the established percentage of lanes miles indicated in Policy 5.7 of this Element, a proportionate share congestion mitigation payment shall be required as follows: a. Congestion mitigation payments shall be calculated using the formula established in Section 163.3180(5)(h), Florida Statutes. The facility cost for a constrained roadway link to shall be established using a typical lane mile cost, as determined by the Collier County Transportation Administrator, of adding lanes to a similar area/facility type as the r constrained facility. j b. Congestion mitigation payments shall be utilized by Collier County to add trip capacity within the impacted MIA, road segments) and/or to enhance mass transit or other non- c automotive transportation alternatives, which adds trip capacity within the impact fee ° district or adjoining impact fee district. °1 c C. Congestion mitigation payments under this Policy shall be determined subsequent to a finding of concurrency for a proposed project within a TCMA and shall not influence the M concurrency determination process. d d. No impact will be de minimis if it exceeds the adopted LOS standard of any affected designated hurricane evacuation routes within a TCMA. Hurricane routes in Collier County are shown on Map TR -7. Any impact to a hurricane evacuation route within a c TCMA shall require a proportionate share congestion mitigation payment provided the remaining LOS requirements of the TCMA are maintained. a� Page 3 of 6 H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubmittal\Attachment B Justification and Supplemental Information (revised 5-24-2018).doex a Packet Pg. 443 9.A.3.e Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Justification & Supplemental Information, Continued Please refer to the traffic analysis proved with this GMPA application and the companion RPUD application. Additionally, pursuant to staff comment, we have agreed to a fair share payment as to mitigate for the project related impacts to Immokalee Road between US 41 and Livingston Road. Policy 6.3: Collier County's designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) shall discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl by promoting residential and commercial infill development and by promoting redevelopment of areas wherein current zoning was approved prior to the establishment of this Growth Management Plan (January 10, 1989). Infill development and redevelopment within the TCA,1As shall be consistent with Objective S, and relevant subsequent policies, of this Element. The proposed Subdistrict and Companion RPUD are consistent with this Policy. Policy 6.5: In order to be exempt from link specific concurrency, new residential development or J redevelopment within Collier County's designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) shall utilize at least two of the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, as may be applicable: a) Including neighborhood commercial uses within a residential project. b) Providing transit shelters within the development (must be coordinated with Collier County Transit). c) Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connections to abutting commercial properties. d) Providing vehicular access to abutting commercial properties. The Subdistrict requires (and the companion RPUD provides) a minimum of two of the above TDM Strategies (specifically b) and c)). Policy 6.6: All rezoning within the Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) is encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Any development contained in a TCMA, whether submitted as a PUD or non -PUD rezone shall be required to be consistent with the native vegetation preservation requirements contained within Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. There is a companion RPUD submitted with this GMPA. Policy 6.7: All new development, infill development or redevelopment within a Transportation M Concurrency Management Area is subject to the historical and archaeological preservation 0Q,• criteria, as contained in Objective 11.1 and Policies 11.1.1 through 11.1.3 of the Conservation !3 and Coastal Management Element. J There are no known historical and archaeological resources located within the Subdistrict.; m Page 4 of 6 E H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubmittal\Attachment B Justification and Supplemental Information (revised 5-24-2018).docx r Q Packet Pg. 444 9.A.3.e Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Justification & Supplemental Information, Continued Other Public Facility and Service Considerations: The county charges impact fees (or similar fees) to ensure that there is funding to make any necessary capacity improvements related to sewer and water services, roads, public schools, government buildings including jails, regional and community parks, EMS, libraries, and law enforcement. The developer will be responsible for the cost of any site -related improvements, including but not limited to access improvements and conveyance related improvements to the water and/or sewer distribution system. The proposed density of 12 units per acre (420 total units) does not cause any Category "A" The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. public facility or service to fall below the adopted Level of Service (LOS). Therefore, the c. proposed Livingston RoadNeteran's Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict may be > found to be consistent with the County Growth Management Plan. There will be a requirement to 0 demonstrate "Concurrency" at the time of Site Development Plan approval for this project. (The e. Concurrency process ensures that the County has the capacity for Category "A" public facilities and services at the time that project related impacts will actually affect (require) such services nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. and facilities. Category A public facilities are facilities which appear in the various elements of f. the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP), including arterial and collector roads, LO surface water management systems, potable water systems, sanitary sewer systems, solid waste The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and disposal facilities, and parks and recreation facilities. Consistency with Florida Statutes relating to Plan Amendments, Chapters 163.3167(9), 163.3177 (6)(a) 2 and 8, and 163.3184. 163.3167(9) - Each local government shall address in its comprehensive plan, as enumerated in this chapter, the water supply sources necessary to meet and achieve the existing and projected water use demand for the established planning period, considering the applicable plan developed pursuant to s. 373.709. 163.3177 (6)(a)2- The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. o d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. a, e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. a g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and a; consistent with s. 333.02. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen u and diversify the community's economy. Page 5 of 6 a� E H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubmittal\Attachment B Justification and Supplemental Information (revised 5-24-2018).docx a Packet Pg. 445 9.A.3.e Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Justification & Supplemental Information, Continued j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. 163.3177 (6)(a) 8. -Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. 163.3184. - Process for adoption of comprehensive plan or plan amendment. The proposed GMPA is consistent with the intent and procedural and substantive requirements LO set forth in the Florida Statutes referenced above. ti In addition to this narrative report, we have provided other documents which collectively constitute sufficient data and analysis to reach that conclusion. In conclusion: • The proposed subdistrict is located within the County's Urban Area. ' • There are adequate public facilities to serve the proposed residential density. • The subdistrict is located within a designated TCMA and although that is not the basis for E the request to create the subdistrict we have, nevertheless, agreed to incorporate two of the four traffic congestion management techniques which are identified in FLUE Policy 6.5. (D • The market analysis we provided and the 'recent housing studies completed by Collier County and the Urban Land Institute all indicate the need for additional rental housing necessary to meet the current and foreseeable demand. • The Companion RPUD provides for substantial onsite wetland preservation and provides o for site design elements that collectively ensure the project's compatibility with uses on lands adjacent and in closely proximity. • The project complies with applicable statutory provisions and meets the statutory and County requirements sufficiently to warrant approval. a Oi a� c J C Page 6 of 6 E H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubmittal\Attachment B Justification and Supplemental Information (revised 5-24-2018).docx El Packet Pg. 446 9.A.3.e ATTACHMENT "C" This record search is for informational purposes only and does NOT constitute a dh project review. This search only identifies resources recorded at the Florida Master low Site File and does NOT provide project approval from the Division of Historical Resources. Contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850-245-6333 for project review information. January 16, 2018 -Florida Master @R'I XBENDER Site EM RONM£NTiiL CONSUITlNG File Craig M. Smith, M.S., P.W.S. Senior Ecologist 4470 Camino Real Way, Suite 101 Fort Myers, FL 33966 Office: (239)334-3680; Cell: (239)470-2812 E-mail: csmithkdexbender.com In response to your inquiry of January12, 2018 the Florida Master Site File lists no archeological sites and no other cultural resources found the designated parcel of Collier County, Florida ti Sections 12 and 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East as submitted with search request. When interpreting the results of this search, please consider the following information: • This search area may contain unrecorded archaeological sites, historical structures or other resources even if previously surveyed for cultural resources. • Federal, state and local laws require formal environmental review for most projects. This search DOES NOT constitute such a review. If your project falls under these laws, you should contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850-245-6333. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding the results of this search. Sincerely, 0 N a� E 2 J Eman M. Vovsi, Ph.D. a Data Base Analyst o� Florida Master Site File Eman.Vovsi&DOS.MyFlorida.com Y c J 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 www.flheritage.com/preservation/sitefile Q 850.245.6440 ph 1 850.245.6439 fax SiteFile@dos. state.fl.us Packet Pg. 447 I An 9.A.3.e ob" r , � ---jai i Q Packet Pg. 448 9.A.3.e APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION NUMBER DATE RECEIVED PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE DATE SUFFICIENT This application, with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Comprehensive Planning Department, Suite 400, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. 239-252-2400 (Fax 239-252-2946). The application must be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing deadline before it will be processed and advertised for public hearing, The applicant will be notified in writing, of the sufficiency determination. If insufficient, the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the application, see Resolution 97-431 as amended by Resolution 98-18 (both attached). If you have any questions, please contact the Comprehensive Planning Section at 239-252-2400. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Name of Applicant Keith Gelder President Company SD Livingston, LLC "' ti Address 2639 Professional Circle #10 1 City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34119 0 Phone Number 239-592-7344 Fax Number 239-592-7541 c B. Name of Agent * Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, VP, Planning & Business Development o N • THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. a Company Hole Montes, Inc. Address 950 Encore Wav___ _ City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34110 Phone Number 239-254-2000 Fax Number 239-254-2099 Name of Agent * Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Company Coleman Yovanovich & Koester P.A. Address 4001 Tamiami Trail North Suite 300 City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34103 Phone Number 239-435-3535 Fax Number 239-435-1218 C. Name of Owner (s) of Record See Attachment "A" Warranty Deeds C.,; Address q rn City State Zip Code Phone Number Fax Number J_ D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. E i H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubmittal\GMPA Application (revised 5-16-2018).doc Q Packet Pg. 449 9.A.3.e D. Continued. Ted Treesh, P.E. TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2726 Oak Ridge Court, Ste, 503, Fort Myers, FL 33901 Telephone: 239-278-3090 Email: tbt@trtrans.net Craig M. Smith, M.S., P.W.S., Senior Ecologist DexBender Environmental Consulting 4470 Camino Real Way, Ste, 101, Fort Myers, FL 33966 Telephone: 239-334-3680 Email: csmith@dexbender.com Kristina M. Johnson, P.E. J.R. Evans Engineering, P.A. 9351 Corkscrew Road, Ste. 102, Estero, FL 33928 Telephone: 239-405-9148 Email: KJohnson@jreeng.com II. Disclosure of Interest Information: A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, Tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership T 0 N J B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the a i percentage of stock owned by each. L 0 Name and Address Percentage of Stock aEi y C R i C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. c Name and Address Percentage of Interest ° a� c J D. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the a as general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership c 2 H:\2017\2017092\WP\G MPA\Rcsubmittal\GMPA Application (revised 5-16-2018).aoc Q Packet Pg. 450771 If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership SD Livingston LLC 2639 Professional Circle #101 Naples FL 34119 Brian K. Stock Mana er 100% Date of Contract: F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address G. Date subject property acquired () leased (): Term of lease yrs./mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option terminates: or anticipated closing: H. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Attachment "A" Warranty Deeds B. GENERAL LOCATION Southeast corner of the intersection of Livinaston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard C. PLANNING COMMUNITY North Naples E. SIZE IN ACRES 35.57 D. TAZ 85 F. ZONING PUD & AG G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN See Exhibit "V B 1" Future Land Use Map H. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S) Urban Mixed Use District Urban Residential Subdistrict IV. TYPE OF REQUEST: A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT (S) TO BE AMENDED: Housing Element Recreation/Open Space Traffic Circulation Sub -Element Mass Transit Sub -Element Aviation Sub -Element Potable Water Sub -Element Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element NGWAR Sub -Element Solid Waste Sub -Element Drainage Sub -Element Capital Improvement Element CCME Element X Future Land Use Element Golden Gate Master Plan Immokalee Master Plan 3 H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubmittal\GMPA Application (revised 5-16-2018).doc 9.A.3.e LO ti M d of Packet Pg. 451771 B. AMEND PAGE (S) j9j, [471, f 1451 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AS FOLLOWS: (Use S#il#larsu 1 -to identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: See Exhibit "IV.B.1" C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM Urban Residential Subdistrict TO Livingston Road Veterans Memorial East Residential Subdistrict D, AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #) FLUM; Exhibit "IV.D. 1 " E. DESCRIBE ADDITIONAL CHANGES REQUESTED: N/A V. REQUIRED INFORMATION: NOTE: ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN I"=400'. At least one copy reduced to 8- 1/2 x 11 shall be provided of all aerials and/or maps. A. LAND USE Exh. V.A.1 Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI's, existing zoning) with subject property outlined. Exh. V.A.2 Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source, and date. Exh. V.A.3 Provide a map and summary table of existing land use and zoning within a radius of 300 feet from boundaries of subject property. B. FUTURE LAND USE AND DESIGNATION Exh. V.B.1 Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designation(s) of subject property and adjacent lands, with acreage totals for each land use designation on the subject property. C. ENVIRONMENTAL Exh. V.0 Provide most recent aerial and summary table of acreage of native & V.C.1 habitats and soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT-FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE: THIS MAY BE INDICATED ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN "A" ABOVE. Exh. V.C.2 Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish & Wildlife Service) and State (Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission) listed plant and animal species known to occur on the site and/or known to inhabit biological communities similar to the site (e.g. panther or black bear range, avian rookery, bird migratory route, etc.),Identify historic and/or archaeological sites on the subject property. 4 H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubmittal\GMPA Application (revised 5-16-2018).doc 9.A.3.e LO r` Packet Pg. 452 D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference 9J-11.006, F.A.C. and Collier County's Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.1.2 (Copies attached). 1. INSERT "Y" FOR YES OR "N" FOR NO IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING: N Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State Concern? (Reference 9J -11.006(1)(a)(5), F.A.C.). IF so, identify area located in ACSC. N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S. ? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7.a, F.A.C.) N is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1) (c), F.S. ? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7.b, F.A.C.) N Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined _as a potential increase in County -wide population by more than 5% of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. Y Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district identified (commercial, industrial, etc.) or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district? (Reference Rule 9J-5.006(5) F.A.C.). If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use, and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. (Reference Rule 9J-11.007, F.A.C.) See Attachment "B", Exhibits "V.C.1 ", Exhibit "V.D.1 " and Exhibit "V.E.3" E. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. Exh. V.E-1 Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: Exh. V.E.1 Potable Water Exh. V.E.1 Sanitary Sewer Exh. V.E.3 Arterial & Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS Exh. V.E.1 Drainage Exh. V.E.1 Solid Waste Exh. V.E.1 Parks: Community and Regional If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an increase in intensity for commercial and/or industrial development that would cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. (Reference Capital Improvement Element Objective 1 and Policies) 2. Exh. V.E.2 Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public facilities that will serve the subject property (i.e. water, sewer, fire protection, police protection, schools and emergency medical services. 3. Exh. V.E.1 Document proposed services and public facilities, identify provider, and describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools, fire protection and emergency medical services. 5 H;\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubmittal\GMPA Application (revised 5-16-2018).doc 9.A.3.e M d Packet Pg. 453 9.A.3.e F. OTHER Identify the following areas relating to the subject property: Exh.V.F.I Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM). Location of wellfields and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps) iN/A Traffic Congestion Boundary, if applicable Coastal Management Boundary, if applicable High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if applicable (identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Yes $16,700.00 non-refundable filing fee made payable to the Board of County E Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) N/A $9,000.00 non-refundable filing fee for a Small Scale Amendment made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) $ Yes Proof of ownership (copy of deed) Yes Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form) Yes 1 Original and 5 complete, signed applications with all attachments including maps, at time of submittal. After sufficiency is completed, 25 copies of the complete application will be required. 'n ti * Maps shall include: North arrow, name and location of principal roadways and shall be o, at a scale of 1 "=400' or at a scale as determined during the pre -application meeting. M Q CD Y C J r+ C d E t V R 6 H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubmittal\GMPA Application (revised 5-16-2018).doc Q Packet Pg. 454 9.A.3.e AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION Allura PUD (PL -20170004385) FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) _ _ Livingston Rd. /veterans Memorial Blvd. N. Residential Subdistrict GMPA i, BRIANK.erocK (print name), as MOR (title, IfPL-20170009919) applicable) of Bo uVINOBTON, LLC (company, If applicable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner applicant=contract purchaser and that: ' 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to Impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2, All answers to the questions In this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3: 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. t), Well authorize ROBERT J.MULHERE,FAICPBRICHARD YOVANOVICH,ESQUIRE to act as our/my representative In any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. "Motes: • If the applicant Is a corporation, then It Is usually executed by the corp. pres. or v. pros. • if the applicant Is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." • if the applicant Is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • if the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be Identified as the "general partner" of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust, then they -must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee' • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., Individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that i have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated ini re true. Signat BRIAN K. STO K, MGR ure Date SD LIVINGSTON, LLC STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The f agoing Instru Met w sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me on �i O©lo (date) by r� �C! /YO �� 'h) (name of person providingpeth or affirmation), as who Is personally known to_^m"r who has produced (type of identification) as identification. I S f ♦ � STAMPISEAL o�i;µYN�o,o JUDITH M SEALE Notary Public - state of Florida _• : : •= Commission # GG 027265 My Comm. Expires Sep 26, 2020 F °p� Bonded through National Notary Assn. CP\08-C0A-0011S1155 REV 3/24/14 J Packet Pg. 455 9.A.3.e LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I hereby authorize Robert J, Where, FAICP, Vice President Planning and Business Development, Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard Yovanovich,Esquire, Colegmgn Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. to serve as my Agents in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property identified In this Application. A�— Signed; 2, ,�, Date; Brian K. Stoc , Manager SD Livingston, LLC (Name of Contract Purchasers) I hereby certify that I have the authority to make the foregoing application, and that the application is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge. S'nature of pplicant/Contract Purchaser Brian K. Stock, Manager SD Livingston, LLC r` STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER �) Sworn to and subscribed before me this X day of 2018 JUDITH M SEALE by MY CO E�IREBrvblic • Slate of Florida taryPublic �'(i A. 60P L ► Commission # GG 027265 F MY Comm; Expires Sep 28, 2020 Bonded through National Notary Assn, CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING; who is personally known to me, who has produced as identification and did take an Oath did not take and Oath NOTICE - BE AWARE THAT; Florida Statute Section 837,06 - False Official Law states that; J "Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the Intent to mislead a public servant In Vi the performance of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable a as provided by a fine to a maximum of %500,00 and/or maximum of a sixty day Jall term," °' r Y J C E 7 V R a Packet Pg. 456 LIVINGSTON ROAD — VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT GMPA APPLICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS • Exhibit "IV.B.1" — Proposed GMPA Amendment Language • Exhibit "IV.D.1" — Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Map • Exhibit "V.A.1" — Generalized Location Map • Exhibit "V.A.2" — Aerial Overlay • Exhibit "V.A.3" — Zoning Map • Exhibit "V.B.1" — Future Land Use Map • Exhibit "V.C" — Vegetation Map • Exhibit "V.C.1" — Soils Map • Exhibit "V.C.2" — Listed Species Table • Exhibit "V.D" — Myers Research Needs Analysis • Exhibit "V.D.1" — Apartment Development Feasibility Study • Exhibit "V.E.1" — Public Facilities Report • Exhibit "V.E.2" — Public Service Facilities Map • Exhibit "V.E.3" — Traffic Impact Statement • Exhibit "V.F.1" — Firm Data Map 9.A.3.e M d J _ CD E t V M r Q H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubmittal\Table of Contents (5-24-2018).docx Packet Pg. 457 EXHIBIT "IV.B.l" PROPOSED GMPA AMENDMENT LANGUAGE Proposed amendment to the Collier County Future Land Use Element (FLUE) related to +/- 35 Acre Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict located within the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. Amend the FLUE SECTION II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY, POLICY 1.5, as follows: Policy 1.5: The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: A. URBAN - MIXED USE DISTRICT 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict 2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict *** *** *** *** ***text break*** *** *** *** *** 18. Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict 19. Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Amend the FLUE URBAN DESIGNATION, Subsection A. Urban Mixed Use District, Page 27, as follows: A. Urban — Mixed use District [beginning page 27] *** *** *** *** *** text break*** *** *** *** *** 19 Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict The Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict consists of 35.57+ acres and is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard The purpose of this Subdistrict is to allow for a multi -family development at a density of up to 12 units per acre and to fulfill the intent of the TCMA, as stated in FLUE Policy 6.1. Development in this Subdistrict shall be subject to the following: a The Subdistrict site shall be rezoned to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). b. Allowable uses are limited to multi -family rental dwellings. c The RPUD shall demonstrate consistency with FLUE Policy 6.5 by providing two of following: i. A transit shelter within the RPUD in a location and design approved by Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement (PTNE) Division; 1 H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\3rd Resubmittal\Exhibit Iv.B.I - Proposed GMPA Language (8-23-2018).docx 9.A.3.e i ti M d m J m E s V M Q Packet Pg. 458 9.A.3.e ii. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities with connection to the abutting commercial property to the west; and, iii. Vehicular interconnection to the abutting commercial property to the west. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Amend the FLUE FUTURE MAP SERIES, Page 145, as follows: FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES Future Land Use Map Activity Center Index Map Mixed Use & Interchange Activity Center Maps *** *** *** *** ***text break*** *** *** *** *** Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrrict Map Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Map _ 2 H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\3rd Resubmittal\Exhibit W.B. l - Proposed GMPA Language (8-23-2018).docx M d Q Packet Pg. 459 9.A.3.e LIMITS OF SUBJECT SITE w JL J C J 500 0 500 �® �a , N:M 7 950Eacoreway � Phone:(239)2502000 HOLE MONTES nood.CarBOcataol �gl yp� Authorlxadon No.177z EXHIBIT V.A.1 LOCATION MAP m° "'°" ° zon.o9z v a. 1 OF ° L PUD` ` U ° n �, SUBJECT SITE A r PROPOSED SUBDISTRIC —M 2017.092 An urcu R vcuu7A u� a O di TR G O_:.....-. LIMITS OF SUBJECT SITE w JL J C J 500 0 500 �® �a , N:M 7 950Eacoreway � Phone:(239)2502000 HOLE MONTES nood.CarBOcataol �gl yp� Authorlxadon No.177z EXHIBIT V.A.1 LOCATION MAP m° "'°" ° zon.o9z v a. 1 OF c o A r PROPOSED SUBDISTRIC —M 2017.092 An urcu R Packet Pg. 461 O_:.....-. cElEBartn couaT �� .. - � J L J G �EIERANS NEIOHIAI BWLEVARO VETQUNS MR°ORLLL BWIEVARD ......,.. ...... .... r 13 , 13 12 "' J al i PROJECT LOCATION MAP C I I NOT TO SCALE fC 'y L 0 41 QI E I A` C (� FRI eT RPUaD' i I,r d 1 K L J Is PARrFL 11 � I 1m I i s 1 I 0 jA" R� A' 1 C I M1 I � RPUD 1 RPUDMnT I � J RNr.[ LUK r , J , PUD" M ALPNY d "5 LIMITS OF SUBJECT SITE w JL J C J 500 0 500 �® LIVINGSTON ROAD - VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD.M.N.K.+ EAST SUBDISTRICT N:M 7 950Eacoreway � Phone:(239)2502000 HOLE MONTES nood.CarBOcataol �gl yp� Authorlxadon No.177z EXHIBIT V.A.1 LOCATION MAP m° "'°" ° zon.o9z v a. 1 OF o A ® —M 2017.092 An urcu R Packet Pg. 461 LIMITS OF SUBJECT SITE — — — DEPICTS INDIVIDUAL PARCEL BOUNDARIES LIViNGSTON 1 VETERANS MEMORIAL EAST ae,��cowna s+ne HOLE MON TES ua SUBDISTRICT N/A AS NOTFO 4 9.A.3.e O a� c J r LO r CD r O O O ti r O N J a i �L O E C4) G L d d C O N aI J M Q O N Y C J 5oo o 5oo Sr— IN fEET E m 950 Encore Way .o. o.....�o.o. E Naplaa, FL 34110 EXHIBIT V.A.2 -- 2017.092 t Phona:(239) 254.2000V Florida artllicataof SUBJECT SITE AERIAL OVERLAY b. _ - R Authorization No.m2 2017.092 1 OF r Q Packet Pg. 462 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 469Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 470Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 511Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 512Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 513Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 514Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 515Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 516Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 517Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 518Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 519Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 520Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 521Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 522Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 523Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 524Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 525Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 526Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 527Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 528Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 529Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 530Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 531Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 532Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 533Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 534Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 535Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 536Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 537Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 538Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 539Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 540Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 541Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 542Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 543Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 544Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 545Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 546Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 547Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 548Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 549Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 550Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 551Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 552Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 553Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 554Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 555Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 556Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 557Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 558Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 559Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 560Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 561Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 562Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 563Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 564Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 565Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 566Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 567Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 568Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 569Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 570Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 571Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 572Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 573Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 574Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 575Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 576Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 577Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 578Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 579Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 580Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 581Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 582Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 583Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 584Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 585Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 586Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 587Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 588Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 589Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 593Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 596Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 597Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 600Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 601Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 602Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 603Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 604Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 605Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 607Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 608Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 609Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 610Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 611Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 612Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 613Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 618Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 620Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 621Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 622Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 623Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 624Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 625Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 626Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 627Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 628Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 629Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 630Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 631Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 632Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 633Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 634Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 635Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 636Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 637Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 638Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 639Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 640Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 641Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 642Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 643Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 649Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 652Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 653Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 654Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 655Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 656Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 657Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel ReportA ULI Advisory Services Panel ReportCollier County Florida January 29–February 3, 2017 Collier_Cover.indd 2 5/17/17 11:17 AM 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County Florida Expanding Housing Affordability January 29–February 3, 2017 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report2 About the Urban Land Institute THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE is a global, member- driven organization comprising more than 40,000 real estate and urban development professionals dedicated to advancing the Institute’s mission of providing leadership in the responsible use of land and creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide. ULI’s interdisciplinary membership represents all aspects of the industry, including developers, property owners, investors, architects, urban planners, public officials, real estate brokers, appraisers, attorneys, engineers, finan- ciers, and academics. Established in 1936, the Institute has a presence in the Americas, Europe, and Asia Pacific regions, with members in 76 countries. The extraordinary impact that ULI makes on land use deci- sion making is based on its members sharing expertise on a variety of factors affecting the built environment, includ- ing urbanization, demographic and population changes, new economic drivers, technology advancements, and environmental concerns. Peer-to-peer learning is achieved through the knowledge shared by members at thousands of convenings each year that reinforce ULI’s position as a global authority on land use and real estate. In 2016 alone, more than 3,200 events were held in 340 cities around the world. Drawing on the work of its members, the Institute recog- nizes and shares best practices in urban design and devel- opment for the benefit of communities around the globe. More information is available at uli.org. Follow ULI on Twit- ter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram. Cover photos: Wilhelm Rosenkranz (top); Beth Silverman (bottom). © 2017 by the Urban Land Institute 2001 L Street, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036-4948 All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or any part of the contents without written permission of the copy- right holder is prohibited. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 3 About ULI Advisory Services THE GOAL OF THE ULI ADVISORY SERVICES pro- gram is to bring the finest expertise in the real estate field to bear on complex land use planning and development projects, programs, and policies. Since 1947, this program has assembled well over 600 ULI-member teams to help sponsors find creative, practical solutions for issues such as downtown redevelopment, land management strate- gies, evaluation of development potential, growth manage- ment, community revitalization, brownfield redevelopment, military base reuse, provision of low-cost and affordable housing, and asset management strategies, among other matters. A wide variety of public, private, and nonprofit or- ganizations have contracted for ULI’s advisory services. Each panel team is composed of highly qualified profes- sionals who volunteer their time to ULI. They are chosen for their knowledge of the panel topic and are screened to ensure their objectivity. ULI’s interdisciplinary panel teams provide a holistic look at development problems. A respected ULI member who has previous panel experience chairs each panel. The agenda for a five-day panel assignment is intensive. It includes an in-depth briefing day composed of a tour of the site and meetings with sponsor representatives, a day of hour-long interviews of typically 50 to 100 key community representatives, and two days of formulating recommendations. Long nights of discussion precede the panel’s conclusions. On the final day on site, the panel makes an oral presentation of its findings and conclusions to the sponsor. A written report is prepared and published. Because the sponsoring entities are responsible for significant preparation before the panel’s visit, including sending extensive briefing materials to each member and arranging for the panel to meet with key local community members and stakeholders in the project under consider- ation, participants in ULI’s five-day panel assignments are able to make accurate assessments of a sponsor’s issues and to provide recommendations in a compressed amount of time. A major strength of the program is ULI’s unique ability to draw on the knowledge and expertise of its members, including land developers and owners, public officials, academics, representatives of financial institutions, and others. In fulfillment of the mission of the Urban Land Institute, this Advisory Services panel report is intended to provide objective advice that will promote the responsible use of land to enhance the environment. ULI Program Staff Thomas W. Eitler Senior Vice President, Advisory Services Beth Silverman Senior Director, Advisory Services Paul Angelone Director, Advisory Services Steven Gu Associate, Advisory Services James A. Mulligan Senior Editor David James Rose Editor/Manager Sara Proehl, Publications Professionals LLC Manuscript Editor Betsy Van Buskirk Creative Director Deanna Pineda, Muse Advertising Design Graphic Designer Craig Chapman Senior Director, Publishing Operations 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report4 Acknowledgments ON BEHALF OF THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE, the panel would like to thank our sponsors, the Board of Coun- ty Commissioners of Collier County—Penny Taylor, Donna Fiala, Andy Solis, Burt L. Saunders, and William L. McDan- iel Jr. The panel would also like to thank the city of Naples, the city of Marco Island, Everglades City, the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, and the Commu- nity Housing Plan Stakeholders Committee for inviting the panel to examine housing affordability challenges in the county, and it thanks the community at large for being so warm and welcoming. Special appreciation goes to Kimberly Grant, director of Community and Housing Services; Cormac Giblin, Grants and Housing Development manager; Steve Carnell, head of Public Services; County Manager Leo Ochs; and the rest of the county staff members for the time and effort they have devoted to the project. In addition, the panel expresses its appreciation to Steve Hruby, Nick Kouloheras, and the other members of the affordable housing committee for their assistance and support throughout the engagement. The panel also thanks ULI Southwest Florida, which will continue to be a local resource for Collier County moving forward. Finally, the panel would like to thank the approximately 90 residents, business and community leaders, and repre- sentatives from the Greater Collier County community who shared their perspectives and insights during the panel’s stakeholder interviews. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 5 Contents ULI Panel and Project Staff ...............................................................................................................................6 Background and the Panel’s Assignment ..........................................................................................................7 Study Area and Surrounding Context .................................................................................................................9 Current Conditions ........................................................................................................................................11 Vision: What Do You Want to Be When You Grow Up? .....................................................................................17 Implementation ..............................................................................................................................................20 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................37 Appendix A: Implementation Schedule ............................................................................................................38 Appendix B: Examples of County Housing Initiatives .........................................................................................39 Appendix C: City of Austin, 2014 Robert C. Larson Policy Leadership Award Winner .........................................40 About the Panel .............................................................................................................................................43 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report6 ULI Panel and Project Staff Panel Chair Philip Payne Principal and Chief Executive Officer Ginkgo Residential Charlotte, North Carolina Panel Members Hilary Chapman Housing Program Manager Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Washington, D.C. Ian Colgan Assistant Executive Director Oklahoma City Housing Authority Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Joanne Fiebe Florida Center for Community Design and Research School of Architecture and Community Design, University of South Florida Tampa, Florida Lacy McManus Director of Program Development Greater New Orleans Inc. New Orleans, Louisiana John Orfield Principal BOKA Powell Dallas, Texas Cassie Wright Project Manager Urban Ventures LLC Denver, Colorado ULI Project Staff Beth Silverman Senior Director, Advisory Services Steven Gu Associate, Advisory Services 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 7 COLLIER COUNTY HAS BEEN DESCRIBED as “unique” and “one of the most beautiful places in the world.” Although the community is unique, the issue of housing affordability is not. In fact, virtually every commu- nity in the nation is, to some degree, struggling with this issue. It is especially true in retirement and resort commu- nities, which have significant numbers of service workers and high real estate values. The issue of housing affordability is not new. The panel is impressed with the time, the effort, and the quality of work that has been invested in this subject by the commission- ers and Collier County staff. Many of the panel’s recom- mendations mirror and ratify the work that has already been done. From the panel’s perspective, the real need in Collier County is for action and implementation. This implementa- tion will require political will and leadership. In addition, the community at large will need to prepare for and adapt to the growth that is certain to occur in the county. Not all of the panel’s recommendations will be popular within the community at large, but the panel believes such recom- mendations are essential to the long-term viability and sustainability of Collier County. An integral part of this strategic vision will be developing a plan that ensures that affordable housing will be available to all of the county’s citizens. The Panel’s Assignment There is no question that Collier County has a housing affordability problem. The highly desirable area is home to millionaires and billionaires from around the world. The county also has a sizable second-home retirement com- munity. Like many affluent resort communities across the United States, those influences have created a develop- ment pattern that caters to select segments of the com- munity. The local economy is focused on retail, hospitality, services, and agriculture; however, high housing costs have priced out much of the workforce needed for the county to function. As a result, large numbers of employ- ees are commuting long distances to and from work, and employers are having an increasingly difficult time recruit- ing and retaining workers. Community leaders are seeking strategic recommendations on how to address the issues surrounding housing affordability in Collier County. In March 2015 and again in March 2016, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) held an affordable housing workshop. The BCC has also received several recommen- dations for programs and incentives to address housing affordability in Collier County, including establishing an affordable housing trust fund, providing even greater density incentives to support affordable housing develop- ment, and providing inclusionary zoning with pay-in-lieu-of options. The larger Collier County community has come Background and the Panel’s Assignment Although Collier County is the site of multimillion-dollar homes, it faces a significant housing affordability problem. Part of the challenge stems from a significant lack of supply in terms of housing type and level of affordability throughout the county. BETH SILVERMAN/ULIBETH SILVERMAN/ULIMARIAMICHELLE 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report8 Collier County circa 1930–1945.BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY together around this issue. In October 2015, the United Way sponsored a community-wide forum about affordable housing. The Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce’s Board of Directors has also established a work group to address this issue. Collier County has invited the ULI Advisory Services panel to help the county develop a community-wide approach to address housing affordability issues. Collier County has asked the panel to focus on the follow- ing key questions: ■■Why is it important for the county to have a balanced supply of housing, in terms of type, tenure, attainability, access, and distribution? ■■According to key stakeholders, including residents, what are the major obstacles to producing and sustaining affordable housing and workforce housing in Collier County? What can be done to mitigate those obstacles? ■■What are the stakeholders’ perceptions of affordable and workforce housing and of the existing tools and programs in place to support it? What are stakeholders’ recommendations for change? ■■How can public policy encourage the redevelopment of underused areas of the developed coastal area that includes affordable and workforce housing while ensur- ing that such housing will also be a component of new development in the urban and rural fringe areas. ■■What policies, strategies, and best practices have worked in places similar to Collier County that the panel would recommend that the county implement as it produces affordable housing units in the county’s urban and rural areas? Summary of the Panel’s Recommendations It was evident to the panel during its interviews with com- munity stakeholders; its review of comments compiled from a countywide, online, public survey; and its multiple study tours throughout Collier County that much work has already been done to address housing affordability chal- lenges. The panel hopes this report not only will serve as a blueprint for implementation, but also will help solidify an ongoing strategy to meet the county’s spectrum of housing affordability needs. With such goals in mind, the panel’s primary recommendations include the following: ■■Create a vision for the future of the community. ■■Recognize that housing affordability affects all segments of the community. ■■Increase the county’s supply of affordable housing (in- cluding rental housing) by adding to the current supply and by maintaining existing affordable units. ■■Adopt a smart code that distinguishes between the urban and rural parts of the county. ■■Reactivate the Affordable Housing Trust Fund—and use it. ■■Recognize that transportation is part of the housing affordability solution. Develop solutions that link housing with access to transportation options. ■■Establish transportation corridors to target mixed- income, multifamily housing development. ■■Consider establishing an enhanced minimum-wage ordinance. ■■Raise public awareness, educate, and communicate with the community about housing affordability. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 9 Located in southwest Florida, Collier County is the largest county by land area in the state. The panel’s study area encompasses the entire county. However, key focus areas within the study include the city of Naples, the urban area, the rural lands, the Estates area, and the Immokalee area.ULI COLLIER COUNTY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST END of the Florida peninsula, Collier County is the largest county by land area in the state. The county contains a variety of differ- ent communities including the city of Naples, inland Im- mokalee, and Marco Island, as well as four large nationally protected environmental areas. According to the 2010 census, the population breaks down to 65.7 percent non- Hispanic whites, 25.9 percent Latino, 6.6 percent African American, and 1.1 percent Asian. This diverse community, both geographically and ethnically, makes Collier County unique when compared with similar tourist destinations. However, this diversity has also led to housing issues throughout the county. Key Focus Areas Although the county was examined at large, the panel was asked to focus on the following key areas: ■■The city of Naples is an incorporated municipality bordering the Gulf of Mexico on the west and the unincorporated Collier County urban area on the east. Naples measures just 14 square miles and has some of the highest housing costs in the country. The limited number of commercial areas consists primarily of retail centers and financial institutions. ■■The urban area is located between the city of Naples and the rural lands (which run from the coast to about ten miles inland). Most of the housing, commercial, re- tail, and other services are located and permitted in this area. The urban area is characterized by large, planned, gated communities and by strip-mall developments. ■■The rural lands and the Estates area are located between the urban area and the more environmentally sensitive areas to the east. The Estates area is largely composed of platted, subdivided lots that range from Study Area and Surrounding Context 1 1 1 1 17 17 19 19219A 27 27 27 301 301 41 41 41 441 441 92 98 98 98 TollTol l 275 4 75 75 95 95 Biscayne NP Everglades NP Big CypressN PRES L. Istokpoga L. Kissimmee L. Okeechobee Ki s s i m m e e R .Peace R.St J o h n s R . FLORIDA BAY GULF OF MEXICO ATLANTIC OCEAN Charlotte Harbor Whitewater Bay BREVARD BROWARD CHARLOTTE COLLIER DADE DE SOTO GLADES HARDEE HENDRY HIGHLANDS HILLSBOROUGH INDIAN RIVER LEE MANATEE MARTIN MONROE OKEECHOBEE PALM BEACH PINELLAS POLK ST. LUCIE SARASOTA OSCEOLA Boynton BeachCape Coral Fort Myers Fort Pierce Margate Port Charlotte SarasotaBayshore Gardens Belle Glade Englewood Homestead Immokalee Key West Naples Port St. LucieSarasota Springs Tamiami Venice Fort Lauderdale Hollywood West Palm Beach Miami Immokalee area Collier County Florida Gulf o f Mex ico Urban area City of Naples Rural lands/Estates area 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report10 about one acre to more than 20 acres. During the Florida Land Grab of the 1950s, land parcels were divided and sold, creating the largest subdivision in the world with tens of thousands of home sites. Designated as privately owned, single-family lots, the Estates area’s commercial and retail opportunities are limited. West of the Estates are the rural lands, which are primarily farmland and environmentally sensitive areas that are designated for future cities and towns. The first town to be built in this area is Ave Maria. Once the project is built out, it will have up to 11,000 residences and 1.7 million square feet of retail, office, and business park uses spread across its 4,000 acres. Ave Maria is located at the intersection of Oil Well Road and Camp Keals Road in eastern Collier County. The main entrance—on Oil Well just west of Camp Keals—leads to the town center. ■■The Immokalee area is an agricultural center of the county. It is located in the northeast section of the county and is characterized by residential, commercial, and industrial development. A significant percentage of the affordable housing units available in Collier County are located in the Immokalee area. Habitat for Humanity development projects, such as Carson Lakes and Faith Landing, are built here, as are other affordable housing developments, including Hatcher’s Preserve. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 11 Current Conditions AFFORDABLE HOUSING HAS MANY definitions and perceptions. Oftentimes, the multitude of definitions and opinions creates confusion when people are attempting to both study and solve issues of housing affordability in any given community or geography. Many definitions of afford- able housing refer to a percentage of area median income (AMI) as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Other definitions are careful to delineate between “affordable” and “workforce” housing— often defined as above or below 80 percent of AMI. Regard- less of the definition used in the affordable housing industry, for most people what represents “affordable” is more of a gut feeling that is influenced by their daily context. Throughout the study process, the panel consistently heard about Collier County’s housing affordability problem. However, the panel also perceived that there is a lack of clarity and agreement about the definition of affordable housing, which is causing poor communication, misunder- standings, and misaligned goals relative to the topic. Ac- cordingly, the panel recommends reframing the terminology of housing affordability around the concept of cost burden. Reframing the Idea of Housing Affordability HUD defines “cost burdened” as the following: Families who pay more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs, which includes mortgage principal and interest, property tax, and homeowners insurance payments. Other definitions add other housing costs, such as utilities, condominium or homeowners association fees, and ongo- ing maintenance or repairs, but the overall concept is that if a household is paying more than 30 percent of its gross income toward housing, then that is a concern, and from a policy standpoint, such cost may need to be addressed. The advantage of using the cost-burden terminology is that it does not put the focus on income alone; instead, it examines income as compared to housing cost. Therefore, it has a localized outcome that recognizes the different housing markets that exist nationally, regionally, and even within a single city or county. The 30 percent cost-burden threshold has been around for several decades. The idea was originally established by the 1937 National Housing Act, which also created the public housing program. At that time, eligibility to live in public housing was based on income limits, rather than maximum rents; a tenant’s income could not exceed five to six times the rent. Since the late 1930s, the 30 percent income limit for rental housing has been reevaluated and The Center for Urban Pedagogy, a New York City nonprofit organization dedicated to using the power of design and art to increase meaningful civic engagement, created the guidebook What Is Affordable Housing? with pictures and diagrams to help explain affordable housing issues in New York City.THE CENTER FOR URBAN PEDAGOGY9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 12 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Glossary of Housing Affordability Terms Affordable housing: Generally, a home or apartment occupied by a household that pays 30 percent or less of its gross income toward its mortgage or rent. The term is also widely used to refer to housing that is subsidized or rent-regulated and that is occupied by a household that is “low-income” (see later). The term used in this manner can be limiting—there are growing numbers of households that are within a range of incomes, that live in unsubsidized or unregulated market-rate housing, and that have a problem with “housing affordability” (see later). Area median income (AMI): The median household income of each metropolitan statistical area (MSA) adjusted for family size. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) publishes AMIs annually. AMI is used to determine the eligibility of applicants for most housing assistance programs. Extremely low-income housing: Per federal regulations, a household whose income does not exceed the higher of the federal poverty level or 30 percent of AMI (see earlier). Housing affordability: Refers to the ability or the lack thereof of a household to meet its housing expenses with a reasonable and sustainable share of its income, generally spending no more than 30 percent of gross income on housing costs, without regard to the household’s income or whether the household lives in subsidized, rent-regulated, or market-rate housing. Housing cost burden: Per the federal government, refers to a household having to pay more than 30 percent of its income for housing and possibly having difficulty affording other necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care. A housing cost burden is “severe” if housing costs consume more than 50 percent of a household’s income. Low-income housing: Per federal regulations, a household whose income does not exceed 80 percent of AMI (see earlier), adjusted for family size. Mixed-income housing: “Mixed-income” has a twofold meaning. In accordance with federal housing policy, HUD defines a mixed-income building as “comprised of housing units with differing levels of affordability, typically with some market-rate housing and some housing that is available to low-income occupants below market-rate.” In accordance with widely held housing industry practice, a mixed-income neighborhood consists of a variety of household incomes and opportunities for meaningful interaction, including parks, schools, and shopping. Moderate-income housing: Per federal regulations, households whose incomes are between 81 percent and 95 percent of AMI. The government may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 95 percent of AMI on the basis of an analysis of prevailing levels of construction costs, fair market rents, or unusually high or low family incomes. Naturally occurring affordable housing: Generally, housing that is “affordable” to “low-income” and “moderate-income” (see earlier) households that is not currently federally subsidized or rent-regulated. Preservation: Generally, providing the necessary physical improvements and financial capital to enable a currently occupied rental property to remain “affordable” (see earlier) and in decent condition for a sustained period of time. Preservation programs can also target owner-occupied housing, thereby providing assistance to homeowners that allows them to make improvements to their homes and to remain in them. Public housing: Rental housing owned and operated by local housing authorities that primarily serves “extremely low-income” (see earlier) households. Roughly 2.6 million people live in the nation’s 1.1 million public housing units. Very few public housing units have been built in recent years. Supportive housing: Generally, “affordable housing” (see earlier) combined with social services to assist vulnerable populations, such as the homeless, the disabled, the addicted, and the elderly. Very low-income housing: Per federal regulations, a household whose income does not exceed 50 percent of AMI (see earlier), adjusted for family size. Workforce housing: Generally, housing that is “affordable” (see earlier) to households earning between 60 and 120 percent of AMI (see earlier). In high-cost areas, incomes may be as high as 150 percent of AMI. Some definitions exclude owner-occupied housing. Source: ULI Terwilliger Center for Housing. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 13 Table 1: Cost Burden in Collier County Burden for Three-Person Household Earning 30 to 150 Percent of Area Median Income Annual household income Percentage of area median income Percentage of income needed to afford median rent* Percentage of income needed to afford median-price home** Percentage of income needed to afford median-price condo*** $20,160 30 61 149 101 $29,600 50 41 101 69 $47,300 80 26 63 43 $59,125 100 21 51 35 $65,038 110 19 46 31 $70,950 120 17 42 29 $88,688 150 14 34 23 Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; The 2016 Collier County Economic, Demographic & Community Profile; the American Community Survey. *Median gross rent is $1,020 per month, as defined by the Shimberg Center in 2015. **Median sales price is $405,000, including mortgage and interest at a 20 percent downpayment for 30 years, plus estimated homeowner’s insurance, property taxes, and flood insurance. ***Median sales price for condominiums and townhouses is $257,000, including mortgage and interest at 20 percent downpayment for 30 years, plus estimated homeowner’s insurance, property taxes, and flood insurance. adjusted several times, ranging from 20 to 30 percent at any given time. In 1981, the housing burden rate for rentals was rees- tablished at 30 percent of gross annual income. Gradu- ally, this limit was extended to homeownership. In the mid-1990s, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would purchase mortgages only if their principal, interest, tax, and insur- ance (PITI) payments were 28 percent or less of the borrower’s gross income for a conventional loan and 29 percent for a loan insured by the Federal Housing Admin- istration. Since that time, almost all cost-burden limits for housing have been around 30 percent of a household’s gross income (https://www.census.gov/housing/census/ publications/who-can-afford.pdf). Used in conjunction with the 30 percent cost-burden threshold is severe cost burden, which includes house- holds that pay more than 50 percent of gross income toward housing costs. Those households are the most at risk—regardless of locality. Defining the Cost-Burden Problem In 2015, Collier County had a population of 343,802 and 140,131 households. The Shimberg Center at the Univer- sity of Florida estimates that of the 140,131 households, 58,685 (40 percent) were cost burdened in 2015—mean- ing they spent more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing. Of those 58,685 households, 29,342 were considered severely cost burdened —meaning they spent more than 50 percent of their gross income on housing. This finding means that two out of every five households in Collier County are cost burdened, with one in five severely cost burdened. During the study tour, the panel observed that in several communities multiple cars were parked in front of each home, thus supporting the theory that people are living together in order to afford the high cost of housing in the county.BETH SILVERMAN/ULI9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report14 However, the issue of cost burden may be larger than the numbers indicate. Not all of the households counted in the census are year-round residents, and most of those part- time households have incomes that support their residence in the county, which is a second residence. Therefore, it is likely that the actual percentages of cost burden are substantially higher among residents who live in the county year-round. To better understand the meaning of “cost burdened” in Collier County, the panel analyzed the correlation between household income and housing prices or rental rates. In 2016, the estimated AMI for Collier County was $65,700, and the average household size was 2.47. For a snapshot of the cost-burden issue, see table 1. Who Is Cost Burdened in Collier County? The people who are cost burdened in Collier County are crucial to the local economy. They provide key public safety, education, and health care services to the com- munity’s residents. In addition, they are responsible for the high-quality lifestyle that makes Collier County such a special place. Examples of workers in the cost-burdened category include the following: ■■Health care: Nurses, medical assistants, senior service providers ■■Education: Teachers and other school employees ■■Public safety: Police officers, firefighters ■■Service industry workers: Wait staff, hotel staff, retail and trade salespeople, golf course employees, land- scape maintenance workers ■■Entry-level or nonprofit professionals: Bank tellers, social workers, office managers, government employees Not every person in those fields will have difficulty finding housing that is affordable. For example, dual-income households have increased purchasing power. However, people receiving entry-level and median income rates in health care, public safety, and professional sectors are more likely to experience a cost burden than are the people holding executive, management, and supervisory positions. Also, single-income households, which can include one- to four-person households, are more likely to experience a cost burden or even a severe cost burden when living in Collier County. Table 2 provides a representative sample of employment positions in Collier County and what people in such posi- tions can afford in the local market. Across the board, the ability to afford houses priced at the median sales price from 2015 was low. The ability to afford rental units at the median gross rent (plus utilities) was more reasonable, with affordability attainable for some of the people holding professional positions. During the panel process, the panel heard many stories regarding how difficult it is to recruit service industry work- ers, particularly those who work at the resorts and hotels, including housekeepers, front-desk staff members, and golf course attendants. The panel’s analysis of cost burden for those jobs indicates that there is substantial cost burden for such workers unless they share living space or commute long distances. One critical challenge for Collier County businesses is the ability to recruit entry-level professionals. Mid- and upper-level professionals in public safety, education, government, and health care can afford a wider range of housing. However, such is not the case for entry-level professionals, who often end up living far away from their source of employment (particularly in Lee County). Having employees who reside outside of Collier County and who commute long distances for work often means a high level of attrition for businesses. Furthermore, when people who work in the county are commuting to adjoining municipali- ties to live, the county bears the costs of the roads without the benefit of receiving the tax revenue. Collectively, the employment sectors that are the most at risk to incur a significant cost burden represent more than 50 percent of the local labor force. But beyond that, the sectors represent the core of county, public safety, 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 15 and education services, and those services support the background of the lifestyle, health, and overall vitality of the county. Other important groups of residents with substantial needs include low- to moderate-income seniors, both those who live independently and those who require services; residents who require mental health treatment and various other services; and very low-wage earners. Those resi- dents face virtually no supply of housing or no continuity in being provided social and health services. Most experience long wait lists at the few available housing sites, and many have to be relocated outside of the county to areas with a greater concentration of housing and services. Going Beyond the Root of the Problem If one is to understand the full spectrum of housing afford- ability, it is critical to examine the aspects of the challenge that go beyond housing costs. Those additional crucial factors include added housing costs, housing supply and availability, transportation costs, and future growth implications for the county, and such factors are examined in further detail in the following sections. Added Housing Costs In Collier County, housing affordability for homeowners (and especially first-time homeowners) means more than Table 2: Estimated Cost Burden for Households Headed by Selected Wage Earners Profession Annual wage range (entry to median) Housing cost as percentage of gross income Median gross rent 2015 median home sale price Health care Registered nurse $47,000–$65,000 24%38% Medical assistant $30,000–$35,000 41%68% Emergency technician $28,000–$36,000 42%68% Education Teacher $44,000–$59,000 28%50% Teaching assistant $22,000–$24,000 45%101% Public safety Firefighter $39,000–$57,000 29%43% Patrol officer $47,000–$59,000 26%41% Service workers Maid and housekeeping $18,000–$22,000 66%109% Massage therapist $26,000–$55,000 37%44% Concierge $25,000–$31,000 48%78% Entry-level/midtier professional Human resources specialist $35,000–$55,000 31%45% Dental assistant $33,000–$43,000 36%57% Administrative assistant $22,000–$33,000 49%73% Housing cost accounts for less than 30 percent of gross income (not cost burdened) Housing cost accounts for 30 to 50 percent of gross income (cost burdened) Housing cost accounts for 50 percent or more of gross income (severely cost burdened) Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; The 2016 Collier County Economic, Demographic & Community Profile; the American Community Survey. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report16 just taking into consideration PITI. Utilities and home- ownership association fees also come into play when determining housing affordability and cost burden. After interviewing several area stakeholders, the panel believes that the percentage of cost-burdened Collier County households is even higher than outlined in the earlier section. One reason the percentage is higher is that many households cannot afford a 20 percent downpayment, which means they must pay private mortgage insurance, thus reducing the amount of home they can afford. In addition, almost all areas of Collier County require flood insurance, which adds a substantial monthly cost on top of all the costs just described. Moreover, Collier County has one of the highest homeowner insurance rates in Florida. Availability When one considers cost burden and affordability, one must also consider availability and quality. Housing units at the bottom of the cost spectrum often are made up of a high percentage of units with quality and maintenance concerns. If one considers the total number of units existing at differ- ent rental and sale prices, availability of those units at any given time can significantly constrain access to housing that is affordable. The panel took a “snapshot” of units available on the market using readily accessible, publicly available portals to find housing (Zillow.com, Trulia.com, Apartments.com). Using the income bands of 25 different employment categories, the panel looked to see how many units were available below the cost-burden threshold of 30 percent (table 3). The analysis provided several interesting results. Although a reasonable number of condominiums were available (but no additional homeowners association fees were considered in the analysis, which may have resulted in fewer options), very few single-family homes were for sale, and there were very limited rental options, which indicated a particularly constrained rental market. For any worker or single-income household with income between 80 and 100 percent of AMI, options were extremely limited, to say nothing of those households making less than 80 percent, which represent a substantial percentage of workers who are cost burdened. Transportation Crucial to the cost-burden conversation is the combination of housing cost and transportation cost. According to data from the Center for Neighborhood Technology, households at 90 to 100 percent of area median income can incur housing and transportation costs of 75 percent of their gross income. That figure is 61 percent for households between 100 and 120 percent of AMI. Furthermore, de- pending on the distance from employment and other activity centers, transportation costs for Collier County households can fluctuate wildly. In some cases, households may incur 5 to 10 percent more in transportation costs if they are located farther away from employment and other services. Growth Implications In a county expected to grow significantly in population by 2040, what does that finding mean for the future? The county is expected to add 58,000 households over the next 23 years. If the local issue of cost burden is not addressed, then—at a minimum—11,000 more households will experience severe cost burden (above 50 percent) than do households today. Given ever-rising real estate values and a seemingly bottomless demand for higher-end homes and rentals, the likelihood of both the number and percentage of cost-burdened households increasing is high. Table 3: Collier County Housing Market Snapshot Units Affordable for Households Earning Less Than 100 Percent of Area Median Income Housing type Number of units Single-family, for-sale homes 125* Condominiums 65–250** Single-family rentals 0 Multifamily rentals 23 Sources: Zillow.com; Apartments.com. *3.8 percent of inventory on multiple listing services **Priced at $120,000 to $175,000 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 17 THE PANEL TOURED KEY AREAS of Collier to get a comprehensive look at the county. The panel also inter- viewed more than 90 stakeholders during this process, reaching out to residents, elected and appointed officials, business leaders, real estate developers, and nonprofit leaders. From the study tours and interviews, the panel did not hear a strong consensus regarding the path forward for Collier County. However, several common themes and community values were frequently raised. Those traits are both existing and aspirational: some have already been im- plemented across the county (such as the Blue Zone and the commitment to beautification), while others are indica- tive of recent concerns and current shortcomings (such as economic development and traffic). The common themes and community values include the following: ■■Maintaining Collier County’s reputation as a premiere tourist destination ■■Growing and maintaining a strong real estate base and retaining steady values ■■Retaining a safe and healthy community ■■Enhancing and sustaining a visually attractive and aes- thetically pleasing community with character ■■Ensuring an efficient transportation system ■■Diversifying the local economy What the Future of Collier County Looks Like Collier County’s current debate on housing affordability is not a new one. The panel heard repeatedly about the community’s reservations regarding another discussion on housing affordability—the topic has been widely discussed for many years—with the Great Recession and housing downturn halting past efforts. These on-again, off-again discussions reflect the cyclical nature of this issue and the related concern it raises. Today, with new interests and partners realigning around the housing issue, a variety of pathways and solutions can be explored. Considering the overall values raised by community members, the panel believes two key scenarios Vision: What Do You Want to Be When You Grow Up? Collier County is home to pristine beaches and enviable weather; it also boasts a mix of urban, suburban, and rural land use patterns. Nonetheless, the panel believes that Collier County does not have a vision for what it wants to be in the future. (Left to right: Ave Maria, Naples’s iconic beaches, and the panel’s public reception.)BETH SILVERMAN/ULIBETH SILVERMAN/ULIBETH SILVERMAN/ULI9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report18 face Collier County: a future with action and a future with- out action. A wide range of options and interventions exists within this dichotomy and will produce varying outputs and results. The scenarios presented next are intended to illustrate specific certainties that the panel believes will be inevitable under current conditions. The Future of Collier County without Action on Housing If county leaders choose not to respond to the current housing needs, it is likely that the current market condi- tions and trends will continue to advance and evolve. Local employers will continue to have difficulty hiring and retaining key employees in the county, which will create a “brain drain” out of the community and into neighboring jurisdictions, such as Lee County. Not only does this market condition place a strain on employers’ ability to hire and retain high-quality talent, but also it means more workers and middle-class laborers will be commuting greater distances, thereby increasing transportation con- gestion and mitigating quality of life and civic engagement. In addition, Collier County’s local economy will lose tax revenue as incomes earned in the county leave to neigh- boring jurisdictions because out-of-county employees tend to spend a greater portion of their income by going to gro- cery stores, restaurants, and dry cleaners in their residen- tial communities. Therefore, Collier County will continue to sustain the burden of influx infrastructure strain, while receiving no tax revenue from it. Those conditions create an intensified landscape of competition between counties, instead of mutual collaboration for the betterment of the region. With no action on housing, Collier County will be forced to create reactionary policy and will have more dif- ficulty when guiding future growth of the county. The Future of Collier County with Action on Housing Conversely, if the county takes appropriate action and intervenes, the aforementioned trends could be redirected in a more financially and economically sustainable direc- tion for the county. Although the panel report will identify the specific strategies for all residents of Collier County, having a proactive policy right now will redirect the current housing and demographic trends and will create positive benefits for the county. The local economy will benefit by retaining a self- sustaining employment base in which people can work in Collier County’s Sheriff’s Department, public schools, hotels, and restaurants and can live in the county. The benefits include an increase in tax revenue generated by the in-county residents, a lesser strain on existing transportation infrastructure, and an increase in the qual- ity of life for this vital segment of the community. Also, employers will have a better chance of attracting and retaining talented and skilled workers in the county, which will improve the overall quality of life in the county and will build a stronger middle class. With the growing aging demographic, a proactive policy will make the county a more hospitable place for longtime residents to age in place and to receive health care. Also, keeping this older demographic in the county will generate county tax revenue from the group’s use of local pharma- cies, grocery stores, and specialized medical services. By taking a proactive approach toward addressing housing, Collier County can develop a vision that expands on and enhances the existing unique qualities of the county. Why a Vision Is Important The panel believes that the overall priorities of the county lack a collective vision; without such a vision, aligning and prioritizing government processes and policies will be challenging. Collier County is still facing near-certain changes—with or without a unifying vision—particularly regarding the incoming population and real estate growth. If one considers the expectations around building growth and residential influx, the problems facing the county today will be amplified in the coming years, thus exacerbating the current pain points (traffic, workforce, costs). In short, the status quo in Collier County will work only for a limited number of people and for a limited amount of time. The 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 19 As part of the study, the panel met with community stakeholders, including residents, business and community leaders, and other representatives from the larger Collier County community.BETH SILVERMAN/ULIpanel feels strongly that without proactive management, the anticipated growth will erode the very qualities that attracted people to the county in the first place. The panel recommends that the creation of a vision for Collier County should come from the county itself, as a self-directed exercise, and should be inclusive of all stake- holders. However, to ensure the exercise and the results have the desired effect, the panel provides the following elements that the county should include in its vision: ■■Provide key considerations around quality of life for all residents, as well as how to improve and maintain it. ■■Provide a range of housing options that are accessible to the full spectrum of consumers. Housing options should be economically and geographically diverse throughout the county, as well as having a range in sizes and types such as single-family homes and rental apartments. Additional key factors to consider when providing hous- ing options include the reasonable proximity to jobs, schools, amenities, and transportation choices. There should also be an inclusive mix of income levels in dif- ferent neighborhoods. ■■Grow and sustain a thriving economy that includes qualities such as livable wages, job opportunities that provide pathways to wealth creation and upward mobil- ity, diversified industries, and a diversified workforce. ■■Provide accessible, multimodal transportation options that safely and efficiently connect all residents to jobs, amenities, and services. In addition, provide clear directives to governing entities to help align policies and processes with the envisioned future for the county. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report20 THE PANEL IS IMPRESSED WITH the planning and study that has already been completed regarding housing affordability in Collier County. The panel’s recommenda- tions reflect and endorse much of the work that has al- ready been completed. However, what is abundantly clear to the panel is that action and implementation are crucial to creating sustainable solutions. Implementation of the panel’s recommendations will require sincere action, tremendous political will, and strong leadership. For addi- tional reference, the panel has created a proposed imple- mentation schedule to provide a blueprint for how to move forward on the recommendations described throughout this section in the short, medium, and long term. (See ap- pendix A.) The panel’s major recommendations are organized around the following six core strategies to address housing afford- ability: ■■Increase supply; ■■Maintain supply; ■■Regulate and govern; ■■Enhance transportation options; ■■Enhance wages; and ■■Engage, market, and educate. Increase Supply How can Collier County meet its current and future hous- ing needs? One approach to achieving the goals is by adding housing that is affordable to households with a wide range of income levels. There is good news to share: several strategies include simply making improvements to existing procedures and vehicles rather than creating new programs entirely. There is no need to reinvent the wheel when existing structures already support the development of more affordable housing. The Housing Trust Fund The housing trust fund (HTF) is an example of a national best practice that Collier County currently has at its disposal but does not use. More than 700 HTFs exist nationwide, and they are often a critical element of a jurisdiction’s overall housing policy. Collier County’s HTF should be sustainable and predict- able, given the long planning process involved in housing development. The county should keep in mind that what can make an HTF challenging is finding viable revenue sources. Other jurisdictions have funded their trust funds through sales taxes, real estate transfer taxes, linkage fees as part of the zoning ordinance, inclusionary zoning in-lieu fees, condominium conversion fees or demolition fees, and hotel and motel taxes. The best and most common revenue source for a county HTF is a document record- ing fee, which is a fee paid upon filing various types of official documents with a state or local government. This fee is one of the few revenue sources that most counties can commit to, and the panel recommends Collier County consider this approach. Development Incentives The county’s existing developer incentives have clearly failed to transform existing development patterns and allow for greater production of housing that is affordable to a broad range of low- to moderate-income households. Any developer incentives need to be reasonable, be flex- ible, and allow for creative partnerships to produce new, affordable homes. The panel strongly recommends that the county put increased emphasis on multifamily rental Implementation 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 21 housing as a means of addressing its affordability housing situation. Multifamily rental housing is the most cost- effective way to provide housing that is affordable to the average working person. The panel recommends that existing density bonuses be reassessed to allow for and provide incentives for more mixed-use development and greater efficiency of land use throughout the county. This recommendation will be dis- cussed in greater detail later in this report, but the current density bonus program needs revision to allow for higher densities to ensure that additional mixed-income, mixed- tenure (rental as well as homeownership) developments are financially feasible. Examples of this type of increased den- sity include Bayfront and Naples Square, at more than 20 to 30 units per acre rather than the average 2.5 units per acre in other residential communities. The density can also be flexible to allow for complementary adjacent uses and to reflect different preferences in the urban and rural areas. Impact fees are an often-cited source of frustration to those creating both market rate and affordable housing products. Not only are high impact fees an impediment to new construction of affordable housing, but also they can be erratic and can be an ineffective way to raise revenue. During periods of high growth, they can produce lots of cash, but during slow periods of growth, the revenue provided by such fees falls, sometimes precipitously. County Housing Trust Fund Dedicated Revenue Sources Revenue Source County Trust Funds Document recording fee Arlington County, Virginia; 9 New Jersey counties; 54 Pennsylvania counties; 39 Washington counties Property tax Kalamazoo County, Michigan; King County, Washington Inclusionary zoning in-lieu fees Sonoma County, California Tax increment funds Alameda County, California Delinquent property tax penalties and interest (land bank) Toledo/Lucas County, Ohio Real estate transfer tax Columbus/Franklin County, Ohio Hotel/motel tax Columbus/Franklin County, Ohio Developer impact fees/proffers Fairfax County, Virginia Food and beverage tax Dade County, Florida Sale of foreclosed properties Traverse City, Michigan (now expired) Sales/use tax Summit County, Colorado General funds North Valley/Chico, Alameda County, Los Angeles County, Santa Barbara County, Sonoma County, and San Luis Obispo County, California; Tompkins County, New York (with Ithaca and Cornell University); Arlington County, Virginia; 24 counties in Iowa Source: Housing Trust Fund Project, Center for Community Change, 2016. An example of existing density that allows for a mix of uses in downtown Naples along Fifth Avenue.CHARLIE ANZMAN9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report22 Inclusive Housing Strategy: Tysons Corner, Virginia A sprawling edge city begins to remake itself as a more walkable, sustainable place, with transit-accessible, mixed- income housing at its core. Fairfax County, Virginia, home to 1.1 million residents, is the most populous county in the Washington, D.C., region and is one of the most prosperous in the nation, with a median household income of nearly $113,000. The county’s development since the 1960s and its image today have been shaped by the growth of Tysons Corner, a roughly 1,700-acre area originally marked by the intersection of state Routes 7 and 123. For a half century, “Tysons” has epitomized the commercially successful suburban employment center and retail destination, which is dominated by large office buildings occupied by white-collar companies and high-end shopping malls. Tyson’s enormous economic success—it was the nation’s 12th- largest central business district as recently as 2014—came over time with substantial costs in the form of traffic congestion and sprawling development. The number of homes and apartments fell far behind the number of jobs; investment fell short of needs in cultural amenities, green space, and schools; and transit options were limited. Tysons’s very economic model came into question. For local business leaders and elected officials, the future of Tysons depends on whether it can reinvent itself as a more complete community. Under the rubric of a “Transforming Tysons” plan, Fairfax County has established goals to be met by 2050: increase the number of Tysons residents to 100,000 (from 19,000 today), double the number of jobs to 200,000, and ensure that at least three-quarters of the new growth is within a half-mile of Metro stations (four stations opened in the Tysons area in 2014). Fairfax County also intends Tysons to be a mixed-income residential community—a place where construction and service workers, teachers, and others in need of more affordable housing can afford to live. To achieve that goal, the county has ambitiously expanded a longstanding county policy that has been a national model for promoting inclusionary housing development. Equity Strategies, Results, and Challenges Since 1990, the county has generally required residential development projects (excluding high rises) to set aside a share of units (generally 5 to 12.5 percent) for households earning 50 to 70 percent of the Washington metro area median income. Developments receive a density bonus— permission to increase the size of the project—to help mitigate the economic cost of delivering the below-market units. This affordable dwelling unit (ADU) program has generated more than 2,500 affordable units to date, with about an equal mix of rental and for-sale housing. Research indicates that Fairfax County ADU homes and apartments are overwhelmingly located in low-poverty neighborhoods and in areas with schools comparable to those in places without ADUs. Research also indicates that the program has not deterred developers from delivering profitable projects in the county. By state law, the ADU program does not apply to high-rise buildings— precisely the type of development the county wants to see near transit in the Tysons transformation plan. Recognizing that this exemption would undermine the opportunity to provide a wider range of housing choice in Tysons, the county expanded its inclusionary policy so it could be applied more effectively in the area. As a result, 20 percent of all high-rise units in Tysons must meet affordability requirements, albeit at higher income levels than the ADU program. Though low- and mid-rise buildings are still covered by the ADU program, their developers are encouraged to meet the higher standard as well. As of June 2016, 356 affordable units had been delivered in Tysons. Future development up to allowed densities could result in the creation of as many as 4,200 units in the area. Tysons will also generate funding to support affordable housing through payments that office, retail, and hotel development projects must make in return for receiving county approval to build at greater densities—generally either a one-time contribution of $3 per square foot or annual payment of $0.25 per square foot for 16 years. As of 2014, this policy was projected to generate more than $64 million for investment in affordable housing in Tysons through a trust fund. The capacity of Tysons to become a more equitable community is interlinked with its evolution into a denser, more walkable area and with its careful use of inclusionary development practices and incentives as that evolution occurs. Researcher Christopher Leinberger, whose work has suggested that more-walkable urban places can advance an array of social-equity outcomes as well as deliver superior economic returns, has noted of Tysons: “Many of the neighborhood associations surrounding [Tysons] became supporters of increased density because of the promised walkable urban future. NIMBYs (not in my backyard) became YIMBYs (yes in my backyard).” The Tysons inclusionary housing policy is not perfect. In exchange for requiring a higher percentage of inclusionary units than under the existing ADU program, the county raised the income levels of eligible families, reflecting the realities of development feasibility. To serve families with very low incomes, the county will need to offer development subsidies through the trust fund and other sources. And while the Tysons policy appears to be working well for rental apartment buildings, it has proven more problematic for for-sale projects. In November 2016, the Washington Post reported: “County leaders are considering relaxing the 20 percent expectation for high-rise condominium projects, after developers complained that it will make it harder to secure financing for their typically smaller buildings.” The county worked with the development community to revise the policy to reflect market conditions that had changed since it was put in place, and the first condominium project was recently approved. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 23 Case Study: Palm Beach County Workforce Housing Program Palm Beach County’s Workforce Housing Program requires all new developments of more than ten units to provide units for households earning 60 to 120 percent of AMI in exchange for additional density allowances on a sliding scale. Developers have the flexibility to meet the affordable housing requirements by paying an in-lieu fee, building units off site, or purchasing and deed restricting market-rate units. To date, more than 1,400 affordable or workforce units have been approved as part of 36 developments. In addition, nearly $900,000 of in-lieu fees have been collected from three developments. The program was established in 2004 but gained traction in the market only after 2009, when the county made substantial revisions as a result of recommendations by the real estate industry, including homebuilders and realtors. An evaluation of the program found that the county’s incentives fully offset the cost or lost profit incurred by developers in providing the affordable and workforce units. The high fee structure, however, reflects the limited sources available to Collier County to support develop- ment of all types. The panel recommends a review of the impact fee structure to consider how to better incentivize developers to build a spectrum of housing types and sizes. Further, the panel recommends that the current impact fee deferral program cover all types of income-restricted hous- ing, regardless of whether it is single-family, multifamily, senior, or special needs housing. National Best Practices In addition to enhancing existing tools to create affordable housing, the panel recommends tailoring several national best practices to Collier County’s unique characteristics to supplement the county’s ability to meet current and future housing needs. Inclusionary zoning (IZ) is an approach to add to the supply of affordable housing options by linking the zones to the creation of market-rate housing. IZ programs have been used across the country since 1972 and vary greatly in terms of their structure and requirements. Given the under- use of the existing density bonus program, the county needs to consider a more proactive approach to increase the supply of housing options for all of its residents. Although IZ programs may not produce a high volume of units, such programs have the unique ability to provide the choice to residents to live in communities with better access to transit, jobs, and schools. IZ programs can be flexible in implementation to fit the needs of the county and to fit different project types. For example, the county may want to allow for the provision of inclusionary units to be produced off site; the payment for units through a fee-in-lieu arrangement to the HTF; or the creation of partnerships between for-profit and nonprofit developers so the units best fit the respective business models and expertise. Mitigating the cost of land—something that is fixed, limited, and a significant challenge to all developers in Collier County—can be addressed through vehicles such as a community land trust (CLT) and through a program to designate public land for public goods, such as affordable housing. CLTs are nonprofit, community-based organiza- tions whose mission is to provide affordable housing in perpetuity by owning land and leasing it to those who live in houses built on that land. Although CLTs may have a broad mission, their primary role is providing successful homeownership opportunities for generations of lower- income families. A related approach to the CLT is to consider a ground lease structure. This approach both dramatically reduces the cost of the land to the developer and helps ensure long-term affordability for the housing built on that site. The city of Naples has used this approach in at least two instances at the Jasmine Cay and Carver Apartments. The panel also recommends that the county immediately undertake a review of the current land inventory to identify parcels that may be available for housing development 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report24 opportunities. This review can be accomplished using a cross-agency strategy, and the county should find ways to engage with community stakeholders to identify possible sites and building intensities. A related part of using public land for public good is to colocate affordable housing with the renovation or creation of new public facilities. One suc- cessful example includes building affordable housing for seniors adjacent to a new public library at a development called the Bonifant in Silver Spring, Maryland. It is not the sole responsibility of either the government or the private sector to provide for the housing needs of all residents in Collier County. The best way to produce housing effectively that meets a broad, rather than narrow, range of housing needs is through effective public/private partnerships. Elements of effective public/private partner- ships include creating a shared vision, clear roles and responsibilities, consistent and coordinated leadership, and frequent communication. Repurposing Vacant and Underused Retail Space Another unique opportunity for Collier County to add to its supply of affordable housing is to take advantage of existing vacant and underused retail sites along major transportation corridors through a conversion to multi- family residential buildings. This effort would accomplish several goals simultaneously, including these: ■■Returning underperforming buildings to the tax rolls and generating revenue for the county, and ■■Providing an option for rental apartments along existing transportation corridors without the need to create new infrastructure. The county’s regular rental housing surveys have found va- cancy rates in multifamily rental buildings to be extremely low, at 1 to 2 percent, thus indicating a significant unmet demand for rental housing options. Maintain Supply One of the most cost-effective and efficient means of providing affordable housing is to maintain the existing supply. The National Housing Trust finds that renovating an existing property can be one-third to one-half as expensive as new construction. Renovating older properties does not require new land for development, takes advantage of existing infrastructure, and reduces construction waste. Collier County has an existing renovation code available to developers looking to refurbish existing properties, and the county should encourage its use through incentives mentioned previously, such as through expedited permit- ting and inspections and by reducing or deferring the associated fees. The county can identify opportunities proactively by track- ing properties with expiring affordability covenants (using resources such as the National Housing Preservation database) to ensure that existing rental properties remain affordable for the long term. The county should also explore implementing a right of first refusal to purchase The Bonifant in downtown Silver Spring, Maryland, is a transit- oriented development for lower-income seniors that is adjacent to the new Silver Spring library and within walking distance of transit and bus lines. The panel strongly recommends that the county take an inventory of vacant and underused commercial parcels that might be available for housing development. DAN REEDBETH SILVERMAN/ULI9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 25 (either by the county or by a nonprofit partner) expiring use properties so the county can prevent the loss of any housing that is affordable to low- and moderate-income residents and that might result in displacement. Regulate and Govern After a review of existing regulations, interviews with stakeholders, and an understanding of current market conditions, the panel determined that the county faces inherent difficulties, unnecessary costs, and a lack of predictability to developing affordable housing projects. Al- though internal and external market forces play a large role in the success of the projects, the county could reduce approval times and costs while increasing predictability in the review process in three steps: ■■Update regulations to encourage affordable housing development in desired areas. ■■Permit higher densities in urban areas for projects with affordable housing by-right. ■■Revise the governance structure, and streamline the process. Review and Revise the Land Development Code Good codes are the foundation on which great communi- ties are built. When done well, codes make it easier for a community to implement its vision. However, the current Land Development Code (LDC) does not consistently sup- port and encourage growth in already existing urbanized areas of the county (those areas generally west of Collier Parkway). Many of the LDC’s ordinances are geared toward large-scale, planned-unit developments (PUDs) on greenfield sites. Conversely, smaller-scale redevelopment and infill sites in already developed areas of the county are challeng- ing to consolidate, may need to address adjacent uses and neighborhood concerns, and often require additional Inclusive Housing Strategies: Pasadena, California Pasadena (population 140,000), a southern California city renowned for its high quality of life, faces formidable challenges in providing affordable housing in an expensive market with high land costs and a limited amount of developable property. Sustained price appreciation has made housing unaffordable—even for households earning more than $100,000 annually. Through an array of incentive-based programs, including an inclusionary housing ordinance (IHO) and a density bonus, the city has supported development of more than 5,000 transit- oriented housing units since 2001, including 1,370 units of affordable and workforce housing. The Housing Incentives Fee Program, adopted by the city council in 2004, incentivizes production of affordable housing by providing developers with significant reductions in impact fees, building permit fees, construction taxes, and transportation fees. The city adopted its density bonus ordinance in 2006, which provides developers of housing projects that include affordable units with a bonus in the number of units that may be constructed on a site. Pasadena has emphasized links to transit by clustering mixed-use projects near light-rail stations, major corridors, and employment areas. Because of efforts to encourage transit-oriented development, the majority of residential and mixed-use projects built during the 2000s were located within a half mile of a transit stop or employment center. More than 50 percent of the affordable units produced under the IHO were developed along such major corridors. Two large IHO projects have been developed close to Gold Line light-rail stations, and a third project (totaling 212 units) is forthcoming. In addition, Pasadena’s efforts to promote affordable housing have extended beyond simple subsidies to encompass community outreach. According to William Huang, the city’s housing director, “The success of affordable housing is rarely only financial. Even if funding is secured, gaining public acceptance is a prerequisite.” 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report26 The Bayfront Naples development is an example of successful and appropriate density and mixed-use development in Collier County. SUE ELIAS density to make them financially feasible. Because of the way that current codes are written, PUDs generally have been more predictable to entitle and have fewer barriers to obtaining funding. Although difficult to develop, projects in the urban areas of the county can yield great benefits by placing residents near existing transit, employment, shopping, and other daily needs and by reducing strain on existing infrastructure. Even though Collier County routinely amends portions of its LDC, consideration should be given to initiating an effort to overhaul the code by implementing a Smart Code, also known as a Unified Development Code (https:// transect.org/codes.html) to encourage the development of affordable and mixed-income housing. Smart Codes are designed to differentiate between more urban and rural conditions that reflect the different characteristics and priorities found across the county. Unique standards for the different tiers of density encourage a more diverse development pattern while encouraging affordable housing in a mixed-use, pedestrian-scaled environment. In a Smart Code framework, all regulatory standards are combined into one streamlined document to prioritize environmental protection, high-quality design, and compatibility with existing patterns of development. The focus of the urban tier should be to stimulate and accommodate infill growth while encouraging affordable housing. This focus can be accomplished through residential density bonuses, mixed-use height bonuses, reductions from parking requirements, modifications to buffer and landscape requirements, and other incentive- based measures. In addition to the county’s creating a Smart Code, several LDC revisions could make it easier to develop affordable dwelling units in urban portions of the county: ■■Reduce parking standards: Consider establishing standard percentage reductions in minimum parking requirements for urban portions of the county where there are more transit services, where opportunities exist to walk to shopping and employment, and where shared parking opportunities exist to promote efficient site design and reduce development costs. Typical parking standards for multifamily housing in more urban areas range from 1 to 1.5 spaces per unit. ■■Create well-defined compatibility, building mass- ing, and buffer standards: The panel heard about several recent development applications in which com- patibility with adjacent existing communities has fueled distrust between existing neighborhoods and developers. The conflicts are in part due to a lack of clear expecta- tions as to what is required by the LDC. For infill develop- ment projects that include affordable housing, this lack of certainty causes an unnecessary burden on developers while at the same time residents have concerns about property values and existing views. As an example, Okla- homa City created a development guide (http://planokc. org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/planokc_Chap2_ DevelopmentGuide.pdf; page 71) that focuses on urban design solutions for compatibility related to building scale and site design. It provides clear expectations to both the existing neighborhoods and developers as to what should be expected when designing the site and massing of buildings. Those types of standards can also help set community expectations if it is determined that redevel- opment of nonfunctioning golf courses is appropriate. ■■Permit guest houses as accessory dwelling rental units: There are a number of existing guest homes, pre- dominantly in the eastern portions of the county and the Estates, that—if permitted to be used as rentals—could have an immediate effect on the supply of affordable 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 27 rental housing. Additional rental income could also have a positive effect for families who own the units. Although effects on transportation, schools, and other facilities should be considered, these units have already been constructed, are occupied, or have been occupied in the past. Making them legal to lease allows code enforce- ment to better regulate the units while limiting exploita- tion of renters. ■■Encourage smart-site infrastructure: According to a number of interviewees, the panel heard that several onerous land development requirements add unneces- sary expense to overall project costs. The requirements further exacerbate challenges to providing affordable units in projects. Examples include requiring sidewalks on both sides of the street, right-of-way commitments, utility spacing, and other requirements that are more burdensome to on-site development than are the neigh- boring Lee County standards. Target Certain Activity Centers for Significantly Higher Density with the Provision of Mixed- Income Housing Collier County currently has high concentrations of housing in particularly low-density areas of the county. A healthy mixed-income community has higher densities to promote a walkable environment but not high concentrations of low-income housing in one place. Mixed-income com- munities are a market-based approach and include diverse housing for people with a range of income levels. Mixed- income communities are healthier than homogenous, low-income neighborhoods because they prevent blight, support upward mobility, and help retain property values. The panel recommends the following two approaches to achieve these goals: ■■Strengthen the Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) Program: The current maximum residential densities permitted in Collier County are generally 16 units per acre within specified activity centers of the county when affordable housing is provided (excluding transfer of development rights opportunities). Although maximum buildout of density is frequently not achieved in large PUDs, smaller infill sites in the western urban portions of the county need additional density to be financially viable. This need was confirmed during the panel’s interviews where developers consistently stated that to provide affordable housing on site, the number of residential units allowed per acre should be significantly increased. For example, 30 units per acre may be a more realistic maximum density to properly incentivize market-rate developers to provide affordable housing. In addition, to properly capitalize on infrastructure, mini- mum densities should be provided for residential units per acre. Bonus density is even more important given the approximately 9 percent of unentitled land. Finally, the AHDB program is logistically challenging for market-rate builders to administer. ■■Identify strategic opportunity sites: As illustrated in the map above, the panel also recommends that the county consider further density increases in limited urban areas of the county such as the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA where high-quality transit facilities along transportation corridors are provided. Streamline the Project Approval Process when Affordable Housing Is Provided Land use decisions are largely decided by the five-member Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) by a super- majority rule. According to developers, land use attorneys, planners, and other land development professionals, a great deal of uncertainty exists in knowing whether or not a zoning application will be approved because it takes only two board members to veto a project. For projects that in- clude affordable housing, this lack of certainty is a key im- pediment to project viability. In addition, although all board members are charged at looking at the county, no at-large board members are specifically charged with overseeing regional and countywide issues. The panel recommends considering adding two at-large board members, making the new BoCC a seven-member board, and reducing the super-majority to a five-out-of-seven approval process. If adding new BoCC members is not feasible, the panel recommends reducing the super-majority requirement to a 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report28 simple-majority, which will provide greater certainty. For ex- ample, Hillsborough County, Florida, has a seven-member board with three at-large board members. Although there is an expedited construction permit review process, the panel recommends this process be expanded to include comprehensive plan amendments and zon- ing approvals. Comprehensive plan amendments could also be reviewed concurrently with a zoning change for projects that include affordable housing. This change to the project approval process could also be extended to include a concurrent processing of a zoning application and site plan. Consideration should be given to increasing the number of administrative approvals that do not require BoCC approval that will streamline the process and provide greater certainty. Although not strictly related to incentivizing affordable housing, Fairfax County, Virginia, provides concurrent processing (see www.fcrevit.org/publications/download/ DevelopmentInCRD_CRA.pdf) for comprehensive plan amendments and zoning applications as an incentive for redevelopment of older areas of the county. Enhance Transportation Options Collier County, the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organiza- tion (MPO), and the city of Naples have done extensive public outreach and planning for alternative mobility op- tions in the county. From the Collier County Master Mobility Plan (2012) and MPO’s Comprehensive Pathways Plan (2012), there are clear strategies and recommendations for enhancing transportation access across the county. In ad- dition, there are policy frameworks—such as the complete streets, the existing community movements including the Naples Pathways Coalition, the community Blue Zone, and the various committees and task forces that are informing a range of government entities. Those efforts have created an exemplary foundation of outreach and data to inform and to guide the implementation of a thorough alternative transportation system. Such assets and engagements are critical in the context of housing affordability, because transportation costs and convenient, efficient access to jobs seriously affect the attainability of housing and the overall viability of a community. For instance, even if housing is affordable, the costs of transportation can outweigh the financial benefits of those price points. In addition, the very workforce that most directly benefits from accessible and efficient transportation systems serves as the backbone of the Collier County economy: thus, it relegates this workforce to commutes of several hours or to life-threatening conditions (via bike and pedes- trian commutes), and it inhibits this group’s productivity and employment access. Whether it is a bank teller driving to work in Naples, a landscaper riding his bike to a gated community, a waiter taking a bus to a local restaurant, or a teacher walking to a neighborhood school, the workforce of Collier County needs a range of transportation options that align with and support a range of housing choices in a variety of areas. By enacting and implementing many of the recommenda- tions that the plans call for, not only will Collier County be a more accessible community, but also it will be a healthier and more fiscally conservative area. As the aspirations and The panel created a conceptual framework to help identify activity centers and transportation corridors with a higher density of mixed-income housing development. Activity centers are denoted by red squares and transportation corridors by purple lines.JOHN ORFIELD/ULI Pine Ridge Road Ta m i a m i T r a i l 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 29 To enhance transportation, the panel recommends the adoption of many of the strategies and recommendations from the Collier County Master Mobility Plan (2012) and the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization Comprehensive Pathways Plan (2012).COLLIER COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY tenants of the Blue Zone Project espouse, active lifestyles are the key to healthy living. Providing a more integrated network of mobility not only provides workforce access but also provides access to healthier lifestyles. In addition, with estimated road costs averaging $4.6 million per lane mile, identifying proactive approaches that will reduce congestion and stress on roadways will save the county significant funds in the future. For all of those reasons, creating greater synergies between housing and transportation decision making and investments is vital for Collier County. Although the panel applauds the efforts of past plans and initiatives, it strongly recommends leveraging the engagement and resources already in place to create a robust multimodal transporta- tion system that better connects labor, jobs, services, and amenities to housing. It is time to act on the work of the past several years and to implement. In keeping with the plans and efforts mentioned previously, the panel recommends that Collier County specifically pursue and prioritize the following recommendations in an implementation phase. Integrate Bus Routes with Affordable Housing Locations Currently, the average headway (the average interval of time between buses pausing at a given stop on a route) in Collier County is 1.5 hours, with the shortest headway at 45 minutes. For transit riders dependent on a bus service to get to work or to other services and the MPO’s ameni- ties, the infrequency of the service can make transporta- tion and access an increased difficulty. For riders who might have multiple stops or transfers, those headways can change what would be a short car ride into an all- morning or all-evening commute. If directed effectively, however, the transit service can be an extraordinary asset for the Collier County work- force, potentially reducing the group’s commute and car ownership costs. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the average American family spends 19 percent of its household budget on transporta- tion. For families that are in transit-efficient locations, this cost decreases to 9 percent; for those in auto-dependent communities, it increases to 25 percent. Thus, transporta- tion costs can directly add or subtract substantial funds from families’ household budgets, thereby increasing cost burdens or providing more flexibility in household budgets. In light of the budget realities, the panel recommends implementing the recommendations of past planning efforts and aligning affordable housing investments and bus routes to the greatest extent possible, specifically considering and including the following: ■■Identify transportation corridors for multifamily development: In keeping with best practices from com- 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report30 munities such as Charlotte, North Carolina, Collier County should identify specific corridors that connect to major job centers and that incentivize specific zones for further multifamily development. By linking residential growth to the transit system, the county will relieve stress on the transportation system by encouraging transit ridership and by creating more effective commutes for the work- force in affordable locations. ■■Implement park-and-ride systems: Park-and-ride is a term that describes a traffic management practice where drivers leave their cars in parking lots of identified commercial centers (typically on the outskirts of urban areas) and travel to the job or employment centers on public transportation. Given the significant footprint of development across the county, as well as the potential for additional neighborhoods such as Ave Maria develop- ing in the rural lands area, working with commercial centers to create a park-and-ride system would take congestion pressure off the internal traffic corridors and would provide workers living in outlying areas with simpler commutes to job centers. Already, circulator routes provided by the Collier Area Transit System (CATS) provide circulator services to and from major commercial centers, like the Super Walmart. The panel recommends consideration be given to enhancing, modifying, and marketing those routes as park-and-ride opportunities. In addition, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) already operates many park-and-ride facilities across the state, thus facilitating vanpool and carpool options. ■■Explore bus rapid transit and express service lines: Recognizing that there are specific areas of greater tran- sit ridership, CATS should explore the creation of either bus rapid transit or express routes to link specific areas to job centers via an express, limited-stop route. This approach is in keeping with the effective best practices that CATS has already established around many of its bus lines. The opportunity now is to enhance what is in place and to create demand-driven transportation lines serving workers. Las Vegas, another tourism dependent economy with a wide geographic footprint, has imple- mented bus rapid transit and express service lines across the region to directly connect tourism workers to key areas of the city, including downtown and the Strip. Not only is the service successful, but also it is widely used by the workforce to access jobs and housing. Enhance Bike Lane and Pedestrian Systems According to the Collier County MPO’s 2014 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Study —a complementary report to the 2012 Comprehensive Pathways Plan —a survey of 478 respondents resulted in 62 percent reporting that they had felt “threatened for personal safety during bicycling or walking trips.” For Collier County to reduce transporta- tion road costs, effectively move the workforce across the community, and create healthy avenues for residents to engage in civic activities, this number must be mitigated and the recommendations of both studies should be advanced. Steps toward this goal include the following: ■■Implement the Comprehensive Pathways Plan for the county: Advancing the thorough recommendations of past studies is a meaningful next step in this process, but specific prioritization should be given to the “crash corridors” and “crash clusters” identified in the safety analysis. Case Study: Arlington County, Virginia In Virginia, Arlington County’s Special Affordable Housing Protection District (SAHPD) identifies neighborhoods with existing affordable housing within the county’s metro corridors. The goal of the SAHPD is to retain affordable housing opportunities (through preservation or replacement) in the county’s high-cost transit corridors. In instances where redevelopment is proposed within those districts, developers can achieve higher densities if they include one-for-one replacement of existing affordable housing as part of their project. (One-for-one replacement has been interpreted as replacing the number of bedrooms or the gross floor area on a one-for-one basis.) Replacement can occur either on site or at a similar location off site. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 31 ■■Enhance safety for transit mobility: The recommen- dations of the 2014 “Safety Study” should be prioritized and funding should be allocated for the full implementa- tion of key safety issues, including continuing educa- tion for traffic engineers and law enforcement officers, application of the FHWA’s bike and pedestrian best practices, and continued integration of best practices in engineering design. In addition, the panel recommends addressing lighting, street signage, and public awareness for bicyclists and pedestrians. ■■Hire a bike and pedestrian coordinator for the county and leverage expertise at FDOT: To take full advantage of the recommendations and work already completed, a specialized coordinator should be hired at the county level to advance bicycle and pedestrian priori- ties, including reviewing future roadway projects for bike and pedestrian enhancements and safety considerations. In New Orleans, a bike and pedestrian coordinator was able to advance the implementation of more than 100 miles of on- and off-road bike lanes after the project was embedded in the local Department of Public Works through a grant from the local utility company and sup- port from the Louisiana Public Health Institute. Establish Sustainable, Secure Revenue for Transit and Alternative Mobility CATS is serving an increasingly vital need in the county as workforce demands intensify and traffic concerns grow. However, if the service is going to be able to keep up with the demands already placed on it, a critical element is that the service has a sustainable source of revenue it can leverage and depend on. Given the expenses of highways ($4.6 million per lane mile), prioritizing proactive invest- ments in transit today could save the county significant funds in the future. In addition, given the growing bike and pedestrian needs of the county and the multitude of com- munity benefits that those amenities provide, a revenue source should also be identified and provided for such additional capacity. Create Ride-Sharing Option With smartphone apps and online connectivity, fantastic and successful tools for ride sharing are available that can be conveniently and affordably accessed. The county should explore promoting such resources and working with nonprofits to promote convenient ride-sharing options for populations living in more suburban or remote areas, like the Estates, Ave Maria, or Immokalee. The New Orleans Regional Planning Commission sponsors one such ride- share platform, the New Orleans GreenRide, which uses a social media platform to connect riders and carpoolers. Enhance Wages For several decades, middle- and lower-middle-class wages across the United States essentially have been stagnant while housing costs have risen significantly. This trend has resulted in increased pressure on affordability of housing. One effective option to address this issue is to increase wages. The panel has identified two possible options for Collier County. An example of the successful and well-used bike lane infrastructure along 15th Street, a major downtown corridor in Washington, D.C.ELVERT BARNES 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report32 Metro New Orleans GreenRide links commuters with carpool matches in the New Orleans metropolitan region. REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION OF NEW ORLEANSFirst, government employees are one of the largest groups affected by housing affordability issues in Collier County. On the basis of cost burden for this group, the panel rec- ommends the county consider enhancing wages for county employees. Even modest increases in salary for this group can have a profound impact on its ability to afford housing within the community. Second, the panel recommends instituting enhanced minimum wage ordinances. Several U.S. cities including Albuquerque, New Mexico; Flagstaff, Arizona; Malibu, California; Miami Beach, Florida; Portland, Maine; and Washington, D.C., have attempted to address the issue of housing affordability this way and are seeing positive results. In virtually all cases, the ordinances call for a mod- est immediate increase in the minimum wage followed by a series of incremental steps spread over a period of three to five years that ultimately lead to a mandated minimum wage of $13 to $15 per hour. Engage, Market, and Educate Beyond moving ideas into action, education and com- munication also are critical pieces of a comprehensive and successful strategy for implementing housing affordability. If one is to combat the often false and confusing myths regarding what affordable housing is, what it might look like, and what unintended consequences it might create, it is crucial to educate the entire community about the full range of benefits that a balanced supply of housing brings, Denver Transit-Oriented Development Fund The Denver Transit-Oriented Development Fund was established in 2010 with $13.5 million in debt capital to create and preserve affordable housing along current and future transit corridors in the city and county of Denver. In 2014, the fund was expanded to serve the surrounding seven-county region and is now capitalized at $24 million. Borrowers may use funds to purchase, hold (for up to five years), and develop sites within a half mile of fixed-rail transit stations or a quarter mile of high-frequency bus stops. The fund has closed 11 transactions totaling nearly $16 million, with a pipeline of more than 900 permanently affordable units and more than 150,000 square feet of commercial and community space. Returns to capital providers (public agencies, foundations, financial institutions, and community development financial institutions) are generally 2 to 6 percent. DANIEL TOBIAS Denver’s new Regional Transportation District rail system has eight rail lines servicing 53 stations along the north, east, southeast, southwest, and west rail corridors. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 33 The Center for Urban Pedagogy created an online map to help educate users on the many facets of affordable housing and to allow them to explore the income demographics of any New York City neighborhood.CENTER FOR URBAN PEDAGOGYto raise awareness, and to make affordable housing a vis- ible problem to everyone. Bolster Existing Programs and Processes The county government has already developed an afford- able housing database that tracks for-sale and rental units throughout the county. However, the panel recommends enhancing this database to include and track new units coming online and to include their sunset dates so that the county has a clear understanding of the supply of afford- able units in real time. This information should include comprehensive details, including addresses, bedroom sizes, square footage, rental rates, for-sale rates, and neighborhood location. An en- hanced database will also help ensure that the community has a credible source of real-time information that shows that affordability is spread throughout the county and not concentrated in any one district. By improving existing housing information online, the county will create a robust information portal for exist- ing and prospective residents to learn about the county’s housing programs and any workshops or events related to housing in the county, ensuring that residents have the right information to make housing decisions. The panel also recommends that existing housing applica- tions are streamlined for residents and handled directly by the county instead of by individual developers. During the panel’s review, it heard from the development community that developers are responsible for accepting income veri- fication applications, which they are simply not qualified to manage. This process should be administered either by the county or an administrator managed by the county, such as a private or nonprofit lender. Raise Awareness and Communicate with the Entire Community Although the links between housing affordability and communications may not be immediately obvious, public awareness, communication, and an overall education cam- paign can help ensure that ongoing efforts around housing affordability succeed. The panel has seen a tremendous number of plans and technical recommendations, but un- less they are being communicated to the public at large in a clear and concise manner that is understandable by all, such efforts will go nowhere. To start, the panel recommends that the county develop a comprehensive marketing and communications plan that appeals to a wide variety of audiences: the current and potential residents, the business community, the local community organizations, and the proven donors within the community. The plan needs to appeal to people who are seeking housing, to people who support housing afford- ability, and to those who are skeptics. The message should be tailored around those three key audiences and the lan- guage used should be culturally sensitive, age appropriate, and multilingual. Ideally, the strategies will include written, verbal, and visual approaches. The key to the program’s success is the hiring of a cre- ative, community outreach specialist. This person should be a full-time county employee and engaged in public 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report34 One of the many community workshops conducted in the Park View and Pleasant Plains neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., as part of the community engagement video project SEE/ CHANGE DC.SEE/CHANGE meetings, neighborhood events, and other aspects of countywide community engagement. The key to com- munity outreach is for it to occur where people already are. People will not go out of their way to go to those types of meetings; the meetings must be brought to them. For example, the outreach specialist should hold the same workshop on three different dates and times to ensure those with atypical work schedules can still participate and be engaged. Create a Residential Toolkit The county should create a residential toolkit to address three constituencies: seekers of affordable housing, supporters of affordable housing, and skeptics of affordable housing. Seekers of affordable housing. Building on an enhanced online inventory discussed earlier, the panel also recom- mends the county create an affordable housing directory for those residents seeking housing. The directory will list both rental and for-sale opportunities and will draw from the county’s live online database. However, because not everyone is comfortable with (or has access to) the internet, the panel recommends two options for this database: ■■ A web-based platform, and ■■ A printed document that is updated periodically (e.g., quarterly). The panel understands that a housing resources guide is already in place, but it recommends including a resource guide that is for first-time homebuyers and that includes information about housing assistance for downpayment programs, information about renters’ assistance, and information about other community resources available to the public. The purpose is not only to provide information about how someone can afford housing, but also to provide information in a way that allows people to become engaged in the community and connected with their community. In addition, the panel strongly recommends the county employ a housing counselor or expand existing housing counselors’ current responsibilities. The housing coun- The panel recommends that Collier County think creatively about community engagement, marketing, and education strategies. Volunteer programs such as planting projects related to new housing developments and YIMBY (yes in my backyard) campaigns are great ways to raise awareness of and to engage the larger community in housing affordability issues.PERRY ROSEDENVER HOUSING AUTHORITY9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 35 Case Study: SEE/CHANGE DC Though not specifically about housing, SEE/CHANGE DC is an example of a successful, creative, community engagement project to encourage community building and foster dialogue about rapid neighborhood change. Something similar in Collier County could help create discussion about housing and community and could give greater visibility to housing affordability challenges. What it is: The video art project puts a human face on how population change and revitalization are affecting two Washington, D.C., neighborhoods: Park View and Pleasant Plains. When: During fall 2016, video portraits of community members were projected in storefronts and on street corners along a main corridor— Georgia Avenue, N.W., in the Park View and Pleasant Plains neighborhoods. Who: SEE/CHANGE DC was imagined and produced by the Pink Line Project + Citizen Innovation Lab, created by Composite Co. and BellVisuals, and funded by the D.C. Office of Planning (OP) and the Kresge Foundation. How: SEE/CHANGE DC is part of OP’s comprehensive creative placemaking initiative: “Crossing the Street: Building DC’s Inclusive Future through Creative Placemaking” grant from the Kresge Foundation. The grant is intended to “promote community-building in neighborhoods that are experiencing rapid demographic and social change, to engage residents in conversations about the future of the District as OP embarks on an update of D.C.’s Comprehensive Plan, and to demonstrate or test select placemaking recommendations articulated in OP’s neighborhood plans and District Department of Transportation transit corridor studies and livability studies.” In December 2015, OP released a request for applications seeking qualified curators and project managers to work with OP and other District and community stakeholders to define and implement temporary creative placemaking projects. Curators were selected in early 2016 and projects, such as SEE/CHANGE DC, were implemented during 2016. For further information, see www.seechangedc.com. SEE/CHANGE DC is a creative video project that uses community engagement as it inspires community building and fosters conversation about neighborhood change.SEE/CHANGE SEE/CHANGE SEE/CHANGE selor should collaborate with the community engagement specialist and other relevant county employees to create a robust educational program around what cost burden means. Also, it is essential for the housing counselor to develop programs and resources around household bud- geting and wealth creation that will help residents improve their financial management. Supporters of affordable housing. Collier County is privileged to have an engaged and effective philanthropic community. But the county needs to figure out how to get the group involved in affordable housing issues. The panel recommends partnering with the philanthropic community around specific fundraising campaigns, such as spe- cific housing development projects or facade or exterior improvement programs. In addition, the county should 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report36 partner with the philanthropic community to develop fun and creative community volunteer projects and programs to raise awareness and bring the community together. Examples include planting projects related to new housing developments, public art initiatives, “welcome wagon” programs, and “yes in my backyard” (YIMBY) campaigns. Those types of programs can go a long way toward bring- ing the community together. Skeptics of affordable housing. Do not leave out the skeptics of affordable housing. The panel recommends creating a “myths and facts” brochure (available in a printed format and on the county’s housing website) to help debunk myths and perceptions related to negative implications that are often falsely associated with afford- able housing (e.g., increased traffic, crime and density, de- pressed property values). In addition, creating a workhouse media campaign could be another valuable approach to community-wide education about housing affordability and whom it affects. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 37 IT IS THE OPINION OF THE PANEL that Collier Coun- ty absolutely has a housing affordability problem. It is not a crisis yet, but if housing is not addressed, the panel be- lieves that it will become a crisis. Given the growth projec- tions for the county, the panel believes this problem will occur far sooner than expected. All of the panel’s recommendations are intended to help the city and the county provide housing that is affordable for the full range of incomes found within the community. First and foremost, the panel believes the county needs to immediately come to a consensus and establish a clear vision for the county about how to move forward. Does the county want to remain a community that primarily relies on tourism and retirement, or does it want to diversify its economy? Does the county want to limit growth, or does it want to embrace it? Regardless of the answers, it is—in the panel’s opinion—essential that the county address the issue of housing affordability. This approach needs to be a priority. Housing affordability is essential to creating and maintaining a vibrant, sustainable community. Although the county may well have some time to imple- ment the panel’s recommendations, time is of the essence. Failure to act now will put at risk the very things that make Collier County so special. Maintaining paradise is both a privilege and an obligation. Conclusion 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report38 Appendix A: Implementation Schedule Implementation Schedule Added Supply Regulation and Governance Communication and Education Strategies Short Term 0 to 3 years Review existing land inventory for possible affordable housing development sites, including commercial sites for conversion. Develop a cross-agency strategy to consider other public facilities. Identify and vet funding sources to reinstate Housing Trust Fund (HTF). Draft additions to the Land Develop- ment Code (LDC) and the Growth Management Plan to include inclu- sionary zoning and expand expedited permit review process for all affordable projects. Permit guest houses as rental units. Revise the LDC to include a smart code that makes it easier to create mixed- income developments. Identify strategic opportunity sites for density increases such as the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Development Area. Create an expedited and/or concurrent comprehensive zoning plan approval process. Offer administrative approvals for certain applications. Develop inventory of affordable housing units and update regularly. Develop a marketing and communications plan. Employ a housing counselor. Expand and enhance educational programs to ■■Explain housing affordability ■■Explain cost burden ■■Assist residents (renters and homeowners) in household budgeting. Medium Term 3 to 5 years Implement an inclusionary zoning program. Implement an expanded fee waiver/ deferral program. Fund HTF to take advantage of other financing vehicles (LIHTC, AHP, etc.) to support affordable housing development. Develop a process for commercial-to- residential conversions. Plan for additional increased density in certain activity centers with the provi- sion of mixed-income housing. Add at-large Board of County Commis- sioners members and/or reduce the super-majority rule. Continue to refine and update affordable housing inventory. Update and refresh the marketing and communications plan as needed. Update and refresh educational tools and programming as needed. Review and refine resources and tools available to the housing counselor. Long Term 5 to 10+ years Conduct an annual review of HTF levels and report on fund expenditures. Adjust the inclusionary zoning program to balance the needs of residents with those of developers and the current market. Continuously review and monitor inclusion- ary zoning program, expanded fee waiver/ deferral program, and commercial-to- residential conversions process to ensure that the goal of increasing the availibility of affordable housing is being met. Continuously review and monitor the LDC and revisions, strategic opportu- nity sites, and updated comprehensive zoning plan approval process to ensure that the desired goal of increasing the availability of affordable housing is being met. Continuously review and monitor affordable housing inventory, marketing and com- munications plan, and educational tools and programming, as well as resources and tools available to the housing counselor, to ensure that the goal of increasing the availability of affordable housing is being met. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 39 Private funding for housing development and services: Santa Clara County, California (www.housingtrustsv.org/) Mobilizing owners and resources to preserve existing affordable units: Cook County, Illinois (www.preservation- compact.org/) Utilizing publicly controlled real estate to support mixed- income development: Arlington County, Virginia (https:// projects.arlingtonva.us/plans-studies/land-use/public- land/) Helping low-income families access opportunity neighbor- hoods: King County, Washington (https://www.kcha.org/ about/education/) Inclusionary zoning: Palm Beach County, Florida (https:// uli.org/larson-policy-awards/robert-c-larson-award- finalists-palm-beach-county-florida/) Appendix B: Examples of County Housing Initiatives 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report40 Appendix C: City of Austin, 2014 Robert C. Larson Policy Leadership Award Winner City of Austin ORGANIZATION City of Austin, Texas YEAR OF IMPLEMENTATION 2000 AFFORDABILITY 100 percent of units affordable to households at or below 80 percent of median family income (MFI), with 12 percent serving house- holds at 30–50 percent of MFI NUMBER OF UNITS PRODUCED 18,406 WEBSITE http://housingworksaustin.org/ www.austintexas.gov/department/ imagineaustin 2 0 1 4 W I N N E R Austin, Texas, has adopted a multifaceted approach to address the challenges of providing affordable housing in the vibrant and steadily growing city. Outstanding programs include a voter-approved bond program and a city ordinance to incentivize the development of affordable housing. These efforts have yielded 18,406 units since 2000. Austin (pop. 885,000), the capital of Texas, is a national leader in job creation, education, and research, and offers residents a high quality of life with an array of recreational and cultural amenities. Over the past two decades, in the face of rapid and steady population growth attracted to the city, Austin has also encountered corresponding increases in residential rents and home prices. To overcome the resulting squeeze on affordable housing for low-income households, Austin has pursued a multifaceted package of housing programs. These tools include the Housing Trust Fund, the Housing Bond Program, developer incentives, public/private partnerships, and impact statements. • Housing Trust Fund (2000). Since 2000, the Austin City Council has directed $8.8 million in local funds to the Housing Trust Fund (HTF). The city dedicates to the fund 40 percent of incremental tax revenues derived from private sector developments built on designated city- owned property. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 41 • Housing Bond Program (2006). When 63 percent of voters approved an allocation of $55 million, Austin for the first time in its history used general obligation bond funding for affordable housing. Through May 2012, the Housing Bond Program had created or retained 3,055 housing units, of which 73 percent are affordable to households earning 30 to 50 percent of MFI. DEVELOPER INCENTIVES • S.M.A.R.T. Housing™ (2000). S.M.A.R.T. Housing is an incentive program designed to encourage accessible, mixed-income development by providing development fee waivers and an expedited review process for developers who set aside 10 percent of housing units as affordable (S.M.A.R.T. stands for Safe, Mixed-income, Accessible, Reasonably priced, and Transit oriented.) Units must also meet the Austin Energy Green Building Program minimum energy efficiency rating. The program has produced 15,351 units affordable to households earning 80 percent of MFI or less. • Vertical Mixed Use (2007). Commercial design standards provide a density bonus and parking standards exemptions in exchange for 10 percent of housing units in mixed-use developments being designated as affordable. These units must be maintained as affordable for 40 years for rental, and 99 years for ownership. The program has produced 41 units to date. • University Neighborhood Overlay (2004). A density bonus and entitlements are provided to developers who set aside housing as affordable in the University of Texas at Austin campus area. Two tiers of affordability are required—10 percent of units for households earning at or below 80 percent of MFI, and 10 percent of units for households at or below 65 percent of MFI. To date, 117 units have been constructed at 50 percent of MFI, ten at 65 percent of MFI, and 357 units at 80 percent of MFI. • The Downtown Density Bonus Program (2013) and the East Riverside Corridor Program (2013). Height-density bonus programs encourage production of affordable “Because of GO Bond funding, the City of Austin has reaped direct and indirect benefits including increased income (through wages), increased local taxes (both property and sales), and increased local jobs.” Betsy Spencer Director, City of Austin Neighborhood Housing and Community Development 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report42 housing in downtown Austin and in a neighborhood recommended for a future high-capacity transit route. • Transit-Oriented Development (2009). Affordable housing goals have been established through individual station-area plans for areas within a half mile of the Capital Metro commuter rail stations. The overall goal is for 25 percent of all new housing units in the transit-oriented development areas to be occupied by households earning at or below 80 percent of MFI for homeownership or at or below 60 percent of MFI for rental. PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS • Robert Mueller Municipal Airport Redevelopment (1996–present). In a key public/private partnership for the city, the Mueller development when complete will have about 1,200 housing units affordable for households earning at or below 80 percent of Austin’s MFI for ownership and 60 percent of MFI for rental. • Private Developer Agreements—Case by Case. The city continues to negotiate the inclusion of affordable housing in development agreements with market-rate developers to bring affordability into developments that otherwise would be unaffordable to low- and moderate- income households. These units must remain affordable through 2020. IMPACT STATEMENTS • Affordability Impact Statements (2000). Required by Austin’s S.M.A.R.T. Housing™ ordinance, an affordability impact statement (AIS) is prepared by a city staff member for all proposed city code amendments, ordinances, and other proposed changes to identify any potential impacts on housing affordability. To date, Austin has issued more than 150 affordability impact statements. Austin’s multifaceted approach to meeting the city’s need for affordable housing—from zoning to streamlining development approvals, transit, and green construction—provides an effective way to consider housing needs in a variety of contexts. While individual programs have an impact, it is the combination of tools that is most powerful, reflecting commit- ted leadership from the city as well as the willingness of Austin residents to step up and vote for bonds for affordable housing. “Austin’s commitment to providing affordable housing is strong, and our citizens expect the City of Austin to take action on this critical issue. I believe Austin’s affordable housing bond votes were successful in 2006 and 2013 because Austinites wanted to see affordable housing in all parts of our city and believe we all benefit from providing affordable housing for low income families.” Mandy DeMayo HousingWorks Austin Austin, Texas For more information about the Terwilliger Center Awards,see www.uli.org/terwilligeraward. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 43 Philip Payne Panel Chair Charlotte, North Carolina For more than 25 years, Payne’s primary focus has been the development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and manage- ment of middle market (workforce) multifamily housing. During his career, Payne has been involved in more than $4 billion in multifamily related transactions. Payne is currently the chief executive officer of Ginkgo Residential, which was formed in July 2010. Ginkgo provides property management services for multifamily properties in the southeastern United States and is actively involved in the acquisition and substantial rehabilitation of middle market multifamily properties. He is a principal in Ginkgo Investment Company, which was formed in July 2013 and which invests in multifamily properties in the southeastern United States. From 2007 to 2010, Payne served as the CEO of Babcock & Brown Residential. Before joining Babcock & Brown Residential, he was the chair of BNP Residential Properties Trust, a publicly traded real estate investment trust that was acquired by Babcock & Brown Ltd.—a publicly traded Australian investment bank—in February 2007. In addition to his duties at Ginkgo, Payne is a member of the board of directors of Ashford Hospitality Trust, a New York Stock Exchange–listed real estate investment trust that is focused on the hospitality industry. Payne is a trustee and governor of the ULI. He is a mem- ber of ULI’s Responsible Property Investing Council (found- ing chair); is a former cochair of the Institute’s Climate, Land Use, and Energy Committee; and currently serves as a member of the advisory board for ULI’s Center for Sustainability. He is a member of the National Multifamily Housing Council. Payne received a BS and a JD degree from the College of William & Mary in Virginia. He has written for various pub- lications and spoken at numerous conferences on a variety of topics including real estate investment trusts, securi- ties regulations, finance, workforce housing, responsible property investing, sustainability, and resilience. Hilary Chapman Washington, D.C. Chapman is the housing program manager for the Met- ropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG). At COG, Chapman collaborates with regional leaders to solve the challenges of homelessness and affordable housing and provides research and analysis to support local hous- ing policy and practice using a regional solutions-based framework. As the lead staff person for two technical committees on housing and homelessness, Chapman collaborates with COG’s other departments to integrate housing consider- ations into related fields of health, transportation, and the environment. In her role as lead staff person for the Home- less Services Committee, she helps coordinate the annual regional homeless enumeration that takes place during the last week of January each year, and she is the principal author of the committee’s findings, “Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington.” Chapman collaborates with COG’s housing and planning partners, serving as an advisory board member for the Northern Virginia Affordable Housing Alliance, a participant and convener of the Greater Washington Housing Leaders Group, and a planning member for the Housing Association About the Panel 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report44 of Nonprofit Developers’ annual meeting. She participated in the ULI Washington’s Regional Land Use Leadership Institute and is active in ULI’s Housing Initiative Council. She also volunteers weekly at a program site in the District of Columbia with the Homeless Children’s Playtime Project. Before joining COG, Chapman spent nearly a decade as an affordable housing developer, working with public housing authorities nationally primarily through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s HOPE VI program to redevelop its most distressed housing units. She had direct responsibility for the construction of more than 250 afford- able housing units and the planning and financing of more than 1,000 more. She also served the government of the District of Columbia as a Capital City Fellow. Chapman holds a master’s degree in city planning from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an under- graduate degree in sociology from the College of William and Mary in Virginia. Ian Colgan Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Colgan is the assistant executive director of the Oklahoma City Housing Authority, one of the largest public housing authorities in the country with 3,100 public housing units and more than 4,000 housing choice vouchers. Colgan leads all real estate development, planning, and policy initiatives for the authority. He was previously the assistant planning director for Oklahoma City, where he spearheaded the production of the city’s Comprehensive Plan, Downtown Planning Framework, and several commercial district plans, as well as the creation of two new tax increment finance districts. Colgan was also formerly principal with Development Concepts Inc., a redevelopment consulting firm that is based in Indianapolis, Indiana, where he prepared market- based studies and redevelopment plans for communities throughout the Midwest and Southeast. Colgan holds a master’s degree in urban planning from the University of Washington, a master’s degree in business administration from Anderson University, and a bachelor’s degree from Kalamazoo College. He has been a member of ULI since 2012 and participates on the Urban Revitaliza- tion Product Council. JoAnne Fiebe Tampa, Florida Fiebe is a research faculty member and adjunct instruc- tor at the Florida Center for Community Design and Research—a statewide research center at the University of South Florida’s School of Architecture and Community Design. Through her work at the Florida Center, Fiebe provides design expertise, performs applied research, and manages community engagement programs to address urban challenges related to the built environment. Fiebe has 13 years of experience in both the public and private sectors while managing a range of urban design and planning projects. Before coming to the Florida Center, she worked for the Fairfax County Office of Community Revitalization on long-range planning, economic develop- ment, and policy for transit-oriented development districts in the Washington, D.C., metro area. Her previous experi- ence included managing entitlements for large residential and mixed-use projects at several development firms. For the past seven years, she has served on the board of a nonprofit urban design collaborative, the Urban Char- rette, which cultivates knowledge of leading urban design practices to build vibrant cities. She also teaches graduate courses at the University of South Florida about city plan- ning and sustainable urban development. Fiebe earned her degrees in architecture from the Uni- versity of Miami and a master’s of urban and community design from the University of South Florida, where she also worked at the Center for Urban Transportation Research and coauthored a study on transit and bicycle lanes. She has been published in the Transportation Research Board and in the National Civic Review, and her research was cited in the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide. In her career, Fiebe has led more than 20 public planning projects including over a dozen community engagement 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 45 charrettes. She participated in ULI’s Regional Land Use and Leadership Institute and was a resource team member for two Mayor’s Institute for City Design programs. She is a member of the American Planning Association and the Urban Land Institute, is LEED accredited, and is a certified charrette planner. Lacy McManus New Orleans, Louisiana As the director of program development for Greater New Orleans (GNO) Inc.—the economic development alli- ance for the ten-parish New Orleans region—McManus is responsible for relationships and for the coordination between product and business development. McManus has positioned the organization’s workforce and environ- mental and resilience initiatives as catalysts for wealth generation in southeast Louisiana. In this role, she acts as a liaison between GNO Inc. and private philanthropies, business community stakeholders, government agencies, and nonprofit partners to ensure that GNO Inc.’s programs create a thriving regional economy. Specifically, McManus oversees GNO Inc.’s Coalition for Coastal Resilience and Economy, a business-led advocacy campaign for holistic coastal restoration in south Louisi- ana. She also coordinates GNO’s workforce development programs, including an award-winning outreach series to local educators, as well as ongoing engagements with regional higher-education institutions. In 2015, she worked with the state of Louisiana and New Orleans to bring in more than $233 million in resilience funds to the region through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban De- velopment’s National Disaster Resilience Competition. On the federal front, McManus serves on GNO’s policy team advancing reauthorization of the National Flood Insur- ance Program through the Coalition for Sustainable Flood Insurance. She also represents GNO on the Housing NOLA Leadership Team and CONNECT Coalition. Before joining the GNO staff, McManus was the special initiatives manager with the nonprofit organization the Center for Planning Excellence, where she oversaw an innovative transportation, land use, and housing policy and advocacy campaign. She has branding and communica- tions experience from several years living and working abroad in both Auroville, India, and in Paris, France. She is an active member of the Junior League of New Orleans, a board member of the public transit advocacy organiza- tion RIDE New Orleans, an alumna of the 2016 Emerging Philanthropist of New Orleans class, and a lead mentor to entrepreneurs in the Propeller small business incubator. McManus holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of Georgia’s Grady School of Journalism, a master’s degree in global communications from the American University of Paris, and a master’s degree in business administration from Tulane University. John Orfield Dallas, Texas Orfield is both the product and a proponent of the collaborative style that BOKA Powell exemplifies. The 40-year-old planning and design firm, which is based in Dallas, specializes in corporate and commercial office, higher education, hospitality, urban living, and senior living. A LEED-accredited professional, Orfield is an expert in urban planning and sustainability. His 35 years of design experience includes landmark workplace, academic, luxury hotel, and residential projects across the United States and Mexico. Growing up in an artistically inclined family, Orfield devel- oped an interest in exploring the kinship between archi- tecture, film, and dance—art forms he sees as related in their portrayal of human experience moving through space and time. He has sought out collaborative environments or created them on the spot in design firms and universi- ties from New York to Indianapolis to Mexico City. Orfield considers every project a partnership, not only between the architect and the client, but also with the site itself. He sees this contextual approach as one reason there is no recognizable BOKA Powell “style”—only spaces that 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report46 benefit their surroundings as the result of a very intentional design process. Orfield’s recent projects include major projects for South- west Airlines, including the carrier’s corporate headquar- ters master plan, the 1.1 million-square-foot “Wings” Office Building, the Flight Training Center and Garage, and the 500,000-square-foot Training and Operations Support Center at Dallas’s Love Field. Other projects include the Texas A&M West Campus student housing complex, which is designed to accommodate 4,000 students in College Station, Texas; the Venue at the Ballpark, which is a 241- unit apartment complex overlooking the Birmingham Bar- ons ballpark; the Hotel Ajax, which is a boutique hotel and condominium project in Telluride, Colorado; and multiple corporate and commercial office projects for Hillwood and Cawley Partners in North Texas. Orfield’s higher education portfolio includes more than 5.5 million square feet of university architecture, including student housing and academic buildings. He has designed corporate headquarters campuses for Accor, Daimler Chrysler, Mercedes-Benz, and Computer Associates. While a vice-president at Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf Inc., he completed the iconic 400,000-square-foot Eli Lilly Corporate Center in downtown Indianapolis. In 1996, Orfield joined Dallas-based architecture and plan- ning firm HaldemanPowell+Partners. Now known as BOKA Powell, he became a partner and owner in the practice in 1999. Earlier, Orfield was a vice president at Indianapolis- based Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf Inc. from 1988 to 1994. He worked in numerous architectural intern positions in Houston, Texas; New Haven, Connecticut; and New York City, including an undergraduate internship with Mitchell Giurgola. He earned a master’s degree in archi- tecture and building design from Columbia University in 1987. He earned his first bachelor’s degree in architecture in 1980 and a second bachelor’s of architecture in 1982 from Rice University in Houston. A lifelong educator, Orfield was a member of the fac- ulty of the University of Houston College of Architecture from 1984 to 1986, where he earned the Excellence in Teaching award. He also held an appointment as a visiting professor at the Universidad de las Americas in Puebla, Mexico, from 1994 to 1995. Cassie Wright Denver, Colorado Wright is the project manager for Urban Ventures LLC, a real estate company that is dedicated to creating healthy, sustainable communities. In her position, Wright works on all aspects of real estate development: from land acquisi- tion to project construction. She tests the financial feasibil- ity of projects, actively participates in the site planning and design processes, develops marketing and sales related materials, and closely interacts with project partners. In addition, Wright consults on real estate projects that focus on the relationship between the built environment and healthy living. In this role, she researches and implements best practices and health-based programming to foster community development that promotes social cohesion and positive wellbeing. Currently, Wright is involved with the land development of Aria Denver, a 17.5-acre, mixed-use, mixed-income project that will include more than 450 units and a commercial component. Upon completion, Aria Denver will promote healthy living with community gardens, production farms, a food-producing greenhouse, pocket parks, outdoor fitness equipment, and pathways integrated into the site. Aria Denver is part of Cultivate Health, a partnership among neighboring Regis University, the surrounding neighbor- hoods, and more than a dozen nonprofit organizations. Funded in large part by the Colorado Health Foundation, Cultivate Health is providing infrastructure enhancements and programming that promote an active lifestyle, increase access to healthy food, and offer integrated health services. Wright is co-manager of the Colorado Health Foundation grant and is managing the implementation of three major infrastructure projects (i.e., production farms, improved bicycle facilities, and neighborhood wellness loop) that are included in the Cultivate Health initiative. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 47 Wright is also actively working on the Aria Cohousing proj- ect. Cohousing communities are intentional, collaborative neighborhoods that combine private homes and shared spaces. In cohousing, residents actively participate in the design and operation of their neighborhoods while sharing common facilities and good connections with neighbors. Aria Cohousing is the redevelopment of a 35,000-square- foot convent into 28 condominium units and shared community spaces including a community dining room, kitchen, multipurpose room, guest room, and sunroom. Finally, Wright is project manager for STEAM on the Platte, a 3.2-acre, mixed-use project in Denver’s abandoned, industrial corridor along the Platte River. In its first phase, STEAM will feature the conversion of an existing 65,000-square-foot industrial warehouse into office space and the creation of a courtyard and promenade that con- nects to the river’s edge. Wright holds a master’s degree in city planning from the University of Pennsylvania and a bachelor’s degree in soci- ology and anthropology from St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota. She serves on the nonprofit board for Soul Spring, as well as on the Mile High Connects Advisory Council. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential A ULI Advisory Services Panel ReportA ULI Advisory Services Panel Report♼ Printed on recycled paper. 2001 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.uli.org Collier_Cover.indd 1 5/17/17 11:17 AM 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential U.S. Apartment Demand – A Forward Look Prepared by: Hoyt Advisory Services, Dinn Focused Marketing, Inc. and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors, LLC May 2017 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 2 Estimating the Total U.S. Demand for Rental Housing Table of Contents Page Executive Summary 3 U.S. Rental Demand 5 Estimating U.S. Population 5 Estimating U.S. Households 8 Total Housing Demand 14 Home Ownership Rates and Rental Demand 19 U.S. Rental Housing Demand 24 Rental Demand for Institutional Investment 26 Other Rental Property Types 28 Scenario Analyses 30 National Trends Worth Watching 32 Conclusions on U.S. Rental Housing Demand 38 State Key Issues and Trends 39 Metro Market Key Issues and Trends 44 Appendix 1: Institutional Ownership of Single Family Rentals 52 Appendix 2: Owner vs. Renter Demographics 53 Appendix 3: State and Metro Market Tables 55 Appendix 4: Metro Market Overviews 61 Appendix 5: Methodology 162 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 3 Estimating the Total U.S. Demand for Rental Housing Executive Summary The housing bubble fallout of 2007-2010 resulted in a paradigm shift in the U.S. among many households. Disillusioned by the bursting of the house price bubble that destroyed equity, many former home owners continue to rent today. Younger households, seeking more mobility and often saddled with student loans, postpone home ownership or choose to have the flexibility of renting. Demographic shifts also affect home ownership and the result has been a declining home ownership rate and corresponding increase in the percentage of households that rent. Some of this shift came about in the same housing units, as owned units became part of the rental inventory and today some one-third of all rental units are single-family units. Tighter underwriting standards by lenders have resulted in a tighter supply of both multifamily and single-family housing with prices and rents exceeding the growth in income for the past decade. Housing affordability, especially on coastal markets, remains low. Housing supply is adequate in most markets but there are many exceptions especially along the Northeast and Western U.S. coasts at certain price segments. Affordable market-based housing is only achievable with greater density and smaller sized units, yet land-use policies and political approval processes have moved in the opposite direction adding greater regulation and restrictions. The internet and social media have facilitated quick mobilization for groups that feel threatened by new housing developments that will add traffic and parking congestion in their neighborhood. Demographic shifts, student debts and tighter underwriting continue to suggest substantial rental demand in the future. Among the major drivers of metro and state level household growth are in-migration policies and trends. As a whole, the U.S. depends on immigration to fuel the labor market. Any declines in immigration rates will severely curtail both the growth of the U.S. economy and future housing demand. In recent years, several metropolitan areas would have had zero or negative population growth were it not for international in-migration. Their natural population increases have been more than offset by domestic out migration and yet international migration has significantly supplemented the population. These metros include1 Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, St. Louis and New York. Among the metro markets studied, migration rates are a key telltale sign of the local economy’s direction. Those metros with strong economies also have significant population growth rates often derived from in-migration from both domestic and international sources. Examples include Houston, Charlotte, Austin and Tampa-St. Petersburg. Markets such as Washington D.C. and San Diego have strong international in-migration but experience domestic out-migration. Uncertain in our housing outlook is the longevity of the current rental stock. This study assumes a base rate of economic obsolescence of 0.5% or 720,000 units per year on average through 2030. If the economic life of a housing unit is reduced to 100 years (1.0% per year), on average, then we need 1.4 million housing units per year just to replace the lost housing units. The type of housing needed in the future is also shifting towards units that accommodate older households. 1 April 2010 to July 2016 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 4 Given the maturity of the current economic cycle, the forecast assumes that the U.S. economy could go through two recessions by the end of the forecast period in 2030. Even under this scenario, all 50 states and the 50 metropolitan markets in this study will need new multifamily housing going forward to meet a growing population base. The Southern states driven by economic growth, low costs and diversified demographic growth continue to lead demand forecasts with metropolitan markets in Texas and Florida ranked in 5 of the top 6 places. Phoenix, Atlanta, Raleigh and Las Vegas also rank in the top 10. Slower growth markets are more likely to experience new demand growth in specific neighborhoods. Developers and investors should evaluate these markets carefully for new growth as well as revitalization of existing neighborhoods. These markets are frequently located in the Midwest and Old South and include markets such as Cleveland, Milwaukee, Birmingham, Pittsburgh and New Orleans. Growth drivers also vary greatly by metro market and will shape the format of new construction going forward. A few markets will continue to attract new renters of all ages, while many will experience an increasing proportion of demand from 35+ aged cohorts. The 65+ aged cohort will account for a large part of demand in some low growth markets, particularly those experiencing net out-migration trends. Income and ethnicity trends also vary significantly by market. While some markets embrace growth, others are restricted either geographically and / or by policy. Supply-restricted markets tend to have higher rental costs and lower affordability. Markets with both high rental and high for-sale housing costs risk losing population bases to lower cost areas. The middle class, including necessary professions for a healthy economy such as teachers, police and fire-fighters, cannot afford average rents in these markets. States with healthy balance sheets and educated workforces continue to be primed to attract individuals and firms from these markets. Several ‘known unkowns’ could occur going forward that would significantly change the forecast. At the national level, 75% of the variance in the U.S. home ownership rate since 1971 can be explained by policy changes such as those that impact capital and banking markets. It is unknown whether policy changes will be put into effect which could impact the applicability of the mortgage tax deductions, particularly for middle income families. Changes in these policies can affect the ‘own vs. rent’ decision and thus the amount of demand for multifamily properties going forward 2. The second large ‘known unkown’ at the national level at the time of writing this report is the impact of policy changes on immigration rates. As the U.S. population ages, growth is slowing and becoming increasingly dependent on immigrants who have a higher tendency to rent. As a base case, population growth is expected to slow from 0.9% per year on average from 2000 to 2010 to 0.7% on average from 2016 through 2030. Under this scenario, immigration begins to outpace natural growth (births minus deaths) by 2023. Without immigration, population growth is expected to slow to 0.4% per year through 2030, less than half the pace of the past decade. At the local level, some markets could surprise on the upside. For example, large tech campuses continue to expand in Seattle. A growing hub of large tech firms could attract more than expected small tech firms as well as individuals looking to escape the high costs of Silicon Valley. Detroit is at the other end of the growth spectrum but has been increasingly attracting a few investors who are aggregating large tracts of land. 2 For example, doubling the standard deduction would eliminate the benefits of mortgage interest and property tax deductions for many households and thus, at the margin, provide less incentives to own housing. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 5 U.S. Rental Demand At the national level, we first estimate total rental demand based upon total population, household size projections, and the portion of the market that desires and can afford ownership given the regulatory environment, interest rates and ease of credit access. The result is the net rental demand in households. We provide some notes on trends worth watching that might affect rental housing demand. We also provide some supply side discussion bringing in the impact of those marginal single- family units that might be rentals or owner occupied. In brief, the national housing rental demand model is essentially the following: 1. Estimate total population growth considering births, deaths and net immigration. 2. Divide this by household size considering probable recessions and demographic trends 3. Equals total households (with a qualifier on homelessness) 4. Add to this the equilibrium vacant housing from market friction, normal vacancy and second+ home demand 5. Add to this the housing units lost to real depreciation and obsolescence including normal attrition for changes in use, public improvements, etc. 6. Equals total housing unit demand 7. Estimate the owner-occupied portion of this to derive renter demand, considering credit access, housing policies, existing household debt including student loans and credit debt, housing investment appeal and general affordability. 8. Allocate renter demand for new multifamily rentals of 5 units or more per building as defined by the NMHC. 1. Estimating U.S. Population The U.S. Population is approximately 325 million persons 3 as of the end of 2016, growing at approximately 2,229,000 per year which equates to 4 net new people per minute, 6,107 per day. These estimates are based on the three most important metrics of population: births, deaths and net international migration. Of these three parameters, net immigration is the least predictable but most important for forecasting future population. The reason is that as the U.S. population continues to age our domestic death rates will slowly approach our birth rates. We will continue to add net population at the rate of about 1.35 million for 2017 (births less deaths) but the net immigration figure for 2017 will run 0.88 million. By 2023 and beyond the rate of expected population growth from net migration exceeds that of births less deaths.4 By 2030, net immigration is expected to run 1.33 million compared to an internal net population increase of 840 thousand. 3 Official estimates from the U.S. Census. 4 This is from the U.S. Census as well as Pew Research and others. See for example: “Immigration projected to drive growth in U.S. working-age population through at least 2035” PewResearchCenter.org By Jeffrey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn, published on: April 17, 2017 http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/chapter-2-immigrations- impact-on-past-and-future-u-s-population-change and http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2017/04/lawler- updated-population-projections.html and http://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=23839. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 6 Historically, immigration is highly dependent on the state of the U.S. economy, slowing down during recessions and accelerating during better economic times. For example, while Mexico remains the largest source of persons who obtain lawful permanent resident status in the U.S.5, net immigration is balanced by persons leaving the U.S. for Mexico. Over time, immigration from Mexico has been one of the largest from any single country bringing 400,000 people per year from 2001-2005. From 2006 through 2010 the number slowed to a trickle, only 200,000 total over 5 years or a tenth the previous rate.6 Since 2010 the net immigration from Mexico has declined to a very small number, and was negative from 2009-2014. Factors for this slow down include a stricter immigration policy on the U.S. side with increased deportation of undocumented immigrants, less demand for unskilled labor, except for agriculture 7, and positive economic growth in Mexico after the 2009 recession. Asian immigration rates are simultaneously increasing and are now surpassing the combined totals from Mexico and all other Hispanics as the largest single entering ethnic group. Immigrants from Asia tend to be highly educated and have job skills making it easier to integrate into the U.S. economy over a broader range of jobs. For example, 57% of Asian immigrants in 2015 had completed college compared to 13% from Mexico and 28% from Central and South America.8 As immigration is approaching half the annual net U.S. population growth rate, it is becoming a critical factor in population forecasts (see Exhibit 1 and Figure 1). What is unknown is whether the U.S. policy towards immigration will be broadly more challenging or more specifically challenging towards single countries or certain group profiles. The Obama administration was characterized by severe, if not extreme, vetting of immigrants. As a base case, we use Census forecasts as shown below, presuming that new immigration policies will sound dramatically more extreme, but should be modest in terms of real impact.9 The impact of more restricting policies is explored in the Scenario Analyses at the end of this section. 5 Department of Homeland Security, 2015 Yearbook; Mexico accounted for 157,227 of 1,051,031 total persons who obtained lawful permanent residence in 2015, followed by China (70,977), India (61,380), Philippines (54,307) and Cuba (54,178). 6 See MPI reports at http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/mexican-immigrants-united-states. 7 California is especially dependent on Mexican labor for agriculture and would be devastated if temporary work permits were not facilitated. 8 PEW Research Center report on “Future Immigration will change the face of America” 2015. 9 There are some countries that might be more severely impacted by a Trump administration including Syrian refugees, and those from other Islamic countries but it remains to be seen how new policies will play out. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 7 Exhibit 1: Population Projections Year Population Numeric Change Percent Change Natural Increase Net International Migration 2015 322,632 3,073 0.94% 1,386 1,119 2016 325,107 2,107 0.65% 1,367 1,097 2017 327,336 2,229 0.69% 1,353 876 2018 329,534 2,199 0.67% 1,368 831 2019 331,700 2,166 0.66% 1,362 804 2020 333,849 2,148 0.65% 1,338 810 2021 336,045 2,196 0.66% 1,188 1,008 2022 338,442 2,398 0.71% 1,212 1,185 2023 340,867 2,424 0.72% 1,203 1,221 2024 343,278 2,412 0.71% 1,166 1,246 2025 345,665 2,386 0.70% 1,127 1,259 2026 348,009 2,344 0.68% 1,079 1,265 2027 350,305 2,297 0.66% 1,023 1,274 2028 352,560 2,255 0.64% 963 1,292 2029 354,777 2,217 0.63% 903 1,314 2030 356,949 2,173 0.61% 840 1,333 Figure 1: Population Projections Plot 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 197019731976197919821985198819911994199720002003200620092012201520182021202420272030U.S. Natural Internal Population Increase vs Immigration (000's) Net International Migration Natural Increase forecast 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 8 The impact of immigration on population growth estimates varies widely. While border states first come to mind as areas that could be heavily reliant on immigration for population growth, we find that many of these areas also attract a large U.S. migration making immigration a small part of total growth, e.g. immigration accounted for only 5.0% of population growth in Texas and Arizona in the 2010-2014 period. To the contrary, we find that immigration is more important to slow-growth states, accounting for virtually all population growth from 2010 to 2014 in states such as Maine, Michigan, Rhode Island and West Virginia, and more than 30% of growth in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Vermont. See the state and metropolitan area reviews of this report for further discussion. 2. Estimating U.S. Households Moving from population estimates to household estimates is simply a function of household size. Household size has declined steadily since 1965, but the rate of decline has flattened in recent years. See Figure 2 below which shows the peak of household size at 3.7 for families and 3.35 for all households in the 1960’s. When the population is adjusted for non-households; e.g., those living in group quarters, the average household size is about 2.54 overall and 3.15 for families as of the 2015 Census. If we divide 325 million by 2.54 we get 127.9 million households as of the end of 2016, but this exceeds the benchmark estimates of 118.2 million per the most current U.S. Census survey. Thus, we used the most complete and current surveys of population and households from different Census surveys 10 and other sources to estimate household size and total households. Figures used in this survey are shown in Figure 7. Several factors are causing a decrease in household size. Single persons living alone doubled from 13% of households in 1960 to nearly 27% in 2010 (Figure 3). This is a result of influences on both ends of the population spectrum. The median age at first marriage increased from 23.5 for men and 21.1 for women in 1975 to 29.5 and 27.4 respectively in 2016.11 10 U.S. Census B25127 2015 ACS (1-year) table, Moody’s Analytics and Hoyt Advisory Services. 11 U.S. Census Bureau, Families and Living Arrangements, Table MS-2. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9 Figure 2: Household Size Over Time Figure 3: The Rise of the Single Person Household 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80 4.00 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Changes in Household Size Source: U.S. Census All Households Families 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 U.S. Single Households and Forecast Source: U.S. Census and Forecast 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 10 Not only are the single households rising as a percent of the population but the size of households overall continues to decline as shown in Figure 4. Households of three or more people declined from 59% of households in 1960 to 43% in 1990 and 38% in 201612. Figure 4: Large Households a Declining Share of Total Household size by age of householder increases on average until age 40 as young people form families and then begins to decline after age 4013. See Figure 5 below. Average household size is three people or larger for households where the head of household is aged 30 to 49. Conversely, household size drops precipitously to slightly over 1.6 people when the head of household is 75+ years. As the U.S. population ages, older (and smaller) households are becoming a larger share of the market. See Figure 6 below. Notably, we estimate that the 45-54 aged household segment will decline from 21% of households in 2010 to 16% in 2030 while the Baby Boomers, born circa 1946 to 1964, are entering traditional retirement age. The 65-74 aged segment is projected to increase from 11% of households in 2010 to 17% in 2030 while the 75+ aged segment increases from 10% to 15% of households during the same time period. 12 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Families and Living Arrangements. 13 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey 2015. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016% of Total HouseholdsNumber of People in Household Households by Size One Two Three Four Five Six Seven or more 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 11 Figure 5: Household Sizes Are Smaller for Older Households Figure 6: Older Households an Increasing Share of Total Households 2.442.563.033.383.263.042.712.362.081.901.640.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 20-24 years 25-29 years 30-34 years 35-39 years 40-44 years 45-49 years 50-54 years 55-59 years 60-64 years 65-74 years 75+ yearsMean Household SizeAge of Householder Household Size by Age of Householder 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016 2020 2030Percent of Total HouseholdsHouseholds by Age of Householder Under 25 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 65 to 74 years 75 years and older 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 12 Another significant trend impacting household size is the increasing share of population growth attributed to international in-migration to the U.S. See Figure 1 above. Notably, households of Hispanic origin14accounted for an estimated 20% of U.S. population growth in 2015 and 43% of net in-migration. By 2030, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that people of Hispanic origin will account for 24% of U.S. population growth and 41% of net in-migration. This is significant to household size estimates because households of Hispanic origin are significantly larger, averaging 3.25 people per household as compared to 2.42 people per household for non-Hispanics.15 However, similar to overall U.S. household size data, Hispanic households are also declining in size, down from 3.56 people per household in 2001. The implications of the household size and population trends are projected below in Figure 7. The U.S. is expected to have approximately 141 million households by 2030. From the end of 2016 through the end of 2030 the population should grow in total by 9.8% but the household growth rate over than same period is 12.8%, as the household size declines. This is an annual compounded growth rate, in our base case, of 0.7% in population increase and 0.9% in household increases. Note that this is a slower pace than recent historical trends when population increased by 1.2% annually on average from 1990 to 2000 and by 0.9% from 2000 to 2010. Without any net in-migration from other countries, the U.S. population is expected to grow by only 0.4% annually through 2030. Household growth stayed a little more stable over time as household size shrank, averaging 1.2% per year in both 1990-2000 and 2000-2010 and dropping slightly to 1.1% since 2010. While the timing and severity of economic recessions are difficult to predict, the U.S. has experienced a recession every four to ten years during the past fifty years. Thus, we broadly estimate two recessions slowing down household formation rates in the forecast horizon, the first estimated around 2019 lingering until 2020 and the second and larger recession in 2030, possibly starting in 2029 and lingering through 2031. The first recession is forecast to be mild and is based upon the normal economic cycle.16 A second mild recession could occur in 2026 but will depend more on a global economy and is not factored into any of our models. The third recession is estimated to be quite severe and is based upon entitlements (Social Security and Medicare) running out of funding resulting in the need for massive tax increases and some budget cuts.17 The population growth rate in the graph below is shown in lighter gray with the darker column showing households. Normally the household growth rate exceeds that of the overall population, but here we note the effects of the slower household growth rates during projected recession years which is further impeded by lower than historic population growth. The number of households actually shrinks slightly in 2030 as more people double or triple up during a significant recession. 14 Note that origin is separate from race, and thus Hispanic households may be of any race in U.S. Census data. 15 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey 2016. 16 A variety of sources were used to suggest a recession in late 2019 and during part of 2020. The most convincing of these came from Intensity, an economic forecasting firm headed by Dr. Alan Timmermann. See http://intensity.com/forecasts. Another economist consulted for longer term economic crisis is Dr. Alan Beaulieu. https://www.itreconomics.com/content/alan-beaulieu. 17 See the very convincing analysis of Alan Beaulieu, http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/dr-alan- beaulieu/us-recession-2019-depression-2030 where he makes the case that the U.S. politicians kick the can down the road until it reaches a crisis point, that being the inability to fund Social Security, Medicaid and other entitlements, along with a maxed out Federal debt creating unsustainable borrowing capacity. The timing estimate here is very much driven by the aging Baby Boomers who will no longer be working and demanding vast increases of medical care in the last years of life. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 13 Figure 7: Base Case of the U.S. Household Growth Rate U.S. Projected Base Case Households by Year as Used in Figure 4 in 000’s Year Population Household Size 18 Households 2015 323,000 2.53 123,778 2016 325,107 2.52 125,094 2017 327,336 2.51 126,501 2018 329,534 2.50 127,915 2019 331,700 2.51 128,043 2020 333,849 2.51 128,979 2021 336,045 2.47 131,848 2022 338,442 2.46 133,295 2023 340,867 2.45 134,746 2024 343,278 2.45 135,688 2025 345,665 2.45 137,131 2026 348,009 2.45 138,048 2027 350,305 2.44 139,474 2028 352,560 2.44 140,363 2029 354,777 2.43 141,768 2030 356,949 2.45 141,092 18 Assumes 3.0% of population is in group quarters. 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500 3,000 3,100 3,200 3,300 3,400 3,500 3,600 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Base Case Projected U.S. Population (left) and Household Growth Rates (right) in 100,000's Population Households 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 14 3. Total Housing Demand While total housing demand parallels the number of households as projected above, the actual housing stock demanded will also be affected by the following factors: • the number of homeless households, • the number of excess or vacant units available to fill new demand, if located in areas where demand exists, • the demand for second and third homes, and last, • the atrophy of physical housing units which will leave the housing market. Later, we will divide the housing demand into owner and renter shares, and when doing so, noting the impact of units that might be part of either stock. a. Homeless Population and Households Homelessness exists in the U.S. at the rate of about 17 to 18 persons per 100,000 population, about half of whom are considered chronic. Thus, on a single night in 2015, more than 560,000 people were without housing and sleeping outside, in an emergency shelter or a transitional housing program.19 The highest rate in any metropolitan market is Washington D.C. at 111 per 100,000 population.20 More expensive large cities tend to have higher homeless rates. Single persons make up about half the homeless household count. From an analysis of long term trends, economic cycles affect homelessness but there is no relative trend based on household income dispersion. During 2016 for example, homeless rates were lower in about two-thirds of the U.S. States and higher in the other third. For 2016 the impact of homeless households requires an adjustment from 125,094,000 down to 124,820,000 households, a reduction of 2/10ths of 1.0%. At the national level this is not very significant, but in some metro markets such as Washington D.C., it requires a modeling adjustment for household demand. b. Normally Vacant Units The U.S. Census Bureau surveyed nearly 134.8 million housing units in 2015, some 118.2 million occupied and 16.6 million of them as vacant representing 12.3% of the stock.21 HAS adjustments that correlate the decennial Census with their current ACS survey provide for 134.7 million housing units in 2015, 120.4 million occupied and 14.3 million vacancies or 10.6%.22 The real question is what is the total demand and growth rate, but part of the demand is a function of normally vacant units. We can break the vacant housing statistic into three parts: There is the normal equilibrium vacancy rate in each market where rents tend to go up when the vacancy rate is below a certain level.23 Residential rentals have the lowest average natural vacancy 19 See http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/SOH2016 “End Homelessness in America” 2016. 20 See http://www.endhomelessness.org. 21 U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year estimates. 22 HAS and associates adjustments are based on Census metrics only. 23 Source: “REVISITING THE DERIVATION OF AN EQUILIBRIUM VACANCY RATE” by Richard Parli and Norm Miller, Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, Vol. 20, Issue 3, 2014. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 15 rate compared to office, industrial and retail property. At the national level, we estimate this at about 5.0% to 6.0%, although in some local supply constrained markets it normally runs even lower and in some elastic supply markets, it runs higher. As of the end of 2015 the rental vacancy rate for all residential was 6.8%. Note that 6.8% of the rental stock would represent about 2.6% of the total housing stock. There are also vacant homes within the owner-occupied market simply because of imperfect timing, or time needed to repair homes prior to occupancy, or from units vacated after buying a new home. This tends to add 1.5% to 2.0% vacancy to the entire stock of housing. c. Demand for Second and Third Homes The third source of vacant homes is from second and third, and in some cases fourth-plus homes, owned but rarely occupied by wealthier households. These are particularly important in tourist markets, but even at the national level the counts are significant. Nationally this surplus housing figure runs about 6.0% to 8.0% of the housing stock, and it has been growing slowly on a long-term basis.24 Add together vacant rental units at 2.6% of the total housing stock, plus 1.75% for unoccupied owner units, plus 7.0% for unoccupied surplus homes and we get a total vacant estimate of 11.35%, which is in the range of the Census-based HAS adjusted estimates above. For 2016 this suggests a total housing demand of approximately 125.125 million households times (1-.1135) equals 141.1 million housing units. This is similar, but slightly higher than our HAS adjusted estimates above.26 See Figure 8 below where we project total housing units required through 2030. Note this does not equal total housing demand, nor can it be used to derive net units demanded per year until we make further adjustments. We must consider the obsolescence, real deterioration and demolition of existing housing stock based on a variety of causes and also include housing units lost to the process of eminent domain for public improvements, schools, roads, and infrastructure. Fires, tornadoes, and hurricanes also take their toll, yet we seldom see eliminated housing units brought into forecast models of demand. This will be considered next. 24 Some of these units may be rented but unreported. Others might be reported as rentals but generally left vacant, so solid and reliable statistics on second homes is a challenge. 25 The U.S. Census Bureau publishes at least five different estimates of the number of households. Each source yields a somewhat different figure. Most of the differences can be explained because of differing methodologies, dates, and whether undercount adjustments have been applied to the series. This study uses a base household estimate as provided by Moody’s Analytics which is based on Decennial Census, Current Population Survey basic monthly files, and annual Census Population Estimates. 26 There is also some possibility that U.S. households or individuals are living outside the U.S., including those in the military, and yet at the same time foreigners are living in the U.S. No adjustments are made for such ex-pat type housing demand. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 16 Figure 8: U.S. Housing Units Projected Through 2030 Prior to Adjustment for Lost Units d. Annual Loss of Physical Housing Units The rate of loss of existing housing stock varies according to age and location. A recent study by Bokhari and Geltner suggested depreciation rates on new multi-family dwellings of 4.0% per year.27 The depreciation tended to slow down as properties aged until they approached the end of their economic life. They found an average real depreciation rates of about 1.44% per year over the entire economic life. Quantifying the impact of real depreciation and units lost to natural causes (fires, tornadoes, hurricanes) and demolished for re-purposed property or moved or changed in use is the discussion provided in CINCH reports by HUD. CINCH stands for Components of Inventory Change.28 CINCH data is not consistent nor annual and the last major report covered 2011-2013. During that time 1.567 million units of housing were lost to various causes, or 522,333 per year. This represented about 0.4%29 of the housing stock per year. However, if we used 0.4% of the housing stock each year, that would suggest an economic life of 250 years, well beyond anything statistically supportable. This seems extreme, especially considering the average age of all U.S. housing is currently around 39 years in age, and few homes are over 200 years in age in the U.S. Figure 9 shows the age of the U.S. housing stock broken down by owned vs. rented and year the units were built 30, including a category for all mobile homes and 27 See “Characteristics of Depreciation in Commercial and Multi-Family Property: An Investment Perspective” https://mitcre.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Characteristics-of-Depreciation-in-Commercial-and-Multi- Family-Property_0317.pdf. 28 See https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cinch.html. See also https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cinch/cinch13/Rental-Dynamics-Report.pdf. 29 Note that loss rates vary by property, tenure and occupier characteristics with renter occupied properties experience loss rates that are about 52% higher than this figure. 30 Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey, 2015. 141,110 142,697 144,292 144,437 145,492 148,729 150,361 151,998 153,060 154,688 155,723 157,331 158,334 159,919 159,156 130,000 135,000 140,000 145,000 150,000 155,000 160,000 165,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 U.S. Housing Units Required With No Lost Units (000's) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 17 other property types. Note that there are significant differences in age of housing stock by property type. For example, 30%-40% of single units, either owned (O:1 in the graph below) or rented (R:1 in the graph below) were built before 1960. Conversely, almost none of the mobile home stock was built before 1960, with a large part of the current inventory built between 1980 and 1999. Rental properties that are 5 units or larger (R:5+), a segment frequently tracked by institutional owners, is more evenly distributed with 21% built before 1960, 61% built between 1960 and 1999 and 13% built in the 2000’s. Note that this segment has the largest percent of inventory built since 2010, at 5.1%. Figure 9: Age of U.S. Housing Stock Using the general number of 1.44% based on the average of Bokhari and Geltner estimates results in an economic life of about 70 years for multifamily properties, which seems very reasonable, assuming owners keep them maintained. One lesson of the Bokhari and Geltner study is that major capital improvements are required to periodically update multifamily properties, or for that matter any building, and without such capital expenditures the wear and tear and loss of real value (gross depreciation) would be much higher. We should also note that the type of buildings we observe which are 250 years-old and still standing have two attributes. They are built of very strong materials, stone or brick and very long lasting roofs. They are also continuously occupied in strong demand areas and well maintained. Today, we tend to use materials that are much less durable. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% O: 1 O: 2-4 O: 5+O: M / OTH R: 1 R: 2-4 R: 5+R: M / OTH Housing Stock Composition by Age and Type of Property B1939 1940-59 1960-79 1980-99 2000s 2010+ 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 18 A recent study by Jiro Yoshida found that the depreciation rate for single family residences was about 1% per year but the rate varies considerably by location and other property characteristics.31 This study used a rather limited sample of properties. To be conservative for the best case, we will use a 200-year life and a 0.5% loss rate, noting that at least two thirds of this loss will be due to natural causes. Even this very conservative estimate suggests we need at least 650,000 units of housing production in 2016 and growing with the stock rate simply to maintain what we have. We should not assume that housing, once built never disappears. We will add this 650,000 plus figure to the total U.S. required housing stock, growing in proportion to the total. Please note how sensitive this assumption is to our required housing stock. We are assuming that the existing stock will be here for a while since the average age is only 39 years and that is why a conservative replacement assumption makes sense for the next few decades. In Figure 10 below, we add in the estimate of lost units to derive the total U.S. housing stock required and in Figure 11 we show the net new housing required each year. The average over the entire period is 1.3 million new housing units each year. Some of the variation in required units is based on a slowdown in economic growth with probable modest economic recessions occurring around 2019-2020 and more severely in 2029-2030. Figure 10: Total U.S. Housing Units Required 31 “Economic Depreciation in Property Value: Cross-Sectional Variations and Their Implications on Investments” by Jiro Yoshida, Real Estate Research Institute Working Paper, April 1, 2017. Working papers can be found at http://www.reri.org/research/working.cfm. 141,760143,357144,962145,117146,182149,429151,071152,718153,790155,428156,473158,091159,104160,699159,946130,000 135,000 140,000 145,000 150,000 155,000 160,000 165,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Total U.S. Housing Units Required (000's) with 0.5% Attition Rate on Existing Stock 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 19 Figure 11: Total U.S. Housing Units Required by Year 4. Home Ownership Rates and Renter Portion of Housing Demand The characteristics of homeowners vary from those of renters. For example, 35% of renters are less than 35 years old with another 20% less than 44 years old. Only 36% of homeowners are less than 44 years old. Renters are more ethnically diverse with significantly more people of Hispanic origin and Black by race, and have a lower proportion of college-educated persons. Interestingly, tenants in rental properties are somewhat sticky with 59% of renters moving into their units in 2010 to 2014 with only 15% moving in 2015. See Appendix 2 for further details. Globally, home ownership rates vary widely from less than 50% of households to more than 95%32. According to data compiled by the European Mortgage Federation from Eurostat, supplemented by more recent data from Eurostat, the majority of European countries, the 28 countries in the European Union, have home ownership rates that exceed the U.S.33 While international comparisons are difficult to measure, countries with extremely high home ownership rates seem to have several factors in common. Many are former socialist countries which gave existing tenants the housing they occupied.34 Ever since the dissolution of the USSR and the transition to privatization, the high home ownership rates have been receding. Culture, the momentum of tax laws and other policies that 32 See http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/06/around-the-world-governments-promote-home- ownership. 33 See http://eyeonhousing.org/2015/06/a-cross-country-comparison-of-homeownership-rates. 34 For example, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and many others. 1,5971,6051551,0653,2471,6421,6471,0721,6381,0451,6181,0131,595-753-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Total U.S. New Housing Units Required By Year (000's) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 20 encourage home ownership and economic stability certainly play a role.35 Developed countries like Germany and the U.K. have had relatively stable economies and inflationary environments and do not fear runaway inflation, thus the demand for real assets and inflation hedges are somewhat mitigated. Housing affordability across countries is additionally impacted by a number of factors including differences in tax burdens, housing stock characteristics and income equality 36. In the U.S., age is positively correlated with home ownership and the highest home ownership rates exist for those aged 65-74, as shown in Figure 13. We also observe a conversion to renting as people reach 75+, especially for those 80+. The Baby Boomers will be crossing these thresholds in significant numbers by 2025, which could affect overall home ownership rates. While it seems that there is no universal equilibrium home ownership rate, we have modeled home ownership rates over time as noted below. In the U.S., a high rate of housing ownership has been an overall economic policy goal, particularly during the past 50 years, after full employment and keeping inflation under control, but this goal seems to have been punctured by the last housing bust. As shown in Figure 12 below, U.S. home ownership rates have historically had little to do with capital market or economic trends. Figure 12: Home Ownership Rate National policies affecting credit availability, banking regulation and lending trends have a significant impact on home ownership rates. Changes in political environments and policies are difficult to forecast going forward, but have had a significant impact on home ownership in the past. In fact, we 35 Capital gains tax laws and exclusions for single and married households help to maintain the momentum of sticking with home ownership after an initial purchase, if significant appreciation has occurred. 36 See http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/international_rental_housing_carliner_marya.pdf. 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%1980198219841986198819901992199419961998200020022004200620082010201220142016Home ownership Rate %U.S. Home Ownership Rate 30 yr Mortgage Rate GDP Growth Home Ownership Rate 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 21 were able to model home ownership rates from 1971 to 2016 with a high degree of certainty 37 using three demographic and economic factors and five policy factors. The policy impacts alone explain approximately 75% of the variance in U.S. home ownership rates since 1971. Examples of significant policy changes include the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act which intended to encourage lenders to address the needs of all borrower segments of their communities including low and moderate-income neighborhoods, i.e. it intended to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low income neighborhoods, otherwise known as redlining. In 1992, The Housing and Community Development Act passed, requiring that 30% or more of Fannie's and Freddie's loan purchases be related to "affordable housing" (borrowers who were below normal lending standards). However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements, and HUD soon increased the mandates. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act was passed in 1999. It repealed portions of Glass Steagall act, allowing depository and investment banks to merge. Critics often cite it as a cause of the subprime crisis, allowing mergers to create ‘too big to fail banks’ that did not have enough regulation regarding risk and reserve requirements. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 further limited the regulation of financial derivatives. As a response to the subprime crisis, The Housing and Economic Recovery Act was passed in 2008 in an effort to assist homeowners and restore stability and confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Home ownership peaked in the U.S. in June of 2004. While 10-year Census data routinely reports lower home ownership rates than annual estimates, home ownership rates are estimated to have peaked near 68% in the first quarter of 2005 as a function of easy credit, subprime mortgage brokers peddling high loan to value mortgage options, reasonably low interest rates, appraisals that merely justified prices paid, and rising price expectations by buyers.38 Since the crash which followed in 2008 and beyond, credit standards have tightened significantly and underwriting remains tighter than prior to the crash.39 While many subprime mortgage lenders are no longer in business, most lenders still sell qualified mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and find appraisers who will justify the value, with little skin in the game. History may repeat itself with respect to a new housing bubble, but for now we observe that as of the end of 2016, nearly 10% of the mortgaged households remained underwater. The forecast model does not assume any policy changes going forward, although significant modifications to the tax code were under consideration as of the time this report was being written. Modifications for example that offset or impact the applicability of mortgage interest deductions in the tax code should be watched going forward for potential impacts on home ownership rates. The appetite and investment luster of housing is certainly much less than before 2008. Home ownership rates are notably lower for younger buyers as shown in Figure 13. This segment of the population has also shown the largest change in home ownership trends since the 2009 peak. While home ownership rates for the 65+ segment of the population fell by only 210 bp since the 2004 peak, rates for the under 35 and 35 to 44 segments fell by 840 bp and 1100 bp respectively. The challenge now is to figure out how much of this change is cyclical and how much is secular. Many of those who 37 Adjusted R square on the model of 0.847. 38 See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/homeownership-rate-in-the-u-s-tumbles-to-the- lowest-since-1965. 39 See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/homeownership-rate-in-the-u-s-tumbles-to-the- lowest-since-1965 with a note that minorities now find it harder to qualify for mortgage loans compared to pre- crisis. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 22 bought near price peaks or had their credit affected are hesitant to jump back into housing ownership.40 Surveys of Millennials suggest that owning a home has less importance than to the prior generation. Others suggest that this reticence to jump into home ownership will change as the younger generation has children.41 Figure 13: Home Ownership Rate by Age Unemployment after the 2008 recession hit the younger population harder. Unemployment for 20-24 year-olds peaked at 17.2% in April of 2010, 10% higher than the average for people aged 35 or over, and double the typical difference between the two age groups. The span between the 20-24 year- old unemployment and the 35+ year-old unemployment did not come back in line until early 2016. Similarly, the 24-35 year-old unemployment peaked at 10.6% in May 2010, significantly higher than the average for the 35+ group. Young adults living at home in both the 18 to 24 year and 25 to 34 year groups increased by about 5.0% in the past decade to unprecedented levels since the data began in 1960 and remain at elevated levels through 2016 with more than half of 18-24 year-olds living with parents and about 15% of 25-34 year-olds living with parents. Additionally, household size increased from 2000 to 2010, particularly in very young households (less than 20 years old) and in the 50-59 aged group, reflecting adult children living at home. The good news for housing demand is that household size trends began to 40 See http://jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/hbtl-06.pdf a Harvard study on housing as a means to build wealth, 2013. 41 See http://rismedia.com/2016/07/25/home-ownership-still-desirable-for-millennials suggesting Millennials would like to own homes but are hampered by student debt and mobility concerns. 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 19941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016U.S. Home ownership Rate by Age Segment Under 35 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 23 reverse slightly in 2016, particularly for younger households that were again beginning to reduce in size, possibly indicating a reversal of the housing doubling up after the recession. In addition to getting married at an older age, young people are having their first child at an older age. In 2000, the mean age of a woman when she first gave birth was 24.9 years old. In 2014, that age had risen to 26.3 42. These trends are significant because the median age of first-time homebuyers is 32 43 – indicating pressure on young people to stay as renters longer. In fact, first-time homebuyers typically account for approximately 40% of home sales, although this figure dropped to a low of 32% as of 2015 (but rose to 35% of survey respondents in 2016). College admissions continued to grow through 2010, and with rising unemployment in the younger population, student debt became an increasing burden. Aside from the tighter credit standards and lower investment appeal of housing, we consider student debt a considerable factor in the home ownership rate over the next several years. As of late 2016 student debt in the U.S., incurred by 44 million borrowers, exceeded 1.3 trillion dollars. Student debt has grown by 500% since 2004. The delinquency rate stood at 11.1% and the average monthly payment was $351.44 Some 70% of the student debt borrowers owe more than $10,000 dollars. The average is now just over $30,000.45 Converting a payment of $351 a month into a mortgage at 4.5% with a 30-year term has the impact of borrowing nearly $70,000 less; or conversely, it is like adding a second mortgage to any home purchase decision. With an 80% loan to value mortgage, this means the average affordable home is constrained by $87,000 dollars. Another way to look at this is if we use 28% of income towards a home purchase, this equates to reducing income by $15,000 per year. The New York Fed has studied the issue of student debt and has provided the following statistic: in 2005 student debt stood at just over 310 billion dollars and the under 30 adult home ownership rate was about 34%. In 2015 the student debt reached $1.2 trillion and the under 30 home ownership rate declined to under 28%.46 The point is that the propensity and capability of buying is being significantly curtailed by student debt. John Burns Real Estate Consulting estimated the reduction in home buying as a result of student debt to be 103,000 homes per year, a reduction of 7.6%.47 Some economists have suggested that students who borrow student debt and graduate will get a positive net present value, but this depends very much on the quality of the selected program. Some students will see substantially increased earning power, such as those attending medical schools or business schools, but many of these 44 million borrowers will be negatively constrained and affected by the debt. This will affect the marginal propensity to buy versus rent. We expect the proportion of college graduates seeking to rent instead of buy for the next several years will be somewhere near 55% as they age and start families, and yet this figure could be high. The U.S. Census figure for home ownership by those aged 35 and below slumped from 34.7% as of December 2016 to 34.3% at the end of March, 2017. 42 Source: NCHS Data Brief, No. 232, January 2016. 43 National Association of Realtors, Profile of Homebuyers and Sellers Survey, November 11, 2016. 44 See https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics. 45 See http://ticas.org/posd/map-state-data for state by state data. 46 See http://financeography.com/millennial-home-ownership-shrinks-as-student-debt-grows. 47 See “Student Debt’s Drag on Home ownership”, John Burns, April, 2017. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 24 Household wealth also plays an important part in home ownership rates. Wealth is impacted by a number of factors including job growth, income levels, savings behavior and capital market trends. Home prices are a large contributor to wealth, and in turn support spending behavior and purchases of other goods in rising price environments.48 Home ownership rates also tend to rise in high inflationary environments in our model. The last major factor that will lower home ownership rates from 2016 through the next decade are demographics. One parent households, headed by fathers, are nine times as common today as in 1960 and four times as common for single mothers 49. The model also adjusts for factors such as age (previously discussed) and race/origin 50. For example, Hispanics represent a growing segment of our population. “According to the American Community Survey, only 45 percent of Hispanic households owned their homes in 2013 compared with 71 percent of White Only households. If one were to hold those rates constant as Hispanics become an increasing percentage of the pool of homebuyers, the home ownership rate would drop.”51 The home ownership rate of Hispanics is rising with each successive generation that integrates into American society, but the impact of a changing population mix and a lower percentage seeking home ownership must be addressed in any realistic model on the home ownership rate. Additionally, household size varies significantly by race. 5. U.S. Rental Housing Demand Based primarily on the lower appeal of for-sale housing for those households burned by the last housing bubble, the impact of student loans and the changing demographics, we expect a decline in the home ownership rate as shown in Figure 14. In the base case, interest rates are expected to continue to increase at a moderate rate, but higher or faster than expected interest rate increases could cause actual home ownership rates to be lower than those shown below.52 Figure 15 shows the total rental stock required to meet rental household demand, and Figure 16 shows the result by year. Note that while Figure 15 reveals a perfect and instant market response to anticipated demand, we do not expect the actual pattern to be so erratic. Rather, the time required to anticipate and get development approvals will require significant planning on the part of developers with no assurances of approvals in a timely manner. The actual number of rental units required, from all sources, averages 586,000 units per year from now until 2030. See Figure 16. In 2015 the U.S. added only 306,000 rental units, the most since 1989. At this rate, we are falling short by an average deficit of over 200,000 rental units. 48 See “How do house prices affect consumption? Evidence from micro data” by John Y. Campbella, João F. Coccob, Journal of Monetary Economics, Volume 54, Issue 3, April 2007, Pages 591–621 at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2005.10.016. 49 U.S. Census Bureau 50 Wachter and Megbolugbe (1992) estimated that about 80 percent of the gap between White households and Black and Hispanic households can be explained by differences in endowment (including differences in income, education, age, gender, and family type). See https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol18num1/ch9.pdf. 51 See http://www.urban.org/urban-wire/why-low-hispanic-home-ownership-rate-matters. 52 Note that ten-year bond yields increased by over 70 basis points from early in November 2016 to December 2016. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 25 Figure 14: Forecast of U.S. Home Ownership Rate Figure 15: Total Rental Stock Required by Year 62.2%62.0%61.8%61.6%61.4%61.4%61.2%61.1%61.0%60.9%60.9%60.8%60.7%60.6%60.5%55.00% 57.00% 59.00% 61.00% 63.00% 65.00% 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Expected U.S. Home Ownership Rate 37,70138,31539,09039,40540,00840,93941,57842,21942,62343,25943,65044,27444,65045,34245,25720,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Total Rental Stock Needed in 000's 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 26 Figure 16: Rental Stock Required Per Year Based on Demand 6. Rental Demand for Institutional Investment We focused next on properties with 5 or more units which are generally of the investment size and quality needed for institutional investors and have provided a large proportion of the needed stock, some 43% or 16.2 million units as of 2016. See Figure 17 below. The 5+ unit segment of the rental market is the focus of the remainder of the report. The 5+ segment was further disaggregated to the state and metropolitan market level for all states and 50 select markets throughout the U.S. by a bottoms-up approach of collecting similar data at the state and metropolitan market level. This data aggregated both Census data and where available, data from private data providers such as CoStar® and CBRE® Econometrics. In some markets, particularly those that are characterized by significant institutional investment, the private data providers had significantly more robust data than the Census surveys. In other markets, the Census data was more robust. Thus, a combination of data sources was used to estimate total stock at the metro market and state level. This data was then summed at the state level to an estimate for the U.S. and was significantly larger than the Census sample, equal to 22.95 million units as of 2016. Even with the advent of a new and more permanent single house rental stock, discussed below, we will still need about 328,000 units of rental housing per year provided by larger properties through 2030. Note that as in the base scenario above, the model continues to assume a recession in 2029-2030 that will require no new 5+ rental housing units in 2030. See Figure 18. 614775315918931639641404636391624376692-85-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Net Rental Units Needed by Year (000s) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 27 Figure 17: Detailed Breakdown of the Rental Housing Stock Figure 18: Rental Units of 5+ Units Per Year Single-family Detached 28% Single-family Attached 6% 2 Rental Units 8% 3-4 Rental Units 10% 5-9 Rental Units 12% 10-19 Units 11% 20-49 Rental Units 8% 50 or more Units 12% Mobile Home or Other 5% 2015 National Distribution of Occupied Rental Housing Stock by Type Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 5-year Estimate 373473191367568389389246386239379229420-52-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 5+ Unit Rental Stock Needed by Year (000's) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 28 7. Other Rental Property Types Single-family Housing and Detached Units as a Source of Rental Supply After the housing crisis of 2008, many formerly owner occupied units became part of the rental stock. In fact, several investment funds were created to own and operate single-family housing units as part of the rental stock. The term for this trend is the “Institutionalization of Single-Family Rentals (SFR)”. Nearly 200,000 single-family homes are now owned as rental units by institutions. A list of the largest is included in Appendix 1, with the largest as of 2016 listed below: Institution SFR Units Blackstone (Invitation Homes) 47,342 American Homes 4 Rent 46,131 Colony Starwood Homes 32,272 Progress Residential 16,345 This SFR asset class would not have existed were it not for the low investment basis possible via a wave of distressed real estate sales with potential rents high enough to carry the units using modest leverage. Another key factor in the establishment of SFR as an asset class has been the ability to reach minimum concentration scale thresholds for the efficient management of units. Because of the need for scale, much of this asset class is clustered in markets hit hard by the housing crisis, where rents relative to acquisition cost were attractive.53 Despite institutional interest in SFR, the bulk, some 99%, of all rental SFR units are owned by individuals and private partnerships. In total, some 17 million single-family rentals compete today with the 2 to 4 unit and 5 or more unit rentals. As a percentage of the total rental stock, SFR units surged from 2010 through 2014 and now represent about a third of all rental stock. The result has been a surge in the distribution of small scale landlords as shown in Figure 19 below: 53 The largest concentrations of SFR units are in Dallas, Denver, San Antonio, Orlando, Nashville, Tampa, Atlanta, Charlotte, Phoenix, Miami, Riverside, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Cincinnati, Raleigh- Durham, Columbus (OH), and Chicago. See http://roofstock.com. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 29 Figure 19: Small Scale Ownership of Rental Units While market share of small scale ownership has increased significantly, we have every reason to expect it to decline as market forces prompt a conversion back to the single-family owner occupant in select markets. 54 We expect that SFR will continue to be a viable rental stock alternative, especially for families choosing to rent and requiring a larger number of bedrooms, something lacking in the typical larger property multifamily stock. Over time, more 3 and 4 bedroom choices could be added to meet this demand, and new units will be added to the inventory. At the same time, some of the existing SFR units will be converted back to owner occupied housing as prices for the owner market rise relative to the rental market and landlords decide to cash out. Additionally, more rental demand is coming from smaller households. For this reason, we do not expect the SFR units to increase as a percentage of the rental stock and in fact, are more likely to decrease over the long run, until the next wave of distressed sales. 54 See Attom Realty’s report called LANDLORD LAND: A real estate dance party is being led by a new breed of rental property investors, March, 2017. http://www.attomdata.com/landlord-land/#. 1-2 units 79% 3-5 units 8% 6-10 units 4% 11-100 units 6% over 100 units 3% Distribution of Rental Units Owned 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 30 Scenarios Analysis At the national level, sensitivity analysis is probably less important in that it is easy to imagine a scenario where some parts of the country are growing more than expected while others are growing less than expected. In such a case, we might conclude that no change in the projected demand for new housing units is needed at the national level if the more positive growth areas exactly balance the less positive (or negative) growth areas. Nevertheless, we have laid out a few national level scenarios that might impact the aggregate rental demand. Lower Rentership Scenario: Here we assume that home ownership rates increase by nearly 170 bp by 2030, but remain about 400 bp lower than the previous peak, assuming that the subprime market was a contributor to home ownership rates reaching levels near 2004-05 that are in excess of long-term stabilized levels. See the below table for home ownership rates used in the various scenarios. We also assume a long-term slow-down in net immigration with more restrictive immigration policies keeping immigration to just over half the base case scenario. Household growth is slower, resulting in 1.7% fewer households by 2030 than in the base case. Higher Rentership Scenario: Here we maintain immigration at current rates in the near-term, rising to 1.6 million people per year by 2023 (29% higher than the base case), while we allow home ownership rates to continue to decline based on higher immigration rates, the aging population and continued delay in family formations by younger persons. The resulting total and annual rental unit demand is show in the following graphs. In the downside rental demand scenario, we require 153,000 units of new rental housing per year on average from here through 2029. If we include 2030 we require only 139,000 units on average per year, with a projected deep recession hitting around 2030. In the upside scenario, we require 525,000 rental units on average per year through 2029 and 517,000 on average through 2030. Of course, during recessions units will not be withdrawn from the market, so the averages through 2029 are relevant figures. Home ownership Rates Used in Scenario Analyses Year Base Low Rentals High Rentals 2016 62.2% 62.2% 62.2% 2017 62.0% 62.2% 61.8% 2018 61.8% 62.2% 61.4% 2019 61.6% 62.4% 61.2% 2020 61.4% 62.8% 61.1% 2021 61.4% 63.2% 60.8% 2022 61.2% 63.4% 60.6% 2023 61.1% 63.5% 60.4% 2024 61.0% 63.5% 60.3% 2025 60.9% 63.5% 60.2% 2026 60.9% 63.5% 59.9% 2027 60.8% 63.6% 59.8% 2028 60.7% 63.6% 59.6% 2029 60.6% 63.7% 59.5% 2030 60.5% 63.8% 59.2% 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 31 Figure 20: Total Multifamily Rental Stock Required by Year in Scenarios Figure 21: Annual New Rental Stock Required by Year in Scenarios 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 35,000,000 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Multifamily Rental 5+ Units Needed Base Case Lower Rentership Higher Rentership (200,000) - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 20082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030New Rental Stock Required by Year Base Case Lower Rentership Higher Rentership 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 32 National Trends Worth Watching While the total units of housing required overall will not deviate with a number of other market trends, we feel it worth mentioning some observations influencing the types of units which will be demanded in the next decade or two. These include an upscale shift in rental households, changes in unit sizes, the impact of an aging population, the impact of demographics, better data sources, the impact of an increasingly privatized student housing market, the conversion of affordable units and uncertain future subsidies to housing, and the impact of short term rentals and reactionary regulations at the building level to neighbors to cities. Each will be discussed in turn. 1. Upscale Shift in Rental Households The housing downturn and recent surge in multifamily development have revealed a shift in rental households toward upscale tastes, greater buying power and corresponding demand for new rental product. National field studies using market segmentation modeling 55 have seen this rising share of renters to be 30%-45% of all rental households in most metro market sectors, a much greater share in the high-demand metros of San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York. Upscale renters will devote more gross monthly income to rent, expect a wider array of unit choice and amenities, and have found a 12-, even 24-month lease aligned with their mobility and career horizon. 2. Unit Types: Expansion at both ends of the size spectrum Family units: The housing crisis of 2008-2010 drove many foreclosed home owners to rental stock. This created a surge in demand for 3 and 4 bedroom units. Some households went into single- family units, as discussed above. Others went into larger rentals within traditional apartment complexes. See Figure 22 below. Here we can see that the proportion of 3+ bedroom units runs about 12% for multifamily properties and 63% for single-family units including detached and attached, creating a better fit for those moving from owned single-family housing, and thus fueling the surge in newly institutionalized single-family rental market after the 2008 downturn. The mobile home proportion of 3+ bedrooms is 44%. The vacancy rate on these 3+ bedroom units is lower than average and the turnover is much lower, suggesting such units add stability to rental streams, although household size for renters is generally smaller and thus a balance of unit size that reflects local demographics must be in place at each property.56 55 For example, Tapestry Segmentation by ESRI®. 56 Daryl Carter, founder and CEO of Avanath Capital Management suggested that family sized rental units were not a well-served market, yet they typically had half the turnover rates and lower vacancy rates than any other sized units. See http://www.avanath.com/about_management-team_daryl.php and Institutional Real Estate Investor interview where he suggested these units do not need amenities as much as space. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 33 Figure 22: Proportion of Rental Housing with 3+ Bedrooms by Type 57 Micro-housing units: At the other end of the spectrum, what some households in the older housing of Russia or China would consider typical sized units, we call micro-units. We define micro-units as units which are typically 650 square feet or less, although in New York City a micro-unit might be 250 square feet and in Dallas it will be 500 square feet.58 The reason for increased demand of micro-units is twofold. First, to keep costs down to affordable levels in high cost markets, the units must be very small. Second, location tends to dominate the criteria for apartment selection and not size. Combine the two criteria and we see a large demand for urban well located micro-units. It is unlikely that too much of this type of housing can be supplied in that it is an affordable choice for typically single occupied households who want to live close to work and social amenities. The development of micro- units has been particularly strong in several markets where they have also been permitted.59 Unlike SRO, single room occupant housing where bathrooms and kitchens and common areas are generally shared, micro-units typically include modest kitchens and private bathrooms.60 Some cities have minimum size requirements. For example, the District of Columbia requires units of at least 220 square feet. Seattle and Portland have no minimum sizes and are more likely to see a variety of 57 See: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/americas-rental-housing. 58 See the ULI report at http://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/MicroUnit_full_rev_2015.pdf. 59 See http://www.curbed.com/maps/microhousing-micro-dwelling-small-space-living-apartment. 60 See https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/Understanding-SRO.pdf. Many micro-units under 350 square feet feature built-in storage units and flexible furniture systems (e.g., Murphy beds, hideaway kitchen modules, convertible tables, and so on) to make these smaller spaces work. To put the size of a micro unit into perspective, a 300-square-foot micro-unit studio apartment is slightly larger than a one-car garage but considerably smaller than a two-car garage. 63% 12% 44% 31% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Single Family Multifamily Mobile Homes Overall Percent 3+ Bedroom Rental by Type As of 2011 Source: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 34 combinations of SROs and micro-units with various common amenities.61 We expect to see substantial excess demand for micro-units that provide affordable housing without subsidies. The limits on this form of housing will likely be regulations and neighbors against smaller unit housing, claiming that it will drive up traffic congestion and parking problems.62 Should autonomous cars become prevalent they may negate the arguments about parking and reduce urban apartment construction costs by placing dedicated parking structures in less desirable areas. For example, close to noisy rail yards, airports and generally on the boundaries of urban areas. Parking requirements for most multifamily developments are a significant cost factor adding to the required rents and making units less affordable.63 3. Aging Households: propensity to own tails off when and if we live long enough In the United States, tax laws have been favorable to ownership for those in higher tax brackets, as property taxes and mortgage interest are deductible expenses and capital gains are generally excluded from taxation.64 These laws tend to add significant momentum to the ownership or rental decision. That is, once a household buys a home, they tend to remain as owners for most of the balance of their lives.65 Ownership tends to start to drop off around age 75. See Figure 23 below. For those above 80 years in age the drop off accelerates. This suggests that as Baby Boomers reach 75 years of age and beyond around the year 2025 we should expect some potential drop off in the home ownership rates, assuming our tax laws remain status quo. A lowering of capital gains tax rates could lower the propensity to continue to own after initial purchase, just as price declines pushed many households away from home ownership, now wary of counting on future home appreciation as a reason to buy. 61 ULI report http://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/MicroUnit_full_rev_2015.pdf. 62 These claims are fairly universal in fights against any new development. 63 See http://www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf. “Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability” August 24, 2016. Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute. The abstract of this research is as follows: Most zoning codes and development practices require generous parking supply, forcing people who purchase or rent housing to pay for parking regardless of their demands. Generous parking requirements reduce housing affordability and impose various economic and environmental costs. Based on typical affordable housing development costs, one parking space per unit increases costs approximately 12.5%, and two parking spaces can increase costs by up to 25%. Since parking costs increase as a percentage of rent for lower priced housing, and low income households tend to own fewer vehicles, minimum parking requirements are regressive. 64 This is $250,000 for an individual and $500,000 for a couple as of 2016 as long as a new home is purchased within the required time period. See https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc701.html. For those over 55 years in age, there is also a once in a lifetime exclusion of $125,000 single or $250,000 jointly on home gains. 65 See U.S. Census reports on housing at http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 35 Figure 23: Age Versus Home Ownership 4. Demographic Trends Aside from the aging trend mentioned above, the changing mix of major ethnic groups will affect both household size and the propensity to own. Most relevant here and factored into our analysis are the increasing proportion of Hispanic households.66 In 2015 the Hispanic home ownership rate was 45.6% much lower than for whites, but still an increase from prior years. Over half of all new homeowners were Hispanic in 2012, and most analysts expect the home ownership rate for Hispanics to continue to rise. Still the propensity to own remains lower than for non-Hispanics and this may reduce the overall home ownership rate and thereby increase the demand for rental housing. In particular, the single housing rental units and larger apartment units will observe the most demand pressures from this demographic trend. With lower than average income, rental unit affordability stress suggests that low amenity larger units will be in very high demand for some time. 5. Better Data Sources Base Census data and estimates do not track rising renter circulation well, especially the previous upscale renters concentrated in revitalized urban cores. Alternative housing surveys such as the Social Compact Initiative have demonstrated over 12% urban household undercounts in even the more sedate Midwestern markets 67. Developer-provided rent rolls of new scaled developments consistently reflect more tenant buying power and younger professionals in growth employment 66 See http://www.housingwire.com/articles/36524-hispanic-home-ownership-on-the-rise. 67 Social Compact Initiative Cincinnati Neighborhood Market DrillDown June 2007. See https://www.uc.edu/cdc/urban_database/citywide_regional/cinti_drilldown_report.pdf. 35.258.469.174.981.078.00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 <35 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Home Ownership Rate Versus Age Source: U.S. Census 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 36 sectors. On the supply side, several private data sources collect and categorize multifamily housing stock with greater depth, often including rentals from duplex, condominium and detached housing. Along with base Census data, two such sources were referenced for the HAS estimates throughout this review.68 6. Student Housing: Increasingly Privatized Student housing supply tends to be measured in beds, not units. This market has become increasingly privatized with universities providing less and less dormitory units. According to Axiometrics, nearly 220,000 beds were delivered in the four-year span of 2013-2016.69 Student housing units in the private market will have more amenities, especially fast Wi-Fi and common study rooms and social areas, and will not be that different from some of the larger apartment complexes located adjacent to campuses. Affinity for such private sector housing varies by campus. Florida and Texas universities are among the most dependent on such housing.70 7. Housing Affordability Employment growth is increasingly occurring in large urban centers. For example, more than 14% of jobs that were created in 2009 to 2016 were created in three metropolitan areas: New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. With this has come significant housing affordability issues. Going forward, job growth is expected to continue in urban centers. Historically, rent control programs have proved to be ineffective in creating affordable housing for the overall market and in fact in some instances have done just the opposite.71 Thus, creating housing will be of utmost importance in growing markets. 8. Affordable Units Converting to Market Section 8 rental subsidies and low income tax credit housing programs have provided nearly 1.4 million units of U.S. rental housing. This is a significant percentage of the rental stock and there is a great deal of speculation that affordable low income tax credit housing units will be converted to the private sector over the next several years. Per rental agreements with 15 year minimums and some 30 year restrictions on such conversions to private market rents, we will observe significant units eligible to convert to the private market. The first wave of such units will hit around 2022 although most industry analysts suggest that these properties will need substantial capital improvements to be able to compete with other private sector market properties.72 What is more likely over the next Presidential term in 68 CoStar® and CBRE Econometrics®, with permission. 69 See http://pinecrestus.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Q1-2016-Student-Housing-Market-Update-for- website.pdf. 70 See http://www.fanniemae.com/resources/file/research/emma/pdf/MF_Market_Commentary_062315.pdf. 71 Rent control encourages wasteful use of space. It discriminates in favor of those who already occupy houses or apartments in a particular city or region at the expense of those who find themselves on the outside. Permitting rents to rise to the market level allows all tenants or would-be tenants equal opportunity to bid for space. See Miller and Geltner, Real Estate Principles for the New Economy, 2005. 72 See https://www.huduser.gov/publications/pdf/what_happens_lihtc_v2.pdf and https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/summer13/highlight1.html. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 37 2017-2020 is a cut back on public housing subsidies putting more pressure on communities to approve affordable market rate housing. The only way to do this is to approve more units with greater densities.73 9. Short Term Rentals The advent of the shared economy brought with it firms like AIRBnB, VRBO and Homeaway.com that matched home owners with empty rooms or houses or condos. As a percentage of the hotel industry the AIRBnB room count provides up to 20% of the short-term rentals in expensive markets like New York City and 12.5% in San Francisco but only 3.4% overall.74 In many communities a backlash against short term rentals of less than 30 days suggests that these types of operators are more likely to affect the hotel industry and not likely to have a significant impact on the longer-term rental housing market. 73 The challenge remains one of overcoming NIMBY’s that suggest traffic and parking will hurt their neighborhood, yet pushing housing further away simply adds to traffic congestion and air pollution. In California, some legislators have proposed a carbon tax on communities unwilling to approve more affordable private sector housing in their backyards. At the Federal level, see I-732’s proposal at https://www.wired.com/2016/11/washington-state-pass- nations-first-carbon-tax. 74 See https://skift.com/2016/02/03/measuring-airbnbs-real-threat-to-u-s-hotels-using-industry-metrics. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 38 Conclusions on U.S. Rental Housing Demand There are a few very sensitive assumptions in our models that will affect future demand for housing of all types in the U.S. Among these are 1) the net immigration rate and future government policies that may affect an important source of long term household growth in the U.S., and 2) the longevity of the rental housing stock. Given the relatively young age of the U.S. housing stock, just around 40 years in age as of 2017, it is difficult to suggest that atrophy and replacement of existing units will be a major demand driver in the next few years. But, even at 0.5% of the stock per year, we are talking about 720,000 units per year on average through 2030 for all housing types. Changing this to 1.0% for a 100-year economic life doubles the 720,000 to 1.4 million per year. Eventually capital improvements will be required at much higher levels than today or else greater production will be required. Annual household formations in the U.S. will require net new housing increases of about 1.3 million units per year for the next 14 years. The figures would be higher were it not for two expected recessions where households will double and triple up, estimated first in late 2019 and 2020 and then again in 2029-2030. Of the net new housing demand, some 40% or so are expected to be renters despite the momentum of senior citizen owners to keep a home until reaching ages of 75+. In fact, the surge in much older citizens starting in 2025 will contribute to a slight reduction in household size and the home ownership rate. Housing starts are running close to the net new demand, as of late 2016, but there is a mismatch in that units added by price type and supply may not geographically match up with where it is most needed. That is, there is no national and fungible housing market. There are only local markets and segmented markets by size and price points. Thus, some markets will fall well short of housing demand, even though top line average vacancy rates may waver, often reflecting trends in new supply which tends to be oriented towards the highest price points in the market. The propensity to choose renting over buying could dramatically affect the rental demand suggested here. Our numbers are conservatively low on the dimension of choosing renting. To the extent that owned housing is considered a life style choice with less freedom and mobility, significant investment risks and often provided in a size larger than desired or in distant locations from the urban core, rental demand could be even higher than our base case shown here. Single-family rentals have helped to satisfy some of the rental unit demand but we do not expect that market share to continue to increase. Based on 43% of the total rental demand being satisfied with traditional 5+ multifamily units, we will need an average of 328,000 units per year from now through 2030 and cumulatively 4.6 million units of 5+ unit housing. New supply will also need to match requirements for all income levels, not just the top tier of the market. Anything short of this will simply drive up rents faster, far exceeding expected household income growth and requiring more doubling up and house sharing. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 39 State Key Issues: • More than 100,000 new rental units will be needed by 2030 in states such as California, Georgia, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, New York, Texas and Washington. • Less than 35% of the rental stock was built after 1980 in much of the Northeast indicating significant need for rehabilitation of existing stock. These markets have also tended to be less volatile over the past 20 years. • The Western U.S., as well as Texas, Florida and North Carolina are expected to have the greatest need for new rental housing through 2030, although all states will need more housing. The fastest economic and household growth will continue in low-cost, business friendly states, primarily in the southeast and mountain west. • The 65+ age cohort will account for a large part of population growth going forward across all states, especially Florida, Maine, W. Virginia, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Montana, Delaware and Hawaii. Longer term, Arizona and Nevada will also add more senior citizens than average. • International immigration is assumed to account for 51% of all new U.S. population growth over the period through 2030, declining over the 2017-2020 period and then accelerating again. Most affected by policy changes and international fears that the welcome mat might be curtailed in the future are slow-growth states in the Northeast where natural population increases are the slowest. • Renters are becoming increasingly diverse with larger families becoming a more permanent part of the rental demand. Hispanics account for more than 30% of renters in 11 states and their lower propensity to own has helped drive down the expected home ownership rate. • The propensity to rent is and has always been higher in high-growth and high cost states where housing affordability constrains ownership demand, e.g. California exemplifies this trend. • Generally, the home ownership rate increases with age but this trend reverses for those living long enough. The national forecast assumes slower household growth going forward because of the aging population, although this trend varies by state. • Renters over 35 years old are a significant component of rental demand, particularly in the Northeast where renters aged 55+ account for more than 30% of rental households. • In fact, the 55+ age cohort of renters is greater than the 15-34 year-old segment in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. • The institutional segment (5+ units) of the apartment market is a larger part of the market in higher income states and less affordable housing states. • Affordability issues are exacerbated by high land costs which is the result of natural supply limits or severe political restrictions. Rents as a percent of income are over 44% in California, New Jersey and New York where housing supplies are limited. • Affordable housing is needed in both high cost states as well as in lower income states. Renters with household income below the poverty level account for more than 24% of renters in parts of the Midwest and South. 31% of all renters earn less than $20,000. This figure increases to over 30% in parts of the South and Midwest. Florida and Louisiana have lower housing costs but severe income constraints affecting affordability. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 40 State Trends Similar methodology was applied at the state level to estimate rental demand through 2030 for each of the 50 states. See Appendix 3 for rankings and Appendix 5 for methodology. Not surprisingly, as shown in the map below, the fastest growth through 2030 is expected in many of the southern and mountain west states, including Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado, followed by Texas, Georgia, South Carolina and Kansas. Forecast Growth Per Year in Multifamily 5+ Units. Some of the more interesting trends appear when looking at the underlying details. One of the policy risks identified in the model is the amount of international immigration that will occur during the next decade. As discussed earlier in this report, due to the aging U.S. population base, immigration is expected to exceed natural population growth within the next ten years. These trends will be more amplified within some states and metro areas. While border states have proximity to other countries, many of those states also have low business and housing costs, as well as young and growing population bases. Thus, states most at risk to U.S. immigration policies are those states that have slow growth, older population bases, and exposure to international trade and immigration (see below map). These states are predominately located in the Northeast as well as parts of the Midwest, with less exposure in border states such as California and Florida. Our expectation is that there are wider margins of error in the forecasts for these states because of the potential volatility in U.S. immigration policies going forward. See the Metro Market Overview section of this report for further information about demographics, in-migration and growth in the major markets in these states. Interestingly, the major markets do not always exemplify the state trends. For example, while international immigration accounts for a large part of population growth in Michigan, Detroit benefits mostly from natural growth (births minus deaths) and experiences net out-migration including international and domestic migration to other locations. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 41 Percent of Population Growth Created by International Immigration slow growth states. Rental affordability is also a significant issue in the U.S. Affordability can be affected either because of low incomes or because of high housing costs. Exposure to these factors varies significantly by state. For example, 31% of U.S. renters earn less than $20,000 per year. As seen in the map below, renters below the poverty level account for more than 35% of renters in states such as Mississippi and West Virginia, signaling a significant need for affordable housing in these markets. Large Share of Renters are Below the Poverty Line in Some States. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 42 In other areas, renters have significant incomes, but the high cost of housing creates affordability problems. In markets such as California, Hawaii, New York and New Jersey, more than 44% of renters are spending over 35% of their gross income on rent due to high housing costs. States such as Florida and Louisiana face a similar mismatch in incomes to rental costs, even though they have lower housing costs. We explore this topic in more detail in the Metro Market Overview appendix of this report. At the metro area level, many of these markets have either geographical and/or political restrictions on new supply that can cause housing costs to soar. Renters in some areas spend a significant share of income on rent. For example, a Redfin study found that only 17% of California homes for sale were affordable to an average teacher in 2016, down from 30% in 2012. Affordability is worse in major metro areas. With average incomes of just over $71,000 in the San Francisco Bay Area, teachers can afford rents that are 48% of average rents in San Francisco and about 67% of average rents in the East Bay. Percent Teacher Salary Needed for Average Rent San Francisco 48% Alameda 67% Contra Costa 69% For investors looking to rehabilitate and improve older properties, the proportion of buildings built before 1980 varies significantly by geographic area. As shown in the map below, in the northern states and California, more than 65% of the multifamily housing stock in properties with five or more units was built before 1980. In contrast, less than 35% of the southern markets are in older buildings. While it is unknown how many of these properties have already been improved or renovated, they create a significant market size. In total, 11.7 million units were built before 1980 in the U.S. These units may also serve mid to lower income households which are a significant proportion of the population base. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 43 Renovation Opportunities? Markets with a High Proportion of Older Stock Second Tier Affordable Rentals (STAR) Another product type is of significant size and generally left out of the institutional rental market, although they are a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. We call these units Second Tier Affordable Rentals or STAR units. STAR units are characterized as older and lower quality units. Using CoStar® ratings of 1 to 5 for sites of five units or more, STAR units are those with lower CoStar® ratings of 1 to 2. Costar® ratings are based on a number of criteria including building structure and systems, amenities, site and landscaping, and certifications such as LEED and Green Globes. Properties rated 2 have functional architectural design and systems, below average finishes and one to no additional amenities. They have minimal to no landscaping and exterior spaces, and are unlikely to hold green or energy efficient certifications. Properties rated 1 may require significant renovation and are possibly functionally obsolete. STAR facilities are likely to serve lower income populations which are a significant part of the population base in some metro areas, and may represent, in some areas, potential investment targets for upgrading to higher quality properties. States such as California, New York, Michigan and Ohio have a high proportion of STAR units. At the metro market level, the percent of multifamily rental properties with 5+ units characterized as STAR units for metro markets in this study ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a metro market average of 36%. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 44 Metro Market Key Issues: • New York and Dallas are each expected to need more than 250,000 new apartment units in dwellings that have five or more units over the next fourteen years, growth that is equivalent in size to more than the entire population of over half the metropolitan statistical areas in the U.S. • Raleigh, Orlando, Austin, and Charlotte are expected to be the fastest growing apartment markets through 2030, increasing in size by more than 2.5% per year on average. • In addition to new units driven by net new demand, a sizeable portion of the needed rental housing will be driven by the aging of the structures. More than 65% of the 5+ unit rental stock was built before 1980 in New York, Cleveland, Honolulu, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco. • Second Tier Affordable Rentals (STAR) are also a significant part of the rental market. These lower quality properties generally fly below institutional radars, but represent more than half the 5+ unit rental market in San Diego, Pittsburgh, Detroit and Los Angeles. Some analysts call this NOAH for Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing. Our research suggests that NOAH units are often not tracked by traditional data bases and even the U.S. Census sometimes under- counts this lower quality housing stock. • U.S. metro markets will face different challenges during the next fourteen years. Some markets are facing serious affordability issues. Half or more of renters in Miami and Honolulu spend 35% or more of their income on rent with 45% or more of renters in Los Angeles, New Orleans, Orlando, San Diego, Sacramento and New York spending 35% or more of income on rent. • Some of the affordability issues can be traced to a lack of sufficient new supply and the high cost of entitlement which drives up housing costs, while other markets are affected more by low income levels and declining economic bases. New supply can be restricted by geographical topography as well as by governmental processes and rules. Markets that have high barriers to entry tend to have higher costs and lower ownership affordability rates and a positive, but lesser positive correlation to rental affordability. • Markets with low ownership affordability tend to have high renter rates. For example, San Jose, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego have the lowest ownership affordability rates by far of any metro markets in this survey. All four markets rank in the top 10 markets with the highest rentership rate. • Supply restrictions do not correlate as closely to the actual volume of new construction which is more closely tied to demographic and economic growth. For example, Seattle ranks as the fourth most restrictive construction environment and eighth least affordable market, but with total multifamily inventory increasing by 1.5% per year on average from 2010 to 2016, it ranked 10th of the 50 markets in terms of the highest new supply growth. Housing permits in highly restrictive markets may take 10 or 12 years to secure, but such efforts are underway continuously and with such long lags, one cannot use current supply volume as an indication of the restrictiveness of a local market. • High costs of housing are correlated with out migration to nearby areas or even cross-state locations for some areas. For example, Los Angeles which ranks at the bottom for both owned and rental affordability has experienced flat to negative migration patterns since 2000, with slightly better in-migration rates in the neighboring and more affordable Riverside-San Bernardino area as well as increasing out-of-state exits to Las Vegas. Thus, it is clear that housing costs do inhibit the economic growth of a region by inhibiting the ability to hire and retain employees. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 45 • Similar to the state trends, southern metro areas rank highly for attracting residents from other areas. Austin, Orlando, Raleigh, Charleston and Houston had the highest in-migration rates since 2010. These markets have more reasonable housing costs and are relatively business friendly. • Regardless of future international in-migration, current ethnic composition is an important factor affecting rental demand. For example, more than half of the San Antonio rental population is Hispanic, as are at least a third of rental residents in Miami, Riverside, Albuquerque, Los Angeles and Houston. Ethnicity is correlated with variations in home ownership rates, household size and other factors that affect the propensity to rent, amenities desired, and unit sizes. • Renter income levels vary widely, with a large portion of the U.S. population falling below the high-end cohort of the market favored by multifamily developers. A third or more of the rental households in Cleveland, Birmingham, Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Albuquerque, Detroit, Memphis and Cincinnati earn less than $20,000 per year as of 2016. • Renter populations are also aging. The 35-54 age cohort is expected to account for more than half of new apartment demand in Baltimore, Cleveland and San Jose through 2030, while the 65+ age cohort is expected to be the primary growth generator through 2030 (outpacing all other age categories combined) in Pittsburgh, Detroit, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Chicago, Philadelphia, Albuquerque and Kansas City. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 46 Metro Market Trends: Demand for multifamily properties with five or more units was further estimated for 50 metropolitan markets. See Appendix 3 for a list of markets. The forecasting methodology is similar to that used at the state level adjusting household growth for two modeled recessions through 2030 and adjusting for home ownership rates, age, immigration, homelessness, long-term vacancy levels, the age of stock and the 5+ rental unit percentage of the rental housing market. Methodology is further described in Appendix 5. Historical figures for the years 2007 to 2016 are based on estimates of existing multifamily 5+ total inventory as developed by the HAS team from several sources including the U.S. Census, CoStar® and CBRE® Econometrics. Forecasts represent the number of units needed in properties with five or more units to keep vacancy rates at long-term stable rates that are typical for that market. The model does not forecast supply, so if supply exceeds this pace, then vacancy could rise. The forecast also does not remove units that could fall outside of typical institutional investor portfolios. We call these units Second Tier Affordable Rentals or STAR units as they represent lower quality properties (see Appendix 5 for a further discussion description.) The metro market analyses included a review of supply restrictions occurring at the local level by reviewing two indices, the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix Developable Land Index. The Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index is based on data and a nationwide survey of local land use regulations including process and approvals, rules, and outcomes. The index includes eleven sub-indices measuring the stringency of the local regulatory environment, including local political pressure, local project approval, local assembly, supply restrictions, density restrictions, open space, exactions, and approval delay. The Lacroix index was developed by Sumner La Croix, Ph.D. at the Economic Research Organization at the University of Hawaii and measures the developable area within a 50-kilometer radii from a central city. Factors such as oceans, wetlands, lakes, rivers and other bodies of water as well as areas with a slope above 15% are defined as undevelopable. The Multifamily Supply Restrictions Index is the sum of each sub index for the metro market divided by the average for that sub index for all the metro markets in this study. A table ranking the 50 metro markets by the supply index is shown in Appendix 3. The index is also shown on each of the Metro Market Overview pages. Higher indices represent markets with more stringent regulatory environments in regards to new housing supply. Of the markets in this study, this index ranges from 19.5 for Honolulu which is the most supply restricted to -6.0 for New Orleans which is the least supply restricted of the 50 markets in the study. (The average index is 2.0 for all 50 markets.) While there are significant variations by market, we find that the supply restriction index loosely correlates to rental markets that are less affordable as measured by the percent of households that spend 35% or more of their gross income on rent, as seen in Figure 24 below. That is, markets that have more supply restrictions tend to be less affordable. Note that affordability is a measure of both income and housing costs. Thus, given the same rents, markets with higher incomes will spend less of their income on rent as compared to rental costs and move further to the left on the below graph. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 47 Figure 24: Supply Restrictions and Affordability The higher costs associated with supply restrictions are driven in part by less supply in markets with high supply restrictions as shown in Figure 25 below. Note that new supply is also a factor of demographic growth and associated housing needs. Thus, some supply restricted markets do experience growth. In these markets, the result of higher supply restrictions may be longer approval and development time-lines which increase costs and development risks. Similarly, some low restriction markets may not experience inventory growth if they have weak economic and demographic trends. -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30%35%40%45%50%55%Supply Restriction IndexPercent Households Spending 35%+ of Gross Income on Rent 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 48 Figure 25: Supply Restrictions and Inventory Growth Markets with high supply restriction indices also loosely correlate to lower vacancy volatility. That is, with less new supply, these markets are not as likely to experience over-supply conditions (see Figure 26 below which shows the volatility in vacancy rates from 1995 to 2016 as reported by CBRE® Econometrics). New supply tends to be oriented towards higher rent, class A product. Thus, we also frequently see a higher proportion of older buildings and particularly buildings that we classify as Second Tier Affordable Rentals (STAR) buildings in supply restricted markets. These are non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. See the Metro Market Overview section in Appendix 5 for classification methodology for this segment of the market. These buildings create affordable rental options and may create opportunities to upgrade the site to a higher use in good locations in growing markets. -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%3.5%4.0%Supply Restriction IndexAvg Annual Percent Growth in Total Stock 1995-2016 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 49 Figure 26: Supply Restrictions and Volatility The Metro Market Overviews as shown in Appendix 4 illustrate the significant and important variances in both tenant characteristics and the built environment that occur by metro market. For example, income levels for renters in San Francisco are among the highest of 50 metros studied, while renter income levels in Cleveland are more oriented towards lower incomes. San Francisco Cleveland While San Francisco boasts a large share of renters earning household income of more than $75,000 per year, more than half of renters earn less than $75,000 per year. In a market with high rental costs, this creates a severe affordability issue for middle class workers as described in the State Trends section of the report. Additionally, the market’s severe affordability issue for owned housing drives the rentership rate up and keeps higher income households as renters. While this at first may seem attractive for multifamily owners, when rental costs become too high, tenants begin to leave the market. San Francisco has been able to escape an exodus of tenants seeking lower costs in recent times -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%Supply Restriction IndexVacancy Volatility 1995-2016 109,822 70,076 62,865 85,273 123,596 93,599 115,265 125,911 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 82,457 51,275 41,322 44,869 45,888 18,939 11,186 5,289 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 50 due to the growing tech industry, although it did experience net out-migration in the 2000 to 2010 time period. The Los Angeles market which has low affordability in both the owned and rented markets shows more severity in migration trends. Although out-migration stopped in the 2010-2016 time period, it has yet to show any significant net in-migration trends despite recent job growth in its tech industry as well as other industry sectors. Los Angeles Furthermore, states with low costs and strong fiscal positions are able to draw both corporations (through tax incentives) and individuals from high cost areas. Indianapolis and Dallas are two examples as shown below. These markets gain new tenants through both natural increases (births minus deaths) as well as net in-migration to the area from other metro markets, states and countries. Indianapolis Dallas The demographics of local markets, and more particularly submarkets and neighborhoods, should also be carefully considered. We see large variations in renter growth by age group across metropolitan markets. In select high growth markets with good migration trends, e.g. Austin as shown below, we see new tenant demand coming from all age groups. -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 51 Austin While the results vary widely, the Columbus, OH market as shown below is more typical in that we frequently see new tenant demand increasingly coming from older households. Columbus, OH In markets with little growth and particularly those with out-migration trends, we see a large part of incremental demand coming from the 65+ age cohort of the rental market. Detroit, as shown in the graph below, is an example of this type of market. Detroit 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 52 Appendix 1: Institutional Ownership of Single Family Rentals Estimated institutional holdings - single-family rental (SFR) properties Source: Amherst Insight Labs estimates based on CoreLogic County Record and Transaction Data as of Q1 2016 Institution Units Owned Total Managed Count Blackstone (Invitation Homes) 44,386 47,342 American Homes 4 Rent 39,043 46,131 Colony Starwood Homes 27,193 32,272 Progress Residential 14,321 16,345 Silver Bay Realty Trust 6,928 8,798 Main Street Renewal 5,694 6,754 Tricon American Homes 5,103 6,743 Cerberus Capital Management 3,428 5,912 Havenbrook Homes 3,917 4,061 Connorex-Lucinda 2,704 2,994 Altisource Residential 1,522 2,912 Golden Tree Insite Partners (GTIS) 2,182 2,911 Vinebrook Homes 998 1,973 Gorelick Brothers Capital 1,460 1,784 Camillo Properties 13 1,314 Haven Homes 1,253 1,294 Lafayette Real Estate 994 1,271 Transcendent Investment Mgmt 598 628 Reven Housing Reit 216 500 Broadtree Home Rentals 432 468 Prager Property Management 119 277 Pintar Investment Company 151 164 TOTAL 162,655 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 53 Appendix 2: Renter vs. Owner Demographics 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% <35 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Housing Tenure by Age Owned Rented 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Less than high school graduate High school graduate (includes equivalency) Some college or associate's degree Bachelor's degree or higher Housing Tenure by Educational Attainment Owned Rented 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 54 Appendix 2: Renter vs. Owner Demographics, continued. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%2015+2010-20142000-20091990-19991980-1989<1980Year Householder Moved Into Unit Housing Tenure by Move Date Owned Rented 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Owned Rented Housing Tenure by Race White Black Asian Other 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 55 Appendix 3: State and Metro Market Tables Total Population Growth 2016-30 (000) State 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+ Alaska -3 -16 -10 6 19 11 -4 -11 -6 73 Alabama -17 -18 26 49 48 11 -32 -52 -34 281 Arkansas -5 -12 5 18 25 11 -14 -23 -12 164 Arizona 72 97 167 185 173 116 80 58 103 812 California -244 -457 -116 352 555 237 -24 -77 213 2,993 Colorado 8 14 46 105 120 64 9 -36 -15 398 Connecticut -80 -43 -16 88 59 -11 -75 -88 -27 200 DC -19 -42 -50 -1 31 36 16 4 1 36 Delaware -1 -4 3 15 20 4 -10 -12 -2 70 Florida 142 11 163 350 468 296 104 171 401 2,946 Georgia 80 106 163 193 147 55 6 31 92 871 Hawaii 4 -16 -10 10 32 19 1 -9 -5 93 Iowa -39 -17 -4 31 14 5 -25 -55 -33 187 Idaho 18 13 12 10 21 20 10 -3 -1 131 Illinois 142 54 -147 -363 -183 -92 -163 -158 -21 979 Indiana -40 -9 21 68 37 -9 -57 -81 -36 449 Kansas -10 -5 1 38 36 32 -1 -31 -15 223 Kentucky 0 1 31 29 23 -7 -29 -43 -17 295 Louisiana -20 -73 -51 7 65 36 -27 -66 -32 316 Massachusetts -123 -69 -22 122 102 11 -89 -93 -2 481 Maryland -33 -30 -3 56 78 15 -57 -71 5 460 Maine -17 -5 4 10 2 -16 -31 -34 -18 99 Michigan -158 -98 35 110 35 -97 -170 -192 -88 671 Minnesota -20 -24 -31 38 66 48 -24 -72 -13 443 Missouri -35 -38 -12 44 63 29 -44 -85 -38 419 Mississippi -5 -7 6 15 5 -9 -24 -31 -11 177 Montana 0 -5 0 16 20 13 0 -17 -16 73 North Carolina 138 186 233 242 171 74 32 44 80 804 North Dakota -23 -13 6 29 21 11 -1 -12 -9 45 Nebraska -11 1 -2 26 21 23 -1 -22 -15 130 New Hampshire -27 -2 7 29 14 -9 -33 -36 -10 120 New Jersey 4 127 75 -97 -122 -157 -182 -147 6 674 New Mexico -6 -8 1 24 27 17 -8 -24 -17 132 Nevada 66 59 69 46 38 33 42 48 54 274 New York -259 -21 227 374 198 -154 -382 -419 -198 436 Ohio -89 -96 -6 34 67 -57 -157 -202 -91 783 Oklahoma 4 -14 0 42 57 41 -7 -38 -23 232 Oregon -8 -6 25 41 51 29 17 -18 -23 282 Pennsylvania -202 -166 -69 103 99 -71 -209 -256 -110 813 Rhode Island -27 -16 -4 20 11 -8 -20 -22 -6 73 South Carolina 34 31 66 89 80 22 -17 -23 4 392 South Dakota 9 4 10 15 16 11 6 -5 -5 26 Tennessee -16 -24 34 73 69 7 -31 -24 16 512 Texas 187 169 283 517 569 464 275 179 259 2,263 Utah 57 44 43 26 51 70 70 27 16 200 Virginia -42 -56 -28 83 105 39 -45 -54 24 666 Vermont -21 -5 2 18 3 -4 -12 -16 -8 55 Washington 21 -30 13 77 141 89 28 -24 3 618 Wisconsin -55 -18 0 64 39 2 -66 -106 -37 423 West Virginia 2 -4 -3 -6 -6 -14 -16 -31 -31 85 Wyoming 5 -2 -6 0 9 11 1 -11 -12 29 Source: Moody's Analytics Age Cohort 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 56 Appendix 3: State and Metro Market Tables, continued. Appendix 3: State and Metro Market Tables, continued. Apartment Demand by Metro Market Metro Market New Units Needed 2017-2030 Rank Avg Annual Growth %Rank Avg Rank Albuquerque, NM 8,897 44 0.9%31 39 Atlanta, GA 170,095 5 2.2%9 7 Austin, TX 114,076 10 2.9%3 6 Baltimore, MD 22,965 31 0.7%41 36 Birmingham, AL 5,283 47 0.6%43 48 Boston, MA 66,109 19 1.1%28 23 Charleston, SC 13,388 38 1.5%16 29 Charlotte, NC 71,523 17 2.6%4 10 Chicago, IL 47,826 22 0.5%47 34 Cincinnati, OH 15,312 34 0.7%40 38 Cleveland, OH 5,151 49 0.2%50 50 Columbus, OH 33,048 27 1.2%27 28 Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX 266,296 2 2.2%7 1 Denver, CO 55,801 20 1.4%19 20 Detroit, MI 15,467 33 0.4%48 41 Honolulu, HI 15,131 35 0.9%34 35 Houston, TX 214,176 3 2.2%10 4 Indianapolis, IN 30,901 29 1.2%26 30 Kansas City, KS 14,007 37 0.6%44 42 Las Vegas, NV 87,280 12 2.4%5 9 Little Rock, AR 5,827 46 0.8%35 43 Los Angeles, CA 164,201 6 0.9%32 17 Louisville, KY 9,295 43 0.7%39 44 Memphis, TN 11,719 41 0.8%37 40 Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, 185,414 4 2.2%8 3 Milwaukee, WI 5,251 48 0.3%49 49 Minneapolis, MN 70,783 18 1.6%15 15 Nashville, TN 29,942 30 1.5%17 24 New Orleans, LA 6,966 45 0.7%42 46 New York, NY 278,634 1 0.8%36 16 Oklahoma City, OK 12,915 39 0.9%33 37 Orlando, FL 130,177 8 3.3%2 2 Philadelphia, PA 38,407 25 0.7%38 31 Phoenix, AZ 150,302 7 2.3%6 5 Pittsburgh, PA 9,545 42 0.5%46 47 Portland. OR 46,788 23 1.3%22 21 Raleigh, NC 74,323 13 3.8%1 8 Richmond, VA 14,787 36 1.0%30 33 Riverside, CA 40,499 24 1.1%29 26 Sacramento, CA 31,914 28 1.2%25 27 Salt Lake City, UT 16,478 32 1.4%18 25 San Antonio, TX 53,890 21 1.8%11 14 San Diego, CA 72,775 15 1.3%24 18 San Francisco, CA 71,668 16 1.3%23 19 San Jose, CA 35,942 26 1.3%20 22 Seattle, WA 98,228 11 1.6%14 11 Sioux Falls, SD 4,661 50 1.7%13 32 St. Louis, MO 12,325 40 0.6%45 45 Tampa, FL 72,933 14 1.8%12 12 Washington DC 127,962 9 1.3%21 13 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 57 Appendix 3: State and Metro Market Tables, continued. Changes in Metro Market Population (000s) 2010-2016 2016-2030 Metro Market Natural Increase Net Migration Natural Increase Net Migration Albuquerque, NM 3.5 -1.0 2.0 4.1 Atlanta, GA 38.7 42.1 34.0 90.9 Austin, TX 16.9 36.8 19.7 45.6 Baltimore, MD 10.1 4.4 7.0 1.4 Birmingham, AL 3.0 0.0 0.8 3.9 Boston, MA 16.3 22.7 14.3 11.9 Charleston, SC 4.1 10.3 3.1 8.2 Charlotte, NC 12.3 27.7 9.9 56.6 Chicago, IL 50.8 -39.3 42.5 -30.2 Cincinnati, OH 8.4 0.0 5.5 4.2 Cleveland, OH 2.1 -5.6 0.2 -6.9 Columbus, OH 12.2 10.4 10.9 11.0 Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX 57.8 71.6 60.7 91.0 Denver, CO 18.3 32.0 15.6 20.2 Detroit, MI 9.8 -7.2 5.1 -5.1 Honolulu, HI 5.9 0.9 4.6 -0.3 Houston, TX 59.4 77.9 63.8 72.8 Indianapolis, IN 11.1 7.7 9.3 10.5 Kansas City, KS 11.0 2.4 8.1 -0.7 Las Vegas, NV 11.9 21.9 11.3 49.1 Little Rock, AR 3.5 2.2 2.4 2.7 Los Angeles, CA 88.5 0.6 84.4 -3.2 Louisville, KY 4.0 4.0 1.9 5.0 Memphis, TN 7.5 -3.2 5.0 3.2 Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, FL 19.2 65.8 12.0 102.0 Milwaukee, WI 6.7 -3.0 4.4 -1.5 Minneapolis, MN 23.6 11.1 20.8 18.5 Nashville, TN 9.8 21.7 8.3 16.8 New Orleans, LA 4.9 6.9 3.4 2.6 New York, NY 107.0 -3.2 98.9 -31.7 Oklahoma City, OK 7.8 9.7 6.5 4.0 Orlando, FL 11.6 39.5 11.4 71.8 Philadelphia, PA 18.3 -0.9 12.2 -1.6 Phoenix, AZ 29.2 44.0 28.0 91.1 Pittsburgh, PA -3.2 2.6 -4.8 4.7 Portland. OR 11.4 22.6 9.1 21.3 Raleigh, NC 8.8 18.4 8.9 46.7 Richmond, VA 4.8 6.2 3.7 5.3 Riverside, CA 33.1 10.5 32.7 2.6 Sacramento, CA 11.3 10.6 10.9 12.5 Salt Lake City, UT 12.6 3.7 11.6 3.6 San Antonio, TX 16.5 27.3 17.2 25.0 San Diego, CA 23.6 11.2 23.7 7.1 San Francisco, CA 22.6 35.0 22.4 20.8 San Jose, CA 14.4 10.4 14.3 4.5 Seattle, WA 22.2 36.6 20.5 33.5 Sioux Falls, SD 2.1 2.3 1.9 1.4 St. Louis, MO 8.3 -4.8 3.8 0.7 Tampa, FL 1.6 35.6 -3.3 56.1 Washington DC 47.8 30.8 44.6 12.2 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 58 Appendix 3: State and Metro Market Tables, continued. Supply Restriction Metrics Metro Market Land Area Undevelopable Rank Wharton Restriction Index Rank Supply Restriction Score Supply Restriction Rank Albuquerque, NM 11.6%34 0.37 32 3.00 29 Atlanta, GA 4.1%6 0.03 24 0.36 22 Austin, TX 3.8%5 (0.28) 16 (1.82) 16 Baltimore, MD 21.9%28 1.60 48 11.93 48 Birmingham, AL 14.4%24 (0.23) 17 (1.09) 19 Boston, MA 33.9%32 1.70 49 13.06 49 Charleston, SC 60.5%43 (0.81) 3 (3.47) 9 Charlotte, NC 4.7%7 (0.53) 9 (3.52) 8 Chicago, IL 40.0%36 0.02 23 1.58 24 Cincinnati, OH 10.3%15 (0.58) 8 (3.67) 6 Cleveland, OH 40.5%38 (0.16) 21 0.34 21 Columbus, OH 2.5%3 0.26 28 1.90 26 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 9.2%12 (0.23) 17 (1.27) 18 Denver, CO 16.7%26 0.84 43 6.45 42 Detroit, MI 24.5%29 0.05 25 1.23 23 Honolulu, HI (urban)92.0%50 2.32 50 19.47 50 Houston, TX 8.4%10 (0.40) 13 (2.49) 13 Indianapolis, IN 1.4%1 (0.74) 5 (5.10) 4 Kansas City, MO-KS 5.8%8 (0.79) 4 (5.30) 3 Las Vegas, NV 32.1%31 (0.69) 7 (3.65) 7 Little Rock, AR 13.7%21 (0.85) 2 (5.43) 2 Los Angeles, CA 52.5%42 0.49 36 5.30 39 Louisville, KY-IN 12.7%19 (0.47) 11 (2.82) 11 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 12.2%18 1.18 47 8.66 46 Miami, FL 76.6%49 0.94 45 9.30 47 Milwaukee, WI 41.8%40 0.46 34 4.71 35 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI 19.2%27 0.38 33 3.34 31 Nashville, TN 12.8%20 (0.41) 12 (2.40) 14 New Orleans, LA 74.9%48 (1.24) 1 (5.95) 1 New York, NY-NJ-PA 40.4%37 0.65 41 5.98 41 Oklahoma City, OK 2.5%2 (0.37) 15 (2.49) 12 Orlando, FL 36.1%33 0.32 31 3.53 32 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD 10.2%14 1.13 46 8.24 45 Phoenix, AZ 14.0%22 0.61 39 4.75 37 Pittsburgh, PA 30.0%30 0.10 26 1.78 25 Portland, OR-WA 37.5%34 0.27 29 3.23 30 Raleigh, NC 8.1%9 0.64 40 4.75 36 Richmond, VA 8.8%11 (0.38) 14 (2.33) 15 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 37.9%35 0.53 38 5.06 38 Sacramento, CA 15.0%25 0.52 37 4.13 34 Salt Lake City, UT 72.0%46 (0.03) 22 2.38 27 San Antonio, TX 3.2%4 (0.21) 20 (1.35) 17 San Diego, CA 63.4%44 0.46 34 5.48 40 San Francisco, CA 73.1%47 0.72 42 7.65 43 San Jose, CA 63.8%45 0.21 27 3.76 33 Seattle, WA 43.6%41 0.92 44 7.98 44 Sioux Falls, SD 10.0%13 (0.50) 10 (3.12) 10 St. Louis, MO-IL 11.1%16 (0.73) 6 (4.69) 5 Tampa, FL 41.6%39 (0.22) 19 (0.04) 20 Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV 14.0%22 0.31 30 2.66 28 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 59 Appendix 3: State and Metro Market Tables, continued. Second Tier Affordable Rental (STAR) Units Metro Market STAR Share Rank Albuquerque, NM 36%27 Atlanta, GA 22%42 Austin, TX 17%50 Baltimore, MD 31%34 Birmingham, AL 32%31 Boston, MA 40%18 Charleston, SC 35%28 Charlotte, NC 18%49 Chicago, IL 39%21 Cincinnati, OH 48%6 Cleveland, OH 46%9 Columbus, OH 39%19 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 19%46 Denver, CO 29%38 Detroit, MI 52%5 Honolulu, HI (urban)41%16 Houston, TX 22%43 Indianapolis, IN 25%39 Kansas City, MO-KS 35%29 Las Vegas, NV 21%44 Little Rock, AR 33%30 Los Angeles, CA 61%1 Louisville, KY-IN 42%15 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 38%22 Miami, FL 37%26 Milwaukee, WI 43%13 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI 44%11 Nashville, TN 29%36 New Orleans, LA 41%17 New York, NY-NJ-PA 48%7 Oklahoma City, OK 44%10 Orlando, FL 18%48 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD 37%23 Phoenix, AZ 30%35 Pittsburgh, PA 54%4 Portland, OR-WA 37%24 Raleigh, NC 19%45 Richmond, VA 37%25 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 48%8 Sacramento, CA 42%14 Salt Lake City, UT 29%37 San Antonio, TX 24%40 San Diego, CA 58%2 San Francisco, CA 54%3 San Jose, CA 43%12 Seattle, WA 32%33 Sioux Falls, SD 23%41 St. Louis, MO-IL 39%20 Tampa, FL 32%32 Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV 19%47 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 60 Appendix 3: State and Metro Market Tables, continued. Owner and Renter Housing Affordability Metro Market Rank Renters Spending over 35% Income on Rent Rank Albuquerque, NM 182 22 44%41 Atlanta, GA 192 18 40%28 Austin, TX 157 31 38%16 Baltimore, MD 199 17 41%31 Birmingham, AL 203 16 42%34 Boston, MA 141 38 40%25 Charleston, SC 147 35 40%27 Charlotte, NC 147 35 39%23 Chicago, IL 191 19 42%36 Cincinnati, OH 272 2 37%9 Cleveland, OH 291 1 39%18 Columbus, OH 231 9 37%11 Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX 174 27 38%12 Denver, CO 122 42 38%15 Detroit, MI 260 3 43%38 Honolulu, HI 71 48 50%49 Houston, TX 181 24 39%22 Indianapolis, IN 254 4 40%29 Kansas City, KS 234 8 34%2 Las Vegas, NV 146 37 42%37 Little Rock, AR 244 6 41%33 Los Angeles, CA 70 49 49%47 Louisville, KY 228 10 37%10 Memphis, TN 222 11 42%35 Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, FL 105 45 54%50 Milwaukee, WI 181 23 40%26 Minneapolis, MN 211 14 38%14 Nashville, TN 175 26 37%8 New Orleans, LA 180 25 47%46 New York, NY 122 43 45%42 Oklahoma City, OK 235 7 37%5 Orlando, FL 149 34 46%45 Philadelphia, PA 212 13 44%40 Phoenix, AZ 155 32 40%24 Pittsburgh, PA 204 15 37%7 Portland. OR 125 40 41%32 Raleigh, NC 183 21 35%3 Richmond, VA 188 20 41%30 Riverside, CA 113 44 50%48 Sacramento, CA 137 39 45%43 Salt Lake City, UT 153 33 36%4 San Antonio, TX 166 29 38%13 San Diego, CA 76 46 46%44 San Francisco, CA 72 47 39%19 San Jose, CA 69 50 39%20 Seattle, WA 124 41 37%6 Sioux Falls, SD 213 12 31%1 St. Louis, MO 252 5 39%21 Tampa, FL 174 28 43%39 Washington DC 159 30 38%17 SF Owned Housing Affordability Index 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 61 Appendix 4: Metro Market Overviews The following Metro Market Overviews provide key metrics on each of 50 select metropolitan rental markets that invite local market leadership response. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW ALBUQUERQUE Net migration prior to 2010 was strong, has since reversed to slightly neg- ative with more expected growth ahead. This remains a key component to rental household growth. Sluggish economic growth hampers new multi- family development and existing rent growth. Multifamily demand begins to ramp up after 2020. 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 1,646 4,052 19,980 14,339 2,581 686 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 39 182 3.0 36% 28,570 20,889 15,489 19,029 14,986 7,280 6,398 2,028 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 203,130 1,430 1,519 45,035 18,751 43,284 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 12,248 13,386 12,606 10,653 9,835 46,452 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 62 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential ALBUQUERQUE page 2 -5 0 5 10 15 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 -5 0 5 10 15 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 46,59331,29715,32211,9924,9862,8631,6160 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 75,916 5,818 1,528 51,626 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner10,052 33,528 18,869 19,906 16,595 8,999 4,583 2,137 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 63 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW ATLANTA Strong in migrations exceed natural population increases. Solid economic growth expected across all sectors but mining, manufacturing and infor- mation. Positive new rental household growth across all age cohorts and consistent demand growth through 2030. Today’s rental householders are younger and 40% pay over 35% of household income on rent. - 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 16,623 84,493 169,970 92,186 13,057 5,398 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 7 217 0.4 22% 137,719 110,507 101,255 125,546 145,065 75,096 61,522 23,269 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 1,176,646 7,798 33,530 304,920 67,379 381,727 - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 87,504 104,056 101,452 85,112 61,118 296,413 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 64 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential ATLANTA page 2 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 276,415198,531125,44592,78852,16318,97015,6670 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 335,036 361,293 33,231 85,857 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner59,344 222,882 200,992 134,260 86,224 43,595 20,477 12,205 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 65 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW AUSTIN Strong in migrations are double the natural population increases. Good economic growth ahead in most sectors. Growth in new rental households expected in all age cohorts with steady, significant rental demand growth through 2030. Some of the youngest multifamily housing stock seen in the nation, smaller STAR share of affordable rentals. - 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 21,854 46,226 73,266 34,579 3,004 876 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 6 157 -1.8 17% 40,593 35,962 39,400 54,198 60,477 34,206 27,105 15,504 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 380,009 5,524 6,730 79,727 37,632 179,805 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 35,484 38,318 41,559 36,784 28,281 111,896 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 66 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential AUSTIN page 2 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 122,10590,35242,41131,08413,4724,4103,6110 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 227,868 31,227 16,888 97,119 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner35,602 105,630 66,523 44,391 30,664 13,636 7,731 3,268 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 67 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW BALTIMORE Fewer in migrations now and ahead leave natural population increases as to source household growth. Economic growth expected in most sectors. Rental household growth strongest in ages 35-44 and seniors over 65, while fairly diverse in range of incomes, ages and household size. Multi- family demand consistently increases after 2009. 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 11,208 16,909 62,526 52,592 15,046 16,234 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 36 199 11.9 31% 65,444 40,449 39,894 48,383 69,889 40,282 35,609 16,822 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 632,954 4,931 34,146 136,366 43,134 174,515 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 38,929 41,249 48,601 40,162 29,563 136,277 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 68 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential BALTIMORE page 2 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 136,90894,70155,30735,76021,1298,1854,7820 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 163,378 160,704 17,102 21,910 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner22,126 94,933 70,209 64,131 48,834 29,938 16,090 10,511 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 69 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW BIRMINGHAM Though minor in the last six years, in migrations will source the greatest share of new renter households. Fair economic prospects with job growth in most sectors. Rental market is led by smaller households, varied ages and incomes up to $75,000. Nearly a third of multifamily units are seen in affordable STAR product. Modest increasing demand ahead. - 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 3,264 10,590 21,310 19,114 3,106 3,304 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 48 203 -1.1 32% 37,917 23,095 17,098 20,390 20,914 10,457 5,495 1,898 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 273,423 1,018 2,731 51,398 16,344 60,688 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 16,786 16,860 13,946 13,078 11,192 51,218 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 70 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential BIRMINGHAM page 2 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 1 2 3 4 5 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos a nd publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 53,34539,20922,50513,3905,5842,2151,0160 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 67,948 62,550 1,574 5,282 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner11,133 38,006 27,422 22,999 18,691 11,620 4,932 2,461 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 71 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW BOSTON Strong economic growth prospects. Net in migration exceeds local popula- tion increases and is important to the metro economy. Supply restrictions are led by land use regulation that ranks Boston near the bottom of supply opportunities. Most rents are over 35% of income amid younger rental householders, good housing affordability and smaller household size. 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 2007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025202620272028202920305+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 13,513 35,476 64,341 99,202 35,077 87,498 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 23 141 13.1 40% 135,188 78,753 73,349 84,690 114,066 69,162 81,030 55,514 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 878,128 117,772 78,002 95,266 256,685 335,107 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 78,189 81,309 85,601 76,632 71,428 261,807 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 72 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential BOSTON page 2 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 269,145207,773105,55867,50627,4799,0265,2650 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 480,491 86,464 55,512 108,974 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner45,958 188,484 130,695 109,293 94,307 59,660 38,490 24,865 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 2 73 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW CHARLESTON Net in migration significantly exceeds local natural population increases and is important to the economy. New rental households will span all the age cohorts. Reasonable economic growth seen in all major job sectors. Rental housing stock is relatively new compared with other metros, yet over a third is seen in more affordable STAR units. - 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 4,109 7,733 13,071 9,385 1,109 837 - 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 29 163 -3.5 35% 17,641 11,761 11,613 15,910 17,622 9,150 7,595 3,275 - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 152,873 1,439 4,304 33,979 14,575 36,244 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 10,051 13,127 11,966 10,450 6,262 34,880 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 74 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential CHARLESTON page 2 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos a nd publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 32,96529,06116,66210,9173,4331,2872420 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 55,681 33,695 627 4,977 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner7,060 30,867 19,873 13,634 11,543 6,584 2,940 2,066 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 75 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW CHARLOTTE Already significant, net in migrations become a larger source of new renter households ahead. Good economic prospects are led by professional ser- vices and trade. Rental stock is young and scaled. Like Raleigh, Orlando and Austin, more affordable STAR units account for less than a fifth of metro rentals. Well located metro with an excellent airport. - 50 100 150 200 250 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 13,033 28,485 66,146 22,153 3,270 2,737 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 10 182 -3.5 18% 61,195 49,987 45,504 52,830 54,062 28,153 18,981 9,585 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 534,144 3,209 10,835 130,297 30,450 135,824 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 38,706 41,677 39,042 36,171 24,080 117,221 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 76 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential CHARLOTTE page 2 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 115,81389,12052,37634,29116,9248,0043,7690 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 173,494 116,924 10,247 35,871 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner30,444 87,423 73,179 53,975 38,780 22,322 9,224 4,950 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 77 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW CHICAGO Net in migrations have been and are expected to remain negative, relying upon natural population increases for renter household growth. Reason - able economic prospects with good job growth and a heavy dependence on Mexico and Canada. Nearly 40% of multifamily is in affordable STAR units. Single and two-person households dominate rental homes. 575 600 625 650 675 700 725 750 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 15,425 64,406 136,214 203,737 84,429 136,502 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 34 191 1.6 39% 254,867 191,394 150,124 186,064 213,151 121,050 101,346 57,848 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 1,828,023 135,068 207,617 295,201 330,970 640,713 - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 142,340 155,260 154,116 136,362 105,315 499,878 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 78 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential CHICAGO page 2 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 483,384331,826186,048146,66074,81631,14621,9640 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 699,108 362,766 78,697 267,500 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner86,968 359,031 273,195 212,054 167,563 97,185 51,472 28,376 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 550,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 79 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW CINCINNATI Metro has relied on natural growth for rental household formations, though modest in migrations will contribute ahead. Economy is stable and growing, despite declines in key manufacturing sector. Rental stock is older with nearly half seen in more affordable STAR units. Annual multi- family demand is flat for next two years, then steadily increases to 2030. -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 3,558 11,142 39,699 48,195 11,930 14,205 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 38 272 -3.7 48% 69,756 45,873 42,269 41,275 46,933 21,988 13,536 6,688 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 502,371 8,668 15,752 96,160 56,730 128,729 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 43,246 37,914 35,085 29,191 24,267 100,257 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 80 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential CINCINNATI page 2 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 -5 0 5 10 15 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 120,91876,63342,08527,65612,5154,4354,0760 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 201,430 70,963 6,349 9,958 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner29,567 76,974 52,614 50,860 38,786 20,246 10,505 8,766 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 81 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW CLEVELAND Growth likely to be concentrated in certain neighborhoods as overall net in -migration is negative with little natural growth. Renter household growth ahead primarily in the 65+ aged cohorts. Although forecast to decline, the manufacturing sector grew slightly in 2010-16; thus could surprise on the upside if it continues to grow. Older stock and nearly half in STAR units. 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 2,460 7,749 24,871 59,209 21,701 21,341 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 50 291 0.3 46% 82,457 51,275 41,322 44,869 45,888 18,939 11,186 5,289 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 516,311 13,845 11,552 106,905 55,384 137,331 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 38,524 36,838 35,845 32,075 26,465 107,115 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 82 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential CLEVELAND page 2 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos a nd publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 137,65177,14340,57326,61810,1435,7863,3110 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 169,475 111,602 6,993 19,422 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner27,702 70,086 54,194 50,421 49,132 26,575 13,176 9,939 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 83 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW COLUMBUS Net in migrations account for half of the new household formations. Good renter depth in younger, single households with incomes up to $75,000. Older rental stock, with most units over 20 years old. Government and education sectors result in extremely stable economy. Rental vacancies are in balance with steady multifamily demand ahead. - 50 100 150 200 250 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 12,372 13,116 47,282 44,279 9,052 4,434 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 28 231 1.9 39% 63,339 45,022 42,794 45,525 56,257 27,424 18,267 6,385 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 438,813 7,802 7,866 103,439 64,284 130,535 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 39,342 43,418 39,560 34,730 24,266 108,218 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 84 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential COLUMBUS page 2 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 116,14583,90547,59729,73617,5196,1873,9240 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 200,854 74,022 13,533 13,079 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner31,212 93,688 62,025 45,100 37,703 18,128 10,339 6,818 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 85 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW DALLAS Strong net in migrations now exceed strong natural population growth. Economic strength now and ahead led by professional services, trade and education. Good renter incomes up to $75,000, though 40% are paying more than 35% of income on rent. New rental households are expected from most age cohorts with strong, steady multifamily demand ahead. - 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 45,626 98,636 253,878 146,229 16,260 7,441 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 1 174 -1.3 19% 152,654 140,536 138,109 167,138 196,584 103,394 71,579 40,133 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 1,383,073 8,312 18,308 311,245 105,690 568,070 - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 118,054 133,957 139,586 114,661 89,858 363,228 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 86 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential DALLAS page 2 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 353,560257,476160,466125,91166,94629,46816,3000 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 615,698 259,915 55,197 254,193 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner95,946 299,007 230,084 169,857 111,518 57,512 28,442 17,761 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 87 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW DENVER Net in migrations exceed natural population growth and fuel new rental households from most age cohorts. Good renter incomes with diverse ages and household sizes. Strong economic growth prospects in all but a few sectors. Long term supply restrictions may impact multifamily growth as annual demand steadily increases ahead. - 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 17,038 37,378 78,503 80,942 14,598 10,396 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 20 122 6.5 29% 56,599 45,385 46,641 64,937 81,450 45,687 40,332 17,721 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 612,713 10,128 40,125 123,111 31,421 238,855 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 38,172 56,310 56,726 45,697 39,383 145,985 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 88 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential DENVER page 2 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 152,811112,72156,23942,40019,4088,8096,3640 40,000 80,000 120,000 160,000 200,000 240,000 280,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 310,244 37,578 16,315 93,238 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner35,992 124,767 85,313 61,574 46,324 23,833 11,702 9,247 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 89 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW DETROIT Net in migration is negative and is expected to remain so with only modest natural population growth. City could surprise on the upside if recent manufacturing gains continue. Renter incomes are lower and 43% pay over 35% of income on rent. Rental stock is older and over half seen in STAR units. Multifamily demand ahead is positive but erratic. 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 4,487 17,900 70,113 96,142 25,714 17,625 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 41 260 1.2 52% 137,737 86,980 72,705 75,096 83,531 38,822 26,867 13,406 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 1,067,691 16,439 20,113 230,927 61,461 231,981 - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 61,924 60,444 56,070 57,482 44,789 211,032 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 225,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 90 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential DETROIT page 2 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 227,456137,62072,43355,74524,2819,5268,0830 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 284,977 211,639 20,306 22,423 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner37,160 128,722 103,983 95,786 82,181 46,668 23,418 17,226 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 91 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW HONOLULU Minor net in migration remains an important component of new house- hold growth. Economic prospects are positive in most sectors, albeit de- pendent upon tourism and the military. Extreme land constraints contrib- ute to overall housing shortages, while affordable housing is both smaller and lower quality. Nearly 60% of multifamily units were built 1960-1980. 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 1,762 3,165 15,270 40,347 8,296 890 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 35 71 19.5 41% 16,512 13,343 12,080 21,433 31,570 17,638 19,731 10,626 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 122,554 5,988 35,894 58,874 13,968 69,730 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 12,384 13,485 14,248 14,329 12,439 66,688 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 92 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential HONOLULU page 2 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 37,16845,01522,22218,4809,7585,2205,0700 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 53,781 6,815 44,817 17,473 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner12,143 39,380 27,557 22,436 18,243 12,473 5,730 4,971 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 93 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW HOUSTON Strong net in migrations and a diverse population drives new multifamily demand ahead. The economy is growing, becoming more diversified and less reliant on oil and gas. New rental households coming from most age cohorts. More new rental supply relative to demand than most metros with a smaller 22% share of multifamily today in STAR units. - 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 46,461 112,857 182,551 183,324 21,994 5,021 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 4 181 -2.5 22% 160,831 137,864 125,976 150,004 163,854 89,947 75,539 43,683 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 1,250,012 5,144 21,787 277,554 77,643 552,208 - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 119,002 121,049 116,491 102,213 78,990 349,569 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 94 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential HOUSTON page 2 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 316,120244,571153,535121,88563,23128,21420,1420 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 554,361 246,157 55,866 332,397 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner76,174 292,426 225,356 157,467 108,842 55,217 22,474 9,742 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 95 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW INDIANAPOLIS Strong net in migrations will exceed natural population growth. New rent- al households source from most age cohorts except for the youngest. Their economic prospects are good led by professional services, trade and edu- cation. Rental households have good incomes up to $75,000, are older and primarily one or two occupants. Steady multifamily demand ahead. - 50 100 150 200 250 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 10,548 17,328 42,578 33,859 7,781 9,105 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 30 254 -5.1 25% 57,788 46,469 42,265 46,481 41,968 19,220 12,249 4,006 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 463,456 4,602 4,068 103,991 38,443 121,199 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 31,905 31,621 35,330 29,733 22,928 102,400 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 96 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential INDIANAPOLIS page 2 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 119,09268,34334,26626,62611,8036,8803,4360 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 179,924 72,296 7,011 19,750 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner27,238 74,117 52,299 45,451 34,803 18,858 9,529 8,151 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 97 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW KANSAS CITY Population growth is slowing with a modest share of net in migrations going negative ahead. New rental households will source from the older cohorts. Good rental incomes and smaller households. Modest economic growth ahead, led by professional services, education and hospitality. Increasing multifamily demand is steady though slight. - 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 6,899 15,573 41,385 36,039 8,684 8,245 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 42 234 -5.3 35% 57,030 39,065 37,267 47,520 53,271 26,155 16,073 6,456 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 514,046 2,246 4,439 117,693 44,245 116,825 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 40,285 40,405 38,996 34,574 21,449 91,348 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 98 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential KANSAS CITY page 2 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 120,91972,12941,41226,86113,2364,7013,5790 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 193,549 65,483 7,528 25,186 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner29,474 79,145 53,173 43,584 37,284 20,934 10,207 9,036 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 99 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW LAS VEGAS Net in migrations from all age cohorts dominate the sourcing of new rental households as natural population growth eases ahead. Rental households are smaller with good incomes up to $75,000. Economy is slowly diversify- ing away from dependency on tourism. Good multifamily demand has been consistent since the downturn and will increase through 2030. - 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 5,608 35,942 82,672 29,735 3,454 593 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 9 146 -3.7 21% 63,348 50,768 54,036 58,219 62,899 33,884 24,985 10,644 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 349,111 7,811 13,127 145,052 49,000 158,004 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 34,380 44,566 45,448 39,985 31,532 144,094 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 100 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential LAS VEGAS page 2 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 121,53997,25956,32942,13724,9659,6536,9010 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 218,550 59,482 25,933 98,175 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner21,203 91,668 82,426 65,428 51,602 30,126 11,531 4,799 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 101 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW LITTLE ROCK Net in migrations will exceed modest natural population growth. Rental households are fairly diverse in ages, size and incomes. Reasonably good economic prospects led by professional services and education. A third of multifamily rental stock is in affordable STAR units. Annual multifamily demand will remain flat until 2021, then increase slightly through 2030. - 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 5,217 8,538 14,629 11,094 2,190 686 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 43 244 -5.4 33% 23,820 20,386 14,514 18,046 14,171 6,391 5,230 1,920 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 160,266 535 1,056 38,743 13,995 42,354 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 13,426 13,456 11,691 9,783 8,040 39,512 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 102 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential LITTLE ROCK page 2 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 38,78330,06016,05111,5625,1001,7781,1440 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 61,455 37,337 2,066 4,546 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner12,931 30,513 22,136 14,631 10,368 7,321 3,635 2,943 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 103 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW LOS ANGELES In migrations in are now similar to out migrations with natural change driving household growth. Diverse rental households source from most ages with a range of sizes and incomes. Strong economic prospects in most sectors. Largest share of more affordable STAR units from the 50 metros studied. Steady increases in annual multifamily demand ahead. 300,000 500,000 700,000 900,000 1,100,000 1,300,000 1,500,000 2007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025202620272028202920305+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 34,060 94,446 301,108 487,778 212,305 119,137 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 17 70 5.3 61% 362,190 288,768 257,276 332,467 384,802 245,334 233,337 146,105 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 1,833,596 43,689 132,254 649,361 324,932 1,248,834 - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 187,587 217,623 247,117 234,938 213,866 1,041,584 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Metro includes Orange County Version 2 not adjusted for type of rental 104 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential LOS ANGELES page 2 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 664,186585,707363,192308,812185,34482,08360,9550 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 1,217,645 228,015 310,820 915,895 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner108,751 535,120 523,970 459,397 317,355 171,004 91,246 43,436 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Metro includes Orange County Version 1 105 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW LOUISVILLE Net in migrations source most of the new rental households ahead as nat- ural population growth wanes. These households will be older, smaller with more modest incomes. Decent economic prospects ahead amid a retreat in manufacturing. Rental housing stock is older with 42% seen in affordable STAR units. Multifamily demand steadily increases to 2030. - 20 40 60 80 100 120 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 3,780 8,490 21,096 23,705 7,624 5,735 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 44 228 -2.8 42% 39,424 27,545 23,061 28,025 27,563 11,583 7,059 2,683 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 305,070 3,155 7,406 62,721 28,538 70,430 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 22,823 20,505 21,525 19,009 14,070 58,124 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 106 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential LOUISVILLE page 2 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 68,88341,35727,21016,8427,2653,6101,7760 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 113,109 45,205 3,624 10,099 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner14,226 42,869 32,279 29,608 25,279 13,093 6,057 3,532 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 107 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW MEMPHIS Net out migrations from Memphis will reverse, though natural population growth continues to shrink. New rental households will be older with more modest incomes. Economic growth is positive but weaker than most other metros. Slightly increasing multifamily demand through 2030. - 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 3,470 12,931 24,415 18,464 8,807 3,131 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 40 222 8.7 38% 48,147 35,612 27,520 30,514 30,779 14,243 8,210 3,996 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 279,798 1,314 2,700 90,495 31,915 71,218 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 22,361 22,704 21,637 20,301 18,844 75,865 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 108 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential MEMPHIS page 2 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos a nd publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 73,81652,04529,86822,80212,1985,5352,7570 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 64,911 123,642 3,096 8,356 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner17,839 51,521 43,930 33,210 28,707 14,836 5,754 3,224 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 109 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW MIAMI Even with natural population growth in the last decade, net in migrations are three times stronger and soon to be five. New rental households will be smaller from most age cohorts. With strong incomes up to $75,000, most renters still pay over 35% of income on rent. Good economic growth ahead led by professional services and hospitality. - 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 21,619 64,240 165,142 166,430 43,912 10,798 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 3 105 9.3 37% 172,612 135,396 115,076 134,591 147,842 70,169 56,470 29,978 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 904,748 40,263 238,819 258,244 114,436 472,141 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 51,320 63,635 86,758 89,653 78,132 437,308 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 110 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential MIAMI page 2 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos a nd publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 278,747238,294152,908113,03250,61217,92510,6160 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 581,045 212,258 15,182 404,131 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner34,749 189,812 195,966 181,541 121,837 72,642 45,047 20,540 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 111 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW MILWAUKEE Growth continues to come solely from natural population growth which is slowing. New rental household growth relies upon householders over 35. Economic growth is positive but sluggish. Rental stock is older and over 40% seen in more affordable STAR units. Multifamily demand is flat for two years, then increases through 2029. 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 3,410 11,915 32,626 37,490 17,120 16,446 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 49 181 4.7 43% 56,254 44,098 33,209 42,445 44,408 19,708 14,048 4,133 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 331,916 19,689 15,249 53,596 85,060 119,007 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 30,984 32,934 32,304 28,364 21,001 97,893 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 112 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential MILWAUKEE page 2 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos a nd publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 110,40571,50236,08920,73211,0565,2143,3050 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 162,243 70,944 9,095 27,881 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner22,447 71,845 44,273 42,665 36,220 18,316 11,524 11,013 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 113 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW MINNEAPOLIS Net in migrations are a modest but growing portion of new renter house- hold growth, relying ahead on renters over 35. Renter incomes are strong up to $75,000. Economic prospects are solid with steady growth. Rental stock is older with 44% seen in more affordable STAR units. Demand is expected to steadily rise. - 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 12,823 31,093 72,363 97,694 18,835 26,457 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 15 211 3.3 44% 71,456 64,805 53,787 69,644 75,914 39,966 31,684 14,120 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 865,988 13,892 36,426 113,523 44,853 259,265 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 50,514 54,630 56,407 51,427 38,861 154,114 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 114 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential MINNEAPOLIS page 2 -20 0 20 40 60 80 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos a nd publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 177,075116,62653,11337,86321,2008,7626,7370 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 293,310 73,675 26,490 30,856 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner39,097 125,355 81,041 60,202 48,883 28,656 18,929 19,213 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 225,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 115 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW NASHVILLE Net in migrations remain stronger than natural population growth for new rental households sourced from all age cohorts. Current rental households are smaller with a wider range of incomes. Economic prospects are strong led by professional services and education. The indices below portend a good supply response to a steadily increasing annual multifamily demand. - 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 9,048 18,822 41,065 34,607 6,750 1,560 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 24 175 -2.4 30% 45,564 33,832 32,979 39,307 43,176 19,540 13,596 7,537 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 413,117 7,075 8,546 76,522 35,329 111,852 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 29,200 31,959 28,743 29,232 20,760 82,037 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 116 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential NASHVILLE page 2 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 5 10 15 20 25 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 82,68669,94635,45726,67912,9414,6473,1750 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 159,248 59,895 4,633 18,495 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner25,603 68,781 49,298 37,475 27,707 14,191 7,332 5,144 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 117 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW NEW ORLEANS Historic out migrations have halted and new net in migrations slightly exceed mild natural population growth. New rental households will source mostly from 35+ age cohorts but with lower incomes. Nearly half of renters pay more than 35% of income for rent. Future economic prospects are positive, led by trade. Multifamily demand slowly increases. - 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 3,859 8,985 19,873 21,062 4,653 4,789 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 46 180 -6.0 41% 50,999 31,522 26,030 27,910 25,826 15,735 9,551 4,328 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 263,658 8,363 5,714 64,873 58,569 63,221 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 18,937 20,972 19,548 15,640 16,430 81,892 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 118 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential NEW ORLEANS page 2 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos a nd publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 86,15649,24527,50416,5227,7142,3672,3930 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 94,410 87,854 2,984 19,621 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner10,536 57,083 41,712 31,892 28,117 13,689 6,067 2,805 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 119 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW NEW YORK Out migrations have slowed, but will drag on the significant natural popu- lation growth that fuels new rental households. These today are smaller across a range of ages and good incomes, though nearly half pay over 35% of income on rent. Economic prospects are strong. Rental stock is older and nearly half seen in STAR units. Demand ahead is consistently strong. - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 57,775 153,873 248,857 511,784 484,539 745,022 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 16 122 6.0 48% 678,427 436,540 361,858 434,812 572,895 347,680 366,554 304,801 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 2,717,523 403,045 478,765 368,020 921,049 2,201,850 - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 413,785 363,073 382,378 351,031 308,653 1,474,487 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Metro includes Orange County Version 2 not adjusted for type of rental 120 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential NEW YORK page 2 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 1,238,740943,078557,356417,601198,02685,34663,4200 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 1,733,926 811,812 335,750 1,055,087 - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner127,072 801,087 744,233 667,658 534,096 336,341 188,129 104,951 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Metro includes Orange County Version 1 121 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW OKLAHOMA CITY Net in migrations have exceeded modest natural population growth and will subside. New rental households are smaller with good incomes, sourc- ing from the youngest and oldest cohorts. Economic prospects are good and from all sectors except manufacturing. Rental stock is older with 44% in more affordable STAR units. Demand ahead steadily grows to 2030. - 20 40 60 80 100 120 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 4,626 8,870 26,437 22,591 3,035 1,900 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 37 235 -2.5 44% 37,467 30,914 25,264 30,652 30,618 13,890 9,939 3,423 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 300,329 1,440 1,315 86,077 23,883 67,459 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 24,421 24,661 22,590 18,243 15,925 61,357 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 122 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential OKLAHOMA CITY page 2 -5 0 5 10 15 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 71,39248,67226,93719,8989,5303,7172,0210 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 119,938 35,663 5,629 19,783 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner23,391 51,809 34,586 27,457 22,864 11,518 5,121 5,421 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 123 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW ORLANDO Net in migrations fuel renter household growth, soon over 6 times the natural population growth. Renter households have strong incomes and a wide range of ages. Though rental stock is similar in age to other metros, the small 18% share of STAR units portends affordability issues. Strong economic prospects and annual increases in multifamily demand ahead. - 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 14,579 40,551 83,178 28,363 2,517 903 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 2 149 3.5 18% 54,196 53,506 53,745 58,745 63,945 29,106 17,917 10,331 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 442,612 6,936 14,000 123,959 35,828 170,091 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 26,327 30,009 46,219 38,068 32,513 150,217 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 124 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential ORLANDO page 2 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 99,57499,30065,34944,15421,4507,6913,9730 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 234,897 70,924 6,850 111,564 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner28,027 99,510 84,277 57,641 36,908 20,508 9,583 5,037 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 125 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW PHILADELPHIA Net migrations are slight and negative, rental household growth depends upon natural population growth. New rental households will source from ages 35-54 and seniors over 65. Economy is strong with manufacturing the only drag. Rental stock is older and significant supply restrictions may hamper new product. Multifamily demand ahead is positive and rising. 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 12,282 26,278 66,467 115,645 39,322 38,713 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 31 212 8.2 37% 157,736 100,973 89,353 106,153 118,019 69,661 58,647 32,644 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 1,412,031 21,371 45,315 273,705 153,925 298,707 - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 85,839 80,418 84,314 73,021 62,571 299,731 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 126 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential PHILADELPHIA page 2 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 298,108204,008109,06369,58730,89012,3179,2130 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 401,779 234,117 41,461 86,169 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner43,549 195,545 142,744 120,856 99,614 63,590 40,636 26,652 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 127 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW PHOENIX Rental household growth very dependent on strong in migrations, soon over 3 times the natural population growth. New renters will source from all ages with strong incomes, though 40% now pay over 35% of income on rent. Strong economic prospects. Strong multifamily demand increases steadily, though supply restrictions may hamper new supply to match. - 100 200 300 400 500 600 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 14,153 52,587 128,080 66,882 10,256 1,047 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 5 155 4.8 30% 115,146 88,870 85,322 105,235 117,052 58,255 45,730 20,068 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 879,049 10,262 17,167 272,264 69,616 273,005 - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 68,151 83,380 83,094 69,105 53,431 234,561 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 128 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential PHOENIX page 2 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 20 40 60 80 100 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 210,991169,93391,27780,45345,68222,03815,3040 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 473,469 57,700 20,319 193,089 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner56,288 172,778 143,877 109,937 75,998 41,516 21,682 13,602 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 129 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW PITTSBURGH Net in migrations counter the slide in natural population growth to hold new households fairly constant. New renters will source from ages 35-54 and seniors over 65 with lower incomes reliant on affordability. Economic growth is modest. Most of multifamily is seen in STAR units, more than most metros. Demand ahead is flat for two years, rising steadily to 2029. 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 2,191 9,112 25,587 41,813 22,247 17,018 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 47 287 1.8 54% 77,692 53,518 40,126 42,046 46,994 23,336 15,202 6,274 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 643,817 9,133 8,806 114,536 63,380 117,968 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 47,812 38,180 34,405 32,385 24,462 103,324 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 130 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential PITTSBURGH page 2 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 151,10782,18236,15420,8558,9983,7492,1430 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 233,957 52,712 10,294 6,802 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner27,868 77,484 48,658 45,859 42,543 28,924 19,487 14,365 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 131 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW PORTLAND Substantial net in migrations fueled a surge in rental households and con- tinue to drive demand. Rental households bring strong incomes and a mix of ages. Economic trends are superlative. With relatively younger rental stock and 37% seen in STAR units, the overall supply is balanced today. Ahead is steady and consistent multifamily demand through 2030. - 50 100 150 200 250 300 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 9,199 27,700 64,077 49,594 10,068 14,193 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 21 125 3.2 37% 58,017 47,644 43,037 58,252 66,226 34,052 29,758 13,626 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 500,659 6,297 14,056 109,921 59,101 174,831 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 38,801 42,505 45,801 40,168 30,638 136,448 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 132 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential PORTLAND page 2 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 5 10 15 20 25 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos a nd publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 132,775106,03546,57337,33016,7417,1044,0540 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 284,312 16,214 17,405 44,751 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner25,497 99,210 75,169 57,541 43,070 24,047 13,456 12,622 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 133 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW RALEIGH Strong net in migrations are double the natural population growth and should increase 2.5 times more, fueling rental household growth across all ages. Renter household sizes are smaller and incomes notable. The econo- my is strong, led by professional services and trade. Rental stock is younger with fewer STAR units, in balance for strong increases in demand ahead. - 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 9,711 19,740 34,378 11,775 2,111 1,233 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 8 183 4.8 19% 25,285 23,097 22,765 27,428 31,597 17,736 12,919 5,815 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 280,245 1,024 4,111 58,085 19,009 78,948 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 19,837 26,015 19,137 22,039 16,331 55,895 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 134 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential RALEIGH page 2 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 10 20 30 40 50 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 56,59648,76827,69618,5789,3313,4282,2450 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 97,651 51,734 7,278 18,880 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner16,257 47,564 35,010 29,981 19,635 10,226 5,355 2,614 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 135 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW RICHMOND Continued net in migrations exceed natural population growth, fueling new rental households. Renters have good incomes across a range of ages with growth ahead increasingly coming from ages 35 -44 and seniors over 65. The economy is solid, yet with declines in trade and financial services. Renter stock is older but balanced. Multifamily demand rises steadily. - 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 3,700 10,764 23,507 23,553 5,773 8,026 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 33 188 -2.3 37% 34,675 21,548 23,308 29,268 30,362 16,807 11,641 6,100 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 295,908 1,809 4,419 73,466 22,178 75,323 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 17,980 21,589 20,973 19,368 16,350 65,732 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 136 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential RICHMOND page 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos a nd publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 69,56946,75625,39118,1627,7043,6702,4570 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 84,336 76,475 5,363 9,168 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner14,533 45,803 34,846 28,704 25,475 12,710 6,424 5,214 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 137 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW RIVERSIDE Though natural growth is constant, significant net in migrations have re- ceded. New renters will source from most ages but will rely on those 35-54 ahead. Economy is good with gains in most sectors, but trade will retreat. Rental stock is older with nearly half in more affordable STAR units amid heavy supply restrictions. Multifamily demand ahead is positive, steady. - 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 9,643 32,713 73,148 47,806 8,712 963 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 26 113 5.1 48% 93,592 80,187 71,010 77,688 94,124 50,905 41,389 17,499 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 736,164 6,820 6,946 260,071 64,028 172,985 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 38,820 48,613 59,862 58,869 45,737 247,168 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 138 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential RIVERSIDE page 2 -20 0 20 40 60 80 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 127,080122,85283,79484,23755,57629,96222,8930 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 319,537 65,188 25,299 241,477 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner33,290 130,878 129,747 99,012 68,158 38,605 17,219 9,485 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 139 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW SACRAMENTO Net in migrations and natural population growth fuel new rental house- holds. These will source mainly from 25-44 year olds and seniors over 65. Economic prospects are solid, led by education and government. Rental stock is older than most metros with 42% in more affordable STAR units. Multifamily demand ahead is steadily increasing. - 50 100 150 200 250 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 3,314 19,664 46,936 45,036 9,174 3,026 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 27 137 4.1 42% 64,512 47,896 42,062 43,936 61,548 34,424 27,255 13,506 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 447,876 3,804 4,630 152,287 49,358 127,150 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 30,256 37,439 40,164 36,535 27,644 143,222 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 140 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential SACRAMENTO page 2 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 5 10 15 20 25 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos a nd publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 108,66994,04950,42743,82620,59710,8646,7070 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 214,828 43,604 35,890 68,116 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner27,132 85,187 68,969 58,922 45,705 27,421 13,145 8,658 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 141 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW SALT LAKE CITY With only modest net in migrations, natural population growth is the driv- er for new rental households. Today’s renters are smaller, younger and with strong incomes up to $75,000. Economy is strong, led by professional services and education. Rental stock has less STAR units than other met- ros. Demand for multifamily steadily increases through 2030. - 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 5,377 10,930 26,665 16,541 2,268 4,415 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 25 153 2.4 29% 19,044 15,683 19,841 21,670 25,559 11,726 9,421 4,470 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 230,454 4,198 7,701 38,108 21,369 66,196 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 16,156 19,773 16,190 14,490 10,080 43,534 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 142 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential SALT LAKE CITY page 2 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos a nd publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 40,24036,70118,62515,6889,8203,9732,3670 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 97,872 4,241 6,215 26,155 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner14,721 42,290 25,525 17,829 12,879 7,889 3,758 2,523 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 143 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW SAN ANTONIO Net in migrations are 65% ahead of natural population growth, a strong driver for new rental households that will source from all ages. Renter ages and sizes are more diverse, likely tied to strong Hispanic share. Gains in all job sectors portend a strong economy. Rental stock is newer with a smaller share of STAR units. Multifamily demand is strong and increasing. - 50 100 150 200 250 300 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 17,031 33,963 56,912 27,936 6,206 2,568 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 14 166 -1.3 24% 52,907 45,926 43,764 50,672 59,339 27,403 20,712 9,314 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 441,999 2,671 3,462 115,835 36,808 144,616 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 40,171 37,544 44,106 34,428 22,832 109,495 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 144 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential SAN ANTONIO page 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 109,75679,09148,07237,18322,4938,9954,4470 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 242,241 35,871 8,753 164,646 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner29,012 89,600 72,823 51,205 35,017 19,695 8,215 4,470 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 145 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW SAN DIEGO Net in migrations are back, but a modest component of new rental house- holds after natural population growth. Economy is fairly strong ahead. Rental stock is older than most metros and 59% are STAR units, second only to L.A. Supply restrictions may hamper meeting strong multifamily demand ahead, steadily increasing through 2030. - 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 8,794 32,304 106,967 104,871 16,107 6,144 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 18 76 5.5 58% 72,182 63,673 55,261 76,978 106,924 64,382 59,738 35,007 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 495,828 11,671 41,115 180,111 68,536 275,187 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 40,154 52,814 61,728 65,572 52,635 236,358 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 146 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential SAN DIEGO page 2 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos a nd publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 150,941151,55085,91075,56841,69616,77911,7010 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 382,385 39,899 52,029 173,420 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner38,236 156,123 122,893 91,185 63,490 33,937 17,863 10,418 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 147 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW SAN FRANCISCO Net in migrations continue to match consistent natural population growth, fueling new rental households. Strong renter incomes and diverse ages. Economic prospects are strong. Housing affordability is low amid steep supply restrictions. Rental stock is older with 54% seen in more affordable STAR units. Demand ahead is strong and steadily increasing through 2030. - 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 11,999 37,913 95,358 137,433 50,377 84,624 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 19 72 7.6 54% 109,822 70,076 62,865 85,273 123,596 93,599 115,265 125,911 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 786,645 41,568 60,044 222,346 141,991 417,704 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 100,391 98,779 101,843 93,276 64,633 293,029 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 148 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential SAN FRANCISCO page 2 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 -10 0 10 20 30 40 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos a nd publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 263,920231,244121,38090,04345,72119,00115,0980 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 405,826 93,935 161,090 161,472 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner34,533 209,403 184,399 141,886 104,582 60,330 32,091 19,183 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000 240,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 149 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW SAN JOSE Net in migrations recede against consistent natural population growth. Renters have strong incomes, a range of ages and will source from all ages ahead. Economy is strong, led by professional services and education. Rental stock is older, but with fewer affordable STAR units as nearby SF. Multifamily demand ahead is strong and steadily increasing through 2030. - 50 100 150 200 250 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 12,055 18,748 46,550 56,659 11,909 4,339 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 22 69 3.8 43% 28,813 20,542 22,383 28,393 41,712 34,262 47,857 61,073 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 325,953 5,877 17,767 90,800 41,049 150,260 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 37,867 36,694 36,301 32,829 22,973 106,680 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 150 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential SAN JOSE page 2 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 69,54980,58350,28748,75918,8759,2307,7520 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 137,865 10,354 88,053 81,564 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner16,086 77,680 75,742 49,799 33,223 17,058 8,838 6,609 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 151 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW SEATTLE Net in migrations continue to outpace natural population growth as source of new renters from younger, affluent and smaller households. Strong economy will see gains in professional services, education and trade. The rental stock is older, but less than a third in more affordable STAR units. Multifamily demand ahead is strong and increasing each year to 2030. - 100 200 300 400 500 600 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 25,034 55,165 116,991 86,981 19,825 23,311 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 11 124 8.0 32% 80,350 58,131 58,452 87,917 112,586 68,813 70,054 39,378 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 757,274 12,141 53,856 164,450 71,922 327,307 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 63,875 79,192 78,933 70,795 54,655 202,057 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 152 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential SEATTLE page 2 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 212,889175,39185,51355,31826,17312,5847,8130 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 393,093 50,839 63,492 62,497 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner50,011 177,270 121,543 89,063 66,520 33,191 22,443 15,640 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 153 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW SIOUX FALLS Mild growth is a combination of net in migrations and natural population growth. New renters will source from 35+ age cohort, particularly seniors over 65. Today’s renters have good incomes up to $75,000, smaller house- holds and a range of ages. Economic prospects are good. Rental stock is older, yet with fewer STAR units. Multifamily demand steadily increases. - 5 10 15 20 25 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 1,642 2,705 6,527 6,337 1,007 529 - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 32 213 -3.1 23% 6,541 5,132 4,938 6,448 5,191 1,824 1,175 548 - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 61,905 653 823 8,163 4,514 18,747 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 4,467 5,295 4,367 3,570 2,703 9,237 - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 154 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential SIOUX FALLS page 2 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 1 2 3 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos a nd publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 15,2478,9463,2403,0367923601760 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 26,820 2,352 384 1,185 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner4,858 8,086 5,469 4,208 3,366 2,142 1,613 2,055 - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 155 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW ST. LOUIS Net out migrations have countered natural population growth. Slight in migrations expected as overall growth slows. New rental households will source from 35-44 year olds and seniors over 65. Economic prospects are improving and good. Rental stock is older, yet with few supply restrictions. Multifamily demand will be flat for three years, then improve though 2029. 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 3,914 14,512 38,378 41,599 11,799 15,583 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 45 252 -4.7 39% 76,561 58,410 48,771 56,501 56,974 27,334 18,993 7,935 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 708,018 12,733 13,685 133,276 80,668 125,785 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 44,183 46,613 43,614 37,431 28,568 128,765 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 156 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential ST. LOUIS page 2 -10 0 10 20 30 40 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 144,48196,31052,53234,62915,2726,2552,0000 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 215,180 116,518 10,234 11,250 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner29,184 95,278 69,921 49,364 51,747 28,540 16,984 10,461 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 157 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW TAMPA Slight natural population growth will go negative, relying on the surge in net in migrations to fuel new rental households. Renters today enjoy strong incomes, a range of ages and household sizes. Economic prospects are great, with growth in most sectors. Rental stock is old, yet less than a third in STAR units. Demand ahead is strong and steadily increasing. - 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 11,472 36,158 78,492 53,674 8,574 2,586 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 12 174 0.0 32% 81,387 69,977 58,208 71,069 74,545 39,092 26,222 11,897 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 594,001 12,561 52,801 154,272 57,401 190,956 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 38,431 52,253 52,508 46,132 38,400 174,681 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 158 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential TAMPA page 2 -10 10 30 50 70 90 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 166,059123,51667,82343,33518,8828,4594,3230 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 314,543 82,562 9,903 86,060 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner28,091 110,237 89,778 78,910 60,786 35,030 15,476 14,089 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 159 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW WASHINGTON, DC Consistent natural population growth is augmented by fewer net in migra- tions for new renter households. Renters have strong incomes and smaller households across a range of ages. Economic outlook is strong, led by professional services. Rental stock age is typically older, yet the small share of STAR units mimics younger metros. Demand is strong and rising. - 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Thousands5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030ThousandsNew Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 33,032 74,664 145,029 175,009 72,687 29,603 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built Definitions on back DEMAND RANKING STAR* SHARE AFFORD- ABILITY MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 13 159 2.7 19% 94,748 63,402 73,991 108,449 156,097 112,591 124,933 85,767 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 under $15k $15- $25k $25- $35k $35- $50k $50- $75k $75- $100k $100- $150k over $150k Rental Households by Income 1,210,310 14,078 117,768 228,007 57,111 530,024 - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 85,414 98,750 117,684 100,392 78,635 300,227 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 under 15%15%-20%20%-25%25%-30%30%-35%over 35%Rental HouseholdsRent as a Percent of Household Income Version 1 not adjusted for type of rental 160 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential WASHINGTON, DC page 2 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 2010-2016 2017-2030 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1 (Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single -family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land no t yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStar®, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody’s Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 296,116220,087124,17497,07344,67423,87213,9820 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Occupants Renter Owner 389,642 278,071 63,067 129,379 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Households by Ethnicity and Origin Renter Owner50,752 232,573 194,218 142,602 102,738 52,542 26,323 18,230 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Age Cohort Renter Owner Version 1 161 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 162 Appendix 5: Methodology Metro Market Demand Methodology The metro market demand models begin with the forecast number of households from Moody’s Economy.com base-case forecast. Because the national model was based on an HAS derived household forecast, the metro market household forecasts are adjusted by the difference in the HAS and Moody’s Economy.com forecast each year. The HAS national forecast is similar to the Moody’s forecast through 2018 then grows slightly slower, representing the impact of expected slower household formations during recessions which are modeled to occur towards the end of each decade through 2030. The resulting HAS national household forecast is 2.8% lower than the Moody’s national forecast by 2030. Thus, metro markets are adjusted for the difference between the two national forecasts each year (e.g. -2.8% for 2030). Like the national model, the metro area model defines the renter households by adjusting the number of households by one minus the home ownership rate for each year and subtracts out the homeless rate. The metro market home ownership rate is specified by the equivalent metropolitan area home ownership rate as provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. The model uses the statewide homeless rate as similar data was not available at the metropolitan area level. While homeless rates surely vary by metropolitan area, this homeless adjustment is quite small, with a median rate of 0.12% of population. Actual data were collected for 2009 and 2011 to 2015. The forecast did not assume a change in the homeless rate from the 2015 figure. The U.S. Census Bureau provides a quarterly estimate of home ownership rates for select metropolitan areas. The survey’s methodology can result in wide swings in estimates of home ownership rates from quarter to quarter. Thus, an annual average of quarterly home ownership rates was used to observe the historic trend in home ownership for each metro area. Forecast metro market home ownership rates were estimated based on demographic trends. To estimate historical renter households, the rentership rate for each age cohort for each metro market was multiplied by the households for that age cohort. Renter households were derived by dividing the population growth by age cohort by the headship rate by age cohort. For forecast renter households, for each age cohort, the incremental annual population growth was divided by an estimate of population per household (headship rate) for that age cohort to get incremental households for that year. Households were then split into international in-migration households and domestic growth households by multiplying the incremental household by the average percent of growth from 2010 to 2015 created by international in-migration. International rental households were then estimated by multiplying the rentership rate for international in-migrants for that age cohort. Similarly, new domestic rental households were estimated by multiplying the rentership rate for each age cohort by the new domestic households for that age cohort. Total renter households for each year equal the previous year total renter households plus the incremental total international in-migrating renter households by age cohort plus the incremental total domestic households by age cohort for that year. The forecast home ownership rate for each year is estimated by dividing the rental households by the total households for that year. Home ownership rates from the metro model were slightly higher when aggregated than trends suggested by the national model. Thus, annual home ownership rates were adjusted downwards by 0.09% per year so that the metro area home ownership rate trends in aggregate were more like the national trend. Actual home ownership rates were used from 2005 to 2016. The 2017 home ownership rate was estimated by multiplying the 2016 actual rate by the modeled change from 2016 to 2017, and so on. Forecast rental households were then adjusted for three factors to forecast demand for the institutional rental market, or those properties with 5 or more units. First, an estimate of the amount of total rental stock attributed to properties with 5 or more units (5+) was estimated by reviewing several sources of data, including the U.S. Census, CoStar® and CBRE® Econometrics. This factor ranged from 33% to 65% with a median of 46%. Second, some markets have significantly older multifamily stock than other markets, indicating that those markets will need more new stock to offset obsolete aging 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 163 stock. However, it is difficult to tell how much of the stock has already been updated in each market. Thus, we made only a slight adjustment upward for markets with older stock. The amount of stock built after 1980 was calculated for each market and ranged from 21% to 81% with a median of 56%. An aging factor was developed by dividing the U.S. average percent of the market built after 1980 (49%) by the metro area average built after 1980. The national model assumed 0.5% of stock would need to be replaced each year due to obsolescence. For each metro market, this 0.5% was multiplied by the aging factor; i.e. markets with stock that is older than the U.S. are assumed to need slightly more stock per year to replace obsolete buildings. The model also assumes that enough demand will be needed in each market to keep vacancy at a similar rate as the long-term average for that market. As the total market inventory increases in size, the current vacant units will become a smaller amount of the total and thus vacancy would decline, excluding the impact of actual new supply. Thus, demand was also adjusted for a long-term vacancy factor. Because of unusual fluctuations occurring in the housing market from 2000-2016 due to the Great Financial Crisis, the average vacancy from 1990-1999 was used as the long-term vacancy factor. This figure was more representative of long- term trends for most markets. The model assumes that enough units will need to be produced each year to maintain vacancy rates at a similar level and thus the demand for each year is increased by this vacancy factor. Actual occupied units were used for 2007 to 2016 based on HAS estimates derived from multiple sources. The forecast applied the 2016-2017 growth rate from the modeled figures from 2017 to 2016 to the 2016 actual estimate to get the 2017 estimate and so on. State Demand Methodology The methodology to forecast multifamily demand for the states followed a similar methodology as the metropolitan areas. Demand for the states was further adjusted so that the state forecasts add up to the national forecast both historically and on a forecast basis. This was done by prorating the proportion of demand for each state as compared to the total forecast for all the states to the U.S. forecast demand. Metro Market Overviews Methodology 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast is developed by the Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) team and represents the number of rental apartment units in buildings with five or more units (defined as multifamily units throughout) and those multifamily units that will be needed to meet demand going forward. Historical figures for the years 2007 to 2016 are based on estimates of existing multifamily 5+ total inventory as developed by the HAS team from several sources including the U.S. Census, CoStar® and CBRE® Econometrics®. Forecasts are based on demographic, economic and capital market trends and consider aging and domestic and international immigration trends specific to that metropolitan area as well as housing affordability and ownership trends, among other factors. Actual units could be lower than this level in areas with geographic and political restrictions. In this case, upward pressure could develop on rental rates. Actual units could also be larger than forecast demand in markets where construction exceeds demand. 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built tracks the number of units in buildings with five or more units by year built. Note that this graph is specific to only the 5+ unit sector of the rental market and thus will have lower numbers than other graphs such as the adjacent “Rent as a Percent of Household Income” graph which includes all sizes of rental units. The 5+ Unit share of the total rental stock can be seen in the graph above it titled “Housing Stock by Tenure and Type”. Affordability is the Housing Affordability Index as reported by Moody’s Economy.com for the fourth quarter of 2016. It provides a general indication of affordability of single-family owned housing in a metropolitan area. Higher ratios indicate that housing is more affordable and vice-versa. The index is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting as of the time of the index, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100-point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 164 income). Of the metropolitan areas in this report, this index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with an average of 178.0. Demand Ranking is the relative rank among the 50 multifamily metro markets in this study of the HAS forecasted multifamily housing demand for rental stock with 5 or more units based two growth factors: 1) the average percentage growth in demand from 2017 to 2030 and 2) the absolute growth in demand from 2017 to 2030. The rankings range from 1 (Dallas-Ft. Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). Note that percentage growth rankings tend to favor smaller metropolitan markets while absolute growth rankings tend to favor larger metropolitan markets. Thus, the index ranks based on a blend of both percentage growth and absolute number of new renters. See the tables in Appendix 5 for separate rankings by percentage growth and total growth. Employment Growth by Sector graphs are based on employment projections for metropolitan statistical areas as provided by Moody’s Analytics® for major North American Industry Classification codes (NAICS). For example, the category “Information” includes a broad array of services including newspapers, software publishers, motion pictures, radio, TV, data processing, internet publishing and similar services. A description of NAICS codes can be found here: https://www.census.gov/cgi- bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?chart=2012. The term “Education” as mentioned in the text boxes of the metropolitan overviews in this report refers to the Education & Health Services NAICS category and could be more health oriented than education oriented depending on the metro area. MF Supply Restrictions (Multifamily Supply Restrictions Index) is an HAS composite of methodology using the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix developable land index. This index represents the difficulty of creating new supply which may vary from the amount of new supply delivered as high growth metro markets may also experience higher supply growth despite the difficulty of approving new projects. The result of higher supply restrictions may be longer approval and development time-lines adding to the development risks and higher construction costs which lead to less affordable rental markets. Of the markets in this study, this index ranges from 19.5 Honolulu to -6.0 (New Orleans) with an average of 2.0. Higher indices represent markets with more stringent regulatory environments in regards to new housing supply. The Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index is based on data and a nationwide survey of local land use regulations including process and approvals, rules, and outcomes. The index includes eleven sub-indices measuring the stringency of the local regulatory environment, including local political pressure, local project approval, local assembly, supply restrictions, density restrictions, open space, exactions, and approval delay. The Lacroix index was developed by Sumner La Croix, Ph.D. at the Economic Research Organization at the University of Hawaii and measures the developable area within a 50-kilometer radii from a central city. Factors such as oceans, wetlands, lakes, rivers and other bodies of water as well as areas with a slope above 15% are defined as undevelopable. The Multifamily Supply Restrictions Index is the sum of each sub index for the metro market divided by the average for that sub index for all the metro markets in this study. STAR Share is that share of metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non- institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1 to 5 for sites of five units or more, STAR units are those with lower CoStar® ratings of 1 to 2. Costar® ratings are based on several criteria including building structure and systems, amenities, site and landscaping, and certifications such as LEED and Green Globes. Properties rated 2 have functional architectural design and systems, below average finishes and one to no additional amenities. They have minimal to no landscaping and exterior spaces, and are unlikely to hold green or energy efficient certifications. Properties rated 1 may require significant renovation and are possibly functionally obsolete. STAR facilities are likely to serve lower income populations which are a significant part of the population base in some metro areas, and may represent, in some areas, potential investment targets for upgrading to higher quality properties. The STAR share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a metro market average of 36% for markets included in this study. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 165 Sources Demographic data was drawn from several U.S. Census Bureau surveys, including the 2015 American Community Survey (ACS) which was the most recent ACS survey at the time of this report. Economic and demographic trend and forecast data was drawn from Moody’s Analytics® supplemented by other sources including U.S. Census Bureau, Federal Reserve and other forecast surveys such as the Wall Street Journal Economic Forecasting Survey and the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Survey of Professional Forecasters. Property market data was derived from several sources including the U.S. Census Bureau, CoStar® Realty Information, CBRE® Econometrics and ESRI®. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 166 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This report was prepared for the National Multifamily Housing Council and the National Apartment Association by Hoyt Advisory Services, Dinn Focused Marketing, Inc. and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors, LLC. Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) is subsidiary of the Homer Hoyt Institute (HHI), an independent, non-profit research and educational foundation established in 1967 to improve the quality of public and private real estate decisions by expanding and disseminating the real estate body of knowledge, stimulating innovation in the discipline of real estate and land economics, building bridges among academia, industry, and government, and developing innovative approaches to the solution of real estate problems. Research supported by HHI must meet the highest standards of scholarship, and it must further the improvement of decision making in the real estate industry. That is, it must combine rigor with relevance. HAS is able to engage PhDs from leading universities along with practitioners with proven, appropriate real estate expertise for the project, in this case partnering with Dinn Focused Marketing, Inc. and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. Dinn Focused Marketing, Inc. provides clients a detailed and directional picture of the underlying market place trends now and going forward for any national housing or mix-use real estate development challenge. Clientele are a select cadre of land developers, homebuilders, lending institutions, portfolio managers, municipal leadership and national housing organizations. Whitegate Real Estate Advisors, LLC provides real estate consulting services in the areas of investment analysis, portfolio structuring, capital formation strategies, market analysis, econometric modeling and forecasting, reporting and asset management. Authors for this paper each have more than 25 years of experience in the real estate industry, and are frequent speakers and publishers in both academic and practitioner journals and meetings: Dr. Miller is the Ernest Hahn Chair and Professor of Real Estate Finance at the University of San Diego. He was V.P. of Analytics for CoStar® 2009-2010 and consulted for many years on forecasting. He has worked on forecasting single-family housing for many years with Collateral Analytics, see www.collateralanalytics.com and he co-wrote a study for Fannie Mae on rating multifamily housing quality with Xudong An in 2013. He has worked extensively with various trade associations including NAIOP, CCIM, the Urban Land Institute, and has been a frequent speaker to groups such as the USGBC, ICSC, BOMA, AI, CORENET, CREW, MBA, SIOR, and NAHB and is a member of the national research committees for ICSC, PREA, and the ULI. As a Board and faculty member of the Homer Hoyt Land Use Institute Faculty, based in North Palm Beach Florida he is involved with some premier thought leaders among academics and industry professionals. He has received numerous industry awards and is a frequent speaker and publisher. His contact is nmiller@sandiego.edu. Dr. Norm Miller 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 167 Dr. Fisher is a Professor Emeritus at Indiana University, Visiting Professor at John Hopkins University, Partner at Pavonis Group LLC, Director at RealNex, LLC, President and Chair of the Board, Homer Hoyt Institute and Consultant to the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries. He is a frequent speaker and publisher. He has served as a consultant to many real estate companies, including Real Capital Analytics and ARGUS, and served in leadership positions in many industry organizations including PREA, NCREIF, RERI and others. He is a frequent industry speaker and has published numerous textbooks and articles. Michael Dinn leads Dinn Focused Marketing, Inc. (DFM) Throughout his career, Michael has taken a market-centric stance in land acquisition, land brokerage, residential development, residential design and marketing campaigns. For over 16 years leading DFM, he has combined these experiences into a skill set that provides clients a detailed and directional picture of the underlying market place trends now and going forward for any national housing or mix-use real estate development challenge. His Clientele are a select cadre of land developers, homebuilders, lending institutions, portfolio managers, municipal leadership and national housing organizations, each with a unique market position, access or capacity to affect their residential market. The mix is public and private, lender and sponsor, landowner and sales management. His work provides scaled assessments of metro housing markets amid great change, targeting a mix of housing assets from failing master planned communities to select multifamily apartment portfolios. Paige Mueller is the CEO of Whitegate Real Estate Advisors, LLC a consulting firm focusing on econometric modeling, market analysis, investment and capital strategies, portfolio structuring, asset management and risk analysis. She has more than 25 years of experience analyzing real estate in multiple countries and property types. She previously was a Managing Director at RCLCO, leading the pension consulting practice group which provided portfolio strategy, manager selection, investment analysis and reporting services in multiple property types including residential sectors such as apartment, student housing, single-family land, and senior housing. At GIC Real Estate, she provided portfolio analysis, forecasting and investment analysis for a multi-billion dollar global real estate portfolio, including public and private, debt and equity instruments. There she frequently provided demand and market forecasts for multiple markets and property types for investment underwriting as well as market and portfolio analyses. She previously worked at LaSalle Investment Management, where she developed economic and demand models for multiple property types in the U.S. She graduated with an MBA in Finance from Indiana University, has served in leadership positions in many industry organizations, including ULI, PREA and the Real Estate Research Institute and is a frequent industry publisher and speaker. Dr. Jeffrey D. Fisher Michael J. Dinn, CRE® Paige Mueller, CRE® 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 168 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the data contained in this study reflect accurate and reliable information and are based on information that to our knowledge was current as of the date of this report. This study is based on estimates, assumptions, and other information developed from independent research efforts, models and general industry knowledge. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by any data source used in preparing or presenting this study. This report represents a view of reasonable expectations as of the time the report was written, but such information, estimates, or opinions are not offered as predictions or assurances that particular results or events will occur. Actual results may vary from those described in this report, and the variations may be material. Therefore, no warranty or representation is made that any of the data, projected forecasts or results contained in this study will be achieved. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.3. Livingston Rd-Veterans Memorial _PL20170004419 (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: NDN-2160738_CCPC-Ad (7151 : Livingston Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Subdistrict) COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT { ._ PROJECT — a. LOCATION .. V 0 L t �r Y 2018 CYCLE 1 (FULL SCALE) AMENDMENT (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) Project/Petition #PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 CCPC: December 6, 2018, 2018 BCC: February 12, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS CCPC December 6, 2018 2018 Cycle 1 GMP (Full Scale) Amendment [Transmittal Hearing] Project #PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 1) TAB: Transmittal Staff Report DOCUMENT: CCPC Staff Report PL20170004419/CPSP-2018-1 2) TAB: Resolution DOCUMENT: Transmittal Resolution with Exhibit "A"text(and/or maps): PL20170004419/CPSP-2018-1 3) TAB: Project PL20170004419/ DOCUMENT: Application/Petition Petition CPSP-2018-1 4) TAB: Legal Advertisement DOCUMENT: CCPC Advertisement PL20170004419/CPSP-2018-1 Agenda Item 9.A.3 C c -r Ci[?Ti1 i-rt y STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: December 6, 2018 SUBJECT: PETITION PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1, 2018 CYCLE ONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT /TRANSMITTAL HEARING] ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE (FLUE) APPLICANT/AGENTS: Applicant: Keith Gelder, President SD Livingston, LLC 2639 Professional Circle, no. 101 Naples, FL 34119 Agents: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Hole Montes, Inc. Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 950 Encore Way 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34110 Naples, FL 34103 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property comprises 35.57 acres L C ` 'CELEBRITA COURT ' / BUORP' .41 and is located in the southeast quadrant of the _J AK, 1 vETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial -Boulevard intersection. The non-corner property fronts approximately 660 feet on east side of Livingston Road and 660 ft. on the A i, south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard. The property lies within the North Naples MDM� I '. rookouxwA. Planning Community, in Section 13, Townshipa E = RPUD° 48 South, Range 25 East. R°y,x — e.aa K ,:A 'r TIO 7,7 L AA ABERDE.AVENUErrl — „ " hI„ r I AI I I ° riT7—fTrT —1 — PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE Agenda Item 9.A.3 REQUESTED ACTION: This petition seeks to establish a new Subdistrict in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) text, and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) by amending: 1) Policy 1.5 of the Urban - Mixed Use District to add the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict; 2) the Urban — Mixed Use District to establish the new Subdistrict provisions; 3) the Future Land Use Map Series listing to add the title of the new Subdistrict map; and, 4) the Future Land Use Map to depict the new Subdistrict and adding a new Future Land Use Map Series inset map that depicts the new Subdistrict. The Subdistrict language proposed by this amendment is found in Resolution Exhibit "A". PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petition proposes the new Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District that: allows residential density up to 12 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) yielding 420 DUs; requires the property to be rezoned to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD); limits allowable uses to multi-family rental dwellings; and, requires utilization of two Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. SURROUNDING FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS, ZONING AND LAND USES: Subject Property: The entire subject property, which comprises 35.57 acres, is designated Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, which generally provides for higher [land use] densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. The entire subject property lies within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA), an area where traffic management strategies are employed to reduce traffic impacts. This TCMA is bounded by the Collier— Lee County Line on the north side; 1-75 right-of-way on the east side; Pine Ridge Road on the south side; and, the Gulf of Mexico on the west side. From the Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard intersection, Livingston Road extends north beyond the Collier — Lee County Line and continues northerly in Lee County; Livingston extends south, approximately 10 miles, to terminate at its intersection with Davis Boulevard; Veterans Memorial Boulevard extends east approximately 4,400 ft. (.80 mi.), to terminate at entrances to residential developments on the west side of 1-75. Veterans Memorial extends west approximately 2,390 ft. (.45 mi.), to terminate at an entrance to a residential development. The 2040 Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTP), both Financially Feasible and Needs Projects, depict this road extending west to US 41. The approximate northerly 660 ft. portion of the property (17.25 ac.) is zoned A, Rural Agriculture, and is undeveloped. The southerly portion of the property is zoned RPUD, Della Rosa Residential Planned Unit Development, and is undeveloped. See the complete analysis of this PUD under the Background and Analysis section below. An ±8.5-acre portion of the property is also designated ST, Special Treatment Overlay. —2— PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE Agenda Item 9.A.3 Surrounding Lands: North: The Future Land Use Map designates land immediately north (and east) of the subject property Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. It is zoned RPUD, Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development, and is developed/developing with single family dwellings. Land further to the north (and northeast) of the subject property, across Veterans Memorial Boulevard, is also designated Urban Residential Subdistrict, is zoned PUD, Mediterra, and is developed/developing with single family dwellings. East: The Future Land Use Map designates land located immediately east of the subject property Urban Residential Subdistrict. It is zoned RPUD, Brandon, and is developed/developing with single family dwellings. The Future Land Use Map designates land lying further east and northeast Urban Residential Subdistrict. This area is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and is undeveloped. South: The Future Land Use Map designates land lying immediately south (and southeast and southwest) of the subject property Urban Residential Subdistrict. It is zoned RPUD, Brandon, and is developed/developing with single family dwellings. Land lying further to the southeast is zoned Royal Palm International Academy PUD and developed with a private school and residentially. A small property lying immediately south is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and is undeveloped. Another small property lying to the southwest(on Livingston Rd.)is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, with a Conditional Use for a fire station; it is developed with the North Collier District 48 Fire Station. West: The Future Land Use Map designates a small property lying immediately west of the subject property Urban Residential Subdistrict. It is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and is undeveloped. Adjacently north of this parcel, located at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, is another small property, designated Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict; it is zoned C-1, Commercial Professional and General Office, and is undeveloped. Land to the west (and northwest and southwest)of the subject property, across Livingston Road, is designated Urban Residential Subdistrict. These lands are zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and undeveloped -except for the entrance road to Veterans Memorial Elementary School, and zoned RMC-Enclave RPUD, and undeveloped. Further to the west, along the south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard, lies the North Naples Middle School, zoned A, Rural Agricultural, then the Sandlewood RPUD, developed residentially. Further to the southwest, across Livingston Road, lies Veterans Memorial Elementary School, zoned A, Rural Agricultural. Land to the northwest of the subject property, across Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, is zoned PUD, Mediterra, and is developed with a residential/golf course community. In summary, the existing and planned land uses, and zoning, in the area surrounding the subject property are primarily urban residences or residential lots in all directions, with public services and schools located nearby, and one small commercial parcel. Criteria for GMP Amendments in Florida Statutes Data and analysis requirements for comprehensive plans and plan amendments are noted in Chapter 163, F.S., specifically as listed below. —3— PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE Agenda Item 9.A.3 Section 163.3177(1)(f), Florida Statutes: (f) All mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. 1. Surveys, studies, and data utilized in the preparation of the comprehensive plan may not be deemed a part of the comprehensive plan unless adopted as a part of it. Copies of such studies, surveys, data, and supporting documents for proposed plans and plan amendments shall be made available for public inspection, and copies of such plans shall be made available to the public upon payment of reasonable charges for reproduction. Support data or summaries are not subject to the compliance review process, but the comprehensive plan must be clearly based on appropriate data. Support data or summaries may be used to aid in the determination of compliance and consistency. 2. Data must be taken from professionally accepted sources. The application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted may be evaluated. However, the evaluation may not include whether one accepted methodology is better than another. Original data collection by local governments is not required. However, local governments may use original data so long as methodologies are professionally accepted. 3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections, which shall either be those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research or generated by the local government based upon a professionally acceptable methodology. The plan must be based on at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10-year planning period unless otherwise limited under s. 380.05, including related rules of the Administration Commission. Absent physical limitations on population growth, population projections for each municipality, and the unincorporated area within a county must, at a minimum, be reflective of each area's proportional share of the total county population and the total county population growth. Section 163.3177(6)(a)2.: 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. -4- PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban - Mixed Use District in FLUE Agenda Item 9.A.3 Section 163.3177(1)(f), Florida Statutes: (f) All mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. 1. Surveys, studies, and data utilized in the preparation of the comprehensive plan may not be deemed a part of the comprehensive plan unless adopted as a part of it. Copies of such studies, surveys, data, and supporting documents for proposed plans and plan amendments shall be made available for public inspection, and copies of such plans shall be made available to the public upon payment of reasonable charges for reproduction. Support data or summaries are not subject to the compliance review process, but the comprehensive plan must be clearly based on appropriate data. Support data or summaries may be used to aid in the determination of compliance and consistency. 2. Data must be taken from professionally accepted sources. The application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted may be evaluated. However, the evaluation may not include whether one accepted methodology is better than another. Original data collection by local governments is not required. However, local governments may use original data so long as methodologies are professionally accepted. 3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates -- and projections, which shall either be those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research or generated by the local government based upon a professionally acceptable methodology. The plan must be based on at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10-year planning period unless otherwise limited under s. 380.05, including related rules of the Administration Commission. Absent physical limitations on population growth, population projections for each municipality, and the unincorporated area within a county must, at a minimum, be reflective of each area's proportional share of the total county population and the total county population growth. Section 163.3177(6)(a)2.: 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. —4— PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE Agenda Item 9.A.3 f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community's economy. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. Section 163.3177(6)(a)8., Florida Statutes: (a) A future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land. The approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use shall be provided for the gross land area included in each existing land use category. The element shall establish the long-term end toward which land use programs and activities are ultimately directed. 8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. Also, the state land planning agency has historically recognized the consideration of community desires (e.g. if the community has an articulated vision for an area as to the type of development desired, such as within a Community Redevelopment Area), and existing incompatibilities (e.g. presently allowed uses would be incompatible with surrounding uses and conditions). It is incumbent upon the petitioner to provide appropriate and relevant data and analysis to address the statutory requirements for a Plan amendment, then present and defend, as necessary, that data and analysis. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: Residential development in the Urban-Mixed Use District is regulated by the FLUE's Density Rating System. A portion of the underlying property- 15.38 acres of the 35.57-acre subject property-is zoned Della Rosa RPUD and approved for 107 DUs (7 DU/A). This density was derived using the Density Rating System as follows: Base Density of 4 DU/A + Residential In-fill Density Bonus = 7 DU/A. One Residential In-fill criterion is that the project must be twenty (20) acres or less in size. Because the entire subject site exceeds twenty acres, it is no longer eligible for the Residential In-fill bonus. Because market rate housing is proposed, the site is not eligible for the Affordable Housing density -5— PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE Agenda Item 9.A.3 bonus. The only density bonus the site may be eligible for, if the criteria are met, is the TCMA density bonus of 3 DU/A. This petition requests 420 DUs; the net effect of this amendment is depicted below, with and without meeting the TCMA density bonus criteria. (Note: The Density Rating System states that density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each respective density bonus.) Density with TCMA Bonus GMP Amendment Increase 7 DU/A x 35.57 acres = 249 DUs 420 DUs requested — 249 DUs eligible = 171 DUs via GMPA Density without TCMA Bonus GMP Amendment Increase 4 DU/A x 35.57 acres = 142 DUs 420 DUs requested — 142 DUs eligible = 278 DUs via GMPA Appropriateness of the Site and the Change: The Meyers Research Rental Apartment Needs Analysis (June 2018), is part of the supporting data & analysis submitted with GMPA application materials (Exhibit V.D.1.). The Meyers Research analyzes the [specific] need for market rate rental apartments, revealing that a healthy apartment market is evidenced by rental rates for market-based apartments that steadily increased from the beginning of 2011, by several projects at lease-up stage, and by market rate rental apartments historically hovering near full occupancy rates. The Analysis indicates that the projected population growth provides sufficient demand for market-based apartments, with the ability to absorb from 14,900 (2020) to 16,700 residents. At the macro level at which a GMP amendment is reviewed, staff is of the opinion that the proposed GMP amendment is compatible with surrounding properties. The rezone petition to implement the proposed subdistrict will need to address specific compatibility measures. These could include maximum building height; landscape buffers, preserve area location, and open space; building locations and minimum setbacks; building massing and orientation. Traffic Capacity/Traffic Circulation Impact Analysis, Including Transportation Element Consistency Determination: The subject property lies within Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA), an area where intensive development exists, or such development is planned, bounded by the Collier — Lee County Line on the north side; the west side of the 1-75 right-of-way on the east side; Pine Ridge Road on the south side; and, the Gulf of Mexico on the west side. FLUE Policy 2.3: Deficiencies or potential deficiencies... [require] a developer to construct the needed facilities or defer development until improvements can be made or the level of service is amended to ensure available capacity. —6— PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE Agenda Item 9.A.3 FLUE Policy 6.1: -- Development within a TCMA shall occur in a manner that... [ensures] an adequate level of mobility, discourages the proliferation of urban sprawl, [protects] natural resources' [and] historic resources, [maximizes] the efficient use of existing public facilities, and [promotes] public transit, bicycling, walking and other alternatives to the single occupant automobile. Transportation Element (TE) Policy 5.6, especially as it pertains to "requirements for utilizing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies" and its parallel FLUE Policy 6.5 state, "[i]n order to be exempt from link specific concurrency, new residential development or redevelopment within [TCMA] shall utilize at least two of the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, as may be applicable: a) Including neighborhood residential uses within a residential project. b) Providing transit shelters within the development (must be coordinated with Collier County Transit). c) Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connections to abutting residential properties. d) Providing vehicular access to abutting residential properties." The Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) Bonus is available to residential redevelopment or infill development that meets the criteria established in Policies 6.1 through 6.7 of the Future Land Use Element, and... may add three (3) residential units per gross acre. Staff previously suggested utilizing additional TDM strategies if the new Subdistrict was to allow residential density greater than the three (3) residential units [seven (7) DU/A total density] allowed by the TCMA Bonus. The Density Rating System does not provide for any additional density if more than the minimum required two criteria are met; staff was suggesting the petition go "above and beyond" and offer something extra to benefit the larger community rather than simply asking for additional density. Application materials do not offer any additional commitments, rather just request the greater density via this GMPA. A Transportation Impact Statement, dated May 25, 2018, prepared by TR Transportation Consultants, Inc., was submitted with this petition (Exhibit "V.E.3"). Fully 100% of traffic accessing the property comes from Livingston Road (35% to/from the north; 65% to/from the south) Traffic on Livingston Road (generally) collects and distributes—to and from all directions—evenly at the Immokalee Road intersection. Collier County Transportation Planning staff reviewed this petition and provided the following comments: The use of internal driveways to provide vehicular access with the development to the commercial [and agricultural parcels to the west] however, this does not appear to meet the intent of the LDC or the GMP. Show a potential interconnection (vehicular or pedestrian) on the (companion Planned Unit Development) master plan to the commercial [and agricultural] parcels to the west, or, add language in your PUD document indicating a potential interconnection is possible. [Michael Sawyer, Project Manager, Transportation Planning Section] —7— PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE Agenda Item 9.A.3 Public Facilities Impacts: A Public Facilities Report, dated July 13, 2018 (Exhibit V.E.1), and a Public Service Facilities Map, dated July 11, 2018 (Exhibit V.E.2), were submitted with this petition. • Potable Water System: The subject project lies in the County's Water Service Area and development will be served by Collier County potable water treatment services. The anticipated average daily demand for potable water for the residential project is 147,000 gallons per day (gpd) [198,450 gpd "Peak"]. Collier County has sufficient capacity to provide water services. • Wastewater Collection and Treatment System: The subject project lies in the North County Wastewater Service Area and development will be served by Collier County wastewater collection and treatment services. The anticipated average daily demand for wastewater collection and treatment for the residential project is estimated at 105,000 gallons per day (gpd) [141,750 gpd "Peak"]. Collier County has sufficient capacity to provide wastewater services. • Solid Waste Collection and Disposal: The solid waste disposal service provider is Collier County Solid Waste Management. The 2018 AUIR notes that the County projects more than 50 years of remaining landfill capacity. • Stormwater Management System: The 2018 AUIR does not identify any stormwater management improvement projects in the vicinity of the subject property. Future development will comply with the SFWMD and/or Collier County rules and regulations that assure controlled accommodation of stormwater events by both on-site and off-site improvements. • Park and Recreational Facilities: The availability of community and regional park facilities is sufficient to meet the demand generated by proposed residential development. • Schools: The subject site is within the E8, Northwest Area 2 CSA for elementary schools, the M4 Northwest Area CSA for middle schools, and the H4 Northwest Area CSA for high schools. The E8 CSA includes two elementary schools, Laurel Oak and Veterans Memorial. They have a combined FISH capacity of 1,793 students, a 2016/2017 peak enrollment of 1,739 students, and a projected 2021/2022 enrollment of 1,789 students (100% capacity). According to the Collier County Public Schools Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for fiscal years 2018 through 2037, the opening of a new charter school in the 2017-2018 school year is anticipated to affect enrollment in this CSA. The enrollment at Laurel Oak is being monitored. Long-term re-locatable classroom capacity was added to the permanent capacity in 2010. The H4/M4 CSA includes Barron Collier and Gulf Coast High Schools, and North Naples, Oakridge, and Pine Ridge Middle Schools. The high schools have a combined FISH capacity of 3,606 students, and a 2016/2017 peak enrollment of 3,888 students, and a projected 2021/2022 enrollment of 4,000 students (111% capacity). The middle schools have a combined capacity of 3,361 students, a peak enrollment in 2016/2017 of 3,015 students, and a projected 2021/2022 enrollment of 2,977 students (89% capacity). According to the CIP, enrollment at Gulf Coast HS is being monitored and temporary alternatives to address overcrowding may be implemented prior to permanent relief with the opening of a new high school in 2023. • Emergency Medical (EMS) and Fire Rescue Services: The subject property is located within the North Naples Fire & Rescue District, with collocated services at District Station 48, located at 16280 Livingston Rd., which is located along Livingston Rd., adjacent to the southwestern portion of the property. —8— PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE Agenda Item 9.A.3 Collier County Public Utilities Department, Planning and Project Management Division staff reviewed -- this petition, and identified no issues or concerns regarding impacts upon potable water, wastewater collection and treatment or solid waste collection and disposal services. [Eric Fey, PE, Senior Project Manager, Public Utilities Engineering Department] Environmental Impacts: A Vegetation Map, Soils Map, and Listed Species Table, dated July 2018, prepared by DexBender Environmental Consulting, were submitted with this petition (Exhibits V.C, V.C.1 and V.C.2). Environmental review specialists with County Development Review Division, Environmental Planning Section reviewed these documents and provided the following comments: The subject property is 35.57 acres. The acreage of native vegetation on site has be field verified by staff during review the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the project. The existing ST Overlay located on the property will be removed as part of the PUD approval process. The proposed GMP amendment has no effect on the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP. Native vegetation on site will be retained in accordance with the requirements of CCME Policy 6.1.1 and Section 3.05.07 of the LDC. [Craig Brown, Senior Environmental Specialist Environmental Planning Section Development Review Division] — NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING SYNOPSIS The application team held a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) in the Sugden Theater of the Collier County Public Library Headquarters, located at 2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples on September 6, 2018, at 5:30 p.m. as required by Section 10.03.05 F. of the LDC. This NIM was advertised, noticed and held jointly for this GMP amendment petition and companion PUD rezone petition [which is not under formal consideration with the transmittal hearing]. Approximately 60-80 members of the public attended the NIM, in addition to the applicant's team and County staff. The agent (Bob Mulhere) representing the applicant (Gelder) gave a presentation and responded to questions and comments. Mr. Mulhere pointed out location near Livingston Rd./Veterans Memorial Blvd. intersection. The location of the project's main access point is onto Veterans Memorial Blvd., with a point of egress only onto Livingston Road. He explained landscape buffer types (referencing a display panel); project development, with six buildings, with freestanding garages (referencing a display panel). Several members of the public spoke, asking questions/seeking more information, expressing concerns, and expressing opposition for the proposed project. Many of them identified themselves as being residents of the neighboring communities of Mediterra, Barrington Cove, Tallis Park or Sequoia Reserve (near school, west across intersection). Their comments and concerns included: • Traffic congestion; inc. the age and validity of the traffic counts used in the proosal's studies, and the additional traffic placed on the road system by the Seed to Table commercial location opening soon; the agent explained the County's requirements and standards for —9— PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE Agenda Item 9.A.3 Transportation Impact Studies, and how County personnel account for each new development as it's proposed. • School population & student counts generated from this rental project; the agent answered that School District representatives review these proposals for the impacts on schools and have addressed these concerns. • Proposed 4-story building heights, and the resulting loss of privacy imposed on neighboring properties; the agent addressed the project is designed with garage locations & setbacks designed to minimize this possibility. • Project characteristics, apartment unit sizes and the percentage of each, proposed; the agent described an upscale project, with about 35% 1 bdrm. and 55% 2 bdrm. apartment styles. Concerns regarding the general transient nature of tenancy, problems with management companies and the vetting of potential renters [shared personal worst-case scenarios], and lower standards rental properties; the agent and applicant addressed these concerns, with examples of their existing projects, general nature of their expected tenants, and their management offices. • The incompatibility of this high-density project with the established surrounding low-density residential area (single-family, coach homes), as now planned and expected by previous homebuyers and neighbors; the agent pointed out how the County's Plan, along with incentives within the TCMA's work to encourage such development. • Asked if the developers are prepared [or should be] with alternate plans to the high density/intensity of current proposal? • Impacts on the neighborhood taxes? The agent explained how affects are minimized, as Impact Fees paid by the developer absorb the costs of new or additional services required by the development. • Emergency services and the conflicts of introducing new traffic onto Livingston Road, are where problems already apparent; agent answered that Fire District representatives review these proposals for the impacts on their ability to provide services and are addressing these concerns. The strong consensus was expressed that developing the property was not opposed, but the proposed intensity and density of this project, and this specific development is opposed. The information meeting was ended at approximately 6:40 p.m. This synopsis provides the annotated NIM proceedings. An audio and a video recording of the entire Neighborhood Information Meeting are available on the County's"I"drive, at I:/GMD/Comprehensive Planning/NIM Recordings & PREAPP Notes. [Synopsis prepared by C. Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: • The subject site is undeveloped, partly zoned A, Rural Agricultural. The southerly portion of the property is zoned Della Rosa Residential PUD. An ±8.5-acre portion of the property is also designated ST, Special Treatment Overlay. The entire site is designated Urban Residential Subdistrict on the FLUM, and lies within the Northwest TCMA, an area where traffic management strategies are employed to reduce traffic impacts. —10— PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE Agenda Item 9.A.3 • Analysis indicates that projected population growth provides sufficient demand for market-based apartments. • At the macro level at which a GMP amendment is reviewed, staff is of the opinion that the proposed GMP amendment is compatible with surrounding properties. The rezone petition to implement the proposed subdistrict will need to address specific compatibility measures. • No issues or concerns regarding impacts upon potable water, wastewater collection and treatment or solid waste collection and disposal services have been identified. • The proposed GMP amendment has no effect on the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (COME). • The Barron Collier and Gulf Coast High Schools have a combined FISH capacity of 3,606 students, and a 2016/2017 peak enrollment of 3,888 students, and a projected 2021/2022 enrollment of 4,000 students (111% capacity). Enrollment at Gulf Coast High School is being monitored and temporary alternatives to address overcrowding may be implemented prior to permanent relief with the opening of a new high school in 2023. • The use of internal driveways to provide vehicular access with the development [to the commercial [and agricultural] parcels to the west] does not appear to meet the intent of the LDC or the GMP. • The only density bonus the site may be eligible for, if the criteria are met, is the TCMA density bonus of 3 DU/A. This petition requests 420 DUs; the net effect of this amendment is to request an increase of 171 DUs or 278 DUs, with and without meeting the TCMA density bonus criteria, respectively. (Note: The Density Rating System states that density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each respective density bonus.) • People attending the Neighborhood Information Meeting expressed a strong consensus that developing the property was not opposed, but the proposed intensity and density of this project, and this specific development is opposed. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney's Office. The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element and map series are in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2 and 163.3177(6)(a)8, Florida Statutes. [SAS] STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: Based on the analyses provided within this report, staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, subject to the following revisions to the proposed subdistrict, mostly for proper format, use of code language, succinctness, and clarity. (Note: single underline text is added, as proposed by petitioner; double underline text is added, and double text is deleted, as proposed by staff.) -11 - PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban - Mixed Use District in FLUE WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from DEO must adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment ^ within one hundred and eighty (180) days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, the DEO, within five (5) days of receipt of Collier County's adopted Growth Management Plan Amendment, must notify the County of any deficiencies of the Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), F.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and other reviewing agencies thereby initiating the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan Amendment prior to final adoption. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote this day of , 2019. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk , Chairman Approved as to form and legality: 1// Assistant �t7 Scott A. Stone / Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Proposed Text Amendment & Map Amendment [18-CMP-01000/1443480/1]97 11/1118 Page 2 of 2 Transmittal Exhibit PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 EXHIBIT A FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** Policy 1.5 The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: A. URBAN — MIXED USE DISTRICT [Page 9] *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** 18. Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict 19. [RESERVED] 20. Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** i I. URBAN DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** A. Urban Mixed Use District [Page 49] *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict The Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict consists of 35.57± acres and is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to allow for a multi-family development at a density of up to 12 units per acre and to fulfill the intent of the TCMA, as stated in FLUE Policy 6.1. Development in this Subdistrict shall be subject to the following: a. The Subdistrict site shall be rezoned to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). b. Allowable uses are limited to multi-family rental dwellings. c. The RPUD shall demonstrate consistency with FLUE Policy 6.5 by providing two of following: i. A transit shelter within the RPUD in a location and design approved by Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement (PTNE) Division; ii. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connection to the abutting commercial property to the west; and, 1 (1111D Words underlined are added;words are deleted. Transmittal Exhibit PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 iii. Vehicular interconnection to the abutting commercial property to the west. *** text break *** FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES [Page 144] *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict Map East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Map G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\Comp Planning GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments\2018 Cycles & Smalls\2018 Cycle 1 - Feb\CP-18-1 Livingstn Mmrl Subd\Exhbt A txt & maps\18-1 trnsmttl txt exhbt A_drft.docx 2 Words underlined are added;words struck-through are deleted. Zr----1— T46S I T47S I T48S I 14SS I TSOS I T51 -I TS2S I 153S I 0 N d UI 4- ii. __ — I _ R IQ SI§I S 8-R_P I. 2 2 8 �gm _R_ r. _R . o - gIW 1$ _ 8 8 0fti S 2 i. a -- -a $R« _ o', ,"�C i R < 8 y g 8wg $w 4W 81w�om' i o sR a e 11 ; 1 'g 12 s $ $ i ii1 �,.$ mem ri:!i - g8 z £ o $ : =got°g Z ° o 0 0oz°° Uo'3o b°'O I b o°o�o 0 owb° 3Pd1b°033 O a 1 t 3 f, i RR i i a8 sa=o r� ° o wo zbiUSb i iy _<~i _ W '"<"<_'_� `_ Ii S4' S ii* i $ I I % p A 4 f I.§ A If 1` i rca, < E11 ,sq i ! f : f — W 00U10 I1 IIL 0[CIE U ,J W , 1 w. i, i r g.ii , ; ti kl I 1111 }6ri II 1 .t c, shlifilii-: 11E111 F su illN 407lilidili. , 1.st, 1epi1111111111 }4 �UUi € i W , :_• ® 11111111 111111 : W r CC j CC a ^ m //jJ/// IW W I 2 i i p 6 Ill J - 5 W W~ n Y p 14N d 'i 1 II L� W W 1111111111111 It q 04 D '11cc Z ■ `'1��� fl P �s,, ,. > F 1 ££ Ha 11N N acc ce W 130 :\\` "..4,\\�����\0� , %,\� ; W N QaaN w \��7 041111161, _ / v, W NJ !J 0 J7J� ~ r LI"- .2 �K W'_w -3 d ib' Li'i' �a - "��/, / it ! — Y" 4 E9y s a tc0 ii ce 11 LL o %j Ct. to ." 3il _ Gulf o 1 ` ; E ,15. I 746S I 747S I 1455 I 1455 I T50 I T515 I 152S I 1535 l I EXHIBIT A PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 et 0 LIVINGSTON ROAD/VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD OEAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT COLLIER COUNTY.FLORIDA _ /' ,____i_____r: \ --- --- � i �elicit• Cellr'ni L � . ,„.. .) ,te` ( --r-�__ ,---1-- - � T , �\ � ' r 1/ _, jC 0 CO O \ r_ilvek _ _ -/- ) I TT------T- 1 I—I—A) - \ e \Celelc }rita TTTTTTy i' Orot — Veterans Memorial BLVD c Barclay CT ' 3/144 1.----- 9////16-A 1 a � PROPOSED -Q — SUBDISTRICT a) , .a Abert ' VE �\ i illi IftIHH 1 i .r• IiI/ � I III ' Bch R 1- --Le I Ravina WAY ADOPTED-XXXX,XXXX LEGEND (Ord. No.XXXX-X) 0 250 500 1,000 Feet I I i 1 I I I MedPROPOSED SUBDISTRICT filo Pre-App PL20170004385(Della Rosa PUD to PUD Rezone&AG to RPUD)&PL20170004419(GMPA)—xxxxx, agent;James Sabo,planner. SCHMIDT Wednesday,January 10,2018 1:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m.Conf.Rm.C. Requested by:xxx of xxxxx Phone:xxxxx;Email: xxx Representing:[per PAO GIS,owner:Marlac LLC,Mark L.Catalano Rev.Trust,Richard Alan Sommerville Trust, Doreen L.Parrish/Dennis G. Baar Rev.Living Trust] Folio#s:00150520003,00149200004,00150560005,00150280000,00150160007,00148280009(missing folio#s for portion of existing PUD);Zoning:"A"&PUD, Della Rosa Location: E.side of Livingston Road and S.side of Veteran's Memorial Blvd.,in 13-48-25 Project Description: 3 concurrent pre-application meetings for two rezones from PUD-to-PUD and"A"to RPUD(for multi-family development), and a large scale GMPAto create the Livingston-Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict.[per PAO GIS, 14.77 acs.zoned"A"and existing PUD is 15.38 acs.] Existing Application Name:N/A,properties are undeveloped POST PRE-APP COMMENTS:FLUM designation is Urban Residential Subdistrict;also,site is in NW TCMA. Agent notified of the need to address,as applicable: ----..\/----; a WMM tr_-_sem, idlkkgg{{ at 'L_Mgt Fv .0...imAtikina um l -'1 is .`t1J • QUM- ATM ' X1111 X11 --. , Mgrgffil • Compliance with the FLUE/FLUM(Urban Mixed Use District); • Compliance with FLUE Objective 5 and its applicable policies,esp.s/s 5.3,5.6(GMP consistency clause; LDC compatibility&complementary clause); [PUDZ] • Compliance with FLUE Objective 7 and its applicable policies 7.1 through 7.4(Toward Better Places— Community Character Plan); [PUDZ] Address sections Chapter 163.3167(9), 163.3177, and 163.3184, Florida Statutes; Note particularly the requirement to provide appropriate data and analyses[the local government deems appropriate]to demonstrate the amendment is needed[demonstrating why the Urban Residential Subdistrict or another existing FLUE/FLUM designation does not suffice]. Provide proper data&analysis for the introduction and increase to residential density;If for rental apartments,owner- occupied condominiums, market rate units, or other certain segment of the multi-family residential market,then make sure data&analysis supports the specific market segment. Devote attention to accumulating the most recent housing data available,as certain market needs are being met at a rapid pace by new construction and units becoming available. Lies within Northwest TCMA,as seen on TE map TR-5. Compliance with Transportation Element(TE)Policy 5.6, esp.as it pertains to"requirements for utilizing Transportation Demand Management(TDM)strategies"and its parallel FLUE Policy;Discuss these TDMs with Transportation Planning representatives;and, provide results of/outcomes from these discussions with application materials. [Staff suggests]utilizing additional TDM strategies if the new Subdistrict will allow residential density greater than the Urban Residential Subdistrict. Prepare separate narratives to address all impacts to the surrounding area [to accompany both GMPA& PUDZ application materials]. Explain how the new Subdistrict effects the purposes and intents,etc.of each of the surrounding designations. Explain how the new (Subdistrict- and PUD-allowed)development effects the existing and potential development of uses in these designations,including,but not limited to: • Appropriateness of uses/compatibility with surrounding area,and • impact or unintended consequences on surrounding properties—addressing whether it will make them more, or less,developable under their present FLUM designation? Will it create a domino effect leading to future designation changes on the surrounding properties? Follow the established format of the FLUE for the text exhibit"to preserve the internal consistency"of the GMP and include: • A listing of new subdistrict name under Policy 1.1.2; • Proposed subdistrict provisions;and, • A listing of new subdistrict map under Future Land Use Map Series. Follow the established format of the FLUE for the map exhibits"to preserve the internal consistency"of the GMP and include: • A new subdistrict Inset Map;and, • An amended Countywide FLUM. Staff notes: This GMPA will be a full-scale plan amendment. The amendment procedure requires both Transmittal and Adoption phases per Florida Statute, while the procedure required of the companion future rezone places it in a schedule coinciding with the later Adoption phase(if petitioner desires companion review). The application and consideration of these companion items may require 2 separate NIMs.** All Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) activities and reviews are arranged directly with the Comprehensive Planning staff/the assigned Project Coordinator;these activities include: reviewing/approving the draft notification to surrounding property owners; reviewing/approving the draft newspaper advertisement; reviewing/approving/coordinating proposed NIM meeting dates, times and locations; the draft NIM notification to surrounding property owners; accepting/filing applicant-prepared Affidavit of Notification (from NDN), posted Public Hearing sign photograph, and, NIM transcript/minutes/notes and clearly audible in its entirety, an audio/video recording,PLUS.BEGINNING DECEMBER 2017:3 flash drives containing the full,clear NIM audio recording.** Substantial changes to proposal after Transmittal will trigger need for an additional NIM prior to adoption hearings.** The petition fee is$16,700.00,which is non-refundable, plus a proportionate share of the legal advertising costs(the $500.00 pre-app meeting fee,which was received,is applicable to the petition fee if petition is submitted within 9 months of the pre-app meeting date);a total of four(4)public hearings are held-Transmittal hearings(T)conducted in front of CCPC and BCC,Adoption hearings(A)conducted in front of same two bodies;the estimated legal advertising costs will be provided,and payment will be required prior to advertising for any hearings;any refund due the applicant after hearings are held will be provided at that time.** The thrice-annual amendment cycles are established by Resolution 12-234;submittal deadlines are 5:00 p.m.on the last Friday in[soon anticipated to be reapproved for]February,June and October.** Be sure of 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.specific LDC provisions);fully explain furtherance of existing GOPs relevant to the petition,and of any other plans or designations which are applicable or relevant to the petition(e.g.a redevelopment plan,corridor management plan, etc.).** All studies and analyses are to include the raw data used to support their conclusions, as copies from source documents,attachments or appendices thereto,in order to facilitate a thorough substantive review; It is important to carefully organize the amendment package; be sure all exhibits are consistently labeled, are in the proper order,and are fully/correctly referenced on the pages of the application; be sure all mapping clearly identifies the subject site,includes North arrow and scale, and source;a petition narrative is often helpful, and in this instance, recommended to provide the thorough explanation needed;for corporate ownership,it is not acceptable to only list the corporation name;in some instances,property is owned by a corporation that in turn is comprised of other corporations; it is necessary to provide a list of individuals as officers or stockholders of the corporation(s) for purposes of full disclosure;the objective of disclosure is to reveal the individuals with an interest in the property(including seeing if any staff or public officials are included).** For a submitted petition,after the sufficiency review process is complete[outside CityView]and the petition package is deemed sufficient,an electronic version of the entire submittal is needed,preferably in PDF format,preferably on a CD; The County has instituted an electronic(paperless)agenda process for the Board of County Commissioners'hearings; Note:**denotes staff information/clarification provided post-pre-application conference. Agent asked about GMPA Cycles and their periodic deadlines. Application team thought they may be able to meet the first 2018 Cycle,submitting by end of February. The expectation of staff support for these applications or recommendations for approval are not implied or expressed by comments made during this conference. Co el' County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 Pre-Application Meeting Sign-In Sheet PL#20170004385 (RPUD). PL20170004419 (GMPA) Collier County Contact Information: Name Review Discipline Phone Email David Anthony Environmental Review 252-2497 david.anthony@colliercountyfl.gov Summer Araque Environmental Review 252-6290 summer.brownaraque@colliercountyfl.gov GMD Operations and Claudine Auclair Regulatory Management 252-5887 claudine.auclair@colliercountyfl.gov Steve Baluch Transportation Planning 252-2361 stephen.baluch@colliercountyfLgov • Ray Bellows Zoning,Planning Manager 252-2463 raymond.bellows@colliercountyfl.gov X Laurie Beard PUD Monitoring 252-5782 Iaurie.beard@colliercountyfl.gov Craig Brown Environmental Specialist 252-2548 craig.brown@colliercountyfl.gov Managing Asst.County X Heidi Ashton Cicko Attorney 252-8773 heidi.ashton@colliercountyfl.gov X Kay Deselem Zoning Services 252-2586 kay.deselem@colliercountyfl.gov Dale Fey North Collier Fire 597-9227 dfey@northcollierfire.com - Eric Fey,P.E. Utility Planning 252-1037 eric.fey@colliercountyfl.gov Tim Finn,AICP Zoning Division 252-4312 timothy.finn@colliercountyfl.gov ' Sue Faulkner Comprehensive Planning 252-5715 sue.faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov L Paula Fleishman Impact Fee Administration 252-2924 paula.fleishman@colliercountyfl.gov Growth Management Deputy - James French Department Head 252-5717 james.french@colliercountyfLgov Structural/Residential Plan LI Michael Gibbons Review 252-2426 michael.gibbons@colliercountyfl.gov [ii Storm Gewirtz,P.E. Engineering Stormwater 252-2434 storm.gewirtz@colliercountyfl.gov LI Nancy Gundlach,AICP,PLA Zoning Division 252-2484 nancy.gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov 1_1 Shar Hingson Greater Naples Fire-District 774-2800 shingson@gnfire.org _I John Houldsworth Engineering Subdivision 252-5757 john.houldsworth@colliercountyfl.gov _ E.] Jodi Hughes Transportation Pathways 252-5744 jodi.hughes@colliercountyfl.gov - Alicia Humphries Right-Of-Way Permitting 252-2326 alicia.humphries@colliercountyfLgov ▪ Marcia Kendall Comprehensive Planning _ 252-2387 marcia.kendall@colliercountyfl.gov • John Kelly Zoning Senior Planner 252-5719 john.keily@colliercountyfl.gov "-1 Thomas Mastroberto Greater Naples Fire 252-7348 thomas.mastroberto@colliercountyfl.gov - Jack McKenna,P,E, Engineering Services 252-2911 jack.mckenna@colliercountyfl.gov _- Matt McLean,P.E. Development Review Director 252-8279 matthew.mclean@colliercountyfl.gov Michele Mosca,AICP Capital Project Planning 252-2466 michele.mosca@colliercountyfl.gov Annis Moxam Addressing 252-5519 annis.moxam@colliercountyfl.gov Updated 1/9/2018 Page 14 of 5 Co ¢ er County '� COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 _I Stefanie Nawrocki Development Review-Zoning 252-2313 stefanie.nawrocki@colliercountyfl.gov N Richard Orth Stormwater Planning 252-5092 rlchard.orth@colliercountyfLgov - Brandy Otero Transit 252-5859 brandy.otero@colliercountyfl.gov ! Brandi Pollard Utility Impact fees 252-6237 brandi.pollard@colliercountyfLgov - Fred Reischl,AICP Zoning Division 252-4211 fred.reischl@colliercountyfLgov Todd Riggall North Collier Fire 597-9227 triggall@northcollierfire.com Daniel Roman,P.E. Engineering Utilities 252-2538 daniel.roman@colliercountyfLgov Development Review _ Brett Rosenblum,P.E. Principal Project Manager 252-2905 brett.rosenblum@colliercountyfi.gov James Sabo,AICP Zoning Principal Planner james.sabo@colliergo.net - Michael Sawyer Transportation Planning - 252-2926 michael.sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov _ r Corby Schmidt,AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2944 corby.schmidt@colliercountyfl.gov LI Chris Scott,AICP Development Review-Zoning 252-2460 chris.scott@colliercountyfl.gov Peter Shawinsky Architectural Review 252-8523 peter.shawinsky@colliercountyfl.gov Camden Smith Zoning Division Operations 252-1042 camden.smith@colliercountyfLgov Scott Stone Assistant County Attorney 252-5740 scott.stone@colliercountyfLgov Mark Strain Hearing Examiner/CCPC 252-4446 mark.strain@colliercountyfLgov D Mark Templeton Landscape Review 252-2475 mark.templeton@colliercountyfLgov >1 Jessica Velasco Zoning Division Operations 252-2584 jessica.velasco@colliercountyfLgov Jon Walsh, P.E. Building Review 252-2962 jonathan.walsh@colliercountyfLgov Comprehensive Planning David Weeks,AICP Future Land Use Consistency 252-2306 david.weeks@colliercountyfl.gov C Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review 252-5518 kirsten.wilkie@colliercountyfLgov LI Christine Willoughby Development Review -Zoning 252-5748 christine.willoughby@colliercountyfl.gov Additional Attendee Contact Information: Name Representing Phone ' Email JtRMAZe C4tostcctl 1\01e- Kclvrk.\ Al-?40 kativieckusixi.he--hthewl',cow% Ckr;s kt,ic.kai 3R-Eve..s R.13;i+tts;,� 'lee'1PA, t'_►,,,,LL.at.iAJre.a • ec..11,,� ���fCi 5 -S-..40,.."5...-- `.2 `'C l .J I Z f}51� t1�9o.rik,,,,1'� creirbf Y r-"` -TcyM � r .f �} II i ' `7\\,e/ 731 1tV t- 5r1L Lti rg,?1`.11,:Y'r:;:i f j1 '-�,-V.i'e'',.'IR- r,yrr,,,11-.!2;,,,, 1?-0 tk, N/04e.-,QJiLi., t1 IL 93S ' U (10•. :,vl 4, e c7i ,,. , ,,,, Cr2 1•ka C i..v.k.itn. b x Q1/4',.cj 134-3624e.s..1-te L- X`v...A.tf....:>•, Updated 1/9/2018 Page I 5 of 5 AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION Allura PUD (PL-20170004385) FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S).Ludvinaston Rd./veterans Memorial Blvd. E. Residential Subdistrict GMPA i, BRIANSTOCK (PL-20170004419) (print name),as MOR (title,If VIN applicable)of souoSroN,u.c (company, If a Iicable),swear or affirm under oath,that I am the(choose one)owners applicant®contract purchaserIand that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s)requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2, Ali answers to the questions in this application and any sketches,data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3: I have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this appiication;and that 4, The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. `Ne/I authorize ROBERT J.r aJuiERE,FAIOP&RiCHARO VOVANOVIOH,ESQUiRE to act 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.pros. • if the applicant Is a Limited Liability Company(L.L.C.)or Limited Company(L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's"Managing Member." • if the applicant Is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the genera!partner must sign and be Identified as the "general partner"of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust,then they must Include the trustee's name and the words was trustee • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., Individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated in i re true. I 5 gnature Date BRiAN K.STO K,MGR SD LIVINGSTON,LLC STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER r) The f eg ifru e t wp> sworn to(or affirmed)and subscribed before me on 71 N (date)by ✓`�' (name of person providing/oath or affirmation), as. • who Is personally known to me.or who has produced (type of Identification)as identification. o ijv• STAMP/SEAL Signatur: of Notary Public `.trft"°a'',, JUDITH M SEALE prise`A Notary Public-State of Florida Nr Commission#SG 027265 -,� : My Comm.Expires Sep 28,2020 1 'WM° Bonded through National tiotary Assn. i CP108-COA-001151155 REV 3/24/14 CATALANO REDACTED AGREEMENT • A:GItEEMENT FOR PURCIIASE AN!)SALE OF PROPERTY This AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY(the"Agreement")is made and effective as of the f, lay of p pvitiw er,2017(the"Effective Date")by and between Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust ("Seller"), and Stock Development, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (`Buyer"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth,and for other good and valuable considerations,the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby mutually acknowledged,Seller and Buyer agree as follows: ARTICLE 1.2 THE PROPERTY 1.1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION. Subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement, Seller agrees to sell and convey to Buyer,and Buyer agrees to purchase from Seller,that certain property located at in Collier County,Florida,compromising the property•identified as Parcel ID Nos.00150560005, 00150160007,and 00149200004,more particularly described as follows(referred to as the"Property"): (a) That real property described in the attached Exhibit"A"incorporated herein by reference, being approximately 75 acres of unimproved land, together with all rights, privileges, tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances pertaining thereto(the"Land");the Land shall include all interests, if any,of Seller in(i)strips or gores,if any,between the rand and abutting properties,(ii)any land lying in or under the bed of any street,alley,road or right-of-way,opened or proposed,abutting or adjacent to the Land;and(iii)all buildings,structures,and other improvements on the Land;and (b)All other privileges,easements,licenses,rights-of-way,riparian,littoral and water rights, minerals,oil,gas and other hydrocarbon rights and substances on the Land,development rights,air rights and all other rights,privileges and appurtenances owned by Seller and in any way related to,pertaining to or accruing to the use or benefit of the Property. 1.2 PROPERTY CONVEYANCE SURVIVES CLOSING. Seller's obligation to convey to Buyer all of the Property shall survive Closing,without merger into the deed,and Seller shall continue to be obligated to deliver and convey to Buyer such portions of the Property as may not be delivered and conveyed to Buyer prior to or at Closing as provided in this Agreement. } AGREEMENT FOR PURCIIASE AND SALE ^•• PAGEI 3.6 ZONING. ENTrILEMENTS AND PERMITS. Provided Buyer has not otherwise terminated the Contract pursuant to Section 3.5,following the expiration of the Investigation Period,Buyer shall have twelve(12)months("Approval Period")to obtain(i)stormwater and environmental resource permits from the Southwest Florida Water Management District, (ii) regulatory permits from the Army Corps of Engineers,(iii)non-appealable zoning,land use and development approvals by Collier County, and(iv)any all other governmental,quasi-governmental or other permits,approvals,documents,consents, and/or site development plans (collectively, the "Approvals") necessary for Buyer's proposed development of the Property and t e Additional Parcels as a n -lti-family development consisting of no less than 300 dwelling units and an amenity center to serve such units (the "Proiect"). Seller shall fully cooperate with Buyer in Buyer's efforts to obtain the Approvals, including,without limitation,executing any and all required documentation,and/or authorizing Buyer in writing(in a form reasonably requested by Buyer or as required by any such governmental or quasi-governmental agency)to act as Seller's agent in connection with obtaining such Approvals,provided that, Seller shall not be required to expend any amount or incur any fees(including attorneys' fees or fees of any other professions),costs or expenses in connection therewith,and further provided that attendance at any meetings with governmental and quasi- governmental agencies shall be option for Seller. In addition,Seller shall not object to or otherwise hinder Buyer's pursuit of or ability to obtain the Approvals. If Buyer does not obtain the Approvals within the Approval Period,Buyer may,within two(2)days after expiration of the Approval Period,(i)terminate this transaction by delivering written notice to Seller,whereupon the Deposit shall be returned to Buyer,and Seller and Buyer shall be released from any and all further obligations and liabilities arising under or out of this Agreement, (ii) extend the Approval Period by two (2) periods of six (6)months each(each an "Extension"),by providing written notice thereof at least fifteen(15)days prior to the expiration of the Approval Period and contemporaneous with said notice delivering directly to Seller a$25,000 extension fee for each Extension(each an"Extension Fee"),which Extension Fee shall be in addition to,and not part of the Deposit or the Purchase Price payable by Buyer hereunder,and shall be paid directly to Seller upon exercising each said Extension,or(iii)waive such condition and proceed to close as set forth in Section 4.1 hereof. AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE. PAGa 4 ARTICLE 4.2 CONDITIONS 4.1 CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO BUYER'S OBLIGATION TO CLOSE. Buyer's obligation to consummate the transaction contemplated hereunder is conditioned upon satisfaction of each of the following conditions: (a) Buyer obtaining the Approvals or waiving said Approvals in accordance with Section 3.6; (b) None oldie representations and warranties of Seller set forth herein shall be untrue or inaccurate in any material respect as of the Effective Date or as of the Closing Date; (c) Seller shall not have failed to perform or comply with any of its material agreements or obligations substantially in the manner and within the time periods provided herein, time being of the essence; (d) Buyer shall not have given written notice rightfully terminating this Agreement within the appropriate periods of time specified for the same; In the event that any one or more of the above conditions contained in this Section 4.1 is not satisfied on or prior to the applicable Closing Date,Buyer may: (i)terminate this Agreement by notice to Seller, whereupon the Parties shall be released from all liability hereunder except those that specifically survive any termination hereof and this Agreement shall be automatically canceled and rendered of no further force and effect;(ii)if Seller proposes to cure or satisfy,extend the applicable Closing Date Up to one hundred and eighty(180)days to allow additional time to satisfy the requirements;or(iii)waive such condition(s) precedent and close within fifteen(15)days thereafter. Nothing herein shall be deemed as a waiver or limitation of any remedy available to Buyer under this Agreement(including,without limitation,the right to bring an action for specific performance under Section 9.4(c)hereof)or under Florida law for a default by the Seller. AGREEMENT Foil PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 5 ARTICLE 5.2 CLOSING,DOCUMENTATION,AND POST-CLOSING 5.1 CLOSING AND CLOSING DATE. This transaction shall be closed and title to the Property conveyed from Seller to Buyer by delivery of the fully executed Deed and other closing documents, including,without limitation,those described below in Section 5.2,to Buyer from Seller(the "Closing")at the offices of Coleman,Yovanovich.&Koester,P.A.,4001 Tamiami Trail North,Suite 300, Naples,Florida 34103,on the date that is the later of (i)thirty(30)days following Buyer's receipt of the Approvals,or(ii)December 15,2018;provided,however,in no event shall Buyer be required to close if the conditions precedent set forth in Section 4.1 have not been satisfied. AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Agreement has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the day and year set forth below, WITNESSES: BUYER: • `'�.:-' —_------......._. STOCK DEVELOPMENT,LLC, i Pint Nart}e: _r lfq a(<l°^' a Florida limited 'ability company l ,..� a.. By: nail K.,.v J tock,Manager l'izut I�� »e:��l. l ' i Lr ger [SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON FOLLOWING PAGE] AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 17 WIT+' SSES: / SELLER: Nameur Print N e: (_p{-y /pv2 ,:,S •' ata goo,as Trustee of the Marc L.Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust AGREEMENT FORPURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 18 AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY TIpS AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT (",Amendment") is made this day of a-L, 2017 by and between Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trustller'')and Stock Development,LLC,a Florida limited liability company("Buyer"). WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer entered into that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property dated the 15th day of November,2017("Agreement"),for the purchase and sale of the real property described therein("Property");and WHEREAS,Seller and Buyer desire to amend the Agreement for the purpose of clarifying the same. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten Dollars($10.00),the exchange of mutual promises, and other good and valuable consideration,the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,Seller and Buyer hereby agree as follows: 1. Recitals; Definitions. The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated in their entirety into this Amendment. Any capitalized term not expressly defined herein shall have the meaning described thereto in the Agreement. 2. The Property. The Parties agree and acknowledge that the Property, as defined in the Agreement,referred to the description shown on Exhibit"A",which was not attached to the Agreement in error. The Parties agree that the description of the Property on Exhibit"A" attached hereto shall be incorporated into the Agreement by reference as if attached to the original Agreement, and hereby ratify the description of the Property as shown thereon. 3. Miscellaneous. Executed counter part copies of the original of this Amendment shall be treated as if the original where so executed and shall bind the executing party and shall have the same force and effect as the original. Execution of this Agreement by facsimile shall be treated as an original. Except as modified by this Amendment,all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between the terms and provisions of this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms and provisions of this Amendment shall control and be given effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,this Amendment has been duly executed as of the date first written above. SELLER: BUYER: STOCK 'EVELOP I.1 C Marc . Cyano,as Trustee of the Marc L. :IN", IC S Manager Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust yXHIBIT"A" Legal Description Parcel 1: The Southwest 4 /4 I/4 prthe Northeast 114 of Section 1 , T n hip 8 .o, h, • , S f: /Crilller,County, Florida also known as . lAcrese. ` `h 1 Parcel Id No.:00150560005 Parcel 2:, The Southeast ''"s the Northwest 1 I41v t e,. ' west 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of ';' ,141,1,3, Township 48 ge 25 East, Collier County, F10 ` ` eat thereof, Parcel ID No.:00150160007 Parcel 3: The Northeast quarter( E , a, sky. ,ter (NW 1f4)of the Northwest quarter(NW 114)of the Northeas _ i►F )Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida,less the West thirty(30)feet thereof reserved for road right-of-way purposes,shown as Tract#2 of unrecorded plat of said Northeast quarter. Parcel Id No.:00149200004 Amendment to Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property 2 ECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE Or PROPERTY("Amendment")is made this( ..lay of January,2018 by and between Marc L. Catalan as Trustee of the Marc L.Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust Calle),and Stock Development;Lit, a Florida limited liability company("Buyer"). WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer entered into that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property dated the 151h day of November, 2017, as subsequently amended (collectively, the "Agreement"),for the purchase and sale of the real property described therein("Property");and WHEREAS.Seller and Buyer desire to amend the Agreement as expressly set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE,in consideration of Ten Dollars($10.00),the exchange of mutual promises, and other good and valuable consideration,the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Seller and Buyer hereby agree as follows: 1. Recitals:Definitions. The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated in their entirety into this Amendment. Any capitalized term not expressly defined herein shall have the meaning described thereto in the Agreement 2. Extension of Investigation Period. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Agreement to the contrary, including„ without limitation, Section 3.5 thereof, the Investigation Period is hereby extended and shall expire at 11:59 P.M.(Eastern Time)on February 15,2018. Any and all references to "Investigation Period"in the Agreement shall mean and refer to the time period expiring on the date set forth in the immediately-preceding sentence. 3. ivfiscellaneous. Executed coulter-part copies of the original of this Amendment shall be treated as if the original where so executed and shall bind the executing party and shall have the same force and effect as the original. Execution of this Agreement by facsimile shall be treated as an original. Except as modified by this Amendment,all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect In the event of a conflict between the terms and provisions of this Amendment and the Agreement,the terms and provisions of this Amendment shall control and be given effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF.this Amendment has been duly executed as of the date first written above. SlU LRR: BUYER STOCK DEVELOPMENT,LLC, -�-- a Florida limited Habil' ° company arc atalano,as Trustee of the Marc LBY L-at-='� Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust B'°'" K.S a . ger SECOND AME'+iDMENT PAG 1 TA[IRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY ("Amendment") is made this").-4 day of January, 2018 by and between Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust ("Seller"), and Stock Development, LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("B "). WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer entered into that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property dated the 15"` day of November, 2017, as subsequently amended(collectively,the "Agreement"), for the purchase and sale of the real property described therein("Property");and WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer desire to amend the Agreement as expressly set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten Dollars($10.00), the exchange of mutual promises, and other good and valuable consideration,the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Seller and Buyer hereby agree as follows: 1. Recitals;Definitions. The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated in their entirety into this Amendment. Any capitalized term not expressly defined herein shall have the meaning described thereto in the Agreement. 2. Zoning,Entitlements and Permits. Section 3.6 is hereby modified to add the following: "Buyer shall indemnify and hold Seller harmless from and against all loss,damage, liability and expense (including court costs and reasonable attorney's fees) arising out of or in any way connected with any actions, filings, submissions and/or representations made by Buyer in connection with or in order to obtain the Approvals being sought by Buyer; provided, however, that Buyer's duties to indemnify, defend, and hold Seller harmless excludes any liabilities arising out of the Seller's own fault, negligence and/or misrepresentation. The foregoing indemnification shall expressly survive any termination of the Agreement and/or the Closing of the transaction." 3. Miscellaneous, Executed counter-part copies of the original of this Amendment shall be treated as if the original where so executed and shall bind the executing party and shall have the same force and effect as the original. Execution of this Agreement by facsimile shall be treated as an original. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between the terms and provisions of this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms and provisions of this Amendment shall control and be given effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,this Amendment has been duly executed as of the date first written above. SELLER: BUYER: STOCK DEVELOPMENT,LLC, a Florida limited liability company arc L.Ca, •lano,as Trustee of the Marc L. By: Cata ano evocable Inter Vivos Trust Brian K.Stock,Manager THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY ("Amendment") is made this day of January, 2018 by and between Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust (" eller"), and Stock Development, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (`Buyer"). WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer entered into that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property dated the 15t day of November, 2017, as subsequently amended(collectively,the"Agreement"), for the purchase and sale of the real property described therein("Property");and WHEREAS,Seller and Buyer desire to amend the Agreement as expressly set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten Dollars($10.00),the exchange of mutual promises,and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Seller and Buyer hereby agree as follows: 1. Recitals;Definitions, The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated in their entirety into this Amendment. Any capitalized term not expressly defined herein shall have the meaning described thereto in the Agreement, 2. Zoning.Entitlements and Permits. Section 3.6 is hereby modified to add the following: "Buyer shall indemnify and hold Seller harmless from and against all loss,damage, liability and expense (including court costs and reasonable attorney's fees) arising out of or in any way connected with any actions, filings, submissions and/or representations made by Buyer in connection with or in order to obtain the Approvals being sought by Buyer; provided, however, that Buyer's duties to indemnify, defend, and hold Seller harmless excludes any liabilities arising out of the Seller's own fault,negligence and/or misrepresentation. The foregoing indemnification shall expressly survive any termination of the Agreement and/or the Closing of the transaction." 3. Miscellaneous. Executed counter-part copies of the original of this Amendment shall be treated as if the original where so executed and shall bind the executing party and shall have the same force and effect as the original. Execution of this Agreement by facsimile shall be treated as an original. Except as modified by this Amendment,all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of'a conflict between the terms and provisions of this Amendment and the Agreement,the terms and provisions of this Amendment shall control and be given effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,this Amendment has been duly executed as of the date first written above. SELLER: BUYER: STOCK DEVELOPMENT,LLC, a Florida limited lia•-lity company Marc L. Catalano,as Trustee of the Marc L. By: .S Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust Brian K. S ock,Manager FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY THIS FOURTH. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY("Amendment")is made this2lstday of February,2018,by and between Marc L.Catalano, as Trustee of the Marc L.Catalano Revocable inter Vivos Trust("Seller"),and Stock Development,LLC, a Florida limited liability company("Buyer"). WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer entered into that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property dated the 15"' day of November, 2017, as subsequently amended (collectively, the "Agreement"),for the purchase and sale of the real property described therein("Property");and WHEREAS,Seller and Buyer desire to amend the Agreement as expressly set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten Dollars($10.00),the exchange of mutual promises, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Seller and Buyer hereby agree as follows: 1. Recitals:Definitions. The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated in their entirety into this Amendment. Any capitalized term not expressly defined herein shall have the meaning described thereto in the Agreement. 2. Unowned Property. The Parties acknowledge that Seller does not currently own that certain real property located in Collier County, Florida, and more particularly described on Exhibit"A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference(collectively,the"Unowned Property"). Until the date that is one hundred twenty (120) days after the date of this Amendment ("Acquisition Period"), Buyer shall have the right to attempt to acquire clear and marketable, fee simple title to the Unowned Property. In connection therewith, Seller hereby assigns to Buyer any and all rights, title, and interest Seller may have in and to the Unowned Property, if any. If at any time during the Acquisition Period Buyer determines it will be unable to acquire clear and marketable, fee simple title to the Unowned Property prior to expiration of the Acquisition Period, Buyer shall have the right by written notice delivered to Seller to: (i)terminate the Agreement and receive an immediate refund of its entire Deposit (together with any interest accrued thereon), whereupon the Parties shall have no further rights,duties, obligations, or liabilities under the Agreement except those which expressly survive the termination thereof; or (ii) waive the contingency related to Buyer acquiring title to the Unowned Property and proceed to Closing as set forth in the Agreement,subject to the terms of this Amendment but without any right to cancel or terminate the Agreement as a result of or due to any failure to acquire the Unowned Property. In the event of Buyer's waiver pursuant to item (ii) in the immediately-preceding sentence, Seller shall: (a)continue to fully cooperate, without cost to Seller, with any of Buyer's continued efforts to obtain clear and marketable,fee simple title to the Unowned Property prior to or after Closing;and (b) execute and deliver to Buyer at Closing a quitclaim deed for the Unowned Property and a full assignment of any and all rights, title, and interest which Seller may have in and to the Unowned Property. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, in the event Seller acquires title to the Unowned Property at any time prior to Closing, Seller shall convey the same to Buyer as part of the Property at Closing without further consideration. For the avoidance of doubt,any and all consideration, fees, costs,and other expenses to be incurred or paid in connection with acquiring the Unowned Property as provided herein shall be borne and paid by Buyer, including, without limitation, any consideration to be paid to the unknown title holders of the Unowned Property. The terms of this Section 2 shall survive Closing and shall not be merged in the deed. 3. Miscellaneous. Executed counter-part copies of the original of this Amendment shall be treated as if the original where so executed and shall bind the executing party and shall have the same FOURTII AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT 1,OR PURCHASE AND SALE Or PROPERTY PAGE 1 force and effect as the original. Execution of this Agreement by facsimile shall be treated as an original. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between the terms and provisions of this Amendment and the Agreement,the terms and provisions of this Amendment shall control and be given effect. Signatures appear on the,following page. • • • r is FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY PAGE 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed as of the date first written above. SELLER: BUYER: STOCK DEVELOPMENT,LLC, �" — • a Florida limited liability company .t6...,,.......1)...„ .,.1_, talano,as Trustee of the Marc L. BY: Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust Brian K.Stock,Manager • • • • • h . FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY PAGE 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed as of the date first written above. SELLER: BUYER: STOCK DEVELOPMENT,LLC, a Florida limited 'ability company r • Marc L.Catalano,as Trustee of the Marc L. By: . Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust Ban K.St*c ,Manager FOURTH AMENDMEN?ro AOREKM cNP FOR PURCHASE AND SA:.,E OF PROPERTY PAGE 3 • EXHIBIT"A" Legal Description of Unowned Property The westerly fifteen (15) feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest l/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida. (Parcel Id No.: 00150160007) TOGETHER WITH: The westerly thirty(30) feet of the Northeast quarter(NE 1/4)of the Northwest quarter(NW 1/4)of the Northwest quarter(NW 1/4)of the Northeast quarter(NE 1/4)Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida,shown as Tract#2 of unrecorded plat of said Northeast quarter. (Parcel Id No.: 00149200004, together with that certain unnumbered Parcel immediately west of and adjacent to said Parcel Id No. 00149200004) • • • • • • • FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AOREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY PAGE 4 ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY This Assignment of Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property ("Assignment") is made effective the 3eaay of January,2018,by and between Stock Development,LLC,a Florida limited liability company("Assignor"),and SD Livingston,LLC,a Florida limited liability company("Assignee"). WHEREAS,Assignor,as"Purchaser",and Marc L.Catalano,as Trustee of the Marc L.Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust, as "Seller", entered into that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property dated effective as of November 15,2017,as amended("Agreement"),for the purchase and sale of certain real property situated in Collier County and more particularly described in the Agreement;and WHEREAS,Assignee is a permitted assignee of Assignor in accordance with Section 10.11 of the Agreement,and Assignor desires to assign the Agreement to Assignee. NOW THEREFORE,in consideration of Ten Dollars($10.00)the mutual premises set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,Assignor and Assignee agree as follows: 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated in their entirety in this Assignment. 2. Assignment and Acceptance. Assignor hereby assigns,transfers,sells, and conveys unto Assignee all of Assignor's right,title,and interest in,to,and under the Agreement and in and to the Property, including all deposits. Assignee hereby accepts the foregoing assignment,and hereby assumes and agrees to perform all of Assignor's duties,obligations,and responsibilities under the Agreement. 3. Miscellaneous. This Assignment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. This Assignment shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. This Assignment may be signed in any number of counterparts, and the signature to any one counterpart shall be deemed the signature to all counterparts which,when taken together,shall constitute one instrument. Copies of signatures transmitted by electronic mail or facsimile shall be deemed originals for all purposes. Signatures appear on the following page. ASSIGNMENT OF AGRESNENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY PAGE I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Assignment on the day and year first above written. ASSIGNOR: ASSIGNEE; STOCK DEVELOPMENT,LLC, SD LIVINGSTON,LLC, a Florida limited l 'ilitycmpany a Florida limited liablity company By: 04'61L2 Brian K. S •ck,Manager Brian K. Stack Manager ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY PAGE 2 SOMMERVILLE REDACTED AGREEMENT AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY This AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY(the"Agreement")is made and effective as of the "'day ofn ...,,i 2018(the"Effective Date")by and between Richard Alan Sommerville,Trustee of the Richard Alan Somerville Trust dated 4/26/2004("Seller"),and SD Livingston, LLC,a Florida limited liability company,or its permitted successors or assigns("Buyer"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth,and for other good and valuable considerations,the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby mutually acknowledged, Seller and Buyer agree as follows: ARTICLE 1.2 THE PROPERTY 1.1 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION. Subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement,Seller agrees to sell and convey to Buyer,and Buyer agrees to purchase from Seller,that certain property located in Collier County, Florida, compromising the property identified as Parcel ID No. 00150280000, more particularly described as follows(referred to as the"Property"): (a) That real property described in the attached Exhibit"A"incorporated herein by reference, being approximately 2.50 acres of unimproved land,together with all of Seller's rights,privileges,tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances pertaining thereto(the"Land");the Land shall include all interests,if any,of Seller in(i)strips or gores,if any,between the Land and abutting properties,(ii)any land lying in or under the bed of any street,alley,road or right-of-way,opened or proposed,abutting or adjacent to the Land;and(iii)all buildings,structures,and other improvements on the Land;and (b) All other of Seller's privileges,easements,licenses,rights-of-way,riparian,littoral and water rights,minerals, oil, gas and other hydrocarbon rights and substances on the Land, development rights,air rights and all other rights,privileges and appurtenances owned by Seller and in any way related to,pertaining to or accruing to the use or benefit of the Property. 1.2 PROPERTY CONVEYANCE SURVIVES CLOSING. Seller's obligation to convey to Buyer all of the Property shall survive Closing, without merger into the Deed, and Seller shall continue to be obligated to deliver and convey to Buyer such portions of the Property as may not be delivered and conveyed to Buyer prior to or at Closing as provided in this Agreement. ARTICLE 2.2 AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 1 9734134.1 3.6 ZONING,ENTITLEMENTS AND PERMITS. Provided Buyer has not otherwise terminated the Contract pursuant to Section 3.5, following the expiration of the Investigation Period,Buyer shall have twelve (12)months("Approval Period")to obtain(i)stonnwater and environmental resource permits from the Southwest Florida Water Management District,(ii)regulatory permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, (iii) non-appealable zoning, land use and development approvals by Collier County, and(iv)any all other governmental,quasi-governmental or other permits,approvals,documents,consents,and/or site development plans(collectively,the"Approvals")necessary for Buyer's proposed development of the Property and the Additional Parcels as a multi-family development consisting of no less than 300 dwelling units and an amenity center to serve such units(the"Project");provided,however,that Buyer shall have the right to commence its efforts to obtain the Approvals at any time. Seller shall reasonably cooperate with Buyer in Buyer's efforts to obtain the Approvals,including,without limitation,executing any and all required documentation,attending meetings with governmental and quasi-governmental agencies,and/or authorizing Buyer in writing(in a form reasonably requested by Buyer or as required by any such governmental or quasi-governmental agency)to act as Seller's agent in connection with obtaining such Approvals;provided that Buyer shall reimburse Seller for its reasonable and verified out of pocket expenses paid to third parties,including professionals and attorneys,in connection with such cooperation in an amount not to exceed$2,500.00,which payment shall be made by Buyer to Seller within five(5)days after demand thereof. As requested by Seller,Buyer shall provide updates as to the status of the Approvals. In addition,Buyer shall provide Seller with not less than five(5)days prior written notice of any in-person scheduled meetings and/or hearings with a governmental agency regarding the Approvals,and Seller and Seller's attorney shall have the right to attend and participate in such meeting(s). In connection with Buyer's pursuit of the Approvals,Buyer shall not be permitted to burden the Property with any "Irrevocable Obligation"(as defined below)that does not presently exist and which would remain in effect if the Closing on the Property does not occur, without Seller's prior written consent, which consent may be withheld by Seller for any reason. The term"Irrevocable Obligation"means(a)an obligation which cannot be removed by Seller without cost or liability for which Buyer has not provided Seller with security and adequate assurances,satisfactory to Seller,that such obligations affecting the Property will be paid or released if Buyer does not close on the Property; or(b)any obligation which requires the owner of the Property to contribute or dedicate money or a portion of the Property or to construct,install or maintain any improvements of a public or private nature on or off the Property. Additionally,notwithstanding any provision in any permit, license,approval or other Approval to the contrary,all commitments and development obligations that are a requirement of the"Permitee","Applicant",or"Land Owner"or Approval shall be the sole responsibility of Buyer as to the Property while this Agreement remains in effect and after Closing. It is expressly agreed and acknowledged by Buyer that Buyer shall be solely and absolutely responsible for all costs and expenses AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 4 9734134.1 incurred by or on behalf of Buyer and arising out of or related to Buyer's pursuit of and compliance with the Approval for the Property and the Project. Buyer agrees that it shall not undertake any development work or improvements on the Property until after Closing. If Buyer does not obtain the Approvals within the Approval Period,Buyer shall,by no later than 5:00 P.M.on the date of expiration of the Approval Period,provided that Buyer is not in default of this Agreement:(A)terminate this Agreement by delivering written notice to Seller, whereupon the Deposit shall be returned to Buyer and Seller and Buyer shall be released from any and all further obligations and liabilities arising under or out of this Agreement, other than other than obligations under this Agreement that survive termination of this Agreement,(B)extend the Approval Period by two(2) periods of three (3)months each, by providing written notice thereof at least fifteen (15) days prior to the expiration of the Approval Period,subject to payment of the extension fee,or(C)waive such condition and proceed to close as set forth in Section 4.1 hereof. If Buyer elects to extend the Approval Period pursuant to subsection (B) above, then Buyer shall immediately pay to Seller an extension fee equal to Ten Thousand Dollars($10,000.00),which fee is immediately earned by Seller, non-refundable (except in the event of a Seller default) and shall not be a credit against the Purchase Price. If Buyer fails to timely elect one of the options set forth in subsections(A), (B)or(C)above,then Buyer is deemed to have elected the remedy set forth in subsection(A). ARTICLE 4.2 CONDITIONS 4.1 CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO BUYER'S OBLIGATION TO CLOSE. Buyer's obligation to consummate the transaction contemplated hereunder is conditioned upon satisfaction of each of the following conditions,unless said conditions is waived by Buyer in writing: (a) Buyer obtaining the Approvals; (b) None of the representations and warranties of Seller set forth herein shall be untrue or inaccurate in any material respect as of the Effective Date or as of the Closing Date; (c) Seller shall not have failed to perform or comply with any of its agreements or obligations in all material respects within the time periods provided herein,time being of the essence; (d) Buyer shall not have given written notice rightfully terminating this Agreement within the appropriate periods of time specified for the same; (e) Closing under the Acquisition Contracts(defined below)shall have occurred and been consummated by Buyer or shall occur simultaneously with the Closing of the Property. Seller acknowledges that Buyer has or intends to contract for the acquisition of the parcels set forth on Exhibit"B",attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference("Additional Parcels")via separate sales contracts (collectively, the "Acquisition Contracts").Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary,Buyer's obligation to close is expressly contingent upon Buyer acquiring fee simple title to the Additional Parcels prior to or simultaneously with the Closing on the Property. In connection therewith,should Buyer fail to acquire fee simple title to the Additional Parcels on or prior to the Closing Date (as defined below and as may be AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 5 9734134.1 extended in accordance with this Agreement),or if any of the Acquisition Contracts should be terminated, Buyer shall have the option,in the exercise of its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement by providing Seller with written notice thereof,and upon Seller's receipt of written notice from Buyer,this Agreement shall terminate and be of no further force and effect,and the parties hereto shall be relieved of all further obligations or liability under this Agreement,except those obligations and liabilities that expressly survive termination of this Agreement. In the event that any one or more of the above conditions contained in this Section 4.1 is not satisfied or waived by Buyer in writing on or prior to the applicable Closing Date and so long as Buyer is not in default under this Agreement,Buyer may: (i)terminate this Agreement by written notice to Seller,whereupon the parties hereto shall be released from all liability hereunder, except those obligations and liabilities that expressly survive termination of this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be automatically canceled and rendered of no further force and effect;(ii)extend the applicable Closing Date up to one hundred and eighty (180)days to allow additional time for Seller to satisfy the requirements set forth in Sections 4.1(b)and(c) above; or(iii)waive such condition(s)precedent and close within fifteen(15)days thereafter.If any of the foregoing conditions have not been satisfied due to a default by Buyer,then Seller's rights and remedies shall be determined in accordance with Section 9.2 herein. Nothing herein shall be deemed as a waiver or limitation of any remedy available to Buyer under this Agreement(including,without limitation,the right to bring an action for specific performance under Section 9.4(c)hereof)or under Florida law for a default by the Seller. 4.2 Intentionally Omitted. ARTICLE 5.2 CLOSING DOCUMENTATION.AND POST-CLOSING 5.1 CLOSING AND CLOSING DATE. This transaction shall be closed and title to the Property conveyed from Seller to Buyer by delivery of the fully executed Deed and other closing documents,including, without limitation,those described below in Section 5.2,to Buyer from Seller(the"Closing")at the offices of Coleman,Yovanovich&Koester,P.A.,4001 Tamiami Trail North,Suite 300,Naples,Florida 34103,on the date that is thirty(30)days following the earlier of:(i)Buyer's receipt of the Approvals,or(ii)expiration of the Approval Period,provided Buyer has not terminated the Agreement;provided,however,in no event shall Buyer be required to close if the conditions precedent set forth in Section 4.1 have not been satisfied or waived (the"Closini Date"). The Closing shall automatically be extended to allow for expiration of the applicable title cure periods set forth in Section 3.4 herein. AGRREMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 6 9734134.1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Agreement has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the day and year set forth below. WITNESSES: BUYER: r ' SD LIVINGSTON,LLC, int Na • e.) a - a Florida limited Ha ility company ..4110 /1er-4101111rr By: 04;441 Print Naine:���� � �y�Sc�t/ Brian K. St k,Manager [SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON FOLLOWING PAGE] AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 18 9734134.1 I ••• 4 / (.• Ptic z t•A. Richay..; A tz...15. 1.5:11Sten:.oU • }i: Si-.);111-1.).erk, :112612:.0:1 • • • • • • vox PURCHASE AND Satz ?AAA I 9734134.1 .0""•••\ • • • EXHIBIT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Northwest one-quarter(NW 1/4) of the Northeast one-quarter (NE 1/4) of the Northwest one-quarter(NW 1/4)of the Northeast one-quarter(NE1/4)of Section 13, Township 48 South,Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 20 9734134.( PARRISH-BARR REDACTED AGREEMENT AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY This AGREEMENT FOR PCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY(the"Agreement")is made and effective as of the 12 day of ft,La Vti.141 2018 (the "Effective Date")by and between Doreen L. Parrish, an unmarried woman,and Dennis G. ar,as Trustee of the Revocable Living Trust of Dennis G. Baar,dated March 28,2013,as tenants in common(collectively,the"Seller"),and SD Livingston,LLC,a Florida limited liability company,or its permitted successors or assigns("Buyer"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth,and for other good and valuable considerations,the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby mutually acknowledged,Seller and Buyer agree as follows: ARTICLE 1.2 THE PROPERTY 1.1 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION. Subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement,Seller agrees to sell and convey to Buyer,and Buyer agrees to purchase from Seller,that certain property located in Collier County, Florida, compromising the property identified as Parcel ID No. 00148280009, more particularly described as follows(referred to as the"7rouertv"); (a) That real property described in the attached Exhibit"A"incorporated herein by reference, being approximately 5.00 acres of unimproved land,together with all of Seller's rights,privileges,tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances pertaining thereto(the"Land");the Land shall include all interests,ifany,of Seller in(i)strips or gores,if any,between the Land and abutting properties,(ii)any land lying in or under the bed of any street,alley,road or right-of-way,opened or proposed,abutting or adjacent to the Land;and(iii)all buildings,structures,and other improvements on the Land;and (b) All other of Seller's privileges,easements,licenses,rights-of-way,riparian,littoral and water rights,minerals,oil,gas and other hydrocarbon rights and substances on.the Land,development rights,air rights and all other rights,privileges and appurtenances owned by Seller and in any way related to,pertaining to or accruing to the use or benefit of the Property. 1.2 PROPERTY CONVEYANCE SURVIVES CLOSING. Seller's obligation to convey to Buyer all of the Property shall survive Closing, without merger into the Deed, and Seller shall continue to be obligated to deliver and convey to Buyer such portions of the Property as may not be delivered and conveyed to Buyer prior to or at Closing as provided in this Agreement AGREHMEM FOR PURCHASE AND Sam PAGE) 9926975.1 3.6 ZONING.ENTITLEMENTS AND PERMITS. Provided Buyer has not otherwise terminated the Contract pursuant to Section 3.5,following the expiration of the Investigation Period,Buyer shall have twelve (12)months("Approval Period")to obtain(i)stormwater and environmental resource permits from the Southwest Florida Water Management District,(ii)regulatory permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, (iii)non-appealable zoning,land use and development approvals by Collier County,and(iv)any all other governmental,quasi-governmental or other permits,approvals,documents,consents,and/or site development plans(collectively,the"Approvals")necessary for Buyer's proposed development of the Property and the Additional Parcels as a multi-family development consisting of no less than 300 dwelling units and an amenity center to serve such units(the"Praliect");provided,however,that Buyer shall have the right to commence its efforts to obtain the Approvals at any time. Seller shall reasonably cooperate with Buyer in Buyer's efforts to obtain the Approvals,including,without limitation,executing any and all required documentation,attending meetings with governmental and quasi-governmental agencies,and/or authorizing Buyer in writing(in a form reasonably requested by Buyer or as required by any such governmental or quasi-governmental agency)to act as Seller's agent in connection with obtaining such Approvals;provided that Buyer shall reimburse Seller for its reasonable and verified out of pocket expenses paid to third parties,including professionals and attorneys,in connection with such cooperation in an amount not to exceed$2,500.00,which payment shall be made by Buyer to Seller within five(5)days after demand thereof. As requested by Seller,Buyer shall provide updates as to the status of the Approvals. In addition,Buyer shall provide Seller with not less than five(5)days prior written notice of any in-person scheduled meetings and/or hearings with a governmental agencyregarding the Approvals,and Seller and Seller's attorney shall have the right to attend and participate in such meeting(s). In connection with Buyer's pursuit of the Approvals,Buyer shall not be permitted to burden the Property with any "Irrevocable Obligation"(as defined below)that does notpresently exist and which would remain in effect if the Closing on the Property does not occur,without Seller's prior written consent, which consent may be withheld by Seller for any reason. The term"irrevocable Obligation"means(a)an obligation which cannot be removed by Seller without cost or liability for which Buyer has not provided Seller with security and adequate assurances,satisfactory to Seller,that such obligations affecting the Property will be paid or released if Buyer does not close on the Property;or(b)any obligation which requires the owner of the Property to contribute or dedicate money or a portion of the Property or to construct,install or maintain any improvements of a public or private nature on or off the Property. Additionally,notwithstanding any provision in any permit, license,approval or other Approval to the contrary,all commitments and development obligations that are a requirement of the"Permitee","Applicant",or"Land Owner"or Approval shall be the sole responsibility of AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE Arra SALE PAGE 4 9926975.1 Buyer as to the Property while this Agreement remains in effect and after Closing. It is expressly agreed and acknowledged by Buyer that Buyer shall be solely and absolutely responsible for all costs and expenses incurred by or on behalf of Buyer and arising out of or related to Buyer's pursuit of and compliance with the Approval for the Property and the Project. Buyer agrees that it shall not undertake any development work or improvements on the Property until after Closing. If Buyer does not obtain the Approvals within the Approval Period,Buyer shall,by no later than 5:00 P.M.on the date of expiration of the Approval Period,provided that Buyer is not in default of this Agreement:(A)terminate this Agreement by delivering written notice to Seller, whereupon the Deposit shall be returned to Buyer and Seller and Buyer shall be released from any and all further obligations and liabilities arising under or out of this Agreement,other than other than obligations under this Agreement that survive termination of this Agreement,(B)extend the Approval Period by two(2) periods of three(3)months each,by providing written notice thereof at least fifteen(15)days prior to the expiration of the Approval Period,subject to payment of the extension fee,or(C)waive such condition and proceed to close as set forth in Section 4.1 hereof. If Buyer elects to extend the Approval Period pursuant to subsection(B)above,then Buyer shall immediately pay to Seller an extension fee equal to Ten Thousand Dollars($10,000.00),which fee is immediately earned by Seller,non-refundable(except in the event of a Seller default)and shall not be a credit against the Purchase Price. If Buyer fails to timely elect one of the options set forth in subsections(A),(B)or(C)above,then Buyer is deemed to have elected the remedy set forth in subsection(A). ARTICLE 4.2 CONDITIONS 4.1 CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO BUYER'S OBLIGATION TO CLOSE. Buyer's obligation to consummate the transaction contemplated hereunder is conditioned upon satisfaction of each of the following conditions,unless said conditions is waived by Buyer in writing: (a) Buyer obtaining the Approvals; (b) None of the representations and warranties of Seller set forth herein shall be untrue or inaccurate in any material respect as of the Effective Date or as of the Closing Date; (c) Seller shall not have failed to perform or comply with any of its agreements or obligations in all material respects within the time periods provided herein,time being of the essence; (d) Buyer shall not have given written notice rightfully terminating this Agreement within the appropriate periods of time specified for the same; (e) Closing under the Acquisition Contracts(defined below)shall have occurred and been consummated by Buyer or shall occur simultaneously with the Closing of the Property. Seller acknowledges that Buyerhas or intends to contract for the acquisition of the parcels set forth on Exhibit"B",attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference("Additional Parcels")via separate sales contracts(collectively,the "Acquisition Contracts").Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary,Buyer's obligation to close is expressly contingent upon Buyer acquiring fee simple title to the Additional Parcels prior AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE5 9926975.1 to or simultaneously with the Closing on the Property. In connection therewith,should Buyer fail to acquire fee simple title to the Additional Parcels on or prior to the Closing Date(as defined below and as may be extended in accordance with this Agreement),or if any of the Acquisition Contracts should be terminated, Buyer shall have the option,in the exercise of its sole discretion,to terminate this Agreement by providing Seller with written notice thereof,and upon Seller's receipt of written notice from Buyer,this Agreement shall terminate and be ofno further force and effect,and the parties hereto shall be relieved of all further obligations or liability under this Agreement,except those obligations and liabilities that expressly survive termination of this Agreement. In the event that any one or more of the above conditions contained in this Section 4.1 is not satisfied or waived by Buyer in writing on or prior to the applicable Closing Date and so long as Buyer is not in default under this Agreement,Buyer may: (1)terminate this Agreement by written notice to Seller,whereupon the parties hereto shall be released from all liability hereunder, except those obligations and liabilities that expressly survive termination of this Agreement,and this Agreement shall be automatically canceled and rendered of no further force and effect;(ii)extend the applicable Closing Date up to one hundred and eighty (180)days to allow additional time for Seller to satisfy the requirements set forth in Sections 4.1(b)and(c) above; or(iii)waive such condition(s)precedent and close within fifteen(15)days thereafter.If any of the foregoing conditions have not been satisfied due to a default by Buyer,then Seller's rights and remedies shall be determined in accordance with Section 9.2 herein. Nothing herein shall be deemed as a waiver or limitation of any remedy available to Buyer under this Agreement(including,without limitation,the right to bring an action for specific performance under Section 9.4(c)hereof)or under Florida law for a default by the Seller. ARTICLE 5.2 CLOSING.DOCUMENTATION.AND POST-CLOSING 5.1 CLOSING AND CLOSING DATE. This transaction shall be closed and title to the Property conveyed from Seller to Buyer bydelivery of the fully executed Deed and other closing documents,including, without limitation,those described below in Section 5.2,to Buyer from Seller(the"Closing")at the offices of Coleman,Yovanovich&Koester,P.A.,4001 Tamiami TrailNorth,Suite 300,Naples,Florida 34103,on the date that is thirty(30)days following the earlier of:(i)Buyer's receipt of the Approvals,or(ii)expiration of the Approval Period,provided Buyer has not terminated the Agreement;provided,however,in no event shall Buyer be required to close if the conditions precedent set forth in Section 4.1 have not been satisfied or waived (the"Closing Date"). The Closing shall automatically be extended to allow for expiration of the applicable title cure periods set forth in Section 3.4 herein. AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE6 9926975.1 I . --- - . • ••'• ..,' ' . ' , ' , ' • 11•11;I:3 Oust— ,,a . ., . SELLERS . • -- Y ..:-. i-,---1"-- - ' -.. •::.. - • , * . . L.. .. ' ..--.--- • :': " ' ••'• .7 . 1 r .J _ At ill" --- :1-•i-:-.1° . ..• Print 17 ig—Ir.—Iiiti'..0.,,r7.41.. :4.4 4)%. Doreen L Parrish , - - , • . . . . .. • . '•;3 .. • . , ' ,. • ' • . . Print Nome: ':. • , _ t •,, 'D Pri a.; ennis 0,Boar,es Insetee of the Poem:able Living ..„.. • nt Name: .... Trust of Dennis G.Baar,doted Marsh 28,2.013 te- .---o, F,'...... .-.- ti?...,'... ,41 irk,.. .. 1,..„.;.., . ir....-..;:• ....c. , • AOREtrr reek Puta1ASE AHD Sivat P AGE 19 4,2697k I ,.- I !: I. I 02/0812013 2:33 PU FAX ++++2002578429+ CODD ill 0003/0003 WITNESSES: SWAPS: Print Name:. Print Name: Doreen L Parish Print Nnn a: .T/rev Fria amc 7-ia.at 441 144 De,Oais 7.8aar.as'Trustee of the Revocable Living Tent of Dennis G.gear.dated Marcel 28,2013 ACkaaM oresea puRcxA4r AND SMI: 99:09+$ PAC$19 EXHIBIT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION The Southeast - .a- tom eat quarter of the Northwest quarter • t e • . t r; AND the Southwest quarter of the Nort y - leAt est quarter, of the Northeast quarter, . • on 13, Towns p 8 o h, Range 25 East of Collier County, Flor • AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 20 9926975.1 Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 r PROPE TY`O R• ,. dA(IVER�HO 'I)1SCl;C)�LDRE FORM :� � a ,�:,:;': This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf,to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following,use additional sheets if necessary. a, If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL,tenancy by the entirety,tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest: Name and Address %of Ownership 1i b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address %of Ownership c. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Name and Address %of Ownership Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 Co' er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners: Name and Address %of Ownership SD LIVINGSTON, LLC 2639 PROFESSIONAL CIRCLE, SUITE 101 NAPLES, FL 34119 BRIAN K. STOCK, MANAGER • 100% e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE,with an individual or individuals,a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers,stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners: Name and Address %of Ownership Date of Contract: f. if any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired ❑ Leased:Term of lease years/months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 • Cor County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-240.0 FAX:(239)252-6358 Date of option: Date option terminates: ,or Anticipated closing date: • :' AFFIR{Vl PROPERTY;OWNERSHIPlNFORMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure,.will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form.Any change in ownership whether Individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest-holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately If such change occurs prior to the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information Indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package.i understand that failure to Include all necessary submittal information may result In the delay of processing this petition. The completed application,all required submittal materials,and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN:Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples,FL 34104 —� 11 t.$ Agent/Owner S gnature Date Brian K. Stock, MGR Agent/Owner Name(please print) SD LIVINGSTON, LLC Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 CATALANO Co/ e`er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coliierltov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions,except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application,but prior to the date of the final public hearing,it is the responsibility of the applicant,or agent on his behalf,to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following,use additional sheets if necessary. a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL,tenancy by the entirety,tenancy in • common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest: Name and Address %of Ownership b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address %of Ownership • c. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Name and Address %of Ownership Marc L Catalano,as Trustee of the Marc L.Catalano Revocable lntervivios Trust dated November 2.3,1004 100% The Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 at the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 114 of Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East,Collier County, Florida,also known as Lot 11 in unrecorded Bryan Acres subdivision AND 1 he Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 01 Section 13,township 48 South,Range 2S hast,t slier County, Florida,LESS the Westerly 15 feet thereof AND Marc T..Catalano,individually and as Trustee of the Marc L Catalano Revocable Tntentivins Trust date d November 23,2004 100% The Northeast quarter(NE 114)of the Northwest quarter(NW 1/4)of the Northwest(NW 1/4)of the Northeast quarter(NE 1/4)of S:ction 13, Township 48 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida,LESS the Westerly thirty(30)feet thereof reserved for road right-of-fm!-imposes, Created gitaigry 82 of unrecorded plat of said Northeast quarter. Page 1 of 3 Co ler County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coliieraov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,list the name of the general and/or limited partners: Name and Address %of Ownership e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE,with an individual or individuals,a Corporation, Trustee,or a Partnership,list the names of the contract purchasers below,including the officers,stockholders, beneficiaries,or partners: Name and Address %of Ownership Date of Contract: f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers,if a corporation,partnership,or trust: Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired Leased:Term of lease years/months If, Petitioner has option to buy,indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 Coker County COLUER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliereov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Date of option: Date option terminates: ,or Anticipated closing date: February 2019 AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form.Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee,Company or other interest-holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County Immediately If such change occurs prior to the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition,I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package.I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application,all required submittal materials,and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN:Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 49/.2, &— Agent/O ner Signature Date Marc L Catalano Agent/Owner Name(please print) Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 PARRISH/AAAR Coen County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 w.ww.coliiereov.net (239)252-2400 FAX;(239)252-6358 PROPERTY-OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM I This is a required form with ail land use petitions,except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing,it is the responsibility of the applicant,or agent on his behalf,to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following,use additional sheets if necessary. a. If the property Is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL tenancy by the entirety,tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest: Name and_Address . . %of Ownership Doreen L.Pnrrish,on unmarried woman -' Jl)"fp Dennis G.Boar,as Trustee of the Revocable Ltving'rrust of Dennis 0.Rear,dated March 211,2013 T c Southeast quarer ti 1hi Nun beast quarter of the Northwest quarter orthe Northeuat quarter:AN 2 the-Southwest quarter of the\funhwert 4uarter of the Northeast'quarter of the Northeast titruter of Section 13.Township 48 South;Range 25 just;Collier Count,,Flurida. , b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name.and Address %of Ownership c. If the property Is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Name and Address %of Ownership • Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 Co ffer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliereov.net (239)Z52-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,list the name of the general and/or limited partners: Name and Address %of Ownership` • e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE,with an individual or individuals,a Corporation, Trustee,or a Partnership,list the names of the contract purchasers below,including the officers,stockholders,beneficiaries,or partners: Name and Address _...-____ _ %of Ownership Date of Contract: f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties,list all individuals or officers,if a corporation,partnership,or trust: - _ Name and Address _. g. Date subject property acquired 0 Leased:Term of lease =.--. -- . -years/months If,Petitioner has option to buy,indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 CoCox County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coltiergov.net (239)252.2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Date of option: Date option terminates: ,or Anticipated closing date: .February 2019. AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form.Any change in ownership whether Individually or with a Trustee, Company or other Interest-holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition,I attest that all of the Information Indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package,I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application,all required submittal materials,and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN:Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 D�22e.+z ,L... /44ivaf 4/26/2018 Agent/Owner Signature Date Doreen L.Parrish Agent/Owner Name(please print) Sisnalure _w Date Dennis a Baar Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 ! P,1}tltiSI1/RAAR COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 tiuww.coltiereov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 PROPERTIY 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 th'e date.of the final public hearing,It is the responsibility of the applicant,or agent on'his behalf,to submit a suppienientai disclosure of interest form. Please•complete the following,use additional'sheets if necessary. a. If the property ls•owned.fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL..tenancy by the entirety,tenancy in common, or joint tenahcy, list all partie3 with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest' Name and Address %of Ownership. Dgtmt l-Numb. faunal ttou'.h, Omni.f:.linos',Jr TtnAee of the Rnu.:bl¢L'nineTroslgi Pcnnlat,tem%WIil Ltnnh=5,2v13. j C. NittSoulbnwtgimnere7ih<�urtlt<miq�arlaT�5h Nunhvnl apoieriu,the Nunhcatt qts rlei•..•,R lha lhwc.t tjaanerd a tnnhvul ,.,jrof,hrNbnhont quarter}d rhe Nnrlheast ut'arrerurScainn lir:wn,hl ri%South,Nnn+t_s(s <:nllivr r;ounn•Pladd•'. • b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION.list the officers and stockholders and'the percentage of stock owned byeacht Name and Address %of Ownership c. If the property is In the name of a TRUSTEE,List the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Name and Address. %of Ownership sme �r`1RR�Se'2I No6\WFiy' 1i1+ ae f1 54% _._ y—,_._....., as MaN' ISA MC�>;rhf - i - Solea f i Created 9/28)2017 Pose I of 3 Caber County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2300 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colifergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(2391 232-6358 d. If the property is in the,name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,list the name of the general and/or limited partners: Name and Address • of Ownership • e. if there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE,with an individual or individuals,a Corporation,. Trustee,ora Partnership,list the.names of the contract purchasers below,including the officers,stockholders,beneficiaries,or partners: _ Name and Address J '9s of Ownership_ a � Date of Contract: f. If any contingency clause or contract terms invpive additional parties,list all individuals or officers,if a car.oration,partnership,or trust: Name and Address -'1 g. Date subject property acquired El Leased:Term of lease years/months If,Petitioner has option to buy,Indicate the following: Created 9/28/203.7 Page 2 of 3 Co lle;r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 341b4 www.colllereov.net (239)252.2400 FAX:(239)252.6358 Dates of option: Date option terminates: ,or Anticipated dosing date: Pehnwoq 2519 AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP IMFORN:ATIO:V 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 loran.Any change In ownershlpwhether individually or with a Trustee,Company or other interest-holding party,must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs priarto the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition,I attest that at of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package.•understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. •1 The completed application,all requited submittal materials,and fees shall be submitted to; • Growth Management Department ATTN:BvsinessCenter 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Agent/Owner Signature Date Dorset:.?Utah Agent/Owner Name(please print) _ tun: noir Dennis 0,Bao Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 SOMMERVIL,L1 aler County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.collie oV,t�et (239)252-2400 FAX;(239)252-6358 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions,except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application,but prior to the date of the final public hearing,it is the responsibility of the applicant,or agent on his behalf,to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following,use additional sheets if necessary. a. if the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL,tenancy by the entirety,tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest: Name and Address %of Ownership b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address %of Ownership c. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: - Name and Address %of Ownership Richard Alan Sommerville,Trustee of the Richard Man Sommerville Trust dated 1/25/2004 100% See legal description below Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 The Northwest one-quarter(NW 1/4)of the Northeast one-quarter(NE 1/4)of the Northwest one-quarter(NW 114) of the Northeast one-quarter(NE 1/4)of Section 13.Township 48 South,Range 2S East,Collier County,Florida. Co iers.County VWµ`6NMk4✓'�'Gv.V"'W¢AAf+..Fl.wMr.Ml COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coillergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-5358 d, If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,list the name of the general and/or limited partners: Name and Address %of Ownership e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE,with an individual or individuals,a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership,list the names of the contract purchasers below,including the officers,stockholders,beneficiaries,or partners: Name and Address _ %of Ownership Date of Contract f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties,list all individuals or officers,if a corporation,partnership,or trust Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired ❑Leased:Term of lease years/months If,Petitioner has option to buy,indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 r � Y .. Co ler County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (2.39)252-2400 FAX:(239)257.-5358 Date of option: Date option terminates: ,or Anticipated closing date: April 2019 AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION • J Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form,Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee,Company or other interest-holding party,must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition,I attest that ail of the information indicated on this checklist is Included in this submittal package.l understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application,all required submittal materials,and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN:Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 r' Agent/Owner Signature Date Richard Alan Sommerville Agent/Owner Name(please print) Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 INSTR 5587588 OR 5534 PG 186 RECORDED 7/18/2018 9:32 AM PAGES 3 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA Doc@.70 $18,200.00 REC $27.00 CONS $2,600,000.00 ATTACHMENT "A" This Document Prepared Without Opinion of Title By: Carlo F.Zampogna,Esquire Zampogna Law Firm 1112 Goodlette Road North,Suite 204 Naples,Florida 34102 Telephone:(239)261-0592 Parcel ID No: 00150600004,00149080004,00150440002,00150520003,00150400000,00149840008 Deed Consideration: $2,600,000.00 Documentary Stamps Due on Transfer: $18,200.00 arrant- Deed THIS INDENTURE, F• is is 11fraay of •:18, between MARLAC LLC, a Florida limited liability co •an - •ost office ad..ess s: 25397 North Northbridge, Hawthorn Woods,IL 60047, •s 1 ' • N.'*, _ • 0 ivings,•n, LC,a Florida limited liability company as GRANTEE*, ' ho. •: i • P •fessional Circle, Suite 101, Naples,FL 34119. a1 WITNESSETH,tha = rantor, or an. in onsi:-rat'•s • the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00),and other good and :ble considerations i _ai• • in hand paid by said Grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby . •• ledged, has gran'', •.. _ •ed and sold to the said Grantee, and Grantee's heirs and assigns = the following d-: db-. land, situate, lying and being in the County of Collier, State of Flo •4t .,' • � \- IV See Exhibit"A"attached hereto and ma.e a part hereof. SUBJECT TO taxes for the year 2018 and subsequent years not yet due and payable; zoning,building code, and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority; outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any; and restrictions, reservations and easements common to the subdivision. TOGETHER WITH all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. And the Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that the Grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple;that the Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land;that the Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. To have and to hold in fee simple forever. *Singular and plural are interchangeable as context requires. **The subject property is not the homestead of the Grantor. Pagel of 3 OR 5534 PG 187 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed,sealed and delivered in the presence of: MARLAC LLC, a Florida limited Iiability company B Y: _____ AA____________ Witness'#1 John ch (' t JS �Ue�lC Its: Man ging Member Print N. •i Witness#2 Ar .�-*me *zit _ Print Name STATE OF ioui \Ar ,. COUNTY OF _ .� � l--,( t-A The foregoing instru_, was acknowledge•- o e 2 - 1 7' is day of July 2018 by John Lach, as Managing Mem., ". :. MARLAC LLC, U i.Pler ited liability company, who is 1 1 personally kn. to me who [ I----i- produced -77 i„.6* fir► .e I 1Y' o'•:1114.01 ; otary Public ignature KATIE R MOODY I Printed Name: Alw aKt, Official Seal # Commission No. : .9o1 51 3 c') Notary Public—State of Illinois I i,, My Commission Expires Aug 27,2019 I My Commission Expires: A. ,€91 ' dal" (SEAL) Page 2of3 *** OR 5534 PG 138 *** EXHIBIT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1: The West '/2 of the Southwest '/4 of the Northwest '/ of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida. PARCEL 2: The Northeast i/4 of the Southwest'/of the Northwest'/of the Northeast'/of Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida. PARCEL 3: The Southwest V4 of the Southeast%of the Northwest'A of the Northeast 1/of Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida. PARCEL 4: The Southeast'/of the Southwest''/4 of the Northwest'/of the Northeast'/of Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 Eases `J t C lorida. PARCEL 5: The Northwest 1/4 o • . .utheast%of the ",+i i:c. -st%of the Northeast'/of Section 13,Township 48 South,Rang; 2 • Her County,Flo..da. PARCEL 6: The Northeast 14 ofi,1_ • • I e> , •st' of the Northeast%of Section 13,Township 48 South,R. 1 ge 7 ` • C11 e i•�,�'� 1•t �11-1Eci c Page 3 of 3 INSTR 5.587586 OR 5534 PG 181 RECORDED 7/18/2018 9:32 AM PAGES 2 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA Doc@.70 $175.00 REC $18.50 CONS $25,000.00 This Document Prepared Without Opinion of Title By: Carlo F.Zampogna,Esquire Zampogna Law Firm 1112 Goodlette Road North,Suite 204 Naples,Florida 34102 Telephone: (239)261-0592 Parcel ID No:00148200005 Deed Consideration: $25,000 Documentary Stamps Due on Transfer: $175.00 11 II arrant Deed Coy THIS INDENTURE, (e' Is OA-day of July'Oh, etween LIVVET LLC,a Florida limited liability company, wh se •• . o - -= address is: 18 •s one Way, North Barrington, IL 60010, as GRANTOR*, . d 11 " sto. L a Flo 'da imited liability company as GRANTEE*,whose post o F ce ,•a,,,-.:4 i ...A. . .-wrir 1, cle,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34119. WITNESSETH,th•k"I ..,..r, •, . ' "consi9-pati rtrici the sum of TEN DOLLARS, ($10.00),and other good anc yal a. e consi.eration' o sai• r. .,,.i in hand paid by said Grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby ••..owledged,has gra�e =y�, oar!.' -• and sold to the said Grantee, and Grantee's heirs and assign I `:ver, the following •- .;! ! and, situate, lying and being in the County of Collier, State of •t ,o-wit: \- ,S. The Northwest 'A of the No - ,�o tte•i west 'A of the Northeast '/ of Section 13,Township 48 South,Range _ East,Collier County,Florida. SUBJECT TO taxes for the year 2018 and subsequent years not yet due and payable; zoning,building code, and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority; outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any; and restrictions, reservations and easements common to the subdivision. TOGETHER WITH all .the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. And the Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that the Grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple;that the Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. To have and to hold in fee simple forever. *Singular and plural are interchangeable as context requires. **The subject property is not the homestead of the Grantor. Page 1 of 2 *** OR 5534 PG 182 *** IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed,sealed and delivered in the presence of: LIWET LLC, a Florida limited liability company ( .�,, By: i, Witness#1 John- -ch i ,•. (eLV---lam Its: Managing Member Print 1 -a - COU Wi s# 04‘' e €S figM-IFZ—-- CJ Print Name STATE OF--5-\\f‘Alli 5 COUNTY OF "Lokr-e. 0 0 ilo‘ ,, The foregoing inst ,c... .t was aclalowle•g* be o e a-•o s i PAcily of July 2018 by John Lach, as Managing Me• of LIVVET LLC, . to 'd: ted liability co any, who is {_____i •ersonally •' . , to mer 1 j', ho produced . 'f . l.. �.� ' e/0 ., *. ,Ak as identifi = - 4 L-r, k..1-r`... - —... ....`i,"-- 44-4-A Notary Public Signature KATIE R MOODY : Printed Name: 1 I' e 12 dd-t?..- Official Seal ► Commission No. : $?S l3 D v Notary Public-Statepines of Illinois ( My Commission Expires: �'�f4"` 11 My Commission Expires Aug 27,2019 I Page 2 of 2 3686584 OR: 3816 PG: 1542 RICORDID in Off ILIAL UCOIDS of COLLIII COMM, IL 08/25/2005 at 02:0711 DNI68T I. MCI, CLMB RIC 35.50 Prepared by,Record&Return to DOC-.70 .70 Santiago Eljaiek 1II,Esq, Rata: Alvarez,Taylor,Eljaiek&Rodriguez,P.L, ALVARIS ILJAIII IT AL 2601 South Bayshore Drive 2601 S BATSBOU DR #100 Suite 600 Coconut Grove,Florida 33133 KIM IL 33133 Property Appraisers Parcel I.D.(Folio)Number s Folio No.:00150560005 WARRANTY DEED THIS WARRANTY DEED' is made as of the d f day of .Thi-Y ,2005 by Marc Catalano,a married man(the"Grantor"),whose mailing address is 11935 SW 15th Court, , Davie, Florida 33325, to Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee of the Mars L. Catalano Revocable Intervivios Trust dated November 23,2004(the"Grantee"),whose mailing address is 11935 SW 15th Court,Davie,Florida 33325. • WITNESSETH: That Grantor, f• .--d-in -• sideration of the sun of Ten and No/100 Dollars($10.00)and for other good: VOWS'0, r % •s,the receipt and sufficiency of which are herebyconclusivelyacknow i, , ' 4T 1,� ��+1 ereby grants, �• ,:. , , sells, aliens, remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto Gr e, successors and assig for;ver,all that certain real property situate in Collier County,Flor'da, , 5' ore palticularly desc •ed : follows: The Southwest /4 i t'1 - e ,1/4 ,f the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1 ,T‘ n hip 8 o h, '. f'' -5 ,, is .icier County,Florida also known as $zt�l� n p: o I:Acre ,a iv kin • ( 4‘after referred to : .4*- ' 'ro. '). THIS CONVEYANCE : r : CT TO: ? 1. Taxes and assessments fo xi Sequent years, which are not yet due and payable. 2. Covenants,easements,and restrictions ofrecord and all matters appearing on the Plat, • without intending to reimpose the same. ' Note to Examiner: THIS CONVEYANCE IS TO TRUSTEES NOT PURSUANT TO A SALE,THEREFORE,PURSUANT TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE RULE 12B-4.014(2)(b),THIS CONVEYANCE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAXES. 1 011: 3876 PG: 1543 3. Zoning restrictions and conditions imposed or required by any governmental authority and matters appearing on the plat or common to the subdivision,including utility easements,if any, without intending to reimpose any of the same. TOGETHER, with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto or appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, in fee simple forever. AND Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to the Property and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. AND GRANTQR hereby confirms and certifies that the subject Property is not and has never been the homestead property of Grantor as defined in Article X, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution , nor contiguous to his homestead, and that neither Grantor nor any member of his „ e« :.• family(or any person claiming by,thro s . or)resides, nor has ever resided,at the subject Property,and that Grantor's •y:..:- • - _..:....et l •ted at l 1935 SW 15th Court,Davie, Florida. C Full power and autho ' is e4. lo •s to• o s• • Grante< (h- einafter also referred to as the "Trustees") to either protect co •: --: .4 : or to encumber, or to otherwise manage and dispose said Pr•i•e ' o •r•o • t s 11 ,• •!r• o.tio s to purchase,to sell on any terms,to convey either with •r , • s r• i„n.to co,1 s•i$ 'roPrtY or e art thereof to anYP a successor or successors in t ' : : • o grant to such•.cces•or .. ^.•cessors in trust all of the title, estate,powers and authorities • in said Trustees, 4.n,to - •-dicate,to mortgage,pledge or otherwise encumber said Prope y part thereof,t• - s i, real estate or any part thereof, from time to time,in possession • ,- 'on,by leases to •-nce in praesenti or in juturo,and upon any terms and for any period or • rust • •r- ,, 6° •=-ding in the case of any single demise the term of ninety-nine (99)years,and to . • ., tetf: leases and to amend,change or modify leases and the terms and provisions thereof,to contract to make leases and to grant options to lease and options to renew leases and options to purchase the whole or any part of the reversion,and to contract respecting the manner of fixing the amount of present or future rentals, to partition or exchange said Property or any part thereof for other real or personal property,to grant easements or. charges of any kind,to release,convey or assign any right,title or interest in or about said Property or any part thereof,and to deal with said Property in every part thereof in all other ways and for such other considerations as it would be lawful for any person owning the same to deal with the same, whether similar to, or different from,the ways above specified, at any time or times hereafter. In no case shall any party dealing with the said Trustees in relation to said Property or to whom said Property or any part thereof shall be conveyed,contracted to be sold,leased or mortgaged by said Trustees,be obliged to see the application of any purchase money,rent,or money borrowed or advanced on said premises,or be obliged to see that the terms of Marc L.Catalano,as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Intervivios Trust dated November 23,2004(the"Trust") have been complied with,or be obliged to inquire into the necessity or expediency of any act of said OR: 3876 PG: 1544 Trustee,or be obliged or privileged to inquire into any of the terms of said Trust; and every deed, trust deed,mortgage,lease or other instrument executed by said Trustees in relation to said Property shall be conclusive evidence in favor of every person relying upon or claiming under any such conveyance,lease or other instrument(a)that at the time of the delivery thereof,the trust created by this Deed and by said Trust was in full force and effect,(b)that such conveyance or other instrument was executed in accordance with the Trust's conditions and limitations contained in this Deed and in said Trust and binding upon all beneficiaries thereunder,(c)that the Trustees were duly authorized and empowered to execute and deliver every such deed, trust deed, lease, mortgage or other instrument, and (d) if the conveyance is made to a successor in trust, that such successor or successors in trust have been properly appointed and are fully vested with all the title,estate,rights, powers,duties and obligations of the said predecessor in the Trust. Any contract, obligation or indebtedness, incurred or entered into by the Trustees in connection with said Property may be entered into by them in the name of the then beneficiaries under said Trust,as their attorney-in-fact,hereby irrevocably appointed for such purpose,or,at the election of said Trustee, in his own n: - •Ori s St 4 express Trust and not individually,and the Trustees shall have no obligati• vat .- • 4 -. to any such contract, obligation or indebtedness, except only so far I'- rust property . . On. in the actual possession of the Trustees shall be applicable for 4 e yine d discharge the -of, . d all persons and corporations whomsoever and whatsoever -.all •e ham-d wi no ' :of this on .'tion from the date of the filing for record of this Deed. 1 p IN WITNESS ' i 0 0:“t :: ,, :-;uted't w• ,,ty deed the day and year first above written. r'' Signed,sealed and delivered G'4 t4 in presence of: 0,p \O- , r. G P t Name: . 7 V.4A/ A/"®,4T.4314tl ...44------ . -_,.(:::: Print Name: z�i4J4Nr Atee-7 .9.v talano (Notary acknowledgment on the next page) *** 011: 3876 PG: 1545 *** STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) SS COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3y day of ...TaY 2005,by Marc Catalano. He is personally known to me predueed identifteatien. tary Public, State of Florida Print Name:£,Vit ems /otrae'PA) My Commission Expires: Commission/Serial No.: SYLVN HN -& CO " PlltiG•STurO L OA CC5C ° 111 :1e C.)a r ARG 3686585 OR: 3876 PG: 1546 RICORDID in OFFICIAL RIC0RDS of COLLIII COUITI, IL 08/25/2005 at 02;07PM DIIGB! 1. UOCm, CLIA ra ni 35.50 DOC-.71 .71 Rata: ALVARII RANI IT IL Prepared by.Record&Return to 2601 B BAI980II DI 1700 Santiago Eljaiek III,Esq. KIAKI IL 33133 Alvarez,Taylor,Eljaiek&Rodriguez,P.L. 2601 South Bayshore Drive Suite 600 Coconut Grove,Florida 33133 Property Appraisers Parcel I.D.(Folio)Number(0 Folio No.:0015008006 and 00150160007 WARRANTY DEED THIS WARRANTY DEED'is made as of the Re day of ,3TObY 2005 by Marc Catalano,a married man(the"Grantor"),whose mailing address is 11935 SW 15th Court, Davie, Florida 33325, to Marc L. Catal •o. . r-us ee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Intervivios Trust dated November , - `646t, whose mailing address is 11935 SW 15th Court,Davie,Florida 33325. ® K�'.:, WITNESSETH: • Or. or d--i c 4 sidera 'on •f the sum of Ten and No/100 Dollars($10.00)and for other go•• • d al . con i•er °. .• e r= eipt and sufficiency of which are hereby conclusively ac o - _e. , - . : tri, se Is, aliens, remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto I ran e,its c -0,s • 4. assi n•fo -v- all that certain real property situate in Collier County,F1.9,• :, :1 o - ..1 i • ly d ' : : • follows: The Southeast • the Northwest 1/' e.1:tt west 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of `4. a 13,Township 48 '�v. 'ange 25 East, lo Collier County,Flo '•:;`i'- • .- -.t-.. eet thereof, and RE CIW The Southwest 1/4 (SW 1/4)oft e Northwest 1/4(NW 1/4)of the Northwest 1/4(NW 1/4)of the Northeast 1/4(NE 1/4)of Section 13, Township 48, South,Range 25,East, Collier County,Florida. Subject to a 15 foot easement running along the easterly boundary for road right-of-way purposes (Hereinafter referred to as the"Property"). I Note to Examiner:THIS CONVEYANCE IS TO TRUSTEES NOT PURSUANT TO A SALE,THEREFORE,PURSUANT TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE RULE 12B-4.014(2)(b),THIS CONVEYANCE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAXES. OR: 3876 PG: 1547 THIS CONVEYANCE IS SUBJECT TO: - 1. Taxes and assessments for 2005 and subsequent years,which are not yet due and payable. . 2. Covenants,easements,and restrictions of record and all matters appearing on the Plat, without intending to reimpose the same. 3. Zoning restrictions and conditions imposed or required by any governmental authority and matters appearing on the plat or common to the subdivision,including utility easements,if any, without intending to reimpose any of the same. TOGETHER, with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto or appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, in fee simple forever. _ AND Grantor hereby fully *;. .� .• ee--t .,: ,1:-rty and will defend the same against lams of allpersons •�� ever. the lawful claims ,,t--- AND GRANTOR h reb,- cc - •a•+s\an.`d e " -s that e , bject Property is not and has never been the homestead ► op ► : ., •- :-- .;- ' Y icl- X, Section 4 of the Florida _ Constitution , nor contiguo s t• • , e ,d = It ;t, _ + e Or: tor nor any member of his family(or any person claim : e'.Gran• re.tcle,,nor has ever resided, at the subject Property,and that Gr. - • 's permanent rest•=r ce is •cat11935 SW 15th Court,Davie, Florida. -4 . Full power and authority;Ti".k '40- :ranted to said — (hereinafter also referred to as the - "Trustees") to either protect, conse - •s 42i : e, or to encumber, or to otherwise at-manage and dispose said Property or to c. - ,` f: a., o grant options to purchase,to sell on any terms,to convey either with or without consideration,to convey said Property or any part thereof to a successor or successors in trust,and to grant to such successor or successors in trust all of the title, estate,powers and authorities vested in said Trustees,to donate,to dedicate,to mortgage,pledge or otherwise encumber said Property or any part thereof,to-lease said real estate or any part thereof, from time to time,in possession or reversion,by leases to commence inpraesenti or in flatero,and upon any terms and for any period or periods of time not exceeding in the case of any single demise the term of ninety-nine(99)years,and to renew or extend leases and to amend,change or modify leases and the terms and provisions thereof,to contract to make leases and to grant options to lease and options to renew leases and options to purchase the whole or any part of the reversion, and to contract respecting the manner of fixing the amount of present or future rentals, to partition or exchange said Property or.any part thereof for other real or personal property,to grant easements or charges of any kind,to release,convey or assign any right,title or interest in or about said Property or any part thereof,and to deal with said Property in every part thereof in all other ways and for such other considerations as it would be lawful for any person owning the same to deal with the same, whether similar to, or different from,the ways above specified,at any time or times hereafter. 2 OR: 3876 PG: 1548 In no case shall any party dealing with the said Trustees in relation to said Property or to whom said Property or any part thereof shall be conveyed,contracted to be sold,leased or mortgaged by said Trustees,be obliged to see the application of any purchase money,rent,or money borrowed or advanced on said premises,or be obliged to see that the terms of Marc L.Catalano,as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Intervivios Trust dated November 23,2004 (the"Trust") have been complied with,or be obliged to inquire into the necessity or expediency of any act of said Trustee,or be obliged or privileged to inquire into any of the terms of said Trust; and every deed, trust deed,mortgage,lease or other instrument executed by said Trustees in relation to said Property shall be conclusive evidence in favor of every person relying upon or claiming under any such conveyance,lease or other instrument(a)that at the time of the delivery thereof,the trust created by this Deed and by said Trust was in full force and effect,(b)that such conveyance or other instrument was executed in accordance with the Trust's conditions and limitations contained in this Deed and in said Trust and binding upon all beneficiaries thereunder,(c)that the Trustees were duly authorized and empowered to execute and deliver every such deed, trust deed, lease, mortgage or other instrument, and (d) if the conveyance is made to a successor in trust, that such successor or successors in trust have been properly appointed and are fully vested with all the title,estate,rights, powers,duties and obligations of the said predecessor in the Trust. VP.- CO0A Any contract, obligatio eP •ebtedness, inc —t entered into by the Trustees in connection with said Property ay •e en d into by them . th name of the then beneficiaries under said Trust,as their alto, ey n-h, i-re irr- •.•ably a'.of ed for such purpose,or,at the election of said Trustee,in s o r. -; e - , ,e. , ,i--.s st and not individually,and the Trustees shall have no • •li 1 ti•n avv r �; e,_. t• an such contract, obligation or indebtedness, except only s i • • -• i . • _., an •-Fiji the actual possession of the Trustees shall be applicable • paymen and •isc i.. ge -reo, i all persons and corporations whomsoever and whatsoeverr •e charged with no -:c7.•f 0 ` ition from the date of the filing for record of this Deed. 0 IN WITNESS WHERE() , : qt, sr 1. -51e,, .:s warranty deed the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered GRANTOR: in presence of: _��l P 1t Name: .52;44."-' i✓. *04 ieti Print Name: f iz i /-10472;??/14/ 114talatIO [Notary Acknowledgment to follow on next page] 3 *** OR: 3876 PG: 1549 *** STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) SS COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 07Y day of .7440/ , 2005,by Marc Catalano, He is personally known to m 'a& i idea cation. • // c44,... ! N, ary Public, State of Florida Print Name: .sVI-V4 ) 6!s 41-2.4 Adi My Commission Expires: Commission/Serial No.: 8'3R CDU �ssgNroD�mt4 (1 k?.,-.,,. p I Is tJt6MDTARVI 7 C CC:, 0 1 I I 0 C ( sC-t; -4,,,} E CI7e 4 INSTR 4635827 OR 4744 PG 3049 RECORDED 12/9/2011 4:29 PM PAGES 4 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $840.00 REC $35.50 CONS $120,000.00 • Record and return to: Santiago Eljaiek 11I,Esq. Marin,Eljaiek &Lopez,P.L. 2601 South Bayshore Drive Suite 700 Coconut Grove,Florida 33133 Property Parcel I.D.(Folio)No.00149200004 TRUSTEE'S DEED THIS TRUSTEE'S DEED, made the 2..g day of November, 2011, by and between Richard J. Steinlen, a single man, individually and as Successor Trustee of the Emma M. Steinlen Irrevocable Trust Agreement dated July 17, 1998 (f/k/a Emma M. Steinlen Revocable Trust Agreement dated Jul K"; lyes address is 12107 Hitching Post Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20852-4427 01 - , , - '(i 11 TOR") and Marc L. Catalano, a married man, individually a :402,/ ustee of the 1VI1oi .atalano Revocable Intervivios Trust dated November 23, 10• rollectively, the "GRA ,whose address is 11935 SW 15th Court,Davie,Florida 33.25. WITNESSETH: Tat +- ' ., r. , oTI.- : ion of the sum of Ten and 00/100, ($10.00) Dollars, and o e go•d : • v.i ar"'co;ieWera • to the GRANTOR in hand paid bythe GRANTEE,th- it; .��- :. -::, :, -. - , ack does hereby remise,release and quit claim unto GRAN ' all of GRANTOR' ' ':ht• tit -, terests, claims and demands in and to the following desc d• a real property, situ4ra, i,g9 a being in St. Lucie County, Florida,to wit(the"Property" C.) The Northeast quarter(NE o © ' F4; ►' �'„ -r(NW 1/4)of the Northwest quarter(NW 1/4)of the Northeas . e_e� 14)Section 13,Township 48 South,Range g 25 East,Collier County,Florida,less the West thirty(30)feet thereof reserved for road right-of-way purposes,shown as Tract#2 of unrecorded plat of said Northeast quarter. SUBJECT TO: 1. Taxes for the year 2012 and all subsequent years, which are not yet due and payable. 2. Conditions, restrictions, limitations, easements, dedications, agreements, reservations and other matters of record; as well as all matters disclosed on the above-described plat; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not serve to impose or re-impose same. 3. Applicable zoning and governmental regulations affecting the Property, without intending to reimpose any of same. ATTACHMENT "A" OR 4744 , PG 3050 TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same together with all and singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining,and all the estate,right,title, interest,lien,equity and claims whatsoever of the GRANTOR, either in law or in equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behalf of the GRANTEE forever, IN WITNESS WHEREOF the GRANTOR has executed this instrument as of the day and year above written, Signed,sealed and delivered in presence of: PName R C0tj V srtnie P 0 t; S � Richa d J.S •inl;n,individually and as Print Name 0 ,to• of the Emma M.Steinlen Ioc`'l� , T st •greement dated July 17, J C) x. ©fid [Notary Acknowledgment to follow on next page] OR 4744 PG 3051 cot.4)M12+4... STATE OF vv., 51f...1 tiks...,,, 1)4-• COUNTY OF ') The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 0O day of November, 2011, by Richard J. Steinlen, a single man, individually and as Successor Trustee of the Emma M. Steinlen irrevocable rust Agreement dated July 17, 1998, who is personally known to me or who has produced l rtVe✓'S (4CifU,$•€ as identification and who did not take an oath and executed such instrument for the purposes therein stated. ' ot;r,iuti;, /,•4,0_, • * ''0',: �� C • 'ubli tate of �lr o�I F' f'4.->,; e.�� ✓ . . ssion Expires: 'tyod 'i :.•' i '.;(4" �r Comm' sto ,Serial No. .j• !,.. .f.ri it I 7y�ar J^�i nE;s'Cg C�n:?�S^2914 ' n 0 0 tL o INSTR 4635826 OR 4744 PG 3042 RECORDED 12/9/2011 4:29 PM PAGES 7 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REC $61.00 Record and return to: Santiago Eljaiek III,Esq. Marin,Eljaiek &Lopez,P.L. 2601 South Bayshore Drive Suite 850 Coconut Grove,Florida 33133 TRUSTEE'S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF MARYLAND ) )SS COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY) �R Y Before me,the undersigned au re ersonally appeared •' ' .Steinlen ("Affiant")as Successor Trustee of the Emma M. Steinlen rre ' - sle Trust Agreement d, ed x•/17/1998 f/k/a Emma M. Steinlen Revocable Trust Agreement dat J y . '98"(the-"Txu$V , who rein_ by me first duly sworn, on oath, deposes and states: - 1. That the Affiant has kno led: o'the at yrs set f�.rtrL> 2. That Affiant,as Successo. Pit tee o.the �s,is x.e ful o er =following described real property,to-wit: `(1'1� ,4-. The Northeast quarter •. 1� f the Northwest q e 0 1/4)of the Northwest quarter(NW 1/4)of the No ; est.' arter.(NE t0 = on 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida, =. '1. ' (30)feet thereof reserved for road right-of-way purposes,shown as Tract#2 of unrecorded plat of said Northeast quarter. (the"Property"). 3. That Affiant is the sole Trustee of the Trust and that, acting as Successor Trustee, has full power and authority to sell, convey and transfer the property and there are no contrary powers or provisions of the Trust. 4. That the Property is not the homestead property of the Successor Trustee or any member of the Trustee's family,nor does it lie adjacent or contiguous thereto. 5. That attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit"A" is a true,correct, and complete copy of the excerpt pages from the Trust,confirming the name of the Trustee and her authorization to dispose of the Property. 6. Affiant further states that he/she is familiar with the nature of an oath and the penalties provided by the State of Florida for falsely swearing to statements made in an instrument of this nature. Affiant further certifies that he/she has read or has had read to him/her the full facts of this Affidavit and understands its contents. OR 4744 PG 3043 7. This affidavit is given for the purpose of clearing any possible question or objection to the title to the above referenced property and,for the purpose of inducing Marin,Eljaiek&Lopez,P.L.and Fidelity National Title Insurance Company to issue title insurance on the subject property,with the knowledge that said title companies are relying upon the statements set forth herein. Seller hereby holds Marin,Eljaiek & Lopez, P.I. and Fidelity National Title Insurance Company harmless and filly indemnifies same (including but not limited to attorneys'fees,whether suit be brought or not,and at trial and all appellate • levels,and court costs and other litigation expenses)with respect to the matters set forth herein."Affiant", "Seller"and "Buyer" include singular or plural as context so requires or admits. Seller further states that he/she is familiar with the nature of an oath and with the penalties as provided by the laws of the United States and the State of Florida for falsely swearing to statements made in an instrument of this nature. Seller further certifies that he/she has read,or heard read,the full facts of this Affidavit and understands its context. Under penalties of perjury,I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit and that the facts stated in it are true. Ri and J.S -inle I,Successor rustee State of ar C) CEO County of 11 0.4 . ,l: The foregoing instrument was swo •••d subscribed before e 0ay of November,2011 by Richard J.Steinlen, as Successor rustee,under the Em Inlen Irrevocable Tr a 4,r ment dated July 17, 1998,who u is personally known or 3411 has produced a driver's lic< etas . • catio. [Notary Seal] Notary Public MICHEt XLE Printed Name: I tedie([k L-- Notary Publlo �O l5 Montano/County My Commission Expires: J tl5 i tNuesnd M Contusion Wren 11 2015 oR 4744 PG 3044 ' 11/18/2011 07:41 FAX 2028669012 PHILIPS&STEINLEN 1002 • { ' EMMA M. STEINLEN REVOCABLE TRUST AGREEMENT THIS TRUST AGREEMENT entered into on this /74A day of �u�y , 191? , by and between EMMA M. STEINLEN, as GRANTOR and EMMA M. STEINLEN, as TRUSTEE.' WITNESSETH: That the GRANTOR has this day delivered to the TRUSTEE one hundred dollars ($1,,,J121 and the TRUSTEE agrees to hold, administer and distri /". B' C.. foresaid assets (together �' with all addition ,ereto and all e vestments thereof) as • the corpus of a r st litltat�e fo, the b-nefit of the GRANTOR in accordance wi r h - .e0 3jr. s ons herein set out the e GRANTOR intendin• „�.r,� - ' •Y► •u .NTOR`S lifetime, to create a Grantor T, I,, - 6• iLE z - FID . , : ES r As set forth in thZ4*. eement, the term "TRUSTEE" shall include and apply to the TRUSTEE or TRUSTEES, as the case may be, and to their successors as set forth herein in this Trust Agreement. ARTICLE II - GRANTORS As set forth in this Trust Agreement, the term "GRANTOR" u shall include and apply to the GRANTOR or GRANTORS, as the case may be, as set forth therein. . 1 EXHIBIT "Atd oR 4744 PG 3045 • 11/18/2011 07:42 FAX 2029683012 PHILIPS&STEINT,EN @1011 ARTICLE VI — TRUSTEE POWERS The GRANTOR hereby grants to the TRUSTEE the continuing, absolute, discretionary power to deal with any property, real or personal, held in Trust, as freely as the GRANTOR might in handling the GRANTOR'S own affairs. Such power may be exercised independently and without the prior or subsequent approval of any court or judicial authority, and no person dealing with the TRUSTEE shall be r/eggqu:.aa��ed--_to inquire into the propriety of any of its ac ' WWi'-Q� • T anywaylimiting the generality of the f. egoing, ' the GR�T hereby y grants to the TRUSTEE hereunder , he fo •T 'n. . •ec' is powers and authority in addition to :n• not i s i ' 1 •n o powers conferred by 0 (:law, and the stet _ the State of Fl, •a; A. To compr.'' e, settle •"4° . . any claim or demand by or against the state .R.1. o agree to any recision or modification of any con l Cergreement. B. To retain any security or other property owned by the GRANTOR at the time of the GRANTOR'S death, so long as such retention appears advisable, and to exchange any security or property for other securities or properties and to retain such items received in exchange. 1 C. To sell, exchange, assign, transfer and convey any securities or properties, real or personal, held in the GRANTOR'S Trust Estate, at public or private sale, at such time and price and upon such terms and conditions as it may determine, and to register and carry any property in its own name but without thereby increasing or decreasing its liability as fiduciary. 4 • • n OR 4744 PG 3046 11/18/2011 07:42 FAX 2029683012 PHILIPS&STE1NLEN h009 . i I ARTICLE 'IX - AMENDMENT OR REVOCATION The GRANTOR expressly reserves the right at any time or from time to time during the GRANTOR'S life by a notice in writing signed and acknowledged by the GRANTOR in the manner required by the Laws of the State of Florida for the recording of a deed of real property and filed with the TRUSTEE, to withdraw all or part of the principal free and discharged of the terms and conditions of I 's Trust Agreement, and of the Trusts hereby created RC:111t4nd amend this Agreement, and to alter and te• to the Trusts e.y created. A . 1- OnAL NER' _ This agreem=nt 117411417.L, =Td a, d regulated in all. respects by the Lack • h- - a _ - . . ' The TRUSTEE h -1• accepts th= ` - * -reby created. ART I - SUCCE _ait USTEE In the event of tUs •n,, disability or death of the GRANTOR, GRANTOR hereby nominates, constitutes and appoints as SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE the first in the order named who is able and willing to serve of the following: first, the GRANTOR'S son R CHARD J. STEINLEN of Rockville, Marylan• , i second, the GRANTOR'S daughter, JANE M. STEINLEN of Tampa, Florida, and third, the GRANTOR'S Son, MICHAEL G. STEINLEN of Dunnellon, Florida. 10 OR 4744 PG 3047 11/18/2011 07:44 FAX 2029663012 PHILIPS&STEINLEN el022 IN' WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunder set their hands and seals this (741 day of v.k/ , 194$ e Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: (hoc. erinkLAA-dr (WI ESS) EMMA M. STEINLEN (GRANTOR) .41w. _ • . _' .� � � COU IV).,0 �'� (WIT ESS) ' �,� V SEINLEN ;U-T%. (WITNE ,: ) CJS Signed, sealed, pu• c7;i -' eclared by the above , named GRANTOR, EMMA M. STEINLEN, as and for her Trust Agreement, and we after she. signedher name thereto, in our presence, at her request and in the presence of each other, have affixed our names as witnesses on this Ink day of in.4/ , 19 ie. . 20 *** OR 4744 PG 3048 *** 11/18/201107:42 FAX 2029863012 PHILIPS&STEINI.EN 11014 pili PAJALP4A_, (CITY, STA ) (h4sS) i rvtau,cccr Cc 'cwr (WIT S C / (CITY, S T WITNE 4\ 1 a, \\qr STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH On the 1700 day of -.. "4`( , 1911S r before me personally p D,". ,, STEINLEN to me personally known to be the i st'dual describe•�i and who executed the same or who prod as" w1"'-iT9 _icen.e -s identification and who executed the . am- 'n.: w 4 7, oath. 0 _ • '1).,, 4 Ailit„- _____,--4:19idif '� N. V./Public I'llE CC My Commission Expires: OFFICIAL NOFAR"SEAL GREGG G KECKIEY ' NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OP FLORIDA 'COMMISSION NO.CCS964S6 MY COMMISSION EXP.NOV.21 •4' I 21 3504559 OR: 3675 PG: 1026 UCORDIO in OflICIAL UCOIDS of COLLAR CODRy!, lL 11/01/2004 at 02:4111 MGT I. IROCI, MIK Prepared without opinion by: D//OC/11 .70 15.50 DW`e75 .70 Mark J. Alderuccio leto: 5425 Park Central Court 111111 J ALDIIQCCIO L J3 Naples, Florida 34109 5425 lA411t1AT. C? IlllWB 11 34109 Return to: Mark J. Alderuccio 5425 Park Central Court Naples, FL 34109 Grantee#1 S.S. No, Grantee #2 S.S. No. Property Appraiser's Parcel Identification/Folio No. 00150280000 WA ' '`1. 1; TEED (STATU 4 144/Pa -SE. .I': :9.02,F.S.) This Indenture, made this 4i4`ay .f1 o.a 1.14 : -twee RI HARD A.SOMMERVILLE and SUSAN B. SOMMER L E, :us•-• . ,d W e wh a se esidence and address is 3580 7th A enue ,►�. a.1,s em_,. ,': r t R and RICHARD ALAN SOMMERVILLE, TRUSfro i U F rig 'i ` l+ 111,1,' SOMMERVILLE TRUST DATED 4/26/2004,(with fu . - •�:d. i,.. i- and 0 :i• ;: tee to protect, conserve, sell, lease, convey, grant, encum a . 4 otherwise to mans' .nd di •-: of the real property described herein) , whose residence • 'dj q dress is 3580 ", v :!..,.11` ales FL 34120-1608, GRANTEE**, Witnesseth that said Grantor, for a :�!' , e, of the sum of TEN Dollars, and other good and valuable considerations to said grantor in hand paid by said grantee,the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged,has granted,bargained and sold to the said Grantee, and Grantee's heirs and assigns forever, in fee simple,the following described land, situate, lying and being in Collier County, Florida, to-wit: Northwest one-quarter(NW1/4) of the Northeast one-quarter (NE1/4) of the Northwest one-quarter(NW 1/4)of the Northeast one-quarter(NE 1/4)of Section 13, Township 48 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida. Grantor states that the above described property is not their homestead, nor the homestead of their spouses, nor the homestead of any of their children, nor is the property contiguous thereto and Grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. Grantor states above described property is vacant land. **"Grantor" and "Grantee" are used for singular or plural, as context requires. • *** 011: 3675 PG: 1027 *** In Witness Whereof, Grantor has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed, and delivered in our presence: .// - Witness as to b�e RICHARD A. SOMMERVILLE, printed name: Ct.r U/ 44 O'itiCC.!U ccaddikti-) /6, 6-771,17Wtetex-- Witness as teA!tb `1ve7 SUSAN B. SOMMERVILLE printed name: ((�� �X�l CO At STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER THE FOREGOING INST' I�' .samok a s>e.'7 r: m..this �a day of October, 2004 by RICHARD A. SO Mi': ' I ► d • r 'O�j a t RVILLE, who is personally known to me or who has p �' e j �_ is , as identification. Q tae ary Public My commission expires: :!°4, DIANE SALVATORE * ,,- * MY COMMISSION t DD 166789 Decanter 17,2006 e'4lg0 00r Bonded TMBudpelWary Services • INSTR 4824667 OR 4908 PG 204 RECORDED 4/15/2013 11:11 AM PAGES 2 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA Doc@.70 $0.70 REC $18.50 s Return Address: Codd Law Offices • 15401 First Ave. South, #A Seattle, WA 96148 QUIT CI1AIM DEED • THE GRANTOR, DENNIS G. SAAR, a single person and • Trustor of the Revocable Living Trust of Dennis G. Baar, under the Agreement dated IZY,MARCN a0 _, ,`• ' - in consideration of no consideration - transfer -•. •t -M•'t ng Trust and mere change in ownership identity - „544. -ys and q _L -inns to DENNIS G. BAAR, as Trustee of the Rev• 3 e Living Trust +ennis G. Baar, all of his interest in the .1 •, ' • •escri•-d re: •roperty situate in Collier County, Florid- . ' The Southeast q ,at- !,- • , i - -t quarter of the Northwest quarter' • t1e • ,h,-,, 1 qa•t= AND the Southwest quarter of the Nort ; . a -:e = - th- -4. '.:ast quarter, of the Northeast quarter, • 'on 13, Towns',/ . ,8 •j , h, Range 25 East of 0,' Collier County, Flor '."-,. -�. The above describ-•® erty is n• =ntor' s homestead and not encumbered. This de- • i, .e in ownership via a transfer to revocable livi €3' i ere is no consideration. Together with all the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances belonging or in any way appertaining to it, and all the right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever which grantor has in and to the property. Property,Appraisers Parcel ID # 00148280009. • Dated this o'�BT4 day of (Y\ CFI , . 2013. / A( - c47:2-1...e..--.....-..,.. aw— tness •1 ignature DENNIS G. BAAR, Trustor , Printe• . /'1a. 7. Codd ---ms's ° signature Printed name: W. Tracy Codd Quit Claim Deed Page 1 of 2 *** OR 4908 PG 205 *** r STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. County of King I, Julie M. Codd, Notary Public in and\ fo ,tthhe State of Washington, do hereby certify that on this day of , 2013, personally appeared before me DENNIS G. BAAR, to m� to be the individual described in and who executed the within instrument and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes herein mentioned. GI EN UNDER MY HAND AN' OFFICIAL SEAL this �� day of rA AdiggiriaS4-1..! 41A. No - �'� -,.•12.;., the State o t - . Res ding at . 41, STATE OF� • G COMMIS -1" ; -E SEPTEMBER c• .� �� O�•TSE CIRC Quit Claim Deed Page 2 of 2 ` ' 1 ERSQNAL REPRESENTATIVES' 3774823 OR: 3972 PG: 2069 IICORDID 10 MICIH TIMI of COELIA CHH, II DEED 01/21/2006 at 10:560 HIM I. IIOCI, CLUIL RIC HI 11.60 DOC-.10 .10 This indenture made this �of November,2005, sit ay PILON IT AL MO TA UXI 7111 0201 BETWEEN Doreen L.Parrish and Dennis G.Boar,as Personal Rom pt,31102 Representative of the Estate of George Bear,deceased,referred to below as"Grantor,"and Doreen L.Parrish,a married woman. whose postal address is P.O. 240602, Apple Valley,Minnesota 55124 and Dennis G. Bear, an unmarried man, as tenants in common, whose postal address is P.O. Box 933, Seahurst, Washington 98062,referred to below as"Grantee,"(wherever used here,the singular shall include the plural and gender shall include masculine,feminine,end neuter,as the context requires). efa WITNESSETH: met the Grantor,acting under authority granted in an order entered in the Estate of George ndeceased, Case No.05-CP-463,Probate Division,Circuit Court for Lae County,Florida,dated January 27,2005,and in conild ration of the premises fir and in consideration ofthe sum edTEN DOLLARS ANDNO/I00,plus other good and valuable consideration,to it in band paid by the Grantee,the receipt wheeof is hereby acknowledged,has granted,bargained and sold to the Grantee,its successors and assigns forever,the following described land situate,lying and being in the County of Collier and the Stam of Florida;to-wit: The Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter. AND the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter,Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East of Collier County Florida. Subject to easements,restrictions,reservations of record common to the subdivision and taxes for the current year and subsequent years. Me above described property is not Granfost to t encumbered. This deed is from the Estate to the beneficiaries named under the _.- - -iiiTata 90 rge Bear for minimal consideration. Property Appraisers Parcel Identifi .:•• , •r; ,, ;• • .,._,4i:i ,...N Together with all the tenements, : =,, i U ;•7,,,k� : gigor in anyway appertaining to it,and all the right,title,interest,claim: lir "T'. n and to the property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, for hes )7s , it d:seal the day and year above written. Signed,sealed and delivered /G� in the presence of � . ?'FIE CIR:-?;' N'S..� i .d_ - /, if r h, witness#1 DoreeaL.Panisb inhercapaci y as Co-Paaonal Print name afar;Lra'y k Z-pli%lain Representative,GRANTOR ttvrai►ilAiP111t1C.rte tmess#2 Stgcmture � r . ' - Print name Linda.. C. W l S r fiiiD- Signed,seal••' -',. d-`.._ in the pre .cc l. .`: • Q,,� 1.,.Z.2„.,....-„..,......__.„H J�J a81 Dennis G.Boar,in his capacity as Co-Personal - s • Representative,GRANTOR Print casae.. _ d.® • _. -4 ./A W 2 Signature �! Print name Pn tiffs ....9(6 A Personal Rep Deed ID 00148280009 Page 1 of 2 • •• • ... *** OR: 3972 PG: 2070 *** STATE OF MINNESOTA coUWTIY OF DAKOTA I HEREBY CERTIFY thatco this daybefore me,maker duly qualified to takeacknowledpmenta,posonallyap1 L.PARRISH, to me known to be the person described Maud whe executed the foregoing imam:neat or who has prodnoed ^ . as identification,and who acknowledged before me that she executed the same. Ii WITNESS my hand and official Beal in the County and State last afamsaid this Zr day of NoYEM e?E•e ,2005. IMP. ✓ • i► may, S• � F .c.3� a ei✓_G.i!._ y-•.. •iti -0 �• $V9W, bdy Commission •/........i......V ,a,es/D STATE OF WASHINNGTON • COUNTY OF KAKI I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this dry before me,an officer duly qualified to take acknowledgments,pasonslly appeared DENNIS G.HMR,1 tome known tobethe person dcactibedieandwho eureatiedthe foregoing mateumeutwyebisbr'xodmed is k^°,.^ 4 4& hvini ' •aaidmti5eatiaorand who acknowledged before me that he executed the same, aocxo • • WITNESS my band and official seal in the Canty and State bats[ CO' . day of 3"er+un,� .� •j1.0 (SEAL) rf.., eta 40 fa �"� ! t 010010 i.'..‘;.N .Q y '€ : . _ _. . 1" '��:it's I.. Q <r{. 3�T " �Q. . • • • Prepared Without Opinion By: ^r.4(k • PATRICIA L POTTER,ESQ. 1000 N.Tamiawi Trail N.,Suite 201 • Naples,FL 34102 (239)263-8282 Personal Rep Deed ID 00148280009 ' Page 2 of 2 1 Attachment"B" Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Justification& Summary of Supporting Data and Analysis Current FLUE Designation: The proposed Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict is 35.57±acres in size. The proposed Subdistrict is designated Urban, and located within the Urban Mixed Use District and the Urban Residential Subdistrict. The Collier County Future Land Use Element reads as follows (highlighting added for emphasis): Urban designated areas will accommodate the following uses: (IV) a. Residential uses including single family, multi-family, duplex, and mobile home. The maximum densities allowed are ident/ed in the.Districts, Sirbdistricts and Overlays that follow, except as allowed by certain policies under Objective 5. The "Urban Mixed Use District This District, which represents approximately 116,000 acres, is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses, including mixed- use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. The purpose of this [Urban Residential] Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. This Subdistrict comprises approximately 93,000 acres and 80% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Maximum eligible residential density shall be determined through the Density Rating System but shall not exceed 16 dwelling units per acre except in accordance with the Transfer of Development Rights Section of the Land Development Code. Proposed Designation: The proposed 35.57 acre Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict includes the 15.38 acre Della Rosa PUD as well as 20.19 acres of adjacent A- Agriculture zoned lands. The proposed Subdistrict, if approved, will be rezoned under the companion Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD) petition - Allura RPUD. The proposed Subdistrict allows for up to 420 residential multi-family dwelling units(DUs)which is 12 units per gross acre. Consistency with FLUE Objective 5: Implement land use policies that promote sound planning, protect environmentally sensitive lands and habitat for listed species while protecting private property rights, ensure compatibility of land uses and further the implementation of the Future Land Use Element. H:12017120170921WP\GMPA\Resubnuttal\Attaclunent B Justification and Supplemental Information(revised 5-24-2018).docx Livingston RoadlVeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Justification&Supplemental Information,Continued Policy 5.2: Land use policies supporting Objective 5 shall continue to be implemented upon the adoption of amendments to the Growth Management Plan. Policy 5.3:All rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. Policy 5.4:All applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with this Growth Management Plan, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. The companion RPUD can be deemed to be consistent with all applicable Goals, Objective, and Policies of the GMP, assuming the amendment establishing the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict is adopted. Policy 5.5: Discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl in order to minimize the cost of community facilities by: confining urban intensity development to areas designated as Urban on the Future Land Use Map .... The Subdistrict is located with the Counties Urban designated area and within a designated TCMA. Consistency with the Policies under Objective 6 of the FLUE discourages urban sprawl. Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code. The RPUD and LDC include development and design standards that ensure that development within the PUD will be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding area. Site Environmental Considerations: As part of the supporting data and analysis for this GMPA to establish the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict, we have provided a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment with companion PUDZ petition, as well as Exhibits C, C-1 and C-2 addressing listed plants and species. The site contains 33.49 acres of native vegetation (by Collier County definition). Therefore a minimum of 8.37 acres of native vegetation must be retained(25% of the existing native vegetation on site). The PUD proposes to retain 14.76 acres (44% of existing native on-site vegetation).The jur4isdicational wetland impacts as well as any potential impacts to listed species or listed species habitat are addressed through the state and/or federal agency review and/or permitting processes. Transportation/Traffic Considerations: The Subdistrict is located at the south east intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Dive East. The roadways are presently operating at acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) and with the proposed maximum density of 12 units per acre (420 units), these roadways still operate at an acceptable level of services(see Transportation Analysis). Page 2 of 6 H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubmittal\Attaclunent B Justification and Supplemental Information(revised 5-24-2018).docx Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Justification&Supplemental Information, Continued The Subdistrict is also located with a TCMA (established by Collier County pursuant to FLUE Objective 6.) The Subdistrict requires that the property be rezoned to an RPUD and that the RPUD demonstrate consistency with the applicable Policies under Objective 6 for consistency with TCMA objectives. FLUE Objective 6: Designate Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) as geographically compact areas where intensive development exists, or such development is planned. Policy 6.1: New development within a TCMA shall occur in a manner that will ensure an adequate level of mobility (as defined in Policy 5.8 of the Transportation Element) and further the achievement of the following identified important state planning goals and policies: discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl,protecting natural resources,protecting historic resources, maximizing the efficient use of existing public facilities, and promoting public transit, bicycling, walking and other alternatives to the single occupant automobile. Transportation Element Policy 5.8 Should the TIS for a proposed development reflect that it will impact either a constrained roadway link and/or a deficient roadway link within a TCMA as determined in the most current Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), by more than a de minimis amount (more than 1% of the maximum service volume at the adopted LOS), yet continue to maintain the established percentage of lanes miles indicated in Policy 5.7 of this Element, a proportionate share congestion mitigation payment shall be required as follows: a. Congestion mitigation payments shall be calculated using the formula established in Section 163.3180(5)(h), Florida Statutes. The facility cost for a constrained roadway link shall be established using a typical lane mile cost, as determined by the Collier County Transportation Administrator, of adding lanes to a similar area/facility type as the constrained facility. b. Congestion mitigation payments shall be utilized by Collier County to add trip capacity within the impacted TCMA, road segment(s) and/or to enhance mass transit or other non- automotive transportation alternatives, which adds trip capacity within the impact fee district or adjoining impact fee district. c. Congestion mitigation payments under this Policy shall be determined subsequent to a finding of concurrency for a proposed project within a TCMA and shall not influence the concurrency determination process. d. No impact will be de minimis if it exceeds the adopted LOS standard of any affected designated hurricane evacuation routes within a TCMA. Hurricane routes in Collier County are shown on Map TR-7. Any impact to a hurricane evacuation route within a TCMA shall require a proportionate share congestion mitigation payment provided the remaining LOS requirements of the TCMA are maintained. Page 3 of 6 H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubmittal\Attachment B Justification and Supplemental Information(revised 5-24-2018).docx Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Justification&Supplemental Information, Continued Please refer to the traffic analysis proved with this GMPA application and the companion RPUD application. Additionally, pursuant to staff comment, we have agreed to a fair share payment as to mitigate for the project related impacts to Immokalee Road between US 41 and Livingston Road. Policy 6.3: Collier County's designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) shall discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl by promoting residential and commercial infill development and by promoting redevelopment of areas wherein current zoning was approved prior to the establishment of this Growth Management Plan (January 10, 1989). Infill development and redevelopment within the TCMAs shall be consistent with Objective 5, and relevant subsequent policies, of this Element. The proposed Subdistrict and Companion RPUD are consistent with this Policy. Policy 6.5:In order to be exempt from link specific concurrency, new residential development or redevelopment within Collier County's designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) shall utilize at least two of the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM)strategies, as may be applicable: a) Including neighborhood commercial uses within a residential project. b) Providing transit shelters within the development(must be coordinated with Collier County Transit). c) Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connections to abutting commercial properties. d) Providing vehicular access to abutting commercial properties. The Subdistrict requires (and the companion RPUD provides) a minimum of two of the above TDM Strategies(specifically b) and c)). Policy 6.6:All rezoning within the Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) is encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Any development contained in a TCMA, whether submitted as a PUD or non-PUD rezone shall be required to be consistent with the native vegetation preservation requirements contained within Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. There is a companion RPUD submitted with this GMPA. Policy 6.7: All new development, infill development or redevelopment within a Transportation Concurrency Management Area is subject to the historical and archaeological preservation criteria, as contained in Objective 11.1 and Policies 11.1.1 through 11.1.3 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. There are no known historical and archaeological resources located within the Subdistrict. Page 4 of 6 H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubmittat\Attachment B Justification and Supplemental Information(revised 5-24-2018).docx Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Justification&Supplemental Information,Continued Other Public Facility and Service Considerations: The county charges impact fees (or similar fees) to ensure that there is funding to make any necessary capacity improvements related to sewer and water services, roads, public schools, government buildings including jails, regional and community parks, EMS, libraries, and law enforcement. The developer will be responsible for the cost of any site-related improvements, including but not limited to access improvements and conveyance related improvements to the water and/or sewer distribution system. The proposed density of 12 units per acre (420 total units) does not cause any Category "A" public facility or service to fall below the adopted Level of Service (LOS). Therefore, the proposed Livingston Road/Veteran's Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict may be found to be consistent with the County Growth Management Plan. There will be a requirement to demonstrate"Concurrency" at the time of Site Development Plan approval for this project. (The Concurrency process ensures that the County has the capacity for Category"A"public facilities and services at the time that project related impacts will actually affect (require) such services and facilities. Category A public facilities are facilities which appear in the various elements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP), including arterial and collector roads, surface water management systems, potable water systems, sanitary sewer systems, solid waste disposal facilities, and parks and recreation facilities. Consistency with Florida Statutes relating to Plan Amendments, Chapters 163.3167(9), 163.3177 (6)(a)2 and 8, and 163.3184. 163.3167(9) - Each local government shall address in its comprehensive plan, as enumerated in this chapter, the water supply sources necessary to meet and achieve the existing and projected water use demand for the established planning period, considering the applicable plan developed pursuant to s. 373.709. 163.3177(6)(a)2- The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies,public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diverse the community's economy. Page 5 of 6 H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubmittal'Attachment B Justification and Supplemental Information(revised 5-24-2018).docx Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Justification&Supplemental Information, Continued j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. 163.3177(6)(a) 8. -Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. 163.3184. -Process for adoption of comprehensive plan or plan amendment. The proposed GMPA is consistent with the intent and procedural and substantive requirements set forth in the Florida Statutes referenced above. In addition to this narrative report, we have provided other documents which collectively constitute sufficient data and analysis to reach that conclusion. In conclusion: • The proposed subdistrict is located within the County's Urban Area. • There are adequate public facilities to serve the proposed residential density. • The subdistrict is located within a designated TCMA and although that is not the basis for the request to create the subdistrict we have, nevertheless, agreed to incorporate two of the four traffic congestion management techniques which are identified in FLUE Policy 6.5. • The market analysis we provided and the recent housing studies completed by Collier County and the Urban Land Institute all indicate the need for additional rental housing necessary to meet the current and foreseeable demand. • The Companion RPUD provides for substantial onsite wetland preservation and provides for site design elements that collectively ensure the project's compatibility with uses on lands adjacent and in closely proximity. • The project complies with applicable statutory provisions and meets the statutory and County requirements sufficiently to warrant approval. Page 6 of 6 H:\20I7\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubmittal\Attachment B Justification and Supplemental lnfocmation(revised 5-24-2018).docx ATTACHMENT "C" \ This record search is for informational purposes only and does NOT constitute a STOP! project review. This search only identifies resources recorded at the Florida Master ./ Site File and does NOT provide project approval from the Division of Historical Resources. Contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850-245-6333 for project review information. January 16,2018 Florida Master DEXBENDER SiteiA �rTrvrtiwxxr�rvnc coNsocnnc I'li'1' File vitg Craig M. Smith,M.S.,P.W.S. Senior Ecologist 4470 Camino Real Way, Suite 101 Fort Myers,FL 33966 Office: (239)334-3680; Cell: (239)470-2812 E-mail: csmithndexbender.com In response to your inquiry of January12,2018 the Florida Master Site File lists no archeological sites and no other cultural resources found the designated parcel of Collier County,Florida Sections 12 and 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East as submitted with search request. When interpreting the results of this search,please consider the following information: • This search area may contain unrecorded archaeological sites,historical structures or other resources even if previously surveyed for cultural resources. • Federal,state and local laws require formal environmental review for most projects. This search DOES NOT constitute such a review.If your project falls under these laws,you should contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850-245-6333. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding the results of this search. Sincerely, S Eman M.Vovsi,Ph.D. Data Base Analyst Florida Master Site File Eman.Vovsina,DOS.MvFlorida.com 500 South Bronough Street• Tallahassee,FL 32399-0250 • www.flheritage.com/preservation/sitefile 850.245.6440 ph I 850.245.6439 fax I SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us t N.Y L] \,5' %1 4 { + x r. t' L mks.i" :.1 f ,� Project area I 55555,, rf r '' . r 1 . . . . }... 1,,,.. . 4,... .• i p.,... . -i . _ - ‘.. i„..,.. : . .tv,i ...\ ,. .,. . .1 i .k. . . -le- 1:1$411111111411„...—,11117---111111:-,1--------, n E #. ' WI I lit r +� �pa a.'t.1r ft,� � . , '� �� . '' '.,E.,Et I Digdello..$4.e. E.esitEtarthsta Geog p is i c' SDAV 36 :C^ •a, ' a ., Getma ping..Aerrgnd IN IGP,s.i"sst`opo and the 61 sereomm ih.i ii halt ket ..--.r APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION NUMBER DATE RECEIVED PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE DATE SUFFICIENT This application, with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Comprehensive Planning Department, • Suite 400,2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. 239-252-2400 (Fax 239-252-2946). The application must be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing deadline before it will be processed and advertised for public hearing, The applicant will be notified in writing, of the sufficiency determination. If insufficient, the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the application, see Resolution 97-431 as amended by Resolution 98-18 (both attached). If you have any questions, please contact the Comprehensive Planning Section at 239-252-2400. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Name of Applicant Keith Gelder, President Company SD Livingston, LLC ' Address 2639 Professional Circle #101 City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34119 Phone Number 239-592-7344 Fax Number 239-592-7541 B. Name of Agent* Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP,VP, Planning & Business Development • THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company Hole Montes, Inc, Address 950 Encore Way City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34110 Phone Number 239-254-2000 Fax Number 239-254-2099 Name of Agent* Richard D, Yovanovich, Esquire Company Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Address 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34103 Phone Number 239-435-3535 Fax Number 239-435-1218 C. Name of Owner(s) of Record See Attachment "A" Warranty Deeds Address City State Zip Code • Phone Number Fax Number D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners,architects,engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. 1 H:\2017\20170921WP\GMPA\Resubmittal\GMPA Application(revised 5-16-2018).doc D. Continued. Ted Treesh, P.E. TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2726 Oak Ridge Court,Ste. 503, Fort Myers, FL 33901 Telephone: 239-278-3090 Email: tbt@trtrans.net Craig M.Smith, M.S., P.W.S.,Senior Ecologist DexBender Environmental Consulting 4470 Camino Real Way,Ste. 101, Fort Myers, FL 33966 • Telephone: 239-334-3680 Email: csmith@dexbender.com Kristina M.Johnson, P.E. J.R. Evans Engineering, P.A. 9351 Corkscrew Road, Ste. 102, Estero, FL 33928 Telephone:239-405-9148 • Email: KJohnson@jreeng.com U. Disclosure of Interest Information: A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, Tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address Percentage of Stock C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest 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 Percentage of Ownership 2 H:12017\2017092\WP\GMPA\ResubmittallGMPA Application(revised 5-16-2018),doc If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership SD Livingston, LLC 2639 Professional Circle #101 •Naples, FL 34119 Brian K.Stock, Manager 100% • Date of Contract: F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address ' 1 G. Date subject property acquired ( ) leased ( ):Term of lease yrs./mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy,indicate date of option: and date option terminates: , or anticipated closing: • j H. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Attachment "A" Warranty Deeds B, GENERAL LOCATION Southeast corner of the intersection of Livinaston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard C. PLANNING COMMUNITY North Naples D. TAZ 85 E. SIZE IN ACRES 35.57 F. ZONING PUD &AG G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN See Exhibit "V.B.I" Future Land Use Map H. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S) Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict IV. TYPE OF REQUEST: A, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT(S)TO BE AMENDED: Housing Element Recreation/Open Space Traffic Circulation Sub-Element Mass Transit Sub-Element Aviation Sub-Element Potable Water Sub-Element Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element NGWAR Sub-Element Solid Waste Sub-Element Drainage Sub-Element Capital Improvement Element CCME Element X Future Land Use Element Golden Gate Master Plan Immokalee Master Plan 3 H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubmittal\GMPA Application(revised 5-16-2018).doc B. AMEND PAGE (S) 19],j47), [145] OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AS FOLLOWS: (Use Strike-tough-to identify language to be deleted; Use Under ine to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: See Exhibit "IV.B.1" C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM Urban Residential Subdistrict, TO Livingston Road Veterans Memorial East Residential Subdistrict D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #) FLUM; Exhibit "IV.D.1" E. DESCRIBE ADDITIONAL CHANGES REQUESTED: N/A V. REQUIRED INFORMATION: NOTE:ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN 1"=400'. At least one copy reduced to 8- 1/2 x 11 shall be provided of all aerials and/or maps. A. LAND USE Exh. V,A.1 Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI's, existing zoning) with subject property outlined. Exh.V.A.2 Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source, and date. Exh.V.A.3 Provide a map and summary table of existing land use and zoning within a radius of 300 feet from boundaries of subject property. B. FUTURE LAND USE AND DESIGNATION Exh.V.B.1 Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designation(s) of subject property and adjacent lands,with acreage totals for each land use designation on the subject property. C. ENVIRONMENTAL Exh.V.0 Provide most recent aerial and summary table of acreage of native &V.C.1 habitats and soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT-FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE:THIS MAY BE INDICATED ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN "A" ABOVE. Exh.V,C.2 Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish &Wildlife Service) and State (Florida Game &Freshwater Fish Commission) listed plant and animal species known to occur on the site and/or known to inhabit biological communities similar to the site (e.g. panther or black bear range,avian rookery, bird migratory route,etc.),Identify historic and/or archaeological sites on the subject property. 4 H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubmittal\GMPA Application(revised 5-16-2018).doc D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference 9J-11.006, F.A.C. and Collier County's Capital improvements Element Policy 1.1.2(Copies attached). 1. INSERT "Y" FOR YES OR "N" FOR NO IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING: N is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State Concern? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)(5), F.A.C.). IF so, identify area located in ACSC. N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S. ? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7.a, F.A.C.) • N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale ' Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1)(c), F.S. ? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7.b, F.A.C.) N Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential increase in County-wide population by more than 5%of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment, Y Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district identified (commercial, industrial, etc.) or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district? (Reference Rule 9J-5.006(5) F.A.C.). If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use, and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. (Reference Rule 9J-11.007, F.A.C.) See Attachment "B", Exhibits "V.C.l",Exhibit "V.D.1" and Exhibit "V.E.3" E. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. Exh.V.E-1 Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: Exh.V.E.1 Potable Water Exh.V.E.1 Sanitary Sewer Exh.V.E.3 Arterial &Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS Exh.V.E.1 Drainage Exh.V.E.1 Solid Waste Exh.V.E.1 Parks: Community and Regional If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density,or an increase in intensity for commercial and/or industrial development that would cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS,indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. (Reference Capital Improvement Element Objective 1 and Policies) 2. Exh.V.E.2 Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public facilities that will serve the subject property (i.e.water,sewer,fire protection, police protection,schools and emergency medical services. 3. Exh.V.E.1 Document proposed services and public facilities,identify provider,and describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools,fire protection and emergency medical services. 5 H;\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubmittal\GMPA Application(revised 5-16-2018).doc F.OTHER Identify the following areas relating to the subject property: Exh.V.F.1 Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM). N/A Location of weilfields and cones of influence,if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps) Traffic Congestion Boundary, if applicable iA Coastal Management Boundary,if applicable 1 N/A High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if applicable (identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). G.SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION • Yes $16,700.00 non-refundable filing fee made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) N/A $9,000.00 non-refundable filing fee for a Small Scale Amendment made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) Yes Proof of ownership (copy of deed) Yes Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form) Yes 1 Original and 5 complete,signed applications with all attachments including maps, at time of submittal. After sufficiency is completed,25 copies of the complete application will be required. *Maps shall include: North arrow, name and location of principal roadways and shall be .i at a scale of 1"=400' or at a scale as determined during the pre-application meeting. 6 H:\2017\20170921WP\GMPA\Resubmittal\GMPA Application(revised 5.16-2018).doc AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION Allure PUD (PL-20170004385) FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) r. Livingston Rd./Veterans Memorial Blvd. E. Residential Subdistrict GMPA BRUIN K.BrOCK (PL-20170004419) i, (print name),as "OR (title,if applicable)of ea UVINosroN,LLC (company, If a licable),swear or affirm under oath,that I am the(choose one)owner[applicant®contract purchaser and that: ' 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s)requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. 'Ail answers to the questions in this application and any sketches,data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. t 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 ROBERT J.MULHERE,FAIOP&RICHARD YOVANOVIOH,ESQUIRE to act as our/my representative In any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above, "Notes: • if the applicant is a corporation, then/tis usually executed by the corp.pres.or v.pies. • If the applicant Is a Limited Liability Company(L.L.C.) or Limited Company(LC.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's"Managing Member." • if the applicant Is a partnership,then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • if the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner"of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust, then they-must Include the trustee's name and the words"as trustee". • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., Individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, i declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated in I re true. 3 • t ?7 1t511t Signature Date BRIAN K.STO K,MGR SD LiVINGSTON,LW STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The fffagolng Instru -;e-tw swom to(or affirmed)and subscribed before me on d dl (date)by mord) _a h� (name of person providing/oath or affirmation), as who I spersonally k, n�own a e_or who has produced (type of identification)as identification. • STAMP/SEAL Slgnatur I of Notary Public .11Znt, ,, JUDITH M SEALE ` Pill,l; Notary Public-State of Florida ziCommission#GO 027285 ` Vi°, fid` Bonded through National NoMy Comm.Expires Sep tary Assn ' CP108-C0A-001151155 REV 3124/14 LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN • I hereby authorize Robert J. Mulheje, FA1CP, Vice President Planning and Business Development, Hole • u•ites c at. • c • • o •.o ca _s•u a Col.Het o _.o a : .o=s e • : to serve as my Agents in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property Identified in this Application. ' , i Signed: Date: i Brian K.Stoc ,Manager SD Livingston, LLC (Name of Contract Purchasers) - I hereby certify that I have the authority to make the foregoing application, and that the application is I true,correct and complete to the best of my knowledge.,02-9-1:01efri S Egnature of ppiicant/Contract Purchaser • Brian K.Stock,Manager SD Livingston, LLC STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1S day of 0.4' A ,2018 1 ,.�:..,,a,, JtlOITN M SEALE by / ' ] � 61`41-A6 h MY CO t-I ' XIRRE�bllc-Slate of Florida ' /i•tary Publicy� 1 rrr J"r i ,�• „—„ Commission# GG 027265 f �''�';4+t �`, Bonded h ough National Notary Asson. CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: who is personally known to me, who has produced as identification and did take an Oath did not take and Oath ' NOTICE- BE AWARE THAT: Florida Statute Section 837,06 - False Official Law states that: "Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant In the performance of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree,punishable as provided by a fine to a maximum of°x500,00 and/or maximum of a sixty day Jail term," r 7 LIVINGSTON ROAD—VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT GMPA APPLICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS • Exhibit"IV.B.1"—Proposed GMPA Amendment Language • Exhibit "IV.D.1" — Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Map • Exhibit"V.A.1"—Generalized Location Map • Exhibit"V.A.2"—Aerial Overlay • Exhibit"V.A.3"—Zoning Map • Exhibit"V.B.1"—Future Land Use Map • Exhibit"V.C"— Vegetation Map • Exhibit"V.C.1"—Soils Map • Exhibit"V.C.2"—Listed Species Table • Exhibit"V.D"—Myers Research Needs Analysis • Exhibit"V.D.1"—Apartment Development Feasibility Study • Exhibit"V.E.1"—Public Facilities Report • Exhibit"V.E.2"—Public Service Facilities Map • Exhibit"V.E.3"—Traffic Impact Statement • Exhibit"V.F.1"—Firm Data Map H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubmittal\Table of Contents(5-24-2018).docx EXHIBIT"IV.B.1" PROPOSED GMPA AMENDMENT LANGUAGE Proposed amendment to the Collier County Future Land Use Element (FLUE) related to +/- 35 Acre Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict located within the Urban Mixed Use District,Urban Residential Subdistrict. Amend the FLUE SECTION II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY,POLICY 1.5,as follows: Policy 1.5: The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: A.URBAN-MIXED USE DISTRICT 1.Urban Residential Subdistrict 2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict *** *** *** *** ***text break*** *** *** *** *** 18. Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict 19. Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Amend the FLUE URBAN DESIGNATION,Subsection A.Urban Mixed Use District,Page 27,as follows: A.Urban—Mixed use District [beginning page 27] *** *** *** *** ***text break*** *** *** *** *** 19.Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict The Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict consists of 35.57d acres and is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard.The purpose of this Subdistrict is to allow for a multi-family development at a density of up to 12 units per acre and to fulfill the intent of the TCMA,as stated in FLUE Policy 6.1. Development in this Subdistrict shall be subject to the following: a. The Subdistrict site shall be rezoned to Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD). b. Allowable uses are limited to multi-family rental dwellings. c. The RPUD shall demonstrate consistency with FLUE Policy 6.5 by providing two of following: i. A transit shelter within the RPUD in a location and design approved by Collier County Public Transit&Neighborhood Enhancement(PTNE)Division; 1 13:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\3rd Resubmittal\Exhibit IV.B.1-Proposed GMPA Language(8-23-2018).doex ii. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connection to the abutting commercial property to the west: and, iii. Vehicular interconnection to the abutting commercial property to the west. *** *** *** *** ***text break*** *** *** *** *** Amend the FLUE FUTURE MAP SERIES,Page 145,as follows: FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES Future Land Use Map Activity Center Index Map Mixed Use&Interchange Activity Center Maps *** *** *** *** ***text break*** *** *** *** *** Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrrict Map Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Map 2 H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\3rd Resubmittal\Exhibit IV.B.1-Proposed GMPA Language(8-23-2018).docx sem . ,�������lo �wimmi w 1,„ 4mtio le ;1 NI w►t r� �1 _ mist!* k Ar.". 414 Tr"' Nt \ I-'11111111W 0pm; 0, r .�. i Z � \--irgir , .44 if 41111111,f401 • ,(.. %r. c) on imio $‘111110 ,D WE i ■ ► i o it II D IMPI Illimia 3 Mak • 0% I ilk _ ) Hauk ,_-_,-,_:::_-__:,---_ _-__„ N-r.L. _ VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD. 11 - _ _ _ _ � , a y r it 6 11W-4t.v.414. T 4.1W 110" I III III II IIII �/ -------J itis/��� *�Illiluilullu1.hII r�i,4 0pllllllllllllOIIIIIIItW1►: — / --"14lP.- -'— tiim eli = IF DS, , ♦ —1 111 • 1 1 1 1 1 1(1 1, �i,,�o�� `, W flllul11111(II ► aM� Ih lib raj Ina N I 4�►� amiiiii.!i ill_ _am—c 111111//► Eft ` Lee ° , , , iii I Iii i - = 11111111111IIIlIINll11) � I 1� 1, , , , iii I I 1 1 �r loom unnninm�l t f LIMITS OF SUBJECT SITE N O 950 Encore Way CHECKED BY: PROJECT No. S Naples! FL. 34110 LIVINGSTON RD.-VETERANS J.C. 2017.092 MEMORIAL BLVD. DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: Phone: C 254-2000ficateof EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT E.M.N. ExhibitlVD1 cs,s KAMM E FloridanCertificate EXHIBIT IV.D.1 DATE: EXHIBIT-ITEM i M� �NN MUM Authorization No.1772 6/2018 E I /` N 5 0. g E N Q . 05 th U w Id a J [q; WO U Z _ -= • U W I— - 0 T CO : _ f4 III , 1_ ZZ if i ' m Q = U II, N W O N ou 17. 11 2 IVY 0 DAM LIMO V16Vt0118 r a:V S S a:1 a a 3:t R I ' F ,, �.O O N T\ IIg; F a x a x F A 4 di - - A '/. D rax WAY al I Q ni '1, MI e g 4 3 c ,g O>' 4 BLLg1 c a2 Fco n -L R'a I D . OEm.1i •- w`J�u$ A 4 A�a4S4A '14 A-. S y °I gtg 5 W ¢ E s •4e•a ,I _ iabAX6It _., a ^Vill ajk al s A i e L J 4 _ F- " 111----I k 0 1 OAC' 0 x i 9f aI:IeI:a sl ela:4 A:a q= OEn -:'.\\t l'` 17 111 . s d L___Fr L I J W p J F.. . )" d �� --tits it - ` ' o xm mum Y ® h , l _ 7.,,.. em 0�0 �1k ` n a a aS ;Q _fie °' t L- --- a'd d' a Q Q Vg El MB e.o ';', , p.m. z JJ 'a 11 31 r anon nalsown moa 50510550 S 2 03 i 0> QQU Q Ce x \" 4 - tr Q: CC !~ A Zg0 owm co a Z Z I-- 0 40" K g u _, '' >rt Q ap a4 ' g I a I w '-1 ill Oil lig i••• ""'^onot "� m e 4h� t _ `s d A A A A n n A s a : an r,�\ 1t\, U. ).q co A 3fltl0 a$w$�mrxa2� ` g Q 2 a s a2..a s t a t 2 .. 24C: ss s A s • li^ G 7 410 A S3.12.B674 VA0125 H-I+1-II-I-IV1AIA'S 'i'l. J DX I �e.q®< N r g $ 6 N V q 4 �. illEt"17 ,fie >. lir il l -Olt' r ce cp >-' � �.. ;� � s • iils y )- a I` _ > I— Lu co m w E- a w W :;.-t-,-,..,-.-rCt ..` '.-1.. --; -.--• ' '14."- r-2 ' ' g m t. �; '�m Fit, F ` - roc s-a.y ' >i >.o S t/�5� _ .. .� w`;int?'u• ���z fr tax � z RmI o R'� .SAF: 1 o < Lu 3 M 1 - ° J . ,. � htQ1R�IC�IC6Nif18s�Tr "-,•._-_-_•,,,,,,- . , <' +d+ ""-� ��y � �a• ate. a�. F m 7 OQ. aha a= < iia > a it # a Z W H-41, [1 iti--11 . --.'''•'' 1 1 '.--- ; r ' N m .... L .� _ I tet.l I I Z ,, ..,...,tet • ' Q €� r .. '4,,, '1ft S,:-.,11,,,,,-:,,,,,:-,...47-:,,,,,....:&,:;t, 1,u � ` 4 H tW— • • . ,b. ✓ `i " I r iicn' d W 1 r 4 79 �... N C v 3 J V g a V nm n p y tl N g 22 f g n c f d> id uc a WBe :Bug, 3B 21 .e_m 2 o c -.1> E dt co >> gz >> a1 ~y A m _ --__ 1 C7 2 .1"11/3 riaa.a.:saR:aa9 m Z . W 3 - JJ Yr�1 I a o X N n-r - -7. uaccar- =L ^ 1 D g W a' E a — ,11 1 as• 111111 u1 _ x 1 le r Nit.,gg _ -4400 o _ a g eRR R --1-4- g co o R _ L cg = c n S°aa_ceea:ao:a B _ t"q 30 Ell JF a- "O� a B ° 8 � � e,i_� -1-1- -:99.10M/MAY - / w` ,,a, ^ " ,111, �LS� �S SS6Sa -L c= ea ,J szcg5 trl n o:xa® s�• .,,,,....- It a IB e �� " V _ ^ @ Q ` Op =ice 1 ;IrIV i ? at 5 �^ Ti I mg i a a I., w 2 -- Z • /J • 11.0O� S IB]ISa1rAn AVM rauswAn 3 r ' n E n t- iq g — gat O� to m nia.3 t' . ;, S 1 i g --a‘'C 3 3gg - ' O 3pk 2 � !r« R ! 1 J as �1° Al Q °�° v o ,....., k 1--=__11 Z g m -• .-.- FO W ^ F 1, 1 Z Z h ----7—'"--N--i' a ;. aBaaans. n u / Qfn \ I/ 33atl01b83tivA0a \a sr:, � W J W W G ) c baa: R t a t 1r Fi' //j ``J a e xi d _ ,r� —` z "..,-. .1“.' . ,1 .0-. I— .--- 3YIM3 1tl3539 VA0235 U s" � m Ba aA ' — > 15 co U. i o 1 coF- g J Fl I w t r I- 0 o o w 6. F 5 a r a.m R C 3 N �� LL > e E - -- - ._—/ ; iii i jj K DMZ l&O3 Yn3v+Af$° \ 7 v s e '1 F t N. 2 E. a a x -I= .� $1N 1 De �E r �® -I:'` e ,1 ranf.1 I " m 0. C _:.: 1 Q -(� `� €_— d �i 1 _:.mac y 03 W r �-2 •24 2 — 00 J �r 3 . - .,m i e L J c B c . l' '.÷_., s zzeme 0z v y 9 W g 1113.1 .C_ © d s 6: _.9 F. / is i. W F.. ,. N i J ® 1 L.. 9 . 5 --- -- t - s ) s• -Lt: - + F - nri°ri ur+°eeu F,� 3 1 g. ¢ a 55- O E \:. Si -2 •• - • ------- TI GN / d i� / ___7--------___, E FI N W ; I a4 2 J O L a P Q j Y , m x : n sloco 0- e U 1 • o a i:yo via RI 6a E 19 G 1 2�SN=NY< tea aF m1220 rI5 fm ' 'I'I' ' a . a a 'L 5a E la T3ID3Ml3ILi VA°]3S °I- f� \ -1 ci ` 4110111111P , £ I I'j� 3'Oi03iVl3G31I VAD]S z If OCu. Q x I I 1 7 1 7 I r r I.1 \\\»\ \\\111///v•i 0' 0' 01- z 0Z 2 r7 O_ W m H C9 to cc E W > Q 4 H > O Z 1.- H J 1 W ci) us 01- ¢ om W O UCn U F- rij U cc ->-1.1 I. O W W 2 W m -, te < � X F O Q m 1- Z m U m ,- m e Z (A 2t) 0 F- W Oco QreO D mWO 7Z- Q UJ iL) n W i0] = Hwto 0> > w''Z : 1- m an � eu, 0 > "1• ¢ I ° W ' < JO - FW zccW 2 Z X `n 'W tiJ < I a0 HUceOpu -J Z_1 = Uacn � � �� Y ? o 0 WU I- Au 8 CI cC7 Mg t co /� W ON WX . 4 c F (p0 �a LLO O LA � - " W t H U OW om ...,mm 1.4J .mm tai tIa 0. 3Qp EPN $ N Cw) GULL Wa 9 P ZO v=O q S > 2>'O w‹ wzt w1.-O 9 ce am oz aF,w 2§.111 a W OWL. aI- wow WSW k� 3 J OSE C° xx° wly� m yOw it.. c0 .001-0 a r0m.N NW R0>}1- .S.J.J Q a cn J W oN p Na . W J m a= x 9U Uy QF U. (---- c5x SC 2 ; , I5w'' , f.CZ 'l NUm Z > tx 's- ta d N _ yyzz _Z Q ." O. h n.h Ali. • a :i=.iLr.L! n uismO► T . i� c11 , y 1� ♦ aa)� 1,1,7 ter V ypr14 ` 6 =1, M4:1021 i k:c`� R wa, _ , . '`Sy;vi� ar ,t.:3,4„.14‘. O k _ �Ill�l lii ! ���Y�, ZIL ,.O 410`»:wr ZD = „ w 7i ...17_,M. ,..?",t7.,.... '��.. '.ma L i' x"8; iI LAW aria, 0 ,a�{i T.443 ,.�r_,..,•„- MI I LI!_ s � ♦♦r*ryir,�� . a•� �rFrt♦ .� ����Vr�^r���,— i ■ `a e�,7�=,rema`ta (* ♦aical..xui ti ��� swum- 4 w rill- .: l'�,4 .\ AA� J `f ur, a: d l � 1. f^zT— it a I /"\ . 7 T 1:mmZ♦ a of _ /�, n , _�� _. _ ,i__ 121 lorME 11 ttik Iir z , -,,,.. .L.,, , ,, I ;r �lter• . ;,-I 1 o a o1_ �, s C::. N.&. Sm. .� a-ala^F. � 4747.1 ii------7--r-:,, 8 _— 2 8 tuiill,-.".'-Lt FigliNr.-. ..z.o- , ' -' ,I. .,1 ir r'�1n,Q GZ--F' 1 z a rx •® ,1180174.1.11.'; tr W ice' t!r 22''�r� �,- ' .u.,^ = it`1 r JE _ �r� w 2 a N- k'�F` t, A l �� „>z W o q9 •u r AI 1 o, I ' +.��i- o 4( AL1 ' J ~ CI CO 0 plk ay r' Lhtn g Y.m..-�'a2 ',..0;i!'?. E' _ "Vi. s . Q' f/� R ...mu o 1;,F Z O G �z �ii. ''�i�- .5 � 1.1` ..p.1::4'‘,.,, ,..',-‘1.. � \ Di O 7[-F—E,— -,,kt °A F �. =[h • S +C, ��` •"� Cry♦i V _! d:,. ;L. . bur: w n�? F ��� t o c 11.,. f C m 414 I cr "4 'o A 't /f y� J Vii: P..1il_e_ III— .. ! 3' ,l a Q ,i a g w Zw g Q Y ° Z i .— z = X N O 0 � � NCV o 0Wa0u0 1 1ty W F = uj OQ N J J W LLIW Vi 01? mNZ02S aa@NS cn0p1 I— O2OW < -J o 0• u. u. J W < � a CO > 2 + r " ^n; i^. lire• _ — Q �' J - '' '` ,' CO u. } uu t ' .r' - 1 4u fi J N Tj R Lpli.V � E�NM1 :J� s.,r '"V S J. ,n a I , .; 1 . . . . .. . j11Z ' s �. g ,g, it= � „ „ ff o i -r ri7.7H s y 4 '11V-7 Oa ii + v > • I• X w {{ O Q J t,t O — ,I go y i. .F 0 W m a k� � 2u=i a �` a • Q N — Q .-::::::-Z- Ir• aLU o { CO u. ...,..ems*sa ti.�� s ii 0 i H i i 0 ,1c1 m ddtiti ti (iti (itic.; IS E mmm (omns �cmmmomla� { ' a En �ChVtOh0mIrnN (4 -trtr .- p W Ty N WW II h or L-141 o- `p • h ~ Qr rOOrrMO0e-r OM 11 to r . o O No u 0N an cD CI. a_ ho{ jQN ao y e� r) va .tra o ao 9,0 (Y (o 0 vtt,, a tf. g 8 . o - gQ 4. ✓> M Nbfl N° EEN16 z,-...k.—Its . 1mNIn � 3 ot: aV 440 W W W vp ry3o ' c A9� amQW II0typ42CUCp0o 0LUtO�- ,'pm $ C CAr CUC,-.6. 2;•2 l4 V 1 'Om'om 0OXOM0Ix9 Ay NCN ;W�dm0 otr,rQU.y 4CCm Aoxva >0 Na0 L '� ^f009mANCm0 '- O o.� eCOOOIOWzCo.. ANJ aco«aossA0 .m—_ xc.o .00,02E CI a2,2.12=— a8H.oa',-LLLLLL� U „ mD L-2u'Qic13Nmmm00- ` - ,- "7 msCz > � AAAL .0 4yaa.�ctd6.O.W3wouoGx� oa�� o 2 N .- W m b liflte�t�V t�MWNWN 3 W ru O UM,,-V N LOO ti J r r r M r N N N N N V LL V V V V 0 O W(C to(CIC 1- Q i^"y i4 6 Q U k 03 pri L° , _ �E. I � : � '1 r, ! I / 1 1 i,:\ .--r- - t—"i 4 I / 1 ,, per k. / . t ( / / t I i w ' t 4 'rPirr. I w /1 t j . \�� I 1 •t// 111� «gyp f / I / / 1 1 I I' �'' ` _ —, / L,_Ji. rtx1 \ t � i- / / ♦.y a. —► •_ �\ i ` / :. 1 i �`-- \ _ter^ / / 1� w I r ♦. _,-- ...-, / i{ 1 '1 ., l �`� // CU '74) . 1// wx I C •-..., _. .... , 03 ...... __ ........... i________ , , \ f • s ,.z�`"-' 4.t' : . -'�'' - 1hlOttlU�lIMloi0fli6otiw x, w.�,..., ,.m -�, a�. I. �. u J i2 s Ng � a 1 0I z N W fV W �� :„,8 1 C ill 2. •F J d COO �� 0 J C C u IV la ba M'' m �0 Q�M C p 1 � *0 2a „(� O tl m N °ri Ell ."LIZ N 0. 00 Uj �Z, E U aM h ((4.1��Cc- oc U o.o a 44, N .a tit w C y `t,'° m a°E. Z., E, CD $ %° E N °E v— E N'Q S� N A 0 in°ois O ® N= ttn c m 4 fa 2,�EN 5 n.mm ° ° F dV.j N N 0.w 000U U)U)NN Et > 1 ..—�r r.�...�. -'1 H I NN 1 \ w 1 I W I.,1 I 1 / I 1 I T rrrrr.rrr..... 1 1 I 1 I1 ry 1 1 ttoa I 1 y I v 1 'o I = 9 i e 1 J 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 N I _I , rr._.rr—. Icy ' Ir r.�rr r�rr�� 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I In I N 1 i"- -"--"-1 Ca 1 1 .r 1 1 1 Lrr__rr__rr_.r.r_rr-1 Veteran,Memorial Boulevard V EXHIBIT "V.C.2" ALLURA RPUD The table below provides a list of Federal(US Fish and Wildlife Service)and State(Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission) listed plant and animal species known to inhabit biological communities similar to the site. Given current site conditions and the extent of the surrounding development, it is unlikely that the vast majority of these species would occur on the subject property. FLUCCS_CODE Species Mame 411E1 Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corals coupen) 411 E2 Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 411E4 Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Southeastern American Kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) Florida bonneted-bat (Eumops floridanus) Florida Panther (Fells concolor corp) 450 Butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis) 618E Butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis) American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea) Reddish Egret (Egretta rufescens) Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor) Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) 619 Butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis) 621 E2 Butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis) 621 E3 Cardinal airplant (Tillandsia fasciculata) Giant airplant (Tillandsia utriculata) Northern needleleaf(Tillandsia balbisiana) Twisted airplant (Tillandsia flexuosa) American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea) Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor) Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) Florida bonneted-bat(Eumops floridanus) Florida Panther (Fells concolor coryl) FL CCS;CODE L Species Name i* 624E2 Butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis) Cardinal airplant (Tillandsia fasciculata) Giant airplant (Tillandsia utriculata) Northern needleleaf(Tillandsia balbisiana) Twisted airplant (Tillandsia flexuosa) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea) Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor) Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) Florida bonneted-bat (Eumops floridanus) Florida Panther (Fells concolor coryi) 625DE2 Butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis) 625E2 Cardinal airplant (Tillandsia fasciculata) Giant airplant (Tillandsia utriculata) Northern needleleaf(Tillandsia balbisiana) Twisted airplant (Tillandsia flexuosa) Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corals coupen) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea) Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor) Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) Florida bonneted-bat (Eumops floridanus) Florida Panther (Fells concolor coot') 740 None A survey for listed species on the property was conducted by DexBender during mid-day hours of December 6, 2017. One dead slash pine and one live bald cypress containing potential cavities entrances were identified. No evidence of Florida bonneted bat utilization (bat vocalization/chatter from within the potential cavities or guano on or around the snags) was observed. One potential Big Cypress fox squirrel nest was observed within a melaleuca in the north central portion of the site. Butterfly orchids and cardinal airplants were observed in various locations across the site. No other species listed by either the FWS or the FWC were observed on the site during the protected species survey or during other site visits. There is the potential for periodic opportunistic foraging by both listed and non listed species of wading birds within the wetlands. In addition to the site inspections, a search of the FWC species database (updated in June 2017) revealed no additional known protected species within or immediately adjacent to the project limits. Please see the Protected Species Assessment submitted with the re-zoning application for additional information. Y:\STOCK-17\County\Comp Plan\Listed Species Table.Docx Y .. • a a t # a g /+�t-.." * -- :s r r • 1 q �.� • H H w al a 14 '-` .. 1i • 3 sv 7 , "•' eh <t` g" � . w z j :.. ii r P . Q��Q ' �k � Y f :*71� , j� 1. r ..4.,41'111111.,, M�1 ', � ' F • s' Q ict �" U a Q '_ = ¢ D = — o _ CD a >1 4t t- o0 0 0 2 '3 cn MO tn . _ C cu •- -.--, . .-.. w 0 -. 0- = U) 0° 4‘. a •-r--• O. co = ..E - c30 u) 0 ,..,_ = .) 0 r.) a) (2 1=3 0= U) U) C 0- CO C C la •(1)- 7:3 0 o o C CL= 0 -0 i-:)- '5' u) E 4- CO LI CY) 0- -0 >.,-,-, 5 o COc C -2, > CD CO a) • a_ 5 C : --I cp> TU) = 0 '- o LL_ = C CD- C -0 0- = 2 0 0 o 2 a) o -44; -...-.7, 9- (1) C -0 ^C CO L.- C ...= a) u) al E . 1.) (1) 0) t5 a) CO -c a) 0 as a C o_ a 4- •- 0 (..) • 5-- CY) .- 0 0 C(1); X CO 0 a) 0) C u) a) ti) a) ..= ._ ci) a o.) a. 0) E CO 0 . N CO '- .- 2 c -0 s__ 78- ._ a) 1-.2 a) o c.) ..= E a) - Cl) .. -,-_-) ..= '1(5 CL 4- ui -5-, -C3 __ 4- Cf) 0 0 '-' _C 0 E E - )'a,-3ci) (.1:3 F-- -- w CO CO s- t.- 4E-') 0_ 0 cri a) CC% 03 -5- 4) cr) -4= o. a) C1 C "a) cp) a) 0- T6 cp ..= uj CO -0 C - OC = ..= (1) = I-- c .a a) a) E Q. .4-, CO c 5.- 0 17.5 (1 = C a) 0 _,_, = 4;•-- >., C = _o•- a) -0-. a.) c.) C C/) CI) ,....a) co c 0 -0 . E ,-- U) o CO 0) . 0:3 a 0 C. 0- 2 (,) 0) Oct 0 = ,--. (T3 0 0 0a) oCD C ..,..., 4..., 0 0 47-7 co . 0 (3) C co 135 TB ...c a) C C CO (.5 ... 03 a) ... > ...o 4- CO 0 ,....... CO CL C-) a) 0 u) -o 4...., -I-, 0 Ci) = (22. E 2c _ E > 2 8, :i-) ,.... u) as = CO .- .4-, >-, '5 a) 4--- - -' (1) c) -i--. co ,.._ cna) F5 -2 Eci) cp_ (DE oo ci) 0 • -Fes --o- >, = -0 CO -,--" -o 2.2 .4E5 a) C ,9 co C co - u) asc .e _Ne CD CO "'-' c CO C (1) CO " -C E ff, CO E En o -k-'15 -Z:3 4) 40 ._ C C -0 _c co a) CO E 2 a) rrs C CE (I) '5 c',..,. -,-, :,:.--, co E ci, .... - CD C L., 0 Cl.) u) -0 .C -0 s._ -..-_-_.- u) a) 2 0 F co o) 7-13 -0 2 ...a ci) •,= 4- cn a) va ' (D = o_ a) e a) 0 73 1-, cu C E.) E.)- ,_ CO0 5 0 0_ ,_ G.) 0.. 0... x ,._ ct c 0 (1) 0 o CO = CD -1-(-5 N-- CL M "eli -0 CD a) _O " "c) r„..,Z " (i) E a) --i-' (a) Ca. '7:;. 0-) 0 eD L- ...... -4-' E a ----§ . -.,- a) = a _0 0) >-, o CO >-, o ,,,-.-_, co ‘......." a) 1-25 CL c-,,i .ci) 2 a) u) c) E .512 E Cl)-. co - - u) 176 co 51) CO cr) a)— 0,4 cp s'"-- u) = " a) , a = ._ 0 .E — ,... a - co 0 0 1-13 , cp 4) o 0 E 0) --o u) = i— Sf2. -1/4.z-.' L. 1-- C13 = -1--. 4-- * -5-* a) CD >, 0 0 (75 " 0) 5 , U) 0) ,..., 6. co .... . _ CL E LB lc) _s:).- -0•73 0 , Li- I-- 0 CO -)--' 0 CD' a - 0 a) a) Z cl-c) 2 ,--(3) (-) (--) E' = -0 _,-.._, u) a.) ,..._ --cri?, u j ..-,-. seti- -ED -I:3 ,--,-; ci) -- >,, -c a CO ca. COC 5- s-s-' F- .o a) -45 > czc a)u) C>., ...-.. u) u) E 2 ,— a) a) wE..-- 0 " COU) Q -,-,-) ._cn E :5 I— .> -c a) co 73 1:3' 0 s+- ..E <L, >, E i= ci) 0 -t-S "EL 4 - Z > ,C - Q) c C) >, ets -.4-zz .•-" •- CD a) -4---, 0 -° W _-5—cp 'V) z -3 I— 0 (7) (i) Z ° ' 7:1 CL Ci3 CD -0 CZ 0 CO -) 0 -4= eo ...0 E — --e >" a) x _a E a) ° C " 0 _EU) 61) -F.) 0 Co a) Cn = cp ,--) co a) a) a) >-, eu ..= 0 eN — -,1_,- ,_ _C ,.=.1., C.) -1---- fr) 0 I- 0 z ,:i- —J u) o i— co CL = i � �erCe LU W N i- N- d- tom- CN CO �t W . r N N co CU O (f) ch >l, CD o E ) © Q 0 °' c Co O7 cp Q Co E 'C7 O X 6- (ll CO Y C) >+ > U O cL6 O ® J W 2 <C C1) I— z W F- z 0 0 LL 0 W J I tiCD ce U1)a LIJ .® • 'V C .>t® U ViI i .. (...) .--' "C3 0 (3.) 12:3 4-6 70- a) Coco w (f) , c..) o %-- CO C3) s.._ -.,--/) .= a) CO > = • • vs -5- 0 0 Si (1) .4.• 5 u) C cm c o Q. a) a) (=> COR Cs ci• 0 cD m 1.r) 0 eN1 = n CD cr ,z1- in co t•-• NJ "I -- (1) (-) 0. Ti co m Csi 01 N el' en et (.4 0 cn 45 15 •— CN "C3 "C3 > c to CO -- Cll CD 2 4 0 -= ' a) c0 00 c0 C11 CA 01 0 c-I CO CD ci) :4--• ,4—, a) r-i —1 ,--1 ,--1 rl N NI 0.) 0 -0 .> -1--'0 Cocz Ti.) o o o o o o 0 o NNININNNNN -= •''•' -.C:3 ..= 112 -CD 9- 0 sr 4-, Cl) .4-, C (j) r_.? 4+ al >-s (3) -rz u CD "le-5 -0 a) = •- as . N- (1) a) .0 4-, 0 a) csi :tr._ co "C3 LZI CD ..= CD 4- Z .4.--, —0 Es _.„0 cm u)_. cis < ,--, = :4_.' -_-a5 4-. = 1--• a) 0 c a) > >•• w C co o E a) C c., 0) -0 CZ .= CD) CT) ca E = o ..c--- U—I u) E -I-, u) = t z ft, 76 ,tn E c‘i CD . ... .----. ./.., C C 0 _0 E co CD 4- a ula) W - a -0 0 4, < - ° °3 < CU - fa V) w UT = 0_ C -0 r0 E 4_, faa) & (-,,,1 Co E -o Co. Lo w 0 z co T.: .-v) tio c ...c 1-1-1 = Lo Ct3 E ° 2:1 n 75 >:' 0 rt cts ct = co =0 n3 (xi I= a) 2 = ++ C73 10 - CO ci, N._ ..C.12 T .< " CO, -0 "tD co -1 < tn < -, cl. < I-- 0 03 cl . CI ..,..., CD "T••• = = > CO 73 CO (I) = -1- _ ....-- •r..--- LL, -0 et r-I m ir) Fo. to nt N a) = -Qp. = >1."'. cf) = CD CD MNWIJIMNI in N -E 1.- , fa r•I m r... to (1302C -C +. E ,-- eNt C 5 c 0 .= (.1) -';:i.) -.,G cf5- -'—.. g .4, to in o s- co -0 lD h h N = -0 — --I =Fw co o m co -.--, C N— a)t- ""4... E co C\I 1-76 e in 4-, 0 CD Co = 0. C CO = cn _ 0 > cl• e-i en al N co k D cn U) co m t... to o fr) 00 in 0 cn —I La co u5 7:3 73 10 e•I m N N 01 CO CT1 M Q. cn .t , 12 c v-i. rsi rei ui. 2 -.5 0 rts" of) 0 = fa as _.....,, .c a) a) E E = cu o cl) -t---, >7 2 0) t5 a) TO .zt tLi r**1 t.0 00 CNI CO rn cz c 1-35 = -0 m m co ul co m st r--- --I "1:3 s= -E 4?- C c w r-I N m et f.0 01 1-4 m -C C .t'...- a) C a) 0... a) CO "C3 0 < Z CN cn ..= Ta. C) V) CD CL E = -o —0 > .,— 4, t. - ,- 03 CO -V 00 CO 03 00 CO c .-c ,-, - ...., et er et er eh et et er CO M ° CI) " C) C >. Lo u) crs rq r•I iN1 CV rsi c C = C/) W C13 U) — CO a3 'E Sa• L.) in 775 c.a. E = = co m a" E "C3 L._ 0 (Y- U) = E - ›., m c .._, N in li) N CO C11 0 c--1 N vI c-I r-I r-I r-I ri NI NI NI CCS 0 ° = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C • C/T = L. NNNNNNNNN a) 17.--' 43 Co .. a.'C CO cl) CO CD -.F... a)-- 1.-13 o a) a) a) co w -,— >-, 0 co D " 0 CD — ui CO = ci) cp cp 0 E c a) 75 0 co a) < • • tn 1 1,- (1) ai c 75._ o) ,- ...,< ., -rics cu C13 CL CO 0"L.LJ •.='• 0 = CD (1) l' -0 -.4.-z (4- Co tt) 111 UJ ,.- CD CO 75 8T-Aessi .-----, CL E > la D K-uer w cl-das c'i -cp a) 2 cr) ...., .c -o LTD CI CO LT-Awl (1) Co C:2- CL) U) u) c (1:1 LI-uer a)CD a) 9T-daS __. 2 ct ..0 . Cj) 2 •— . 91-uer ci) a.) = L. =a) ST-das 2 .7"; CD 2 si-Aew o) •—• E a) 12 ..a ••• -Ffs 2., u „L., .. co VI-das -2 2. :0- a B u) :e..: a) K-AeLq cj C 0 a) = o (1) 1 COL., pt., co .1 U 0 >' Et-deS "r— 0 C ...0 C..) 'el as n-Aevi c=:$ u CN c./) • = Ci) CO •,-: a) 0 0 -4c--3 0- o ET-uer 0 as as c-) CD = 44 ZT-das • 0 0 0) 0 a c CO ,— . .— o. — Muer tc.d., ,..... COCD = '''' 0 -0 co 0 a) a) -Z-.)-' CD CI) Tr-Am > EL-) gdf. OZgf f:, 4 n-uer 1..."7 -1-C..., "ia 2 . ) 0 0 = `1-”' o, c, c, c, 03 CO 03 e lauesin3)0 ...•••... 4* ..= LIJ -0 j -:- w a) u) -0 a) •— = c,-) -o co -a Co 0 -= - - Co o cu) I:1 2 a) 4, c:L 0 st-Am .7,—. 0 Ci) 0 0.= x ,-- Co ST-uer 0 CD -0 -. sp. CNCD • LI•daS E t-I,,, > -C F." ›... 10 ___ .- = . C" CD 0 LI-Aeksi 1E3 CD a5 a. \ cr-tief E S' ...1.... a) ..— a) 7.7-:.-; a) Cl) -o t— ... a ... ..,....0- 9T-das Ct as L... u) a) ---u.; Co .?,,,' IFI, 91.AeLl wa„, E cv -) gr-uer E 2 -9, t") Co..= a) -CiL_ •-r-1 a) cu ...v L., cS:1Adeaws .c -ra CO st.uer m v, i-- cp_. > . ..j.....) ,...o. Cu \ \ a, PI-daS i I a zCr) -o , a> E E c 44 M VI-Aell D. LU CD 0 E 03C1) CN CO -CI Cr) u) 0 .4c-5 iii pt-uer a a aa C..) a) • a) _a -0 .u) .0 ,.., ET•das 1,4 = *i: 1=.". Z E -CD I— CZ >-+ if 0 ..... ET- A., Ct -L._ = Co c-4-ii ui E S °- 0) ..c .a) a) co I Er4.1er 4, c13 < I E el u.A., < 0 = = - .., 0 CII Lr7,7/.. ....., co ,. w .._. (,..) it ED_ 0. L:s 0 :.•. _se '-ci-5 Moiew .---.. w0 0 -0 C/) CO >, TOZ :g= 43) 0 E I T.uer = Z CO -0 Cl) ---1 .4* Co CI) .0 "'CD „?'. C:5) C ‘...., ..A. IA. V} V. tlf I" VI jibs Jed mil'ewes .......J i— L..... a) a) CD Cl- i_-. 0 I—• ci) F— _c ..= 0 0 0 • • r cS w u) C ' 140.0 w E 0 O ci iu } CD Q . -� ^Ai w >, G w a) ? o c CU c ca _ N c0:3 N C a) ate) O -c -_r c) O O o E a a) "' = o 15 7 .75 o O E = E a) = 4- -4...' C Ci a cts -Q W -CS u) T. u) E CIS -C z = �„ — W o a) oo m a) ca '`/) 0) > o L = U) O > O _C Li.... (1)o co cf; Q co 0 dam- -ID 141, CD v CCs Cll j RS N c' ° U) O Vim) ..0 -� Q L Q i Cl. O 0- C .� 2 Co U a> O O 03 O • N O "O .� ) c, � 00 -�-• c v N 0 ,49 E C O 7:5a u -al a) p � Imo-- z - U) O .cn c a)s LL C N ca CUcn o cn W• L a) 02 = 0 C .--, a) -- m co U Cn 1 § -2 ..._+ C a) ti- CT) J C N ¢ "� [a CU O -5 co co L LL O U > -U C!) Ca -C > C2 p V tIJ Q -- i- • O O N 4 -� Cll CD CU -O 2 • = -a• p t` CI) ,� N C 0 0 "� O O -t:' .� CCs Cn -= C2 N O O O co U) W' -c' O CO = - c c U cn g, •Cn c CJ) -p a) a) 'O v N O C N U = o cop Q a) CB C a c '> c = N Q -� V I- N O > m Z c ; to co o 1 E .c CO ~ E C a) _ p — a) Q CZ Cll N U) -C {� .0 r-� S N C`J,) Cll -p O Cl) o E F- O o c) U_ O U `' > N c co v O ___I E Z .} U CO 0 --"' p O � p U) co U _i a) o _l 'C = + -p s N 0 U .--, o CA O3 a) �_+ O C L 'tn c -� C _N r i CI) e, 2 W E O p N C- 0) CI) U) C) • O a. -c) J eh fl CO U -� U q O C co C Cts O C LL O N > CZ Q 73 C2 Oa) ,� U C -C -O = N a) Q, — CCs co a) — = —a CO Q C/) N Cl) CX) C -D C N C c!) i O ca C > Ct C� O p r- c11 - O CZ C CD � O -� � 2 °3O C1 - ca E a) - ,., a) C + aO a) � C U) Ca a? u)O Z a (ll >, C a) C) O -O a) 0 _ cA 2 2Ca C C E C O Cti Co .U) Ca .a+ oO CO0) CU 0 co m Cv � CO CO 0 cU CL D '512 73- c0. c 0a U Eo F-- U C = Cts O p 0) N y-- -EC 2 ca C aoi a) .2 C ) a =- a) E a) � � ••— _p U CO Cv �- la N •0 i 0 0 C Cf) N C L Cn -F--' E O X C C2 d" ,V CCS N _ C ,_U C a) C C 4- C]) 0 O -'-'z C/) r- — i I-- co 9_ co O U) CL) N N N V) C ' O CO Z7 ^ c E p U O L u, O O ca «5 c E Q ca CU CO § m O a) Fes- U n i- a) - -o J .Q 0_ • • • • • • w , • . . • ....• .,•••• . ,. "•••••11r III .?; :. { i .2 ; ' : ' 2 g . . . 2 .! 2;•.'" .; i... 1 O. 'At J. A . .. ,-, ' -. ''. Z I i 1 2 0 til . S-- . P J'i IP . ; •At ri . ... 0 o; ? , ''' 0 g t ..., 1- 1.1.J I— 0 0 Z Ili CO • i : co I- Z • • V co 0 il : • 7 ,. . • , -----E-0---w' ;. ,- Fi 1 r. al. --„---, Tr r— .CR. .1 • Wain.. , Fil999119,192::17R •••-4 AaaAlt,„kli ip „ , -- 1 z 1 k=4:e s . ..._.=,.....,..., I-1, 2 ; ...-: ' • .!- ...1 a , , ,9 9 719 1 211tt-114 .:•-• -• 0 • ..-7.-- --:- ,,,I,., : IL j Ma 7 , vats la . i ;--'---7 ;. ....•70': . ; ----7.1---- F •# e") i . %gli 2 ,=„ E. F-77 ....--„ ' 40 il a fil :c' - SC. .- COI - ' t = r s OA ' V _L.......,...-:-,. 21 , via Ell r ; _ ,mA., / ;1,, : MI an wpm j..,....04.. ; . -4a o 77.. .. .. ,............ ..• . . . , . 9 41 I A A _._,,.J 411.'• 1 1-,--- - 1 —I I .1; r .,, I 1 "'' ..; / i r . , ..s.s1.. 11011:MIL i. ,, _ • 'cl.; --- t Pc;Cf A 2 . < .o; • cc r..• X _____;:_____j...........----- l'• s":A..1, 0....ra 0 G, Ons 1•02scan arm umfa..r.r1 -I \7.1 I < 11. i= co z z w k <o _.-7 — w 6 re w co I—LU 1— i r.10‘g 7'2 W M e-f• .... ; Y 5 \•• CL 1 CC I-. CO EE I. i<I- .4 LI-I-cf2 4. 0 •0 < 0> ( th 03 CI) :A < 100116• 2 i VOL 01 , .36 , ' 1 . uj 2< I— 5 Fe tIP " t 5A A, : 65 - 0 li I-. E 0 - 0 CO t.o -.7-, F . 2 ,.. /aLn ..c.X :Et:* Pi I 5 71 o co) L.L. 1., 0 Cl) ---• _semi-- a s r 4 4, ` l''' '".411•41 ; Abill 4 4 1 41:p 14 4.4 n 4 , , a Zi I Co) k --1-1- -I-1 - • ,Ir + E:1 J L- 2 ... •- . anosaml V? _ L U G) Nr P . w s gXg R cr tl e Q ' i � • ,. ! ki` FitAL gym, .`.^ss .+bF '1k? y , y � • 44„,,,,,'----- t > = J !(Q ce _ -il; W MI ... ---,, , ..,.. ,---)4.3;!0' --''''''.:7-- t I . l'':, ,` W I— ,.',.. w ® � 0§9� v7j('� . tsN,3 .0 K: mi El pw¢ P`� .wa gl F'' • Ie W w • •-:-_,I.:77---' --1:1,1 ''''Lli Cc(2°°D `-,:c' ?:-.:P''1:::!'-''Ill ! a 0 WO l.NOL6 JNIAII `"" Z° „� • b : C M ' 2 ill it l'p -.1'7:‘.2- Oil .:: . , 1;5:::Ir-,.:1 UJ �'; �, — 1 >>m r. 3 t ,P 1 O J N .":,*5.1 ,,'-r _ ;]:'i'''' , i ' • . r f, r, ujci � zCC aa •.• . 1 . z :; U' • i r ka , �� [Y. �, ~ LI al It J • �_ ( "• tu. i y•" sq — V a - t i<1 x ,,,. ( t " 'fit { � jr • '.� O 4. ct- • 'N. '4. —.� LLQ.'",` Y` m• M co I r ._k e Pty* _* ��� , a rte ; El�� l I Z it U CD Q `' � � Is UJ � SFr . v p N Y . R -- �.. .. ix % K,r.,• •r.uc, „ F i:..'e.f.a.€.r� r._ i i Ili . o• 1 7 �.o,... ___;;%.,_ 1 �� �...-1 d < ^ - r' t @ i I' i:f tai'==_ II ..4.2._ s :• :,it ,i., N* 1 t ..., C) Y, Is , • = : mic: : :.). lorp. wxw_ ) e I j a ` H ` J Q•o o. II d' � '12 I, e _ilk V/1 V ,-3,3B 1 I�/ avl1 a " Di 'y0--Ti _L.}, L • r /8 l„JAM] O e, ,:,,1 1131'.Z' Ci) cry. w....wr is I W _ Fj /1 a a aY $ ; an ; / • e ® ^ a oo — Ct ,0 10■ ae� x a f a e a e` CI. 11-Pi ii "' I o - ; _ Z 7 ; . r . , f, i- } r. }I y�.�e1., 1 CO I_ figisaa a W —� :j.�. �,; i W N -�' moray...�. Cl) % HIi ! I ( S•II ! 1.11: S. I . >j[a , 6E.,F '^a Quz¢a 0rI- m w a Ir W CD >2 =�0 ti -�O _ O zWtu g-NZ ZN co JN CC OO>U 1—00 U J N W LO zc2 t 0I-W N (W m � z�� 03z03 y Q iL co N 2 {,� z I- �S J i 1 W Ill Q S W O O- ,1,1.,e J zJS `-(,1,1,t L U a) 11ty_ Wu , X , ` CO t.E+ad � T� 117 c i- E. Q a S Z E m _c Q) - - O a 5 P I l l (,� Z ,71=' Logi^-EIaUN a a) o) a F .G G3 {— E .-• :CCS o l g ti .V E 9 E G I g -0 a) K al Z 7 ;IGS 4 B'5 ^ ti5 Vi ° u.of Ct.—i Lc Cll w I F > "a Qco c _ . C� — E L G G 8 t8 CCI C'D G a ; c 9 LLI Of]- a A - F 0N G s_ ^ N _. ai a E-k N OVo L c mW t O Mom.Till SI O N aTMtmt St ,t mM :*' 'f 0 ot,f G i _ V,/ E 6 t+ OU USW.' $ t• ci O U = C.)Q U CO D ynSITA 1. O ,Yl Z *G o . CO Lo 0_ 4-0 Q� G ci3• ca :Et Q ?. = O D O a 00 EO Z O c a� v 0 E co _n c c ® co S N ELU 113 o E u, E ai (0 0 • CO o O CI) U CII C ;.= .v G -� 0 ) Z V CO C Z U) N "0 CD --- Z .n 0U)) CM 0 G Ci) G = J G N — 0 1 F-- 0 to i i L U CD teacr ,, ,._,a) uWi - LLI ,i cda.shd as LL '1 >s >-+ _.....ii E E � ;� = o Q - s � o Q t CIO ice- , GP•Id ur.,-•, N 0 W C Q ,_ _ e " . coeL co ,- L c • O i - s c :,--. O. �P.F v v 'd LL f. O O ® J bL 6- ° a b a a E Ld a) Q '{ ; PU I,y_Liq 2 -a .1- i d O CL) i - e - U, . us "O_. db a) e co G 9 "O E 1 W'2" Q) y N �"` o . a 7, m x< aC t0 } - .� 6 UU/0.4,4,2.4,4us,2 MI CV ,C ^+ L L §m 4-' I .. =nm Ti)y. & a-,oaf,1.1c N O etm o pq- CAO Y 1 _ .,.._ g z CO a .� J _ iar:�a.��,,.,� $ n v ,11.^."L' (B >, (l7 C y, >1 W . E was C O E E Cf) E to p Cf) O 0 C U CJS �' °' D 0) W c O co c C d 03 C to d a< to sl,) aN J N a) J O. "0 Rf C O � O Z (n L.� --- L: z O W v _ CO W ..c a,) v 10 a. v (� U Q ■ �l) - w E >+ t�S Q (a) 0 J _ t/I = ah. U �Q `-_ co o co ^^`` W ▪ Cll N — W . �O co ,;,,,,„..,.. _ _ • rY o N ;1° tom} " „1 4 Cor 03 o `�� ,,4,•4 "� 6 co w � �' CO 4 r. ,, m , Co , _ ri. ii 1 ,',. 4 p'..--..'1. • iii 4 ` P W COn+ ."▪ =. a �; f co Q� �' (] L,.,� �; � � ' "tom + Q? J c E < ,..c ..,,,. 0 ..... . .... . ::,:,-,, 1 -- co c 0 O tll 1 . . , .... , _. !! ... 41 co E .. a i. rs � ° le 0▪ CO co r 09 i,....W_.: i `-:7:::.:':‘," :::'';:'''•;f.':;;;--4'.11,. E1�na,:. ` nl} .C 1CS 'xl � o ` 4iit-4 cLU � � w c .kr .,1xi co •� ''t i " -:..'UO ' ,,,t, ' ',- .-+=• 8 ` ',2...--,-;-- -c . pC 6Q `:S O co n � .o (ll ,.. •a3 2 . .....10.4....., ,11.-!.i. --;4,417:-,,,, -::- :::4f::',.4ttr:,--::-...,z!,:.:',,,- •{� 6 � CLS ,v a �� `�� .� . to O 0O i co J u) co 0 Qco CU 0 N = w • :t7 •-o m10P on w. . 0+ nouNT ry N A--' O o 3 y L U C w w P. n^W,, 2 L c 2 ILI Y o n n`$v'i rW w O- E CO a ,I m (13, , -, U r o 111 C 6 w` mii (� 2 ......0a 5 a a) c r, o •C�6 u Z o a —, -,o ~ CO MEMO C W0 as (. N • E a] • 1 c7, A Cl) O --E N ^ O coC OE Es to E •� "O U _ W _ _ t. N tB 4, ,e ; V a) a)75. - O r - - Q cu E CSS - . i \ , E . N a) i c F— o W m .E o , .414 ,4& ® a EP- -8 — __+1 M if ® Q) v 1 w- + O O ; c ctC L Co a a) O 1 O U (R a) j V a) OE 1 o >., as -.E. o t ik !,:.—., 4.4.,z,.-'.- k. , N a) o. O Co ,,. .. F a O ( iZ�_ Q +,�, , s" D • E N O W .ti .s• a) L 1�LL O O O 0 O -.-. C) CO O 1-15 0 \ . U Cn L) a) L L J O .c N N e CO •-, F. O o i— O r� N Co co O _g Z10 � � LLI E ca a" eL El�- •c O 2 Q CB N O -; J • p a) a) LL L - A L O O B . . - a) c W -C -C m ham- Q 0 b. + 't t [H i- _ w _ V _ '' cuuj tU i scD Wuu : o 0 a El MEM MiC 1111.1.1 011) I I ; C cris c„.) , o I C of 1 1 s, ccs x _ w 1 / < O - = :UN > < -_� >+a W " '" __ 0) U) ` p L AtZOZ '�� XW " °' ti, L.:-;a c Ds - r r ..0 JOZOZ C1) as c d640Z c c ; JOIN N 73 C2 IE col) _ LIN,?...,. .,1 O , ...._ U i :itO 9106 Ct o 5 W Q- O • ® .- 9406 ▪ a' o ~- ._G O c m a aloz V0m L 0 co p. 640Z 0O d O W 0-,.(;), - Z40Z - 2 C A v 440z • as °' °' o__ _ Z a) U 7:3 ,C0406 o)_• c RAS a. W v 6006 1� a) O cdQ O L • O o " 8006 Z a) U f6 O O. v LOOZ Z v F m pj N a 9002 N 0 a) r m - U U = 0 "1 4 006 '� U. VI a c 73 _c v r 6002 -_- = -, " egg O TT N �.{� g O ZOOZ 11-- Q,. as °' 0 a - 0 1 � y CL~ 44 400Z• O c aL coo _co T. '`• 000Z Ctc E v 6664 U) Gs�i C in' s 8664 Q ti 0 N CU 1 N a) L664 E O O a 9664 J o a o U z o D i Oa) ° a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UI 2 O O cO O O O O O O ,U _0 .2 C o c -. O Co O D O O {,U a. 3.. C Co`q . r c co co EF N V UaS a) m L O a o T 4 MoI9 uopetndod lenuuy (o • Q a a t�: 'c c t!? z , -Q /3.. U1- m _.. W a ` 15 Q O LL co ri m dzzoz �� w01 O . m W �__ ww m CO dtzoz v rn I I .111.111=11111.11111 ' O 0 ,.0 N I 03 Cd 111 dOZOZ c6 co o 0 d61.0Z oma n v U r d8L0Z U eL • o 11 rn w N U c0 t7 LLOZ CI a) co n I CU fes- ,-- a) N • c� 9LOZ o N CO CO . I "per N N ui ch 9LOZ 44- "o O C = 0 4tOZ 1.0 Ct m ca 09 aI L caco ca Q it:: _ ztoz LLOz s- - 1M" I U QO O I C.) O "t, a) M ' 600Z O i, r N 'O 0 ~= IIIMI! 8002 N O O "p = cMD O rpm � (6 = ing LOOZ U co N F •y > LL 9002 O OS 4002 U r UCO N IIIII 4002 p (UB j, M 0 ea c £OOZ CD_• "O N X U C COI fa 111 ZOOZ CD CO O c I I 1111111111.11111111111 ®I L U �`l t00Z as •ID .0 r I N C r .72: 111.111111.1 0003 43 Q_ - p N 6661 m C� 72 , o M I I I I ,. N O 4. '- - 866 L V m CU I I a) O II= L66L 0 y- u" 3 (a O 8 U •O -C _c 9661 to p o o O '" o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o O O = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V / -til Q) o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u,9 .i "c a 01 W r (O N t M N a- a c V K _ tlimal0 ployesnoH ienuuy i0 3 . N = L -2 ~ is O O - = CO O J m ti) XP ino u � a) 6.N„„ r a) /�� -55_ 5 a) W U) -K o a'- V u, /.....C rm , ll it: .0 co F' L I s ZoN 5 cam.) ccs • ® � en . r' s c t6 ILI m s- o a) x G U) M O 0.) = co Q) = C/p�� V 3 0 ■ a) 0 Amm. -0fn J 0 C a) 144 (O C_ . co q' (ll m > M 1� O o -a L C (31a) O E ��ycc' IE �J J C) S6 s o 0 ro In oci o sa p y -o 5,, Cl 0 _ 2 p W d a) a- co = w a - cm to otJ U C U) 111 C Z 'C N 6 o g f) O a) o a) v 7 -Y t� Q O ,- -o CO -0 Q Q '1, LC W W _,. 0 0 � � V a) m > L2 0 mu [s U1 co N N C o N 0 0 o S - F c h6 U C 1 1 1 '� C C a.. a e � o 0 D coVJ ..5:2, ic4 2) N a) s Ill Vn co O •C p M c v• J h a Q)Cf) , a) Lo. V o : � o_ CO Q o x CO O o -� C a O C s_ y co t�f2 _ N N N co c")_ .7 I E o m a) _ c coc f. U) U -C la N o)-7i co 0 a o 4- o e " o ` a) o .. m a) -1-3 e u• c 1-1-1 u) 2 o a O 0 C E 8 00 0o 0 0 0 0 0 W C O) O l() O0 O LI) 1) V U •o E. L t N N LamolD luawico• idw3 w,ce3•uoN lenuub n cn c o C a 0 :c a) U) = 4,-,) 1. U 'i- E ,-- �, i i 'D (x d2ZOZ �^�'+w = a.) = /"'-- L37 § J4ZOZ UJ C N - r ` N O V; g N- 8 c U) U) ^ ��� , +. O ) Nr~ .a co r dOZOZ MM.= `(,) .c 0 co co 0 del-0Z' Q O N (...0LoI �_ sa CO c LL N CI o N d81-0Z O co CO LI, LC) N o 2 C L 40Z _ O LJ v I I d- ,::.o 91-0Z U) .:. 11111111111.11 C E 8`- co r- 0 9402 y N N E , o Cr) c0 I U = ELLS C4 cn m Q CO w ,= 171-0Z X CU N c p -_ tu , : Cr) p r £40Z Cl al v _ (J) C Z-37; 1 O ' —N ZIOl • 03 E u 4402 L.L ea E coco 0 X "5 c o 0) N c 040Z LLJ .E 0 v co 0 _ crN 6002 M N c" V C U U N co rr) a 8002 ( U ti o N " . r LOOZ ate° cv r r I 900Z 41 N 900Z IlUillin V U r 40DZ Q u) '. e CO N M IMI. £00z r, CV CD (i6 U r ___ o V C r N o O> c. ZOOZ ao � , Ca O LOOZ .-• a u; r Po co M 0rt ) -J= o OoOZ LL --__ C C C 6664 as O to U) MiliMilliIIIIIMIIIIIMMIIII '^Jcti 8664 milimuitimiumil V a m.co 'C E .0 N C - U) . U) t :0L666 O U) " z cm,_ U Ca) oo x ` . �.o C '+.. E 49 ai +, o o j ._ 9664 C V) 03 i S C O I ' o 3 Q S 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 ILI Q p V„ LL o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F- U) ai 00 o coo 0 0 cV U C Z _ _C S1 V 6u4SfOH v°) C 43) >,< is Num Q? -(1) en E w .z Cr3 >41 0 O Q co 4.0 _se 0 .i■.r S.. i. v - . __. n 1< --(3) Ala O CO C7 N N r O CA d) CO t"- M O CO CO h CO CO St .d. ('� r p z V cud' CIMMChC7NNNNNNrrrr r I � y � w / Q C a -a-•� = OD CD N CO CD O CO MCO COO CO "t O NCO CO (n N CO d• i Z N � ofOOpMtLClr � mNNNNce- e- LO Cr) MMMNNN � � vU . a) I- =m l.. V Q(n - l) 1) CO CO h+ Co O) (A O r ld CO O O r N N det CC) P-• CO ,..1 NOAN OO 6n A ON 2 O) A O O O O O r r r r r 0) 0) 0000 00000 CD CD r 1 ." r r s- r r r .- r r r r N N N N N N N N N N m 1� Q f LU z o � E TIn vFc 8 i Li— � - 0 O U Z j I .�1 N 0 (—) CC) G O uir _ I— C? 2 O a- E N U .a C +y, O -r--+ - �( Y Q Z N = N co P ® • CO v N ONN > 0,5LC u C O C 7 d W II. Q— . 73 N >` E c _ _ r ° � U CO 0 fr o e c c a� m ttl Ci) N ctp� - 0 ,_ a) m iv el ca 3 o 03 A • m _ ix m N 1'� E 0) to -c 3ca J N L� it aa > � v � .y � � YU2 mom_ t °c .� 3V) co el C6 CQ N 7 .' O N t O CII CO �' N .N CCO - (0 •+r CU ` (II N E v N QZZm (n � ZJ (n > OJmm � (Am2QfAOSc m: ® -Q C 000CDNMCC) r CAON ctCOC7NCOLC) COOrNC LO v = a r- r M N N r N M N r r N r d' V ett r u 0 E CO r m E C S ul G `4— N i- = o '`t . ® COCn c -c3 W CO Cm W N Ii) I Et 91 0CD E S OW In l:cs a neatsA� Q _. U L to r' YV �...�c r , B. w v �► a COU) cva jJTh WI 1` as n F szp rr�� . m 13 g co U Co _ _ co LJJ -- - CO..c, g 0_ O CCI U a N C CO y N o = 13/ J 11 C ) _ ca. E —. W o /O LU cnI R. _". W T� 1 - i 1W IE./ z+,,.. _ ..0 p -? CU cc I=c �� CO o Cn E E 0 Qu Q U 0 }, ? N -U � E IC ��_ l//^j co a a o m • C L e _ fes!) a W —0 16S c/ O sz ID CTS =. d 6 '" ...... Q CD ard _ v® Q h r•1N•'Si•4 p m W c ,Ar' N CTf -" m E iii. •i-+ 7 W co O F 1h v i� T 4— y CD •� Q 0 CO U CCT L >,, `� 0 >, [ll (Cf , v C " ca+a GuaAvcca.cn.s CJ �U • '- I— E a� U Cv -_ c� is m 4 co `D `s V k a E o s J . ,-.', ma 4 ''c co _ tV �. d•...� 117 1° 'q„�'..•-7 O 1— Q e t a) o Z CO a,1,.N � _' Z ' Ap A1M g W ^' '` ' W V ' = 6 :11,u] ,.,,,,,,„..i4 2 NJ E co WU 0 = w L 0 UV/ u.)Q. cri %,... N n/ N 2 N M in O aOr O 1n L ca vi i To OJ tn 2 f, 1,_ u ,,,, > t ci, II. CD 45' = <4 0 0 0 l' ...... c .T_ -0 •— 4' .7 0 -, CO CtS In C.) ...... 0 CI) E 171 .75 CO -0 i ..i....., as a -— = a5 3 c S "C3 > E 0 s— < ili t C_ • 1 [,-- .;. co 16 a) 4., Ct3 ID . c. ..F. L) ,.._ 9 i E 2 ..= -I—' m a .. .7....7.-_• a) 7.. ,.._.; = 0 .C 73 I— 0 c.,) ci) ,... c .— h P.M I,,,11`.. I. E 0 D t— -.-- o. co = a) C) 1 I _ e a ai ui 2 0 Q) cn (1) >-. CD co < o } X .. _....... C:D " Ci)UC - I ff 43 II'- m) CN -C s..... CD Cr.3 ....= = cri -- = , M 17_ 1.11 -1—a) .1.4(j. CO ; < $ I_ 4... / 4 q < = –cs i re If/ ram E,4 i ,,.. 40.11..1111ba lik, VIM •--• czI ,,+_„ .II, a) r • e, .1, El )(-) ; .... — 0 .. ,.... ,.. i m tio. m ii r----1. • m... Mill a 0 ° CD 4.–. : Ca E 0 = .. . 2 _ - cn t,g,."' f'1,1,-,,,i,W. LU = C.1) CL •— CCT 0 to -, -- — ; g a a., - 3. cn 1 z. , r 2 •,.4' 0 , ... Et I.._. 2 • - . < — ... 4-, = 7:3 11,.):-..-4•% - - 03 , CD o o CD 0 -0-- - I 1 g ET. .1..3 1""*"" " a.) -C a) __ _ -, , -: """ 0 ct, "Ci C TD >,.. , .,, . A. , if; t: b I i I CZ 0 IS ___ V ,},l M ''''S 1 AA 1.,'' a Z 5 z i . ,<„„..,01 .”..I, V 2.CO........) .4....., C Cct C 0 s.— co 0 ICt a, = .g. 0.... ..,...., co ....G2 '4- 0 •-q- ft - ''' 4.-d .4_E "C-- C ‘......, o . C Li j 0 0 g o ,`2 gi g a_ - 0 .s./2 12 CA ri w a, =-- b— cc, woo0 •0 Z I---▪ 0 0 L. U MN 8 N t.) . 8 Lu i- a) ., ..--.. E 0 a) >, — u) cs, E .1.-, CO .CO ..." CZ < M t Ccz -4—, CO .4..., MINI CI CL = C (4 C r< al 0 -c, a) ) a) AMM n, •,r --.- O 8 0_ = _c 43 - c'., 0 CZ 0_ r., riM • CD 0 —, ..= 0 8 ._ 'MIMI ri E CO ECI) ° -L-, 0 LAI cC e'3 I a) -0 >, ,c c r,8 . C %__ •- ....., -0 0 '6 a) co C C0 z 0 -E c° C I•• CD a0s as N sq § •— ...— o g cc C a) ro c; A ... co ., a.) ..= - . >-• rn.1•11111 FA ) 1— -1--, C C:) 0 = s -0 ut > = Ill 'E (.0 CO .4....; (1) CNI CD cm ce Cl) E rs, = o . 0 . g 0 Fc3 ° - COC • co -0 ,.., ... W =„ E le 0 CD .§ E . . ' '""" 0 -= ,......(1) CO C -0 II I FA •i —, a) 2 = w 2 co 0 .4...., -CS E a) ___I u) ... 4— :4--' -E ° < = CC MIN - aa aa .... Et 0 _cl 0 0 = E c ) - - 0, 0 g CL -0 -0 .E a) ° E co Lr, 5 CO ;19 - EQ o C -4 z, iss so, - la- Ct -— . ci) ET) cr) o 2 c o -1:::) LLI ._ w -0 -o CD cl. 03 CIZS C vo ...c ›°2 ......... LLI :Ci CZ (I) = _ 0.. ....-, 0 co E co -0 (13 z .? Ea.' . a.) E 0) •tr,N 0 c .0 La -.... .1.., ' C -1116111.111111 X ._ C = Cr) . = C CO ct5 pci) CZ :.---'. E C t, N (1.) fo...., 0 = a) --rmsen N VI 15 1=1 0 f) 0- -1-, -0 m 2 2 CCW. 0 a) E co cr, CI) CD 0) 0 2 • . , :5- F— cp = La N (3) = > C 0 N P. :2, ,: . Tao co co .52 ' c -C 0 • • CCr) -L--- ...0 0 :4-' " 2 gi N ;71 CO ca a _0 't -0 CO co C N 2 C.3 (j) "-- = E "0 0., Li .— CD -4--. g zr,i'. L.1.- s_ a) •...- .F., = C 0) E cp cp !""4111•••••• -E-, i___, = o .0 " 0 51 73 u Cn CD Gt o 0 -0 E ..c -,5 •- & .2E., .0 1.1.1 2 co " • g, a) E 0 .0) CN sa In > > 1.-.. .0 •C ><- _._.r CD = ' 'E w A t •g -.'il -5 ........ -0 = ,.._, ..0 co CO :*-' "111111111111111111111111 1°7 &,„ <I < 2 Ci (D ..- 75 E u) a) :t---. c -,-- 4-... = = g .0 o c oco = E ".i < -lammil UJ -,_ cr, 0 5::2_ C -= 0 E:3- -c, '111•1•111•11 .°4 5' 5' . < < :-.• ,......., Ct 1-7) RS .2 co -CS CL) 0 .= a) . .. z 0. III "..= CO 15 0 U) cp 8 -0 1°7 -: 0, > .......... N 2 , = a) a) -,•.'1 v-1 t•I ''. I. L U l >w ` w i A' •:a 8T-Aeym (' 8T-uef Ubs gad OWU 8Ay 01 w to N N to u, LA un n Li-daS n 40 w c m (. y o CI ro u +4tAvn yn .i n . LI-AelAi 4.1 6 Y T LT uef L 9T-das a 9I-AeW CT 0.) 9T-uef 0.. ' p ST-daS W Q 2 SI-AeW d ,-;' m n u ST Uej cv (1CZ O. = tri-daS va IIT-AM a p U ' 2 71 m tter-uef art ET daS ¢ VQy.. 1 ET-AeW I Ofl. G £I uef I S N ZT-das = AW! O m ZI ZT uef UJ `° � iT-daS d' TT-A.,,,, I 88 8 8 g 8 „ „ - , TT-uef .:is los 3,iv g g 4 g $ g a° ae o v ry w c rn rn rn rn rn m ao 00 Iarea Aouedn»p 0 J8T-AeW 8i-uef W LT•da5 � / LT-AeW LL Lf p Ca n a.-• C LT-uef Cn C C.5 OO CO N _ C. 9I-daS UQ Cri O •— 10 — 0 -= .0 9T-AeW ZCa0. cn O C c 9i-uef <I- -1—, Cl) U a v >, Cl)• Si-daS I O N u9 • CU 0_ O ,—C a) F— O Q RI Si AeW D "C3 >, 2 Cn O C�6 E i O 2 ST-uef v m �J O Q- -C CO N C U e d tri-da5 d it i U (6 Lf) C Cam' in AeW U O .� N = V C� CC yi uef CV Cll U O U i •— C '-' O O N 0 a) >f7 0, U EI-dos co • •C OAET eWjU CR F.—. � 2-® L CL -C3 Cl- H_ EIuef (73 m � C Oo C C Z -daSN 'a CI 0 N CO 'C O O O Q '-' QZAeW zuet .LO O +CQ E LON Ti daS W aJ C CCD s. >, OO oaaN I T AeW HQ N TT-uef i 00 w v N o 03 w C O 03 0 Q CO in• V) " V} VI V} v. 1dbs Jad a;ea jeluaa In I6. LUQtin .� > < a UJ� cnt. w t >111k c CISFF 6 CU1 1 E a) CI '1111111.11 1.1U 03 M LI) I -0 cp A "-CT a) 3 CI)-C22 -.= CD CP ei M 0) N 00 LO (71 - 0 c 4, C71 00 01 M - E ..g.. a) - a5 cz (1) L) z c o 2 sic E -o E `cf.)) 2 0 a) = - o cl) (-.12 (-T3 EE 4- 03 -0 03 0 0 :E c - 0 To 4 CONlDOONOOM C CO - Cl)11J 4--, CO = 73 M M a). Lr) 00 m 4 N a) • ..Eg ,F., - ..o a) -J C 07 ri N CY1 .4- t.0 131 r-I M 1- CO C ..Z....- 0 >, 1.. -0 -C c CU v-i %-i' CD C Cll -0 0_ co 0 ct z I- J) "7 " c" (I) a) ci) E 0 = .. ,:r cr •zr ct rt Ct `zr cly C >' (.0, (.0 01 N (Nt (-4 (-4 r4 0 = _1 0 Y E ci. u-) Lri' Ln las tr) ui' e e 0 a, 0.. c = CO C./D . 0_ 0_ s... 0. 0ij O 0 C) 0 co E (1...) C 0 "0 s-- C 00 co rn c) m co a) N UJ >:-; C1) CN (I) -0-, 1.-- .4--. - CO 0 (i) 2 C () , = b CE5 CD 0 4- Q = 0 ,--. ...0 C 4--' CI U. E 4.0 m 0) ° 2 a (xi' tri to 4.6 e N: N. N: 0 (....) -0 e, :-.., 01.) co 0 0 tz " = , ,-- 0) p _.,- =, c C.5:,„5a:-i 7,:...-,,..... CI3 7 = ___7--- E (3.)" +- ccl- `,"5 -- - 4, in 01 01 N Cr cr cr 'Cr cr L/1 111 LD LO (.0 LO LC LO LL 0 7:3 6 To. (....(/) -"Fi5 L ci.) (1) ce m 3 (1) ‘I'- a) u) C a3 --, = -0 c ....c a) (1) (1) Hi Cr) 0 CO '0 r--1 cr 0 ul h 00 CO r4 • >-' E Ct3 C 4-, 0 r•-• C•J r4. m ,--i Li-) o Ci >, -c .-.- (0 4.0 ..T. M ..v ° = (1) .(4-= 0 CM C t.... •- ..s.-+ i.-30CCO (C) = E -OC C .* * fi'. '8! '*. (,'`'. .1,-k' ** a) a) -12 cD00000rmo ---- < o_a) co • B. CN 0 (:) (1) = tri 0 Ewc ‘ ) 0 A ''" Lri Lri Lri Lri Lri Lri u-; iri U1ri) c.) 0 ..= = 0 c - ,..., (.... c c .r4 en o -4--, ,....s." rn 3.-- 0 0 •- -- 01 'Cr 0 CO M 01 0 0 "CD CD '4-' ..F..., ° .,-,,L7-. CO 0 CO a) "4-' . C.) .9,..) -0 c) 4- L... ., E c 0 r•-• li7 1-1 1-.. co N 03 LD N ri Is••• N 0 01 (.0 Cr .0 0 LI) 6 < 0 = -a W r-i. e•T r4 rri' 4' 4* (xi' tti' NNNNNNNN C 2 ...c CU 0 O •_ .4- co 0 C C -1--* 4.••• 0- .0 -C „ CD (13 0 CD CC X .)--; >-, "- E E To - *z,`: e e '?' ,e e. * * 1-- Ca) 00 c _a o = co = , Ln 1.11 1/1 L.C1 L/1 LI1 u) Ln -c-P- E 0 (1) C° ci) 0 (-) CT3 11-1 4., C LU w o -,,,, E -0 = ..8 cl. 0 c w as E a3 ' CD (13 0 - co (r) 0 CO (----6 in 0 LID CO LD 141 N 0 00 01 Cr 'Cr 'Cr cr cr 'Cr Cr M en CI E ca a) cL - 7:3 c •- ''a' ,-- E .cz c o CI o x NNNNNNNNN = as -(;-' c,.... pE (c, 0 L0 0 E - I a"D) .0.. CD cji = -rts CD CU 0. 0. - CO -E. -0 (a) co (.._ .4- V1 Ln 4 op r-I t.0 0 1.0 N Ul 3! Lr&) g 1 K: q ?-9 VA F-1 c9 00 -1 cu .= w E a) E -,C_ __ 2 E .-i-z-I, r--. (1-6 U 2 oo- ,-.Z te - M = Hr-ft-lc-lc-le-i 1-le-le-1 0 Q) = ro4--a) -Fiz) 7-(7) E o_ c 0) o_ ci, c o 0 I-- x a) u) *4-%.7 ..= ct3 co = = o ci) 0 LD Cr U1 0 ill cr r-I 01 Cr L/1 01 01 03 U1 ct cr LD M cf) a) cz = CO C C) 0 ca. --, -- - C c L.n.. c-i 0 00 U1 0 .j- C71 00 - C2- 47 m in VD h h 00 a) o N (i) E -0 o as 20 c E as 0. > co -(7) a) co to m m m m m m on ct •::r 0 t5 -= --- 4-- -0 t = = ui 0. -00 a) 0 --- CD ..0 0 = z CD C Ca 4C-7) _c Eo 72 0. Z CO 4- 0 -d CO -,--' >-. C cr) cu 0 --.7.5 E = 0 a) N U1 LD N 00 01 0 r-I N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) -.--, 0 C >.. 0 -, a3 co .c, < i... NNCNINNNNNN < ''.r., t4- = (0 _c :.--=: ‘4-1 .'. ...0 (13 ''''' al •"'",..., (0 >•• LU 0 . . U) _ o co cu +�^ 4 , - a) o _c to rn 45 W W e C .. . m •- a) co c a) _c ya U Q) L W . c v m o o � ' Loo o cCa o a)2 CD o c = .-a m o pa�j 6 a) O -O = Q) U) c6 0 O a CO o Q o co as 44- U as as o_ c o Ca "� U o Q- 0 CL _o a) o ai v a) 0 a) L = E Rs o0 C >' c .0 o- 4= c a) .0 -� >� -� !— C o c T Eo Cl). N as o as as o o o so_ E U 2 N o m o `� o ami m aci rn a c -N 0 C o C n� o c� N O C a) to U U .�, c �,� 4) 1 Z7 U o O_ d3 .6 Q.= .v O O N p co a) ..co a) 5 t6 LO a) s 07 o O O N >, C N c) Q) c 4L- L a) tQ a) � O Qa) L tII (y - C to SZ 4- -0 -o ..o 0 a) - o C O a) [2 a) i) 7, 0 E -0 ITSA (ill tv C E v C a) L c 0 Q - c6 m O tZ t6 a) Es. (-5j = c t) E (�6 ,�, O .to .0 .- Q. cii •� C ' "o O7 C •O 0 O c - 90 O CL CQ (6 C co O C C o CO 0 t3 cn a) l- Ce E a) O to E s o o aEi N to -o rn - c a ~ � o .v' o a) Q- a o N -0 0 is o E cY`6 °�° Y `~ a V -O o o () oo U C -0 •'c-' c 5 t- a) "CS o C o .�, t0 C c U as o c N E E o 0 N U) U E a) t� E •C/0-) a) 5 to 0 ca t •c = U O E v U c C CO U Q t 0 o + OC o t O -0 L co .N N Q C -o C -C .E Z = c a> f— t3 -� °) Q w c t o N O Q = to cn (13 C O p . U) C 'o 's C)) (O a) C > C 0 � 'c U o 6 o L 3 F- as _ >, E as aa) c c 0 co a 6 -c U) U)) a) 2 0 c) S. N -0 c N U (.j C - tea) (cv„ 3 co Q L (Cl c o o E 'c 0 co 0- c as U) L t/) O o c O p . ' o O OU t6 0 -O .,>', �0 Q. c6 =' Q - O -U -. = O - U ,c o 0 a CO C 0 .5,�. fy_-. t6 m o c N •o E i O O) O U -0 a) C m c > :1 >, a) TiN >, -:4 o L `*- Q- a) N U O) to C c � OL o Q —� N -O O .(�, C -- - 0 Q) N C O - V N D) a) .0 +-C, N a) C R c) -;n to , fp_ 2 0 >.U) C to :.� .r a) co to - c -rte c6 += C O Cr) O = (Oj) O t6 a) +to O (f) Q) 0 tU N as -0 C - C = 2 v.r • L Q c E to E -c - to >, a) O c a) -o • O O L C (o Q) i C O U Z a) CO 0 .0 ,+ (.= C >+ C t6 a) •C ,r lB O (6 4) $ ▪ o o m c o E C = E E c _c ..0 a) N C c6 m to 45co U U .E 0 0 a) to L yt.., O U N "+C� .Q L fn C L = .N Q (6 -c (o c O CO O .moo+ t4 tCf p _a N C vE U) _ t6 t6 t4 o / r C Q, U) Ca C \ U O �' (O N >` too In {B E c C \` N o .2 O c 2 . w 0 a) Z3 C '- 0 - E r� a) Cl) C cD i. NtZ p �' COT .- c .- t O > .Q L-' o OL a) "O N C U E al t .- 'C O (0/) O c o > a)co a) .� �- •_ o O v .._, -ti-3. O a) E O (6 ft. La_ a) U) L U -C71 2 a) .,- N O N C� o N to 6 aN. 0 = N N al i CL Ja. �.. `�"' co -r-, -,-, E to tB Y L E t6 (6 < as o ° 4- o U m o rn ("„ o Q o (� E C L E _c N a 0 2 c . ,-�- L E E O C �) O CL N N c W : C ib a) E o o tU � O = -c .- tc6 co Co -C N C U N N a f2 O _ ,, tics o N S' U m ® E U E +- 2 a) _� c c `m s°)c c E - N tU o a) U) .c 4- L N Q-O -O L -,�-, S t4 O -4-5 Z -0 q) X p) 4- O a) t6 4- a) C 0 CI) CO C C C L i ,._- _ o s o a) a) E E o L to to E 'U a to o Li 0 • Q o -C m -0 m , coi ado coo o o EN .v ton w �, .5 o c o a) E co aa) c co N 4- -✓ a) (''1 4- a) -t3 0 m 0, o a) L - 0 a 0 C c o a) j �>> .� o Wro 0 o � _c in n 5. Lm Q °) o ai o 0 a) to ® o U m a) E C4 a) E Q U c a) J m w c c a) as cf.WCa v p p c Y 0 to ��cts co .� tLn t tLn _C = a) CLU � a`)) m 0 a) N 7 .a? as o i' z3 :� U �' U) cs C C cOO m .E (B a) as a, s > o a) c °) ~ ca Wcn • o O -c co -c = 0 o O TD- c to = 'C4 -,-. c a o) -C a o W "� u. LI � _ o ac) a0i -' o E - (Qv s `o 0 co15- Cs.- a) o r, zs - _c L 0 4- us _ aus O- v; to C c c- 0 C C C C c .--• >., 0 C -1-, CO Cd C -0 (LVL - 0 ,- 0 .2 =C to E °2 ET) E ai E E >.a E E �a Eco E c c — to 3 �t E = m = t� c = = o as m na = a) = ca N tom.) ca 2 o , io O a o 2 Q o 13 = 0 o C O a) o o6- '5. a) 0 v -a) o V o o V V v 0 V CO E C? V V -� V v U _c o _C O t6 -O 1--- m sZ U • • • • • • • • • i v _ a) • U) s N a) >W to = a) --2 cn cn U 5 Q O a) : L •C E c o -0 2°- 7 5> :1 2 —E co _.= Q2 = cE0) ca C a) 0 'cn a) o CO a) 4- v •a a3 -Ci) � O � c6 a) __ cc a) E > § I— 1- a ca Z 0 E D N a) ca NI CD O CCS C! += Ii 0 0 0 0 c N O ooo1 0m0 1`./ oM as 03 m m N m N tf m N W E ate) CO 1-°- _ CO I— •c ca •N U? s= O .O 4, U 0 Q O O > c-1 0 0 0 0 1-1 0 N '� ,a? (13 D a) ci .1_ aT.22 Q L NNNNNNNN O 0 — = CO U) c CoC -s--• O O -' ' to C a-' C CST cm ca a) +� to ^ CO - - CO 0 0 a) - CD a) *0 o -F-' __ O E aa, m ° _c O 0 a) co CD -0 � tz 4.N E � '� oo W CO ca a) Q - u 03 < c u O - O < = �., u) E coc a) E a, Lu 1/1 r z a co nn cSe, a) N 45 J c,- c� Rs -�= a m °I < < -, o- < 1- co.) = z� M N = - Q a) CIS ' CD . Li_'cn (NI = to CO U) ' '�- CO a) as u) F- as a) co O _ CL a) EuI CL a) <[ -0 O ',_, 73 1.2 O CD U o, 0) Q- = -a) -O ®W -0 O = u) E Z ca O a) s= C6 0 Cn F-- F— o a) �L U =' V/ Q ` ? w X W , m s Et Lb. Q. r A e s _ CO Z -� C U, U ia) in OCis co w Z C a '~ E I'I E •— O ¢m cn co W 47 r3 i U 541 E 7. - " = p 7. � Q U s11< CO °L c3 4—a 4 m E N = m yB ,_ 0 c r Z 2 nnk - _ m U) ' n a < AFI` 0 E v 0 R Ct. m 5i to ® CU — d c 42 t.1.- = c o Ct U LJ. vcx lac ti c I i ' IUTT O C 77 10 1114 W CD CD O --> w o d...11 o, Z _ _ m E • CO W Q � � * raw LIS W,il ' r �,a d a • V a i t• c L U = a] 0- LU o o - L O }, `a o 43c cn C Q io CD E c s. Lu �- Ct CL. 0CA MIL_ c as d a) co as, � o w -'--Cts CD - i— tn I *'' -:-. >, 1E6 CN C 0 0 Q (-) 1? .. CN 0) CL -e 0 .. - = - -1) (1) tx -- o_ 5- c::) :4=; a) ...c (1) = CO CN CO = ,.....CD (%1 ; .,- co E ...,_ CO u) c o o0_ -..-7--, w -+• C-• c %- 0 s— = CO-0 (I) >, Cl) = 0 C a) CC -0 - 0 E = 4-4 --. ., 2' Cl) 4± a) CD 0 a) = -0 C -0 A-, o a) cc) a) ca co c.) a) C 0 _a c > E a) c :0 , -§- - . ... -0 -o W C 0 -= C (13 cr) a) cxs CO CZ E cvN., as . 9.- :,- - co E 0 CO •77. %..; CU = 2 0 ,i- m in 0 = F ti-13 -1.....0e9- E '4;-7 a) >, co o m cr ,-1 i_ I-- _c) a) -o 0, Cl) 1:3) NW = 5..... " .-....• CO 0.. If. In Q. :1.' t13 U.) E co = a) :.--' = -4---, CK CO W -1--. an -0 12. C = E c ..= (f) ...-, C - a) gc D -I—, = •.::_- X 0 s— o (I) u) C/) — 0 cu a Tt I-I m cn N co to (3) 3 — acr) a) tY1 1•••• VD v-I 0 01 00 Ln " CD .._ Am... 4-4 ..i. 13 r.1 (11 N. N 01 CO 01 01 ,-„, 4—, ci) a) CI) 0- m c 1-i 1-i" c:f rei Lri LI._ -,-.. as ifi 2 Z c E a) a) Cl) 0-) CD U) c(3 =2- —a) S E E = a) " L_ ) g_ ...... co To *4' 1.0 04 1.0 00 N CO M CO ' CO ca. E 8 (LE TO 1-7)) = 1:3 ro ro a, Lo 00 M ‘3" N. (-, L. c cu 4-1 04 m •zt kJ) Q0 v-i ra 0 E co a) c wr-T. v--I cr 2 -0 Q) Itt• > 0- C To 0 _ co , , - — 4— ++ C4) 04 qi. 00 .0 co co 03 •or .4. .4. ‘4. .4. cr a) CO = E 0 o a 2,- cra. tIDs al N Ns Ns N N ....., (1) CD 7.1--5 -ci 0) 12 0- in Ln Ln t6 t0 t.0 lCi 1.6 •-=-- " I- f 2 C C = M CD is... CC3 co U) 0) -0 CID "C-- 0 Le) -0 CV 0 co CCUE (D iN Ln (.0 0, CO 0) 0 c--1 N a) (0 T (I) a) r-i r1r-i v-I v1 (--1 N N (N Cl) -(7 CV a) --?:- 000000000 1- (N --C -E (1) ,.. 04 CNI rsi CV N N N rsi ni C -O 1-- cts co "TD 7:6 m — c = a) c = a) C.) (NI = cp :-E2 0 E _a ._ 44— -1--. .„C = '— >.+ :1=1 (/) C — ' 0) CO 0 Cl) CO CZ -0 C CC5 CI) ° CD -1--, u) E a) C CD . L...2,2 — _i.......- a, 0 = (J.) co 0) .. a) Cf) CZ 0- C/) 0 C CD CES ..C---?: 05— ° u) f..... co 0 °L. -1 La 0 0 all --- (1) cl) cl) c s- a.) C)) c.. a) > o a) a) 0_ ...,-. a) Ci) -= lit2 ()) E -0 o 0 ca. >, E C d,._ S ,.... 0. 2 u_ -0 Q4— L. 0 0 = ca. --.-----; Cl) 0 .4'""' (1) "4-4 7:3 _ a) CO CI' > = i...... >. CO 0 TES 0) — C .C— MI a) = _.= CZS CO cn E E _c C CD CD_ a) CO :4-_-, -a-r) L.._ = CD Ci) u) CD a) = ..= ,a) u) L- = LI co_ ,a) 2 2 .-E- 'CT,' 0 I— CO o fp_ 411'41. = OD (0 = Ci) emU j ix u 4 � a) Ltil wK trt /� f (1) _ 4' >w W _ C >. a a to -o E re ni D. 999 3o939900®agg ® 3993H EIH . 0 t0 CO- .-t0 I M r1 CO at N M U1 O N to t0 v N a+ h M v O UI .i tD t0 Al N U1 U. v 0 ,-1 O h U1 N N M O *i t0 U7 t0 tD at OO O .-I a' co 4 co M .-I t0 W M N . .-1 .1 .i .-1 .-1 N N N N N N U1 In to 0In N .-I ,-I .,-i -4- aNF i } 0 H H Z a+' e o 0 0 0 0 .e 0 0 0 'e CO* o a a� 3' a CO.:. C o 0 3� ; T o o a'` L 0 0 0 �GI' O N N M V_ O n Ul O co'''. O N U) � ,y {} D• � .-1 t\ U1 .-1 H Ot •'I V O M 0 0 0 0 0 .-1 O O .1 N .-1 N M �Y C N N In .-1 at M H O t0 '4. r 5 Orn .i ..i 1-1 v. CO Ct . co co Ot CA CT h In Ch M M N h M h 7 CA h O 00 ON ,-1 h .ti s} h U1 O toN CO 0 CO .-I 0 CO h h CO Ot h N In CCI v M Al v N h h N In ON M0 N h .-i N n .� .-I N N U1 N N M 07 N CO .-1 0 CO t0 In CO M N .-I M Al 0 in. C11 .r _ C NW O L N a rcs C >% E 1- z COn IN U N a I- . i in LL LL 7 O O > j'? m .4 ... _ uv o t U) v `L or = CO _I0 = ..fi + < u() L9 C7 Z la W0 A ! p rn0. rn Dt rn at CK •MEI = O N a; V- CT 1-.. d C W 0 , CP 01 CT CP CT 01 at o 0 CT at 01 07 CT 01 CT ,.,1 ,,,I ,., N N M 0 i� to v rn v rn sr cI v 0 a a' V a, 'r m a rn w.Reearutin E w ce M .-1 .-1 N N M M O. v U1 U1 ID tD h h CO a1 = 4— I 6 C C -EA-4A-a►a�4A-al•eA a:ar ar VI i1}yr a!at a} Vo i 0 a0+ ,a0 a0• .....y0 O 13 V E .c 2 2 2 2.J 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 o o o o 0 o o C b O U L N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N Ut O U1 O U1 d C O . 0 VIy O U1 O U1 O U1 O U1 O U) O U] O U1 O O - 1 3p N •-, .i N N M M v v In In t0 t0 h h CO at .-1 .-1 .1 N N M Cn L O U U J 4,9-4A ah 4A-VI a} 1,9-ah a}A9 49-4A-ar at aT a}a+a}4A AA 4A--64 of N V W W L V CCT C.f. /��` Z�y i Z 13 Cl ( 12 ai > E Q `F J^j ♦nom' .. CO CI) 0 i u >+a _, w WV) w . C a tD m m M N1'1 c 0 0• 0 o o• C o 0• Zr. 0 o 0 0• 0 0 N 1D .a m m .••I t0 O W n ,-1 O M O �' 0 n !` 1 O CO O C N r' ow In p W N • .-1 <n E of 40 0 Ni m m t0 to Ni N .-i t`O N a i+ O 0 0 .1 N N ri .♦ .-1 .- .-1 _- .moi .r-f .N-, CY A m a Z N a o E N L- co - .-1 .f V' - to to 111 N N N o0 N N m f co 01 t .-4 .-4 N it t0 m .g to 4-14-4 N l M t0 0o m N rN m N S m O M O .•+Ni t0.i'-i N tD cc z rl .-I N M N N .-1 N Nill .~-1 T in CO m to n CO 0 N N d o 0 0 0 0 C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '.1 O t0 sr' M V ..1i+ O N N N Ni m M 0 113, V mM m LNn W 0 ,i CO tD O 1' t0 1.13O N t0 N.i n C N CO m M 01 N M III O 1.0 1I1 0 o �, �/) .1 ,♦ .-1 .••1 (V of +-1 •-i .•i .-1 ri M .-1 .-1 .-1 CO a e•1 0 N I' 01 10 'V' N M W 0 1/I 7 r-1 CO W ti CO CO co N m o m co tb co 1I1 •E co N m to m co o <t .-1 t0 O N .-I N 1 O o7 oi.-1 c0 Iri .♦N O 4- z .i .-1 N N .-1 N `"1 ID01 0 OF1- 0- 0- I E o O m tD CO m O m 10 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 "4 171 N N M ti N to E In co .-1 O to i 0 O W N O V Q 03 W 0 to M C N N M m l` .-ii . N m f-- l . -i 1 0 m r, m ^1 N W C ...44._.....44 C u ra 1-1N O •V N ri Lan -C '- T' Y Q _L .J c rLL LL y U /f1 c c <iJ o L E U o U a_ tom' r�+ in c .111 ,a) o a 0 p U,Uu. Dc 7.. UN C o C tV 7 C 0 y O U .1� A UI 7 a M E m m 0 t-Ci Isms �� ` '0Xv N •O Y m m m m m cn cn 4.9 0 . -o 41 N 0 1� om1 omi om1 omn m a'' 0 o .0 0 ■yamc ,a) Q. I fp U) .0 4.Nt0nvNOmi � N j C 0IA w W m in+A w va_tir► 1 1 7 0 CO , ',. C V m U U 01 0 C 'O = 0 _ 0 , 1 1 t , 0 0 0 0 y �° w al 6 .,-, 0 ln = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = o a m a 0 01 L. y C m v a W C 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C m N E O_ > E w C c v 9 o. O E 0 to t.-�1}tri tri tri O ui 0 1n 0 13 a i- ,•''"---.‘ � a. 2u(... ¢ O � E 2no. 2u1.... OZ p V inininiu pa EQa /) in= A i- I CU `,✓ CM O ^E W )a 1P� ^ v J w tnz - • 111 MtOo tt0000N01 � � � � 0 Y � � � � � � � � .#. _.. N t0 O m m N t0 m 0 0 0 0 0 C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? O co O n N r+ ch C m T ri t0 O W f. .-1 O m O v O n n L N ri f. O N O 00 1' n '4 to 21 ul t0 CO N 01 M l0 6 N O 10 ri N Nr i O O O N N 0 ri r1 rl r1 .-i E! vr, rt .a m Ma Z iU N O. " co v .-1 vv enu1 u1 n N N O CO 01 to N N O) r1 r1 N v t0 al 1!1 r1 m tD co m n r1 N n m 1\ S 01 O fr1 O .-1 Ntri-.-i..-i. (.1 t0002!z r1 N N m N N N N 1, ti v +R-i- 000iUlnODOis. N Gl \ \ \ � .9 y � \ \ � � \ \ \ \ 44 O t0 v m v .i y,, o 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t O 1� N N 01 O m .-1 t0 O H N y GD rl W t0 O v 00 t0 O O N et �, vmmrnul Nt0'N0 o U '-4 -3 CV r4 O t0 Vf O O 4 (A ,-i ri ri ri 14 N .-� a .A .-7 .a P I -4 ri r1 CO a ri0 N 3 v m ut v 1s, m 00 0 ul sit .i O Wr1 CO CO CO N m 0 01 CO CO 0 1A co N 01 t0 01 0) O V' r1 t0 Or, 111= s .-4 N a' O 00 0.-1 03 ul .4 N O z .-1 ri .-1 N N .-i N .-i V0 iii-CA sir O L a. Cl.)c C 0001 UP000100) mo0 0 o a O 14NnnminNO Eif, mrt010 U O V) '1 N N .-1 O v co 00 CO to m C N Nis) co0001 mn Q ri .-/. •1 1V M 70 1i./ C __. C U 1}. N OU N 1.4 SWIM . T CL Q :LL _1 C 0 L .N.N ^' O �{/ U C31 'C'C O O'L UIU'aA! ,y E 0 010 0 U ° o g� O ...eicg c t t o L1 •to mN •N D Q 0 01 V E U ,tiC aeon NMI _ .: E S •Levi o 2 m p m m m ER ER o _ L 'O N O Ol Ot 01 01 01 d•Cr' 0 o L O /�V 7 a 7 1 1vn a N m V N Of +R fR N in C CI) C v 2 V V 01 C -NO Op Nl to ur+1t+R ffr , . + o S 10 «/ Z'y t N 0 O O Q N 'a0--. o N = 2 '0 00 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 2 w a M 41 •to 0 N y � m U N •C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C E 10 V E . 1n • L° � • d1ri o0o L° u a3 E 0 E cv 'o o. S) E v rn *+ ui uiuioN oIn o '0 m L -� E O O N > s• m C O o N 3 O 0 t}•i N m en N. r1 .-i N v > N ♦ ' a 2 LL Q O rG C1 a 2 u. O 'L 01/ +R+R 44 44 44 44 fR iPr Q a Q. \__, CU S..... 0 W ) a rct V I W ti) = . L U 4 w ^�W N a® d o o (O U) 0 0 ) N z O co e- O 0 N- 0 N- 0 NW .. N N M N co cri M _ 4i v Tr 0 LLO M O) Lf) co O N- O N N" ti M c b- N 4 cY) O cc O r CO O CO h cr Cr T e- CO 0 0 Lo 0 0 N O co ti N- Lf) M 0) (O LO N N (O F cr) C\j C') t- d o p CN- C LL_ d' M r e- LU r o N O o 0 p CA 4 i Ln O) a ti u) N (0 0 (Y) CV (0 U) `t M Ti 6 cn M CO co tto - \° D co® M u M COOOD 0) U) N Ln 0) M N " I Cr; N coCI M r r N- O O r T TS CO Q 0 C0 T" .4 d: r T M M 0 CD Lo CO N CDN- LU COO d1' M , TO 4 N tQ Cary s Q o• crn `c° aN N (O M CV Z M N- O OMO CD N a LC) O CA co0 co cor cv 0 in LO Lf) r- CNS) M --j co r a) 0)t C o U Co 0 t 75 2 To : U O n U = E (Q C I— W C O W c C C 7 e'L 'p r 'Q O ..0` N — .00 N O 714:t co RS U L a) N U 63 n iii 2 da0 U) ti = To U u 0 co 0C i C C C 0 C co U = = = U = z = co to co cn to co o U) o aa)) o v) o aC) o 0 (i) D000 DUUU V) = ' L U L. �'vLn . Wy LC U C) a) x W o) c a• c N a) o o M 0 U-0 CD a) co x U co a a) N N y i p v a) O M 0) O to a) O a co 7 O2 C tea) N v z .� LI_ ifscO = -- < 0 N .c +- R LL >co O Cl) > o _ 0) > a) >, CJ CU m = W o . a U) N otf LU a) m o c C))a) ¢ xS a D a > to CG c co) N CU c °5 a O n. Si m o -C c) v O C ` Q a`i 02 Q Q vc o•• ou) CD aa) c v o 0 )w Q C, aCa lc .c Q c -,••-• a) a5 c_ m v ot3 a5 a`) CU 0 C} sZ "iii O o a) - m 'C aco 0 l" a) C_° o o a a 0 a) o o 0 E E RS o xc) o. x ,_ o• _ o a) o a) 0 0 .a) c •o o n o a 0 as 0 L U ,a < LU a CL ON u_ CC to' = 0 U U _ u_ a : O F- a es a U 0 )a) °) c) a o u `5c4 a) u ) aa) > a)(2a)c m o O > cn o > .v o o > vo `o ac) CO .c '5 a) . Cf) CD 3 S cvE n vo. a) cCr) U°) o Zc -o o , = CO 0 aX Ts F) Q) cas = U 'Z3 Q) SZ•- a) 2 v O m 0 s a) '11 o O O O ac O L � NN C � c Ca co a Q >, CII L- a) . • 33 % O >, -cC ` _, 0 cc >, _>_, ' a �ll p co L O O A a) C13 s Oo = c ) LE ) � pi f O CO s aC6 i Na) 01 > C N co C . C > >, ...-, L.-N Cn a) L 0 U O -cs 0 E i a) B s � _ pi_ p o _ O O N _2N . O UG7 a) 0a) as o• O ai c v n 0 0 > (U >,X) U cnc w s 3 c ._ ° v c a)Q ' - coa) � 0)' a a.) 0 a) u) a) ai E c� E 0 o o 0c � `a 'cna)az3E p o7'a) — oa aa) a) c � Q c _ v0 _C c� E (U m - ao 0 CO (U _ c .g_ ) cp aa a '- as -- 0) )so c c)-) c cv ca) v m ' c o ' CaaCO . > as 0poo N CO o ° E a) = B CI) o c n •o o) a) c a) p a)> v o o t04) Q ` o .E _a •ca > a CU B u) ip c E 0 a) a) a)a) a) = aQ o0C �a = 0 a) o) COc c0 ' > co Zr) CL CtIS — ,o ac oa) � Ors) c cTao V C -(.) ` . x Ca as c C > 00c0j5d ` nQO = •aa) O c) a) cui o _c � 'c c" o = 0 . o_ -C O ) O -p•c U > ca =a) 0 0 o a) CO E . c 0. o » < a .a as A >, E > - N x a) .5Y a) = as u —O a o = oc > U)Q o) a) co Q a a) tUz c], cE O E -c o c m a) 4- c -- .co c c E . 'o oW as m .C. a) o E N as .E3-) > E „ o0 o ac a ;vO cca) t L Qo x a _ a) CL _ air) c ) m _> ca. 0 a) cscn am0-Q U ° o 0 a0 .E o 0 N 1- -C 0 o c -a E CAumow is cx ) 4 0 • ce • Ofila Imussm CL E O U O Cn 0 CU N c, C5 J -J U CQ N to (U a a)a, co Q a> (Z U, U U) a, a, U) _ :10:: ill 11. illik: il ii a 1 II Ito w I 1 ,,. , .._ ,k,. " rob. * I 1.p ': l ri',., ' oil ,II, i NIi� oils ,s utsoi ,_.. !a . impl 14 I' gII I t! N SII 1 � 4N I ; I =1i �� 4,outio I J AXIOvIETRIcS 11 I 1 a �� T'' a RealPage company II ii 1.. S! ,� I II APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY Livingston Road1 Report Date: January, 2018 Naples, FL PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: 2201 inkcr;klc°[livel l` Stock Development,LLC Chuck Ehmann, Real Estate Economist Ili f�,7e '-o;i l { 75082 2639 Professional Circle#101 Naples, FL 34119 214-953'2242 a.KionieUic corn 239-449-5227 EXHIBIT "V.D.I" tea — I ter , � � _ =1 k�-�- "1 r" ! 34, AXIOFIIETRIcSa ti rr ai in ill Hi �esl + { �I i i _ !i� ' t IDP a RealPage r r nr,a ' i ��',��` �r .y I i sl® a i y 4 > 41�ra I Va -41.141 ;It u TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Property Summary 1 Naples Metro Area Apartment Market Summary 1 Unit Mix Analysis 2 Rent Recommendation 2 Absorption Rate 3 INTRODUCTION 4 NAPLES MARKET 5 Naples Submarket Apartment Market Fundamentals 6 Supply and Demand 7 Occupancy and Rent Growth 9 Occupancy and Rent Growth by Class 10 Occupancy and by Bed Type 11 New Supply 13 Lease-Up Performance 14 Naples Submarket Apartment Cycle 15 Pipeline: Under Construction/Planned 17 Under Construction or Planned 17 Naples Fundamental Drivers 19 Employment 19 Employment by Industry 21 Top Employers 22 Population Characteristics and Growth 23 Households 28 Household Income 30 PROJECT ANALYSIS: LIVINGSTON ROAD 32 Property Summary 32 Property Location 32 Property Characteristics 33 Comparable Properties and Analysis 33 Unit Mix 35 Comparables Descriptions 36 Community Amenities 40 111111111111,/ 2,.17 _ *2i(41; tiE eR`,<EL) 7.1 1411, IJ sp I Ott II A IF U AXIOMETRICS® tau AIL ;ft "• fiP !('3�7" � t 3r y isigi m s eto „�.1 i �Ji i ti l l! IP i ��10�� ry ` sh. Interior Amenities 41 Subject Unit Mix and Pricing Summary 42 Reasonability of Rents 42 Household Income and Ability to Pay 46 Leasing Schedule Summary 48 Summary Evaluation of the Project 50 Disclaimer Notice All advice, consultations, queries, data, forecasts and reports (collectively referred to as the "Reports') provided herein are prepared from data believed reliable without verification or investigation and are not guaranteed or warranted by Axiometrics, a RealPage company, its directors, officers, employees, and contractors and do not purport to be complete or error free or useful for any purpose. While great care has been taken to ensure accuracy, the facts and opinions contained herein are not guaranteed or warranted to be complete or error free or useful for any purpose. The opinions expressed in such information are subject to change without notice.Axiometrics, a RealPage company,its directors, officers, employees,and contractors assume no liability for or from its advice, consultations, queries,and reports provided HERE/N. Please use such information at your own risk. C 2017 PP A*ometrt._ LL r ALL p1GH'TS RESERVED 11 — In i* .„ri patF _ t 1 , �rIN � II up AXIOFI1ETRICS , . 1 ' ' �� 3tRai , A mill'® t ��.lE ° .xV° +rrj �Iit. at$1111 �tl ._ i I ! e-- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Property Summary The Subject is a planned multifamily development to be built in the northern portion of Collier County, in the Naples metro area of Florida. Construction is estimated to begin in January 2020 and conclude in January 2021.The development is recommended to feature 320 apartment units encompassing 328,340 square feet of net livable area. The unit mix will comprise 144 one- bedroom units (45%), 144 two-bedroom units (45%)and 32 three-bedroom units (10%). The Subject, at delivery, should have some of the most luxurious interior amenities in the market in order to be more than competitive within the market and command top of the line rents. Recommended community amenities are expected to also be some of the best in the market to position the Subject as a high-end, luxury apartment community that will attract moderate-to-high- income residents that desire the apartment lifestyle without the hassles of homeownership. The current set of apartment projects in lease-up or under construction in the area surrounding the Subject site will have been completed and leased by the time the Subject begins leasing in late-2020. Only a handful of new apartment projects are expected to be built along with the Subject in the next few years, but these projects will be less luxurious than the Subject and will be located either closer to the Fort Myers area (which commands generally lower rents than Naples), or further south near the Lely area that caters to a different renter profile than Livingston Road is targeting. In addition, Axiometrics' forecasts of apartment demand and renter household formation through 2021 indicate sufficient demand for these different types of properties to succeed. Pre-leasing should begin in September 2020, and construction will be complete by the end of January 2021.The Subject's recommended unit mix appears appropriate for the market given the location and current look of the area. Individual market-rate unit pricing is based on the assumptions used for this study due to the newness of the Subject and comparables in the area. The Subject will reach stabilization at 96.5% occupancy by March 2021. Naples Metro Area Apartment Market Summary Naples'apartment market has shown great resilience in absorbing the effects of several divergent economic, demographic and development trends over the years. The apartment market was strong and healthy throughout the late 1990s as job gains were robust and job growth exceeded 8.0% per year. The 2001 recession caused demand to weaken from 2002-2003, with absorption slowing to average about 300 units annually. Market fundamentals normalized over the next few years before the effects of the Great Recession and housing bust caught up with the market, increasing vacancy rates and lowering rents. Since the recession ended, the overall vacancy rate has decreased significantly, while annual effective rent growth has been solid. Naples' stable economy, coupled with reduced housing competition from an expensive single-family market, should allow the apartment market to continue to exhibit moderate to strong growth over the six-year forecast period. 2.?.17 WI A,+ontetric LLC ALL PIGHISRESEPVED •:114;4,1-1.1 I n AXIOMETRICS rrI � �� 3 HpalP3t"l. ".,r�.,1-, :Nil :3 i3 k�. 1 PAN 61 Forecast new supply will peak in 2020, right before the Subject's initial lease-up period, with deliveries expected to approach 1,370 units. Apartment market fundamentals are forecast to remain relatively stable through the forecast period, as healthy job gains and continued in- migration mitigate any short-term imbalances. Naples' annual average market-wide occupancy is forecast to be 95.7% in 2020 and 2021, during the Subject's lease-up period. Annual effective rent growth in the Naples metro area is forecast to finish 2018 at about 2.8%, as new supply remains moderate. Rent growth is forecast to remain solid at between 2.9%and 4.4% from 2019-2022. Unit Mix Analysis Comparables Subject Unit Average SOFT Mx Average SQFT Mx 1BR 812 35% 839 45% 2BR 1,113 51% 1,140 45% 3BR 1,340 13% 1,355 10% 4BR 1,584 1% The Subject's recommended mix of unit types has a slightly higher proportion of one-bedroom units than do comparable projects in the marketplace (see table above) but is close to the overall mix for these comparables. Average unit sizes also track closely to the comparables set. While the Subject anticipates attracting young professionals from the Naples metro area, it will also attract older, empty-nester "renters by choice" who also desire to take advantage of the Subject's close proximity to nearby employment and commercial hubs. Based on the analysis of existing, under-construction and planned competitive properties in the market area, as well as the area's demographic and economic trends, we believe the Subject's recommended unit mix appears appropriate for the market. Consideration could be given to increasing the percentage and number of two-bedroom units at the expense of one-bedrooms to more evenly match that of the ratios seen in the comp set. Rent Recommendation Based on the current set of comparable units examined in the Naples submarket area, we recommend an average monthly effective rent of$2,033, or$1.98 per square foot(PSF), for the Subject's apartment units. However, the Subject will start leasing units toward the fall of 2020, and the last units will not be delivered until January 2021. The submarket is expected to experience positive rent growth from now to delivery. As a result, we applied an increase of 8.7% to the current recommended rent, which yields an average monthly effective rent of$2,210 ($2.15 PSF) when the Subject delivers its units. Livingston Road Apartments will be the first true luxury apartment community in the Naples area with average rents about 9% above the market's highest priced semi-luxury property — Orchid Run. The Subject will feature top-of-market fit and finish elements and features that will position IMF02017 RP A.110rnett LLC ALL 4l6F{TS RESERVED 111 s ItAMETRIc : :; i4kJIf 1! n is IA lel 11 -7',1M' *.11. .,1 -� . U', 148 1, - is it as a premier luxury community. Its location between and among some of the highest-priced country club and luxury home subdivisions adds to the prestige that the Subject will attain upon opening. Absorption Rate The monthly absorption rate from September 2020, when pre-leasing is recommended to commence, through the Subject's estimated stabilization date in March 2021, is estimated to range from 30-60 net new leases per month,averaging 44 net new leases per month.The average lease-up performance in the Naples submarket was 28 units per month for the most recent apartment projects in the market. The Subject should reach stabilized occupancy of 96.5% by March 2021. The Subject's occupancy will increase from 96.5% at stabilization to an annual average of 97.2% through 2021 and 98.5% in 2022. (See Leasing Schedule Summary on page 48) 1111111115r _,o17 Axiometrics LLC ALL RIGHTS iESEF?�`EU AX IOIVIErRICS ClrillarTY 'iris `` i # yHP,IIPTJF `? + 1! � INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to examine and analyze the market feasibility of the proposed apartment project—(tentatively)Livingston Road Apartments—as well as the Naples submarket's economic, demographic and apartment market conditions as a whole. Employment and population growth are the foundations for a healthy apartment market, and a healthy apartment market is a desired trait for a profitable real estate development environment. Naples has had solid population and employment growth for many years, which has attracted both single-family and multifamily development throughout the metro. Annual job gains have ranged from 4,000-8,000 in growth years. The bulk of residential development in Naples has been focused on serving the high-income retirees and snowbirds that flock to Collier County for the warm weather and relaxed lifestyle. Single-family homes in gated and/or country club developments and condominiums close to the beach comprise the majority of construction here with price points aimed at these wealthy in- migrants. Their main housing choice has been the for-sale market or condo rentals. Moderate-income workers are priced out of these developments and seek affordable single-family or apartment options farther from their jobs in the eastern portion of Collier County or southern Lee County (Fort Myers). The majority of apartment development in the Naples area in recent years has been focused on this affordable segment of the population. Left out of the mix has been those higher-income residents and retirees that prefer apartment living as a lifestyle choice. This is the target market for Livingston Road Apartments. The primary concern this paper attempts to address is whether there is sufficient demand from the target demographic to justify development of Livingston Road Apartments. _ r r 4B° ti I I t [t, � a ,,, q I u * l ! AXIOM ETRICS® 4=• tit ii NAPLES MARKET Wilk= 4C 1 vl,. .:.� - _r Normally, our analysis would start at the Metropolitan Statistical Area-level and then progress to the submarket level. However, in this instance, the Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL MSA contains only one county — Collier — and this county is coterminous with Axiometrics' only submarket for this market. In a few instances, the apartment market fundamentals for the neighboring Cape Coral-Fort Myers MSA were combined with Naples to create a larger custom metro market for general comparisons,as demand for apartments transcends the county borders. Collier County(the Naples MSA)is the largest county in Florida by size at more than 2,000 acres. It extends from the middle of Florida to the Gulf Coast, although a large portion of the county is the Big Cypress swamp portion of the Everglades. Naples refers to the western edge of Collier County and consists primarily of separate communities within the county.The city of Naples,itself, represents only a small part of the population and geographic area. The Naples area is surrounded by swamp and farm lands to the east and south, and by Lee County (Fort Myers) to the north. Most of the Naples population lives within planned unit developments (PUDs). The far western edge of Naples has been mostly built out, requiring teardowns for new development opportunities.Teardowns are a common occurrence in the most desirable locations. Only a few smaller tracts suitable for small developments are available in western Naples. New communities that require large tracts of land (golf-course communities,for example) must look to the northeast and southeast reaches of Naples. As residential growth continues, new housing trends will head farther east, north and south within the Naples area. However, there is a limit to how far Collier County can expand eastward because of environmentally sensitive and government-owned lands. Naples is a bifurcated residential market, with luxury homes and condominiums built for the wealthier in-migrants and workforce housing, apartments, and manufactured housing for the ) :,Z'2I lS I t v 4% „}y+ ; . It ' l � ,�"rl[ H+16 K � 11� AXIOMETRICS® ��i � f t i ,L!! Itti 1 r.�f 3 r=�n � � 1 a, � 4 ,� a 0,10. I'M III ;n a RealPag company ; i�� a 11 ii ;J' ! " , `-r Altai s � ,{ lrt't � M service, retail and government workers that support the base of the local economy. The Naples apartment and residential rental market is relatively small compared to the U.S. average of homeowners to renters. The homeownership rate in the Naples MSA is 72.0%, compared to the rate for nearby Fort Myers (63.5%) and the national average of 63.6%. Much of the housing stock is single-family homes in gated or country-club settings or beachside condominiums that attract the aforementioned wealthier buyers seeking a second home or part- time residence. With fewer apartment choices in Collier County, many workers commute to service jobs in Naples from neighboring Lee County (Fort Myers), where the apartment stock is both more plentiful and more affordable. Fort Myers' average effective monthly rent was $1,168 in the fourth quarter of 2017, compared to Naples' $1,380. Naples Submarket Apartment Market Fundamentals The table below summarizes the apartment fundamentals for the Naples submarket. NAPLES SUPPLY AND DEMAND FUNDAMENTALS Subrnkt New Elf Elf Occ Rev `,f,of Metro Metro Inv Job Job Abs/Metro Year Existing Supply Demand Occupancy Rent RG Rent Growth Available Available Abs Growth Gain Growth 1K Job 1996 52,276 1997 54,503 2,227 4,130 90.8% $ 726 0.0% $ 659 0.0% 5,973 55.9% 78.5% 4.3% 6.7 8.6% 308 1998 56,083 1,580 1,447 90.8% $ 768 5.8% $ 697 5.8% 5,455 52.2% 75.2% 2.9% 6.1 7.2% 134 1999 58,987 2,904 2,659 92.1% $ 800 4.1% $ 737 5.6% 5,214 44.0% 43.7% 5.2% 3.8 4.3% 359 2000 61,428 2,441 3,349 92.4% $ 820 2.5% $ 757 2.8% 5,432 47.8% 56.7% 4.1% 7.4 7,9% 188 2001 64,020 2,592 2,614 92.8% $ 844 2.9% $ 783 3.3% 5,193 48.1% 59.3% 4.2% 5.2 5.1% 214 2002 66,758 2,738 29 90.8% $ 850 0.8% $ 772 -1.4% 6,075 49.6% 1.4% 4.3% 4.4 4.1% 3 2003 68,645 1,887 619 88.0% $ 842 -1.0% $ 741 -4.0% 8,346 55.0% 17.7% 2.8% 4.2 3.8% 50 2004 70,475 1,830 5,224 92.6% $ 902 7.1% $ 835 12.7% 6,492 51.8% 51.3% 2.7% 7.0 6.1% 214 2005 72,285 1,810 3,633 95.4% $1,000 10.9% $ 954 14.2% 4,243 48.9% 40.5% 2.6% 8.0 6.5% 163 2006 73,769 1,484 (2,337) 93.5% $1,083 8.2% $1,013 6.2% 4,173 41.8% 142.1% 2.1% 4.4 3.4% (163) 2007 74,689 920 (7,815) 85.5% $ 991 -8.5% $ 847 -16.4% 8,867 44.0% 73.8% 1.2% (6.3) -4.7% 509 2008 75,434 745 4,808 82.0% $ 902 -8.9% $ 740 -12.6% 14,719 48.5% 61.0% 1.0% (9.8) -7.6% (178) 2009 75,599 165 2,629 87.1% $ 831 -7.9% $ 724 -22% 10,394 48.5% 38.9% 0.2% (7.8) -6.6% (130) 2010 75,779 180 1,468 88.2% $ 833 0.2% $ 734 1.4% 9,333 52.7% 65.9% 0.2% 3.5 3.2% 233 2011 76,150 371 4,070 93.2% $ 893 7.3% $ 833 13.4% 6,170 47.8% 63.6% 0.5% 3.8 3.4% 428 2012 76,436 286 1,236 96.5% $ 956 7.0% $ 922 10.8% 2,953 35.5% 42.9% 0.4% 3.0 2.6% 116 2013 76,627 191 886 97.1% $1,029 7.7% $ 999 8.3% 2,450 35.5% 54.2% 0.2% 6.3 5.2% 52 2014 77,335 708 804 97.2% $1,145 11.3% $1,113 11.4% 2,346 37.9% 48.4% 0.9% 6.8 5.4% 36 2015 78,203 868 826 97.1% $1,291 12.8% $1,254 12.7% 2,428 44.9% 37.3% 1.1% 6.8 5.1% 38 2016 78,740 537 (1,001) 95.7% $1,355 4.9% $1,296 3.3% 3,163 46.2% 171.0% 0.7% 3.0 2.2% (101) 2017 79,504 764 (363) 93.8% $1,380 1.8% $1,295 -0.1% 4,796 53.5% -67.3% 1.0% 2.5 1.8% (43) 2018F 80,104 600 1,405 94.6% $1,418 28% $1,341 3.6% 4,706 52.9% 57.6% 0.8% 3.4 2.3% 167 2019F 80,634 530 1,310 95.7% $1,472 3.8% $1,409 5.0% 3,765 49.0% 49.0% 0.7% 3.8 2.5% 144 2020F 82,005 1,371 824 95.5% $1,514 2.9% $1,445 2.6% 3,913 52.5% 54.1% 1.7% 2.0 1.3% 104 2021F 82,980 975 1,677 96.0% $1,572 3.9% $1,509 4.5% 3,726 46.9% 93.2% 1.2% 4.0 2.6% 221 2022F 84,261 1,021 1,231 95.5% $1,627 4.4% $1,553 5.0% 4,217 45.7% 45.8% 1.2% 3,2 2.0% 158 6 r_2017 PP Axtorstietrtcs LLC ALL FIGHTS PESEPVED t + ~ai jt>a� tlp 1 R oil AX tlt ,i Nis 1, is ire t igi II g [13 RPaIPage cnripany .- la� up V f AII s e lit. �► Supply and Demand The Naples submarket's apartment absorption declined after the 2001 and Great recessions, turning negative during the latest downturn. Supply and demand have been relatively balanced from 1997-2015, both averaging close to 1,400-1,500 units each per year. Demand outpaced new supply in 12 of the past 19 years from 1997-2015, and supply and demand were essentially balanced three other years. Submarket Supply and Demand New Supply Demand mm.mmm.mmOcc Rate 6,000 - 100% 98% 4,000 ��yr�.. 96% 2,000 /_ - 94% 01__—_► ! __ — ■�- - 92% 90% 2,000 88% -4,000 - 86% - 84% -6,000 82% -8,000 - 80% CO CO O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O NO ON N N CD CO 8 — - C - 8 C 0 ._ CT O) -C CO CO O N-+ N Sources:Axiometrics,a RealPage company,Census m " " `' The Naples submarket's apartment net demand dipped sharply in 2007, losing more than 7,800 occupied units as the local housing market reacted quickly to the initial effects of the Great Recession and the housing bubble collapse. Part of that exodus from apartments was attributed to condos and single-family homes filling up during the housing bubble build-up. Apartment demand returned in 2008 and averaged 2,840 units per year through 2012 before settling into a somewhat supply-constrained average of 839 units absorbed per year from 2013-2015. Weaker than normal job growth in 2016-2017 resulted in net move-outs in the Naples market, averaging -682 units per year. At the same time, new supply averaged 651 units the past two years. Supply is forecast increase over the forecast period to average about 900 units per year through 2022, although the proportion of this multifamily supply comprising condominiums or senior housing is hard to gauge at this point.Absorption is forecast to increase sharply in 2018 and 2019, as new supply and rental rate growth remain moderate. Demand is forecast to average 1,357 units per year from 2018-2019 and average 1,244 units per year from 2020-2022, or about 1,300 units annually from 2018-2022. NM, fl "-1`1. = , 1(.31.11 5,RESERVED �I ► F-121 e,it i f • I'� It " A£ r ry i t V. f IIS- !1' AX IOM ETRICS €_ fA `�� a HeaJPag c-nrar 1 t ! `�" I n ,�r►: i ;': !! it 1' Y 4 1 ► ,. f to flit. " I! ! �, '! 1! (y Submarket Share of Metro Absorption and Available Supply %of Metro Available - %Metro Abs 60% 200% o ---'�.. 4` 50% • 0` ' 150% ...• a 40% as 100% co a1 •a `o 8 30% r•....,1 % 50% Q 2 I t 2 I m 20% 1 0% 2 1 c 1 10% I -50% -100% 00N N N0% N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ON N O N N OO OOO 0 OOO OO O 0 A_ C3O 'VWDONV O (0O W A. Ot O) W 0 0 N WNCO NT '1 -n m -n Source:Axiometrics,a RealPage company Comparing Naples to a combined Naples/Fort Myers market, Naples garners the larger share of area apartment absorption, averaging more than 55% of demand from 1997-2017. Despite generally lower rents in the Fort Myers market, Naples draws more moderate-income workers who support the service and medical industries (among others) in the Collier County area. Historically, Naples accounted for an average of 47.1%of the combined market's available supply (vacant units plus new supply). Although that average had dipped to less than 40°/a from 2012- 2014, the current(4Q17) ratio is 53.5%. Fort Myers has attracted the bulk of new development in the combined metro market,with an annual average of more than 1,820 units compared to Naples' 1,297. Forecast moderate inventory growth in the submarket has Naples' estimated share of metro available supply averaging 49.4%from 2018-2022. 8 20.7 or Ax zmetric: LL;_ AL_ hat1TS RESERVED . ! a • i .�y t`n 4 1 - R I ![ i-I III t AX IOM ETRICS , i i� � s r.�+11 j l € - AI I yt a RealPage compare. '. p t e E fl Ill Occupancy and Rent Growth Submarket Occupancy and Rent Growth Occ Rate Eff RG 100% 15% ° 95% ,,♦+ w 10% 90% 111Si 5% 85% 0% 80% -5% 75% -10% 70% -15% -> -+ N CCVDO OO CCCODO NO N O N N NO ON ON ON N N N ON N N TN N N NTO O O O O O CO 0 - C+) CD WO 1Source:Axiometrics,a RealPage company Submarket occupancy and annual effective rent growth movement mimic each other and show a high correlation of more than 90%. Historical occupancy and effective rent growth in the submarket average about 92.0% and 3.5%, respectively. This compares well to the combined metro area's historical occupancy and rent growth averages of 91.5% and 3.4%, respectively. The Naples' apartment market performance in 2008 was mixed, with demand exceeding supply by more than 4,000 units but average effective rents declining by 8.9%.The next few years saw similar demand/supply performances, but rents bottomed out in 2009-2010 and grew by healthy levels, averaging 7.3%, from 2011-2013. Occupancy plateaued at a nearly full average of 97.2% from 2013-2015, while rent growth hit 12.7% in 2015. The net move-outs in 2016-2017 dropped the occupancy rate to 93.8% by 2017 and annual rent growth dropped to 1.8%. Three-year and five-year average occupancy is forecast to be 95.2% and 95.4%, respectively as the market returns to a growth mode. Axiometrics forecasts rent growth in the Naples submarket to ramp up slowly to more moderate levels by 2019, with 2.8% annual effective rent growth in 2018, 3.8% in 2019. It will slow to 2.9% in 2020 before climbing to 3.9% in 2021 and 4.4°10 in 2022. Three-year and five-year rent growth is forecast to average 3.1% and 3.5%, respectively. 9 AXIOMETRICS nti 4 r- 11 -"101 "tIseCt IF �«! ,� ` +.fg its # E 11F1`. NOMt�1uI. G a t I�,. Submarket vs. Metro: Occupancy and Rent Growth ......Submkt Minus Metro RG(Bps.) •�•••••Submkt Minus Metro Occ(Bps.) 250 200 150 c 100 U 2 500 -50 V NO NO NO NO N-100 (o Co N N ON N ON ON ON ON NO WN OUt ON cooO O O O O O Or O oco 0 0 N 'TI TI Tt m '77 Source:Axiometrics,a RealPage company Naples typically outperforms the combined metro area for both occupancy and annual effective rent growth. Naples'occupancy rate dipped below the combined metro area's average occupancy rate significantly only three times in the past 20 years and averages a 57-bps premium historically. This reflects the fact that Naples is a desirable apartment market for potential residents.The lack of comparable amounts of new supply in Naples compared to Fort Myers and the strong employment market in Collier County keep the apartment units in higher demand. The submarket's occupancy rate is forecast to track more closely to the combined metro average from 2018-2022. The Naples submarket's rent growth has been about 35 bps higher than the combined metro since 1997, and the submarket outperformed the metro's rent growth more than 60% of the time. The desirability of living in the more affluent Naples market is evident from this data, as well. Axiometrics forecasts the submarket to underperform the combined metro only in 2020,averaging a 24-bps premium in effective rent growth over that period. Occupancy and Rent Growth by Class Occupancy and rent growth market comparisons by class of space proved unreliable, as the Naples market's limited size did not allow forproper stratification of the asset class categories. The tightness of the current market fundamentals and continuing demand for apartment rentals has blurred the price and occupancy divisions by class, resulting in a market with fewer differences in individual properties' performances, regardless of age and location. 10 2,117 P '...I-,r 1Etrffi LL'm L etic_itit < � .� ' � `` -- 0i r i ;0 i1 ii � ii AXIOMETRICS . 0 ,; r ilii 1 ■`�9.—� .14 ,.,4 kI 'l g 1„ '„ If is 4! 1 3 Realf'a cnm�r,�� tel -� I 1 i Vii,ji�� m l Q �i ' ! f''' I, ,,i,„,„j '�,.. .! I" 8 l aaa lac �sa- �' trn41l1( ffi u .. k i � ! Occupancy by Bed Type In the 2011-2013 period, three-bedroom units underperformed compared to one- and two- bedroom units in the market. Since then, occupancy by bed type in Naples has moved in a similar fashion for all major bed types. Notably, three-bedroom occupancy dipped much more sharply than other bed types in the seasonal ebb of third quarter 2017, but rebounded by the fourth quarter. Naples Occupancy by Bed Type —1BR -28R 3BR 100% 98% t ,,N ,Niix.96% /i�� 94% 1 / 92% 90% al 88% ilmoi A A A A A A-, AA AAAAAAAJAAADAA .P _ NWAVV 86% AA A A A A J AA _ N W AA . h ( Ci UO) °' 0) A w P _ N W :s N N N N W W W 63 4'O O o -+ - -i Source:Axiometrics,a RealPage company MEOW :-. Ni'A t,=1P1E^tri". .. ._L^_ k? �It,Fii� Fi : t.td,F+1 ' i i �' ` Vit, • I!6 _ + ` r ill �� , � ii�9 1��� `-l. 4, t elft 4XIOI1ErRIcs 00e a i�alN�r r mt rz4' it Illi °iii 'a i i t tl6 I ' p<,I q e pp Revenue Growth Submarket Revenue Growth Rev Growth immini•Avg Revenue Growth Avg Revenue Growth in Positive Years 16% - 14% - 12% - 10% - 1 I 8% 6% - 4% 2% - 11111 0% . 1 . gl . � � ,�. -2% - � � � -4% - -6% - -8% - -10% - -12% - -14% - -16% - -18% - _ N N N N N O N N O N N NN N N NO N N N N NO O O O A U7 8 V T OT -n88OO O O .O O O O O co O to 2O -+ N W Source:Axiometrics,a RealPage company Historically, annual rental revenue growth (calculated as the change in occupancy plus effective rent growth or decline) has averaged about 3.8% in the Naples submarket—but averaged 8.0% when using only the positive growth years. Revenue growth decline was moderate after the 2001 recession, decreasing by a total of 5.4%from 2002-2003.The housing bubble that pulled renters out of apartments in 2006-2007 and the recession-induced losses the next year took its toll on the Naples apartment market. Revenue growth declined 16.4% in 2007, and fell an additional 12.6% in 2008. Just as effective rent growth did, revenue growth moderated from 2009-2010, with a net average 0.4%loss each year before rebounding to an annual average increase of 11.3%from 2011-2015. With little change in the high occupancy rate, Slowing rent growth and decreasing occupancy from net move-outs caused revenue growth to average only 1.6%from 2016-2017. Revenue growth is forecast to return to moderate levels, with annual growth averaging 4.3% in 2018 and 2019. Revenue growth is forecast to average about 3.3% from 2020-2022 as rent growth also moderates in this generally high-occupancy market.We forecast revenue to grow by an overall annual average of 3.7%from 2018-2022, slightly below the long-term average. MEW "2.,,17 1,,,p ,=rr,rle trlc: LLt.. A_L 21t;1 l 1 L,t.L- F= L..1 i -11 Ifr ;� , T1s �� 1 r �N �� 111 AXIOIV1ETRICS® 8 t Vinic oo r.1 et . a RealPag-rnmfl3ry " P IIIo:ill le p it IS °�ata�te� tui Iia `;' erf E �I .. �. . �. � � -� New Supply Submarket New Supply ®New Supply New Supply -Inv Growth 3,500 - 6% 3,000 - 2,500 - - 4% 2,000 - 1,500 - - 2 1,000 / � • • 500 47. % 0 ' I . , ' ' , , „ , , N 0% CD 8 NN NN NNO NNO NNNNNNNO NO NNN CD CO CO Co O O Co O O O O O O N N j CO CO Co N W A Cr CA V O CD O N CO A U7 crl V 00'n TI 11 T) TI Sources:Axiometrics,a RealPage company,Census New supply in the submarket averaged about 1,297 units, or 2.0% annual growth, from 1997- 2017. Peak new supply delivery during the historical period was 2,904 units, or 5.1% growth, in 1999. Completions tapered from their peak, then dwindled to less than 200 units in 2009. They stayed low for the next four years. New supply, as calculated by Axiometrics, includes projects identified as under construction and a portion of modeled supply based on lagged permitting for multifamily properties of five or more units as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. Supply improved towards pre-recession levels from 2014-2017 with an average increase in inventory of 0.9%, still less than half the long-term average.Axiometrics has forecast 899 new units per year on average from 2018-2022, or 1.1% average annual inventory growth, although some of these units may become senior housing or for-sale condos. Collier County does not have a great deal of developable apartment land available, because the bulk of residential construction in Naples is devoted to the single-family market. 2f «G a,r.-pro%c:tr� v LL'. ,ALL Rl(31i lES PVEU 4XIO1 ,1E1RIcS® . k if Ig 11 r i i• lf!' ������ 4�'-'i( 11 � � � 4 of � � --_ a pPatP3�8 n�t�k7rty � . �u ,� � � .. „911,,t�� ; . ��Er. -u� 1•44,, I! 1` I)! 1,141; . .•. 144/1 I t � Submarket New Supply and Job Growth irrw New Supply -Job Growth 3500 10.0% 3,000 8.0% 6.0% 2,500 4.0% 2,000 w �.. �, 2.0% 0.0% 1,500 -2.0% 1,000 -4.0% 111 11 -6.0% 500 -10.0% N [tVDO O N O N ON ON ON N O ON ON WN NA IN) NO VN N N(C' CO O OOO OOOO OO -'O NO ioO O U) m V CO O Sources:Axiometrics,Census,BLS ON -" Residential demand is driven by employment growth and, generally, new supply is a response to increased demand.As seen in the chart above, new supply in the Naples submarket slowed and nearly halted during times of weak to negative employment growth, usually after about a two-year lag. This lag allows the construction pipeline to clear, but it creates pent-up demand over time when the economy recovers. As the Naples economy improved and job growth resumed after each downturn, new multifamily development returned. Constraints in the lending environment, limited land availability and developers' caution should rein in reckless development in the next few years, mitigating the possibility of overbuilding. Lease-Up Performance An average of 28 units per month have been absorbed during initial lease-up of projects completed in 2014 through August 2016 in the Naples submarket. Despite limited new supply growth, strong rent growth can dampen leasing enthusiasm in the short term. 142017'PPAxrrar��etri r Li_t` Ai . Pl(GTS I ESERVELi „. _ ,F , s r 1 �.S .lip i r ��, ��' t ice! HI ir - ' I-. . ' ' r Iii # 1 a.+zin Rt Lia "5.I - i y r tab blks dui t „ �p 8 .�. ', I a f Naples Submarket Mar 14 Apr 14 May 14 Jun 14 Jut 14 Aug 14 Sep 14 Oct 14 Nov 14 Feb 16 Mar 16 Apr 16 May 16 Jun 16 Jul 16 Aug 16 Occupancy Bared on Total ltts 21.6% 245% 34.0% 39.0% 50.0% 61.0% 85.0% 77.3% 96.0% 24.6% 30.5% 53.6% 58.0% 67.0% 84.4% 926% Absorption pis) B 26 14 30 30 66 -21 51 24 16 65 12 25 49 23 Absurp4on Rale per Property F•r IAywh 8 26 14 30 30 68 (21) 51 24 16 65 12 25 49 23 Asleep Rri $1250 $1252 $1252 $1228 $1229 51259 $1283 $1241 $1233 $1556 61653 $1658 $1669 $1662 51662 51689 Aslug Rat per Square Foot $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.08 51.08 $1.11 $1.13 $1.09 $1.09 ;1.45 $1.55 $1.55 $1.56 $1.55 $1.55 $1.56 Askr9 Rental Growth 0.1% 0.0% -1.9% 91% 2.4% 1.9% -33% -0.6% 63% 0.3% 0.7% .04% 0.0% 0.4% 'Media Rent $1250 $1202 $1202 $1178 $1204 $1240 $1258 $1241 $1233 $1556 51653 $1658 $1869 $1662 $1662 $1669 Media Rent Rr Square FOol 51.10 $1.08 $1.06 $1.04 $1.06 $1.09 $1.11 $1.09 $1.09 $1.45 $1.55 $1.55 $158 $155 51.55 11.56 Hiecbve Renal Growth -39% 0.0% -2.0% 2.2% 3.0% 1.5% -1.3% -0.6% 6.3% 0.3% 0.7% -0A% 0.0% 0.4% Carressbn Vats $0.0 ($50.0) ($50.0) ($50.0) ($25.0) ($19.4) ($25.0) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Concession Value as%ci Aslag Rent 0.0% .4.0% -4.0% -4.1% -2.0% -1.5% -1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Naples Submarket Apartment Cycle Expansion '06P111'121'13P141 ,16 191'21 • '18 = r 061'16r22 „<- 20 '17 8.5% Equilibrium '08 '091'10 '07 Recovery Contraction The Axiometrics Apartment Market Cycle Model is a purely objective graphical representation of where a market is in the real estate cycle in a given year. Based on apartment market supply/demand conditions and drivers, the market is assigned a position along the cycle curve falling into one of four quadrants (see graphic above): Recovery (blue line), Expansion (green line), Oversupply(yellow line)and Contraction (red line). MEWC 2017 i4P An o mmetrlc:: LLt.. ALL 1.21t3F ITS f ESLRVEU A )(IOFv1ETRIcS �i � � '"� p^ 1 NK "1"Fl pl1t I' II I m 1 Flea P ?rcrzt; it i � l IRI *124 i i it a I 1 ,:1I 1 411 k 1, IA II it b ' !� !' r v.: i r :_ t,,Vn if It i :1 mar w<+ f I �� Two specific factors are used to determine which of the four quadrants the market falls in. The vacancy-rate trend (increasing or decreasing) determines if the market is on the right or left half of the chart. The vacancy level in relation to the long-term average vacancy rate for that market (equilibrium rate)determines if the market is in the top or bottom half of the chart.Taken together, these statistics determine which quadrant the market is in. After the quadrant is determined, the market's position is adjusted up or down in that quadrant based on three other market variables: 1.The current absorption/supply ratio. 2. Current rent growth compared to that market's long-term average rent growth. 3.The current ratio of new supply to the existing base or inventory(units), compared to the long- term ratio of the average new supply to the average existing base or inventory. Based on the criteria described above, the Naples apartment market showed robust recovery after 2010, moving to the Expansion quadrant by 2011. Meager amounts of new supply through 2013, coupled with healthy demand that averaged nine times that of supply, kept the market in the Expansion quadrant. The still healthy level of absorption in the submarket during 2014 and 2015, fueled by increasing employment growth and renter household formation within the submarket, kept pace with burgeoning amounts of new supply as developers ramped up construction to take advantage of the growing apartment fundamentals. The Naples submarket remained in Expansion in 2014, but slipped just inside the Oversupply quadrant in 2015. Forecasted moderating demand due to the tightness of the market, coupled with projected increases in new supply, will keep the Naples apartment market oscillating between Oversupply and Expansion through 2022, essentially keeping Naples at the top of the market cycle for the next several years. It is important to note that a market in the Oversupply quadrant is not a poorly performing or bad market per se, but rather bears watching. If the market remains in Oversupply for an extended period because of a serious or protracted imbalance between supply and demand, it runs the risk of moving to the Contraction quadrant. Many markets are technically in Oversupply due to short- term imbalances between supply and demand that occur as a natural consequence of the uneven timing for construction and absorption. �� -,-17 PP Ax1d7metr[cS LLt_ ALL WI(�FI I5 gESERVED � � � "� i,„� t`g ( _ � , rID; is # ilk 1w • i �i � r 1 3 `•i 149 d ' ' �R; �� I!1 i11 II III I < I 5: gt N J t3 iT 41gti to t l : [ Pipeline: Under Construction/Planned The map below highlights some of the under-construction and planned properties in the Naples submarket and adjoining area. Under Construction or Planned Planned&Under Construction Pipeline Units ISO iia Greystone laKe $:e:I • • L4? 2 E4 ke:ldebl ial cviityt at Gulf 1 thea Status !benl1'nlrit Detwliltnneet 44F4(t'`rt 1 •i14 ., •f• !4'L tot Uk+safc•a 0aI Lreet ••unNla Fu lunch SOW te 0 Addkirn Plate Legacy Naples • aAll.ulatakes msplra at tely keSt• •Vlncentlan Village Journeys End Project Status Longitude Latitude Units Milano Lakes UC -81.68066 26.11905 296 Inspira at Lely Resort UC -81.70415 26.1078 304 Journey's End P -81.69221 26.04725 483 Addison Place UC -81.69144 26.27538 240 Legacy Naples P -81.71598 26.13967 304 Vincentian Village P -81.72069 26.07669 224 North Point Development P -81.81104 26.42488 150 Mosaic @ Oak Creek P -81.77782 26,3344 273 Bonita Exchange P -81.752 26.32969 264 Estero Crossings P -81.78317 26.43014 350 360 Residential UC -81.93297 26.4959 224 Springs at Gulf Coast U/L -81.77402 26.44018 203 Greystone Lake P -81.78363 26.49287 300 Subject P -81.761611 26.301769 320 Axiometrics currently identifies five properties under construction at this time,with one of those in lease-up.Three of the five are in Collier County, and the other two are in Lee County to the north. The project currently leasing —Springs at Gulf Coast—is located in Estero, north of the Subject. This 203-unit, 2-story property has 17 floor plans from studios to three-bedrooms and averages about 983 square feet per unit. Current pricing indicates an average per square foot rent of$1.40, well below the rate Livingston Road is pursuing. I artaF —• p_ is a wu; i 4XIOI\1ETRIcs® ��� .`d , .5�.1' b� �IISZI ��S1 (j+'" '.z$. lb _' +{. x'4 �j '/' � 11 [R:.. 1 111: rlf 2i 10 -04 r rnmpa�y : . ��� ti t�a 'ii` '. a HPalP�zif !'f tista1 �c ,�l� H t.411' 1 •l 1. 360 Residential is developing a 224-unit apartment community in Fort Myers featuring four, four- story buildings with elevators and garage parking. The community will also offer such amenities as: a salt water pool with tanning ledges, water features, chaise lounges, grilling stations, a fire pit and a 24-hour fitness center. First units are expected to deliver in the summer of 2018, with a completion date of February 2019. No preliminary lease rates have been determined to date but if it leases at close to its sister community(Aster at Lely Resort), it should be in the $1.50-$1.60 per square foot range. Stock Development's Inspire at Lely Resort is also currently under construction and not yet leasing. The project will contain 304 units in five four-story buildings. Community amenities include a large clubhouse with a game room, conference room, fitness center, aerobics/yoga studio, and cyber lounge. Leasing is expected to begin in the summer of 2018 with completion by year's end. Per square foot rents are estimated at close to $1.77 at this time. Milano Lakes will contain 296 units on The Lords Way at Collier Blvd. The project will have five 40-unit buildings and three 32-unit buildings, along with a 5,000-square-foot clubhouse. Milano Lakes will provide first leasing option to essential service personnel in Collier County but is free to lease to anyone after that. Leasing is expected to begin in January 2018 and published asking rates average$1.40 per square foot. Completion is slated for June 2018. Addison Place will be a 240-unit, four four-story building community located at Immokalee Road and Collier Blvd. The project will feature one-, two-, and three-bedroom units averaging 954 square feet. According to the developer, Addison Place is targeted at working professionals and families for an affordable price. Leasing is expected to begin in August 2018 and average rents are estimated to be close to$1.82 per square foot. Completion is projected for June 2019. In addition to the Subject's planned 320 units, a total of 2,348 units have been identified publically as planned for construction in and around the Naples/Fort Myers area. Other sites that are being pursued for apartment development could add to this total in the next few years and several of the identified planned properties could take several years to reach fruition or fall out of the pipeline for one reason or another. Our forecast for new apartment supply of about 900 units per year through 2022 takes into account these shifting probabilities of development. 18 „ _ Q1(3H1',JESERVEt) 4-4 it tri• i o '1 '4 , i �E � �������� P� . '� � ' *I ,4 $ :K� �, t 1"€, � .. li !!; " lit 1!_ �' e i ,���� .,3u1 � Bei LII � 1 �t r1. 1.1 11 .�t�41u[t , • � � t Naples Fundamental Drivers As with the metro area as a whole, demand for apartments at the submarket level is primarily based on economic growth and demographic trends. Increased employment inside the submarket or within an easy commute is a key component in deciding whether to seek an apartment in a given area. Various other factors enter into the decision, such as the availability of adequate supply; the age, appearance and amenities of the existing stock; the character of the neighborhood(culture,nightlife,crime, etc.);and affordability.The preferences of potential renters based on these and other criteria make the decision about where to live a highly personal choice, not just an economic one. As mentioned previously, the submarket in this case is all of Collier County (the Naples MSA). Development of apartments has occurred in clustersprimarily inland from the more expensive land along the beach coastline. Concentrations appear in the Golden Gate City, Lely and in the Airport Pulling and Pine Ridge Road area. Employment The Naples MSA has generally had stable to strong employment growth for an area known more as a tourist and retiree destination.Annual job gains average about 3,200 new jobs annually since 1997 and about 5,400 jobs in non-recession years. The following chart depicts annual job gain and percentage growth on a quarterly basis from the second quarter of 1997 to the first quarter of 2016, with our forecast through 2021. Job gains have slowed by more than two-thirds since their recent peak during this latest cycle, dropping from 7,500 jobs added by the end of the third quarter of 2016 to 2,500 in the fourth quarter of 2017. The current level is the lowest since the Great Recession and about 1,000 jobs fewer than the long-term average since 1997. Part of the reason for this low job gain performance is the very low unemployment rate of 3.9% in November 2017 (see below). Fewer jobs are available when a market reaches near-full employment. Axiometrics forecasts job gains to remain in the 3,000-4,000 range through 2022, averaging 3,300 jobs annually from 2018-2022. 19 ° ! i , ,s 1 t 4 i i r in r .1�`„_ ,s, i l !' is I 1.11 ::: AXIOMETRICS . a NealPage com r, l i i.1.' �1Ii� 'f;i i g I� , s ;, r� �. 41e 1,rY I .. i_1 le 4 Inam - ,, Naples Job Gain and Growth Nom Job Gain('000) =.----'Job Growth(%) 8.0 ri 8.0% 3.0 3.0% ii ill 11\ko 11116° , (2.0) -2.0% (7.0) -7.0% 1 {12.0) -. 12.0% 6. A h. A A A Q A p P A p A p A P p A A A A A A A P A tD O O O O . O O O O O 8 Y !-' 5 i--' 5 5 ,.. 05 0 N N N V 0J l0 O N N W ? to D1 V 00 lfl O f-' N W 4,-,,,, to Ot V W tD O ,.1.2 N Sources:Axiometrics,a RealPage company,BLS U.S., Florida, & Naples Unemployment Rates 12.0% Naples - �=Florida U.S. 11.0% /11\ 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% - L 5.0% 5.0% 4.0% \�� / 3.0% 2.0% N I--' -' I-' I--' 1-' 1-' N I-. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N z LD 40 t0 LD tD t0 CD t0 t0 t0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O Ou O O O O O O 0 LD .0 LD LD LID i0 t0 t0 t0 t0 0 0 O 0 0 O O O O O 1-' f--' 1-' t-' P h' O t-' N W A to of V 00 (0 O I-. N W :p in D7 V 00 l0 O F-' N W .P to m V Sources:Axiometrics,a RealPage company,BLS 20 02017 RPAsgametricµ LL`. AL3 iw3lt,;PIIS qESEPVELi a rt� 4 ilk * »g t ' RI �� �4# •f AXIOMETR1S(p _ � t; 3U. ,1" ! =* 11€ Etle ut NM `i ssfit== * '.•tj1t lid .! i,} ��L 1 Naples'unemployment rate tracks very closely with that of the Florida state rate,remaining almost identical since 1997. Florida and the Naples area suffered higher unemployment during the Great Recession than the nation as a whole, but recovered quickly and ended November 2017 at 3.9%, 20 bps below the U.S. rate of 4.1%. Employment by Industry Despite an economy that relies a great deal on real estate, construction and tourism,the industry mix for the Naples MSA is not severely out of line with U.S. averages.The shares of employment devoted to the Trade, Transportation & Utilities; Financial Activities; Information; and Education & Health Services industries are within about 100 bps of the national norms. Naples MSA Industry Mix Mining& Government, Construction, 9.3% 11.5% Other Services, Manufacturing, 6.5% 2.8% gip. ' Trade,Trans.& Leisure and Utilities,18.6°% Hospitality, 18.7°% 14, Information,1.1% Financial Activities,5.5% Edu.&Health professional& Activities,15.0% Business,10.9% Sources:Axiometrics,a RealPage company,BLS The large differences are in Leisure & Hospitality (+832 bps); Manufacturing (-572 bps); Professional &Business Services(-303 bps); Other Services (+255 bps); and Government(-621 bps). Given the number of wealthy retirees who make Naples at least their winter home, it is not surprising to see larger shares of employment in industries that cater to this population.Although the share of Health Services was not significantly different from the U.S. share, it has increased by about 200 bps since 1996. Mining & Construction is another industry (mostly Construction) that differs greatly from the national norm with a difference of 652 bps or 17.1% of the employment base in Naples compared to 5%for the U.S. Residential construction is still a key industry here. MEW21'17 "' ,1 ,r trlr5 LL,: A_L R,H l4 F i=g ?P.Lt_i II!!! FT AXIOIVIETRICS �` � Ili:: ■ 1 11 t l!il -� � . ,,slap �� !� .� .�� =� ,, !f keaIPa r mni3R� ill !1.1.1111~ ` f i a ,' `. '! I � � tl r.. � � 1 1 IT d v r . E ala I f •' 6�, I. g I Top Employers The following table lists the top 50 major employers in Collier County. Collier County- Largest Employers Rank Employer Name Employees Industry 1 Collier County Public Schools 7,041 Education 2 NCH Healthcare System 4,000 Medical/Healthcare 3 Publix Supermarkets 2,021 Grocery Chain 4 Ritz-Carlton Naples 1,100 Hospitality 5 Garquilo Produce 1,100 Agriculture 6 Arthrex Inc. 1,056 Medical/Healthcare 7 Collier County Sheriffs Office 1,029 Safety 8 Comcast 994 Telecommunications 9 Hope HealthCare Services 880 Healthcare 10 City of Fort Myers 879 City Government 11 Marriott 700 Hospitality 12 Naples Grande Beach Resort 700 Hospitality 13 Bentley Village 550 Retirement Community 14 Wal-Mart Stores 594 Retail 15 City of Naples 480 City Government Source:Collier County Government,2016 Hospitals,schools,hotels,and retail dominate the top employers in the region;manufacturing and other heavy industries are noticeably absent from the industry mix. Despite a share of total employment that is not too dissimilar to the U.S. average, Health Services companies still employ many in the region,with more than 6,400 employees among the top 15 employers. White Collar Occupations .`018 Wlit•cd5a,CtcNllon I.v IPO 1=..±t+27i :n to 30S {la:4m V=.1 In J.1111 ;.11118,1 i 4 1 .. `., ! 141 0 �< Ail ° !!. I 111- M'< A )(IO1V1ETRICSIII 0 � tla t ill iF rtI '. t;VI I g ' i 1 4 _ ;'li 0.F it ilk _, a Ewe3tra r r�?m;fa^, it r. FE'All 1`w s i, : 1 - �s i IL •!• I b -ice E__, ,.-oma 1 I` q 1 .�_� 1 1 i _ 1 The map above shows the concentrations of white collar jobs near the subject site according to the 2016 American Community Census (ACS). Although Livingston Road apartments is ideally situated to take advantage of the surrounding commercial employment hubs in Collier County that include the Old Naples area, government offices and the retail and service employment centers along the U.S. Highway 41 (Tamiami Trail), potential residents will also be drawn from around the county and southern portions of Lee County. According to The Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce, roughly 16,000 Lee County residents commute to service-related jobs in Collier County, while about 8,000 Collier residents reverse- commute to higher-paying jobs in Fort Myers. Though the nearby employment hubs are the main attraction for prospective residents, our opinion is that demographic trends and lifestyle choices also will play a large part in determining the Subject's demand potential. Population Characteristics and Growth Population and demographic profiles can provide an excellent means of discerning which aspects of the population would be likely targets for a particular product or service. Moreover, they can provide a clear view of how the advantages and disadvantages of unit types would be perceived and consumed by area residents. Demographic profiling can reveal strategic insights into why consumers prefer one brand to another within a given sector. The primary target demographic group for the Subject is young professionals from the Naples and Fort Myers areas. Demand is also anticipated from empty-nester renters-by-choice and mature professionals. For the purpose of this analysis, the focus is on the demographics of the entire Naples MSA(Collier County). C 2017 PP AxlortetriC' LLC ALL 041(31 11 F<ESEP`,EU • �,AX Iy*�r' ` �i I 1 ` � 1! !! 3 #?CftrZ7rscl�, a1 i7_� •`�C �� ` r'r� y'l 9 a qt .! 3ie31f ear t on �! 1e't '} 't "I"-- 1 11 ! �� d ..14111 if Population Naples MSA Population & Growth 400,000 Tj 7 Population ®%Change 16.00% 350,000 14.00% 300,000 12.00% 250,000 10.00% 200,000 8.00% 150,000 6.00% 100,000 4.00% 50,000 1 . 1111111111111 2,00% 0 I 0.00% Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y I—Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N NJ N N N N N N N N N N N N N to t0 to t0 to t0 to tO t0 to to tO t0 to t0 to t0 to t0 l0 to l0 to l0 t0 O Oto to O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V-J V V V V.J V V 0)00 03 000p3p03 CO W 00 W lO to t0 t0 t0 to t0 l0.0100000 ppOOOOO Y I-+YY NJ NJ NJ YN W.A NOI V00 t0OYN W AUt Ot V 00 tOO F+N Ut Ut Ol V 00 to O Y N UtA In Ol V 00 t0 O Y N UJ.�]N Ot Sources:Axiometrics,a RealPage company,Census Bureau The Naples metro area's population grew rapidly after the widespread use of air-conditioning began in the 1950s,with Collier County's population more than doubling each decade from 1950- 1980. As the population base increased, annual growth slowed to average between 5%-6% through 2000. After 2000, annual population growth averaged 3.9% before slowing to less than 1%during the Great Recession.Growth returned during the recovery, averaging 2.1%from 2011- 2016 to reach a metro population of 365,136.Axiometrics forecasts Naples will continue to grow by an annual average of 1.9%-2.2% over the next four years, adding another 38,600 residents, for a metro population of 395,200 by 2020. The population of Collier County swells by about one-third from November-April each year because of seasonal migration from colder northern states. 24 ,-2017 fir-'Axrf jrnetnc LLC ALL Pitat1 j 4 Et," i?v'E Li It ""77 �kk gyy. .�.,'', .,m tan„ � ' {'��� i 1 ;}� 3i _' A, �� ktt P , ` font t.1 1: t l S 11�Jig s f Fk ) I �� " lit Eft AXI ETRICS II cei 3 RealP3ge rztriparo 1• ■ c -1 11. e „ `. N �G 1. -- Five-Year Projected Population Growth Rate Popistirtan G.owth k.It0174024 14 To2r,.14a) 1 JU 12 h u 57 The map above shows estimated growth concentrations by census tract for the Naples area,with the area near the Subject site expected to grow by between 5,700 and 20,000 new residents by 2022. Population by Age Group As a noted retirement destination, Naples has a relatively old population,with more than 42% of its residents older than age 54 and 30% ages 65 and older. The median age of the population is 49.2 years, compared to the U.S. median of 37.7. The aging of the baby-boomer and Gen-X populations, however, will have an effect on housing preferences of the overall population in the coming years. C 2017 PP w• rrt lrs'_ ASL RIGHTS RESERVED - !� !� ltd `• 4 4- ,. �� 2 !irr 11 , 111 , 1 a 11 AXIOMERICa `, --:.+4.74,';:;rt ,1� 1 a� '' II �� Itii {�� I ! €�PalP3ge company .NI "Can is I � Ili II a r. Population by Age Group Comparison $ INNaples 2016 U.S.2016 •Naples 2005 A U.S.2005 .0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 69 70 to 74 Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Sources:Axiometrics,a RealPage company,Census Bureau As seen in the Chart above, Naples has a smaller proportion of its population in the younger, millennial generation as compared to the U.S. Conversely, the proportion of baby-boomers is much higher,with the spread between the 60-to 74-year-old cohorts exceeding the U.S. by 837 bps. The millennials, who were born roughly between 1982 and 2000, are the age cohort most likely to rent apartments. Many young adults are putting off life-changing decisions — such as marriage and having children—that might push them toward homeownership. Population by age cohort in 2016 compared to 2005 shows a clear pattern of the overall aging of the Naples population, with fewer millennials and more baby boomers. Demand for the Subject is anticipated to come from young, professional millennials as well as older, more affluent baby-boomers and generation X renters who desire to live in the Naples area but find homeownership financially onerous. Older residents, with a total population exceeding millennials, also are important to the Subject's success. Despite a high overall homeownership rate for the metro, high home and condo costs are pricing many new residents to look toward renting for both economic and lifestyle choice reasons. Apartment communities offer more advantages these days than flexibility and mobility. Not only do residents enjoy maintenance-free living, but many also enjoy services that are increasingly offered at today's apartment developments,including on-site fitness and business centers, resort- 26 c 2017 PP,A'o.rr;«lri4-t_Lrl ALL ttiC HTS RESEPvE1) • ® _ I i§* t., 4`e .''Tti a 1 . 18 I q `4y U 11 I ({it AXIOMETRICS '� z " ''. Ill ' i a r: p t r # . ,� I' a , �'. r ka IPa R� a �! i a gF r om rr I I maw, � Intl ■ a lit i,l @ 3 1 i -- �. a ! iii•itli,i `- !lrrii 4e �::._ = i '.116' a 1. I style pools and outdoor areas, package collection, trash removal and interior features they would find in many luxury homes. The following map shows the distribution by median age by census tract in the Subject's market area. Notable pockets of younger residents live in the Golden Gate City and Naples Manor Census Designated Places (CDP). 2018 Modian Ago . .,, ,� anslkq•(m.dbM w I,_ 3 :Q t V-70 314°:Ct.PS:r, `fes . ,r. ,1,14 Educational Attainment The following chart illustrates the level of education that the market area population has attained. Almost 19% of the population in the Naples metro ages 18 and older have a bachelor's degree, and another 13% have a graduate or professional degree—a combined total of about 32% of the population. Compared to the U.S., more Naples residents have a bachelor'degree or higher than the national average(27.7%). Naples residents with greater educations have a higher propensity to be in higher paying positions and will more likely be able to afford luxury apartment IIIIIIIIIIFAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMEIZIIZIIIII is 914 AXIOMEMICS eir t: e IF . is Healihgf c^m r.; A a r s x .�; jar �� Educational Attainment ■Naples a U.S. 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0%% 0.0% Less than 9th 9th to 12th High school Some college,no Associate's Bachelor's Graduate or grade grade,no graduate degree degree degree professional diploma (includes degree equivalency) Sources:Axiometrics,a RealPage company,Census Bureau Households Household growth has been similar to population growth at the metro level. Naples' household- formation rate has grown steadily through the years, averaging about 2.2% per year since 2011. According to the Census Bureau,the number of households within the Naples area was estimated at 133,331 in 2016. Household growth was slightly higher than population growth during the recovery, as more young people and baby boomers created new households. Axiometrics forecasts household growth to average 2.2%through 2020,for an estimated 145,500 households, an increase of about 12,126 new households from 2017-2020 or 3,000 per year. If the current homeownership rate of 72.0% carries forward, approximately 3,640 new rental households will be created from 2017-2020, 910 per year. Of course, some of these renters will be in houses, condos,townhornes, or manufactured housing. Even if only one-third of these new rental households prefer apartments, more than 300 units of apartment demand is projected per year. The following map shows renter household density in Naples with a moderate concentration around the Subject site. The Subject is surrounded primarily with single-family subdivisions with homes ranging from around $500,000 to more than $2 million. 28 17 RP Ax 'r e(rK. LL RIGHTS llESERVEU li• ® 1 ii i ' n '� il 1- AX� � ��� yi r !H is sr (E E ..,hpajP3q a r'rna"Y " ' :1,,:::i 1��..ane •:, I 1e �. i I ! , Renter Oc uplad Units 294i Be t.,3crup4d fetueini Unit, b Household Tenure ■Naples Owner ■U.S.Owner I Naples Renter U U.S.Renter 30.0°.6 25.0% 20,0% 15.0% _ 10.0% 111 III 1111 1111 III III 5.0% 0.0% —j1 iI' 15 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 74 75 and over years years years years years years years Sources:Axiometrics,a RealPage company,Census Bureau 29 c 7,7,17 WV'Axontetric�,LLQ ALL Pit EIIS 4EStkiEL) � �Hk F F rrI � 1 I i 1YII �I �AXIOMETRICS® It .. 1 # , - I ,� t :!Illii I , I i ,' [ :1a Real'al c mea v sr ' i !t e _ As mentioned previously, Homeownership is strong in Naples, and older residents have typically gravitated toward owning as they do around the country. By age cohort, Naples has almost twice the percentage of older residents who are owners than the U.S. Surprisingly, Naples also has proportionally fewer young people who are renters compared to the U.S.Affordability is still a key issue for both owners and renters in the Naples metro. Household Income Naples'median household income was$61,228 during 2016,and income has grown by an annual average of 3.1%in the past three years. Healthy household income growth becomes an important indicator for apartment revenue growth. Historically, income and revenue growth have lead/lag relationships. Median Household Income jet.Ms.n1i M1ncn,n(.•thin} r i JW V ‘. lilt 11 i ISu'�ect :. i 43` ,+y . The median household income in the Naples metro is highest along the beachfront areas, since it includes the somewhat affluent neighborhoods southwest of the subject.Median income around the Subject exceeds $86,200,where the Subject is expected to draw the most potential renters, as well as more affluent areas of Fort Myers. Axiometrics forecasts that Naples' median household income will grow by 7% total, or 1,7% annually, to finish 2020 at about$65,500. 30 02017 PPAroometrn '._i: . :-_ _ IH3F11`.. PitSti-, ELI I =i x . . {4, + ` ;,tel Wig] tit�tll 0 4, 1 r AXIOMETRICS0 '' ;. i4 h 9ili i ri ;e I ' ' i 1 ell If if ff. 4 . i�� i e . E it 1d s ! 11 II p Household Income 14.0% i6 Napies J U.S. 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% .2e 09 00 0°' 0°' o,°' ,.‘p.) 90 )op 09 ,0 0°� pc) ,, „0 �� t, ,4c O � 0 0 t ) � O 9 0 0 0 0 yo' ya y°5' -' �°�' ''� 3° fib' �o,' h0' ,`p 00�' ,Lp„ boy' Ooi, tc ra Ta rz "� 'x ra 1 ti ti Opo cr2c Oco co Owo co Oco 0`„ 0`, O'ao OKo Oco 0'`, ion toy tion v''y Y00 y�e L000 ��e 30°0 3 00 D000 �y00 �,0°o Oo°o ��00 000 3 0 0000 X300, Sources:Axiometrics,a RealPage company,Census Bureau Household income distributed by income cohort shows a somewhat similar pattern as that of the U.S. Fewer households in Naples earn less than $20,000 annually compared to the norm, and the highest income category of$200,000 plus shows a 372-bps spread over the U.S., as wealthy retirees' skew incomes higher in this market. Mirc 2017 1 P AxlameUicj LLC ALL li;I1 i` S.:1• °C) A )(IO1s/IETRICS �a<< , �� � �, fie r 1 , r �f sis aReaPa rr�m1r, ,.' ; � 1 r ' 142 PROJECT ANALYSIS: LIVINGSTON ROAD Property Summary , • • r u t i SUBLET • tai t -m-�4 r• , • Property Location Livingston Road Apartments will be located on the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Blvd in the northern edge of the Naples metro area. The Subject's site is currently vacant and heavily wooded. Access, ingress and egress for the site are currently good to excellent, with direct access to the north-south collector Livingston Road, which connects the site with the east-west arterials Immokalee Road to the south and Bonita Beach Road to the north. Both arterials connect to Interstate Highway 75, as well as the north-south arterial Tamiami Trail (U.S. Highway 41). This network of routes connect the site with employment nodes in other parts of Naples and Fort Myers as well as commercial, entertainment, and dining options that surround the site. Long- range county planning calls for extending Veterans Memorial Blvd west to Tamiami Trail. Directly across Veterans Memorial Blvd from the Subject is the Mediterra gated golf community. This 1,697-acre project includes coach homes, villas and single-family homes, as well as an 18- hole golf course and clubroom. Recent sales in this community range from $600,000 to more than $7 million. Three other private golf communities surround the Subject site, Talis Park, The Strand, and Imperial Golf Estates. Condos, villas, and single-family homes in these master planned communities run from $200,000 to more than $4 million. Further south are the Camden Lakes 2017 PP Ax►anneUuc LL U ALL piLit /ED e - it:: r1:7- A ( " '; 1OFl1ETRIcs g; pli aRPaINaQ£,(,�lf?lijz7^`i !mi in!' " �i]i l #t e T.- , _ y * tF r . ten, r1'011' . t and Delasol subdivisions. Homes in these two subdivisions run from $400,000-$800,000. Neighborhood Scout states that the median real estate price in the area is$458,455, greater than 68% of the neighborhoods in Florida. The average rental cost(of all types) is$1,580 and roughly 23% of the housing inventory is seasonally occupied. The subject will draw residents from both the immediate and adjacent areas surrounding the site, as well as from outside the Naples metro. Property Characteristics The Subject is a planned four-level, multi-building, multifamily development featuring a recommended 320 apartments. Construction is tentatively scheduled to begin about January 2020 and finish in January 2021. The unit mix is recommended to consist of 144 one-bedroom units (45%), 144 two-bedroom units (45%) and 32 three-bedroom units (10%). In order to stand out from the competition and capture the luxury apartment rental market, amenities and features should go above and beyond those currently existing in the market. There will be a 10,000 sf clubhouse with recommended features including state of the art fitness center with premium equipment and (recommended)towel service, yoga/spin room, game room, and business center. Livingston Road will also feature detached garages and surface parking. The interior amenities will be top of the line in comparison to those of comparable properties in the Naples and Fort Myers areas. Recommended interior amenities include hardwood-like flooring, premium carpeting, granite counters, double vanities, stainless steel appliances, wine/beverage coolers, kitchen islands, pendant lighting, premium washer and dryers, lanais/balconies and walk-in closets. In addition to the clubhouse amenities, community amenities should include a secure gated entry, a resort-style pool with cabanas (and recommended towel service), bar-b-cue grilling stations, valet trash service, storage units, car wash, bocce ball and pickleball courts, and a dog park with pet grooming area. Comparable Properties and Analysis Comparable properties were examined on the basis of physical characteristics: building type, age/quality,absorption,similarity in rent and level of common amenities.The Subject is compared to properties from the competing market to provide a broader picture of the market's health and available supply. A selection of the most competitive properties in the Subject's Primary Market Area is listed below. The Subject pricing in the table represents Axiometrics' recommended market rent based on current pricing. 11111111111, r_=O17 PP to trir`,LL ALL Ph11#I PtSEPVED 2' . - _ £• 11 a I -i4:i1 ( _ 1. 4 ! /FT- ,1 I" AXIOMETRIcs .� ,C *114.1 ' s ., !. Re3iPr t '1■ ��l ,,,.• 11, iI " .g . °.. !ft' 1111. in � r}...V / I ... � � z.. �.. 7 -ill 1 1... tf { t3 Comparables Table Size Range/Avg Ave Elf Community Year Built Total Units Size Ave Eft Rent Rent/SQFT 1 bdr 2bdr 3bdr 4bdr 812-1,388 108 126 48 III Orchid Run 2016 282 1,070 $1,948 $1.82 38% 45% 17% 758-1,397 96 120 24 II Addison Place* 2019 240 954 $1,738 $1.82 40% 50% 10% 784-1,348 88 168 48 Inspire atLely Resort* 2018 304 1,051 $1,862 $1.77 29% 55% 16% 821-1,435 126 158 24 III Aster atLely Resort 2014 308 1,036 $1,701 $1.64 41% 51% 8% 759-1,617 118 152 74 12 TGM Malibu Lakes 2003 356 33% 43% 21% 3% 1,047 $1,672 $1.60 700-1,307 108 180 36 11 Spectra 2017 324 33% 56% 11% 993 $1,571 $1.58 895-1,313 83 163 27 111 Sierra Grande at Naples 2014 273 30% 60% 10% 1,135 $1,721 $1.52 700-1,617 727 1,067 281 12 Comp Total/Average 2014 2087 1.042 $1,740 $1.67 35% 51% 13% 1% 775—1,355 144 144 32 Livingston Road 2021 320 1 026 52,033 $1.98 45°j0 45% 10% Upon completion,the Subject will be the most luxurious apartment community in the Naples/Fort Myers area with little to no pure competition among the existing apartment market. Orchid Run is considered the closest existing comparable to the Subject as it commands some of the highest rents in the Naples market. The Subject will, however have a more centralized location between Naples and Fort Myers and access to some of the best schools in the Naples area. Additionally, Livingston Road will feature premium amenities and finish beyond that of Orchid Run. A selection of apartment communities were selected as rent comparables for the Subject despite their differences in age, location, amenities, and rent levels.The properties selected were all built after 2002 and achieved average rent per square foot levels of at least$1.50. The numbers of units in each of the Subject's rent comparables ranges from 240 at Addison Place to 356 at TGM Malibu Lakes. The Subject is recommended to have 320 units. The oldest comparable(TGM Malibu Lakes)was built in 2003,while the newest is Addison Place, which is currently under construction and not yet leasing. Completion is expected in 2019 for this property. Average unit sizes per complex per unit ranged from 954 square feet at Addison Place (which has an estimated unit mix)to 1,135 square feet at Sierra Grande at Naples, with an overall comp set average of 1,042 square feet. All comparable projects have a unit mix somewhat similar to Livingston Road Apartments with one-,two-and three-bedroom units,but no studios(TGM Malibu Lakes includes four-bedroom units in its mix). The Subject's overall recommended average unit 34 c2017 RPAvlornetrics LL AL_ l( F1!S S=4��LL3 AXIOIVIETRICS0 >,gal ! `I��i r+�� ' Il�' � � ' � !�, �!! � !v� a FteaMPag torr ary 1 1 R. ° 7 s 11 9 �!. t i :Fp }! » �I tX . Il. t " !. ;s`fQ �lh j����.s E W. � �t� , � '� 0 �. 444 °r X10 i r, I � 1,1 t E size of 1,026 square feet is only 1.5% smaller than the comp set's average unit size but 4.1% smaller than the average at Orchid Run. Average monthly effective rents range from$1,571 ($1.58 PSF)at Spectra,to$1,948($1.82 PSF) at Orchid Run. Effective rent for the Subject is recommended at $2,033, ($1.98 PSF) per month at today's prices based on the current comps. By September 2020 (recommended lease-up start date), the Subject's effective market rents are recommended at$2,210 ($2.15 PSF). Unit Mix The Subject's distribution by bedroom types is planned to be 45% one-bedrooms, 45% two- bedrooms and 10%three-bedrooms. The comparable set's average is 35% one-bedrooms, 51% two-bedrooms and 13%three-bedrooms. The table below highlights the average unit mix and unit sizes by type for the comparables set and the Subject. Livingston Road Apartments will feature slightly more one-bedroom units than the comparables at the expense of two- and three-bedrooms. The Subject's recommended individual floor plans are also slightly larger than the comparables'. Comparables Subject Unit Average SQFT Mx Average SQFT Mx 1BR 812 35% 839 45% 2BR 1,113 51% 1,140 45% 3BR 1,340 13% 1,355 10% 4BR 1,584 1%-_ The Subject will attract young professionals and empty-nesters who desire a new, quality apartment that is a short commute from commercial and employment centers in Naples. Given the Subject's location in the heart of a high-income, residential neighborhood, the Subject's unit mix will cater to these young professionals with a greater mix of one-bedroom units and appears appropriate for the market. Below are additional highlights of each of the comparable properties, as well as a location map and a brief description. ilia I. r- mil I I ,�� �� El16 _ ¢ i � ETRICo "',.' : '1- Latio . I I���. �,i t K 4l 9 i I IaReal� rn!� ��r i 1 i ,B , , L , _ i s Il 'F ,,' „f. .%4FI li r g l _t -. I. "` :I ,pectra SubJect A Addisnu Place 0 iGM Malltu Lakes Orchid Ru❑ Sierra Grande al Naples Inspira at Lely Resurt akiiiik Aster at I ely Recnrt Project Address City Units Inspire at Lely Resort 7486 Grand Lely Dr Naples 304 Addison Place Immokalee and Collier Naples 240 Orchid Run 10991 Lost Lake Dr Naples 282 Aster at Lely Resort 8120 Acacia St Naples 308 TGM Malibu Lakes 2115 Malibu Lake Cir Naples 356 Spectra 5500 Spectra Cir Fort Myers 324 Sierra Grande at Naples 6975 Sierra Club Cir Naples 273 Subject Livingston Rd&Veterans Memorial Blvd Naples 320 Comparables Descriptions Orchid Run • Year Built:2016 • Number of Units:282 • Average Unit Size: 1,070 square feet • Effective Rent Level:$1,948 • Effective Rent per Square Foot:$1.82 • Occupancy Level: 98% Located on the Southwest Corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road, Orchid Run managed by Inland Residential. This community features many of the high-end amenities included in most new buildings. Community amenities include a resort-style pool with cabanas and hammocks and a covered bar area with double gas grills. The fitness center features various cardio and strength training 36 C Lc17 PP Axtometr; : LL. AL Pk ril(:-,PLSLRVEC) ) t if IF s r 1� U a 4XIOF,I1ETRICS® 1: t 1 t lli I i a RealPage pa ; ; t, �t 111"1 �� �! i Cnm r tl, 1� r �u 01114§1 14w] 116 fir N vs 0 11. equipment, and includes an aerobic/yoga room with valet towel service. The clubhouse has billiard tables, sitting areas, dining table, full kitchen with separate media room, and business center. Additional amenities include ping-pong tables, a climate-controlled wine room with individually secured lockers, wine club membership, valet trash service, coffee bar and Wi-FI throughout the pool and clubhouse areas. Interior amenities include kitchens with stainless steel appliances, an island bar area with a deep sink, tile backsplashes, and large walk-in pantries. Each unit also has ceiling fans, and drop- lighting directly over the bar. Vinyl wood flooring is standard, with carpet in the bedrooms. Bathrooms feature dual vanities in the master, as well as a glass encased stand-alone shower with tile backslash.Washer& dryers come included with the unit. Parking options for residents are surface parking, attached garages ($210 per month), or detached garages($185 per month). Sierra Grande at Naples • Year Built:2014 • Number of Units:273 • Average Unit Size: 1,135 square feet • Effective Rent Level:$1,721 • Effective Rent per Square Foot:$1.52 — • Occupancy Level:97% Managed by Greystar, Sierra Grande at Naples was built in 2014 and is along the south side of Rattlesnake Hammock Road,just east of Collier Boulevard. On-site amenities include a clubhouse with business center, game room, and billiards, sand volleyball and tennis courts, fitness center and yoga/wellness studio, and a resort-style pool with grilling stations. Other amenities include Wi-Fi in the clubhouse, an on-site dog park, and walking trails surrounding the lake. The inside of the apartments are updated, but inferior to the Subject.The kitchens come standard with granite countertops, but instead of stainless appliances, they are black-on-black with no backsplash. The living area has tile instead of vinyl hardwoods. Parking options at Sierra Grande are surface parking,which is free, and detached garages,which are available for $165 per month. Also offered are 4x4x11 storage rooms which are $40 per month. Aster at Lely • Year Built:2014 • Number of Units:308 • Average Unit Size: 1,036 square feet • Effective Rent Level:$1,701 • Effective Rent per Square Foot:$1.64 Mir02017 PPAxiornetric. LL' ALL 416H IS RESERVED II ' rte' n 4 Ii .` I a ' + 'r. IN H AXIOMETRICS _ 14 skeali'ac r�or03 1 Ir 31e q " ! !C it>I�� � � �� ,` II • Occupancy Level: 94% Located on the southwest corner of Collier Boulevard and Lely Cultural Parkway, the exterior of Aster is similar to that of Orchid Run, with white stucco and red tile roofing. The on-site amenities include a large clubhouse area with cyber café, coffee bar and lounge, and a media theater. The resort-style pool area features cabanas, a fire pit and grilling areas with plenty of seating areas.The grilling area features an outdoor bar where guests can relax. A dog park, fitness room with yoga studio and Wi-Fi access in common areas round out the main community amenities. The interior of the apartments feature 10-foot ceilings, gourmet kitchens with granite countertops, stone tile backsplash and under-counter lighting. Vinyl wood flooring is standard on all first-floor units, with carpet on the second and third floors. Washers and dryers come standard in all apartment units. Certain floorplans offer a separate shower as well as a bathtub in the master bedroom.The rest of the floor plans have shower/tub combo as standard. TGM Malibu Lakes • Year Built:2003 • Number of Units:356 • Average Unit Size: 1,047 square feet • Effective Rent Level: $1,672 • Effective Rent per Square Foot: $1.60 • Occupancy Level: 98% TGM Malibu Lakes is located near the intersection of Interstate Highway 75 and Immokalee Road. Built in 2003, this property is the oldest property in the comp set. The property consists of 20 3- story buildings which abut or surround several large stocked ponds. Community amenities include two pools (one with hot tub), a dog park, tennis court, a media theater, cyber lounge, and barbecue areas with picnic tables. The fitness center features free weights and machines.The property has controlled access gates to enter the main property area. The interior of the units have been recently renovated but still feature black-on-black appliances. Some units feature updated kitchens with granite countertops, and newer cabinets and light fixtures. Some units are updated with vinyl wood flooring and bathrooms with countertops and cabinets matching the kitchen. All units come with a full-size washer&dryer included. Parking options for residents are surface parking at no cost.Detached garages are$95 per month. Storage units are available for$25 per month. Spectra • Year Built:2017 • Number of Units:324 • Average Unit Size: 993 square feet • Effective Rent Level:$1,571 38 AXIOM ETRICS' rm :. Alm[ ;f ' N�°# • Effective Rent per Square Foot: $1.58 • Occupancy Level: 90% Spectra is located in Fort Myers on Tamiami Trail near Alco Road. This property completed construction in 2017 and is in the final stages of initial lease-up. Built by Stock Development, Spectra is managed by Greystar.Although located near the more affordable properties in the Fort Myers area, it is indicative of the newer construction and amenities in the marketplace. Community amenities include resort-style pool and hot tub, cabanas, fire pit, a dog park, playground, tennis court, nature trail, and a sundeck with lounge and grilling areas. The fitness center features weight training, cardio stations, and a yoga studio. The property has controlled access gates for security. In-unit amenities include granite counters, vinyl wood flooring, stainless steel appliances, kitchen islands, shaker-style cabinets, oval tubs, full-size washers and dryers, and ceiling fans. Parking options include surface parking and detached garages. Addison Place and Inspire at Lely were described in the Pipeline section on page 17. 39 6 , , 1 a ' it Ott°' I i�Hof a ire' R • ' ! o•p is u !n AXIOIV1ETRIcS Vim 1111 ni •i : � a . 4 , 1!' of II is rwalPage compar li t - €�,@ 4,1 I, . ,.•4 ' :1 is g1 :Ogg 1t 1�t1 3 uit 4E 1 ` r" °� li. - -' ,41 I ; 1� .im ... t' Community Amenities The tables below show community amenities for the comparables and Subject TOM Sierra Addison Inspira at Aster At Malibu Grande at %of Market Property Name Livingston Road Orchid Run Place Lely Lely Resort lakes Spectra Naples W/Amenities Par n: Store:e Detac e.Garage $150 $185 Y Y $140 $95 Y $165 100% Attached Garage $210 $150 S 43% Visitor Parking Recommended Y V V Y Y Y V 1005', Valet Parking 0% Storage Space $75 $80 $25 $40 43% Property Features Club House Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% Business Center Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% Elevator Access Recommended Y V 29% Controlled Access Recommended Y V Y Y Y Y Y 100% Leisure Recreation Standard Pool 0% Resort Style Pool Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% Spa/Hot Tub Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% Cabanas Recommended Y Y Y Y 57% Fire Pit Recommended Y Y Y 43% Sports/Fitness Fitness Center Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% Fitness Programs Recommended y 14% Towel Service Recommended Y Tennis/Basketball Court Recommended Y Y Y Y 57% yoga/Pilates/Spin Room Recommended Y V V V 57% Bocce/Pickleball Recommended V 14% Social Area/Activities Game room Recommended Y Y Y Y Y 71% Media Theater Recommended V Y Y Y 57% Wine Storage Recommended Y 14% Playground Recommended Y Y Y 43% Picnic Area/BBQ Grill Recommended Y Y Y Y Y V Y 100% Perks/Convenience Internet/TV Community Wide Wi-Fi 0 ' Wi-Fi Hotspots Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% Security 24HrMaintenance Recommended Y Y V Y Y Y Y 100% Security Guard on Site 0% Trash Valet Trash Recommended Y 14% Recycling Center Recommended Y 14% Other Coffee Bar/Lounge Recommended Y Y Y Y Y 71% Car Wash Recommended V 14% Pet Play Area Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% Pets Allowed Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% %Of Most Desired Amenities 88% 76% 47% 59% 59% 53% 56% 56% Axiometrics recommends 88% of the most common amenities seen and desired at comparable Class A apartments and new developments. Common-area amenities in the market vary from high-end features, such wine storage and door-to-door trash pick-up, to more common exterior amenities, such as resort-style swimming pools, fitness centers and clubrooms. Nevertheless, basic common-area amenities are identified as a major marketing tool to bring in new residents and to retain current tenants. Our recommendation for the common-area amenities are based on market demand and the direct comp set that currently offer these amenities as well as the desire to market Livingston Road as a luxury apartment community.Top of market community amenities will draw more affluent renters to the community. 40 r 2017 PP�-•; •metrics LLQ ALL Pl( H1 SESEF7VEt) AXIOMEIRICs' ,', ,/� , x 1 1: n 1- II t i .! Me ., t,.= r "°�'Lj9 17 . .... i [ I II Interior Amenities The table below shows interior amenities for comparables and the Subject. TGM Sierra Addison Inspira at Aster At Malibu Grande at %of Market Property Name Livingston Road Orchid Run Place Lely Lely Resort Lakes Spectra Naples W/Amenities Laundry Washer/Dryer Recommended Y Y Y Y V Y Y 10096 W/DConnections Y Y Y Y Y Y 86% Kitchen Dishwasher Recommended Y Y Y Y V Y Y 100% Gas Range 0% Electric Range Recommended Y Y Y Y Y V Y 100% Granite/Quartz Countertops Recommended Y Y Y Y Y V Y 100% Icemaker Recommended Y V V y y V y 100% Island Recommended Y V V Y Y 71% Microwave Recommended Y V Y Y Y Y Y 100% Wine Cooler/Fridge Recommended 0% Nook Recommended Y Y 29% Pantry Recommended Y V Y V Y Y Y 100% Self Cleaning Oven Recommended Y Y Y V Y Y Y 100% StainlessSteel Appliances Recommended Y V Y Y 57% All White Appliances 0% Black on Black Appliances Y Y Y 43% Bathroom Private Bathroom Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% Double Vanities Recommended Y Y Y Y 57% Garden Tub/Roman Tub Recommended Y Y Y Y 57% Separate Shower Recommended Y V 29% Electronic Media Features Prewired Intrusion Alarm Recommended V Y Y 43% Intrusion Alarm monitoring 0% Structural Features Ceiling Fans Recommended V Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% Crown Molding Recommended 0% Patio/Balcony/Lanais Recommended Y Y y Y Y Y Y 100% Track Lighting Recommended V Y Y Y 57% Walk-in Closets Recommended V Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% 9 Foot Ceilings y Y Y Y Y Y 86% 1O Foot Ceilings Recommended Y 14% Floor to Ceiling Windows 0% Flooring Wood(vinyl) Recommended V Y Y Y Y Y 86% Ceramic The Y Y 29% Berber Carpet Recommended Y Y 29% 56-Of-Most-Desired Amenities ------7695- 70%._-_._..-----52% -`5596--- 69% 5S%,--__----58%- —_--{4% _---- Axiometrics recommends about 76% of the interior amenities listed above, based on the comparables in the market. The recommendations are based on the market survey of the properties. Amenities that rank high in the percentages within the comps are applied as a benchmark for the Subject recommendation. The list above also captures major interior amenities common in renovated buildings and most new developments. Amenities that rank high should be paid close attention and should be considered "must haves" for the Subject. In addition, high-end fit and finish features such as premium fixtures, cabinets, handles, etc.will enhance the luxury placement of the Subject. 111111111r __ 1 ,, -1 fT(7,4ESERVEC7 i � ,� ' 'ice • T#iil ' hn `' A )(IOIVIETRICS® '�' l00.1 F?Palf�agg r to r,,� t - �. � � t r tl t , E� - f to .111 t ¢. 9 I - Subject Unit Mix and Pricing Summary The table below shows pricing recommendations based on comparable properties' effective rent per square foot(PSF).The recommendations are provided for two different periods: using current pricing (December 2017)and during the lease-up period after September 2020. Assumption:The Subject has competitive-to-superior amenities compared with the market. Asking & Effective Rental Rates Summary During Subject Lease-Up Unit Mix Axio Recommended Current Pricing Axio Recommendation During Lease-Up Bedroom Unit Unit Asking Conc. Effective Asking Effective Asking Conc. Effective Asking Effective T .e Q Area Rent Amount Rent S. Ft S. Ft Rent Amount Rent S. Ft S. Ft 1/110 60 775 $1,720 $0 $1,720 $2.22 $2.22 $1,870 $0 $1,870 $2.41 $2.41 1/1/1 84 885 $1,820 $0 $1,820 $2.06 $2.06 $1,978 $0 $1,978 $2.24 $2.24 2/2/0 76 1,095 $2,200 $0 $2,200 $2.01 $2.01 $2,391 $0 $2,391 $2.18 $2.18 2/2/0 68 1,190 $2,270 $0 $2,270 $1.91 $1.91 $2,467 $0 $2,467 $2.07 $2.07 3/2/0 32 1,355 $2,280 $0 $2,280 $1.68 $1.68 $2,478 $0 $2,478 $1.83 $1.83 Prof.Avg 320 1,026 $2,033 $0 $2,033 $1.98 $1.98 $2,210 $0 $2,210 $2.15 $2.15 The pricing recommendation is based on a three-step process: 1. Distribute unit count and square footage. (NOTE: unit mix recommended) 2. Assign current pro forma rents as provided in the investment memorandum (IM). (Not provided in this case) 3. Compare current Subject rents with the comparable property rents to determine pricing recommendations. Based on known characteristics and differences between the Subject and comparables and on supply/demand of individual floor plans, features and amenities as well as the timing or"newness" of the Subject's delivery, the Subject would be priced at$2,033 per month or$1.98 PSF. However, note that the pricing recommendation is based on current rent and comparables (as of December 2017).The Subject will begin leasing toward the fall of 2020. But we expect additional rent growth of more than 9% by then. Thus, during the initial lease-up process, the Subject's weighted average effective rent PSF during 2020 is $2.15, or$2,210 per month. Reasonability of Rents The optimum monthly rent PSF for each floor plan can be identified through a statistical array of the rents achieved by competing floor plans in the market area.Adjustments to effective rent PSF were NOT made for major amenities specific to each floor plan (e.g., fireplaces, direct-entry garages, upgraded interior amenities,washer/dryer, etc.), because these factors are part of what makes these units competitive in the marketplace. Moreover, it is assumed that the Subject amenities are comparable and/or somewhat better than its peers. Prospective residents will base their decisions on these factors, as well as price, and will weigh the entire package against competitors. These monthly rents can be displayed relative to their square footage,with a regression trend line then placed through the price/size points. Variations from the market norm (as depicted by the ,u PXIOI1E'rRIs® is . I II! Ill 17■ ' Hk'2�i�'1'jP r'?ri L1r, i j iJ I1 31: - 1 j` �� �` ■■i t: �EI a iIt ! _ Yt E I l 1! �� ll ill trend line) can be explained by location, curb appeal, management strength/weakness, specific unit location/views, and amenities or, in some cases, simply by mispricing. The scatter plots below depict combinations of rents PSF and unit sizes as measured by square footage for one-, two- and three-bedroom units for the Subject and the comparables within its market area. The red dots on the graphs represent the combination of rents per square foot and unit sizes as recommended for the Subject based on the comparables, newness of the Subject and regression analysis. The rent comparison is performed based on the today's prices for the Subject and comparables. One-Bedrooms One-Bedroom •• 32.20 Subject • 52.10 Orchid Run Subfect 52.00 Ita;plra at t ly lnspira at Lely Addicun Place Orchid Run Li,old Run Insplra at Lely ru 51.90 Spectra on Hitt Run a Sprrtra htcplra at I el? th ltld Run • Aster at Lely Ireton 51.80 Sierra Grande at Maples• TGM Matsu Lakes 51.70 Anter at telt'Resort SierraGrnn.le.tt tinitlrt Sicrra Grande at Naples 700 720 740 7b0 780 800 820 1340 860 000 900 920 Area Rents for the comparables' one-bedroom units cluster generally around the regression line for this data set, indicating a somewhat similar pricing. The three oldest comparables (TGM Malibu Lakes,Aster at Lely, and Sierra Grande)tend to underperform the comp set rent regression line, while Orchid Run tends to run about 5% above the comp regression line. Spectra's one-bedroom units are also below the regression line and reflect the slightly lower pricing philosophy of the lower Lee County market. As mentioned above, Orchid Run has some of the highest rates for its one-bedroom units, but most one-bedroom units range from $1,600-$1,720 per month or about $1.96 PSF. The Subject's one-bedroom recommended PSF pricing is about 12% above the comparables' regression trend line and about 4% higher than Orchid Run. With a slightly larger proportion of 11111111111111, 2017 Pi Ax jntetric:LL, ALL Pii. I L 'L. 1 [741I ' _ r+4.,:,4,.1 i AXIOM ETRiCS tti !1._. r.: 1 I,p ,�- 'i-it- IF ,� 11. a•�. tl 11. tll e 4 : a RealPage company e l- '"' 1itb. �4 -'r t. I!• , . y t �!aK' i[' ,i! li I. lett" e, ,,, .' d.1a I I' T. 1t,. I ., d I one-bedrooms than the comparables set, the Subject will have more of this type of unit to lease at market rates and will be more at a premium for those that desire this smaller type of unit. Axiometrics recommends pricing at the following level: • $2.22 PSF ($1,720 monthly)for the 775-square-foot one-bedroom units. • $2.06 PSF ($1,820 monthly)for the 885-square-foot one-bedroom units. Two-Bedrooms Two-Bedroom $2 on • Sublcct 0,i hid Run • 51.90 On hid Run t Subject Orchid Rini i • Orchid Rua $1,110 Addison Place Inspire at iffy In:pU,,Mlriy Orchid Run _ Orchid Run C. to $1.70 Orchid Run Aster at I lRe.or t 51,60 T614 Mallt.0 Lases Aster at Lely Resort TUM t,lal:bu Lakes 51.5n Spectra Sierra bomb, Naples Naple Pe- • s err,a Grnnrlr at tipples Spectra 4 • 51.4n 1,020 1,040 1,060 1,080 1,100 1,110 1,140 1,160 1,190 1,200 1,220 1.240 Ana Rents for the comparables' two-bedroom units are spread widely from about$1,500-$2,100 per month or about$1.43-$1.95 PSF, as unit sizes range from 1,020 square feet to more than 1,200 square feet. Addison Place's two-bedroom unit anchors the regression line, with the majority of the comparables' two-bedroom units spread across the middle. Once again, Orchid Run leads the comps in two-bedroom pricing, setting the bar high. The Subject's two-bedroom units' recommended luxury pricing is about 15% above the comparables' regression line and about 8%above Orchid Run. Axiometrics recommends pricing at the following level: • $2.01 PSF ($2,200 monthly)for the 1,095-square-foot two-bedroom units. • $1.91 PSF ($2,270 monthly)for the 1,190-square-foot two-bedroom units. 4XIOrv1iics ;E � III. 171 .�. ! + t"�, et ! Three-Bedrooms Three.Bedroom $1.65 • Subject $1.60 TtiMM Malibu lakes Orchid Run $1 so • Addiscm piaci ensp Ira at ti Iy SI.AS TWA M.,I lni tnh . Spectra Orchid Ru,, • Sierra Grandc it tlaples $1.40 Tt,.l t.13t.bu late $1.35 $1.30 Sierra branch at Naples $1.25 Aster at LtyResort 1,230 1250 1,i/u 1,290 1,310 1,410 1,15U 1.370 1,390 1,410 1,430 Area As with the one- and two-bedroom comparables, Orchid Run has some of the highest three- bedroom rents.Three-bedroom rents for all comparables range from about$1,680 per month up to more than$2,100, with unit sizes between 1,235 and 1,430 square feet. Livingston Road Apartments'three-bedroom unit has a recommended rent about 16%above the comparables' effective rents and about 10% above Orchid Run. This large unit will appeal to families, empty-nesters and roommate seekers. We recommend: • $1.68 ($2,280 monthly)for the 1,355-square-foot three-bedroom units. IF e , 1 , A )(IOF/1ETRIcSII v:.,iF ol� � �, - :id' F 1 0 i Pal ;39f cP1-7,�3^ W I `• =•MI. 41 ;1 $ i ,� I j r oti al q t Ig �! *II III 1 iIrt. 1� WI i. Household Income and Ability to Pay Naples Household Income Distribution by Age 16,000 ■Under 25 III25 to 44 45 to 64 65 and over 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 1 4 2,000 0 $25,000 to$49,999 $50,000 to$74,999 $75,000 to$99,999 $100,000 to$149,999 $150,000 or more Sources:Axiometrics Inc.,Census Bureau The above chart show the number of households in different income ranges by age cohort for the Naples metro area. The Subject will draw prospective tenants from several age cohorts and across various income brackets.While those ages 25-34 are typically considered the prime renter group, today's apartment renters are both young and old: Millennials comprise the age cohort most likely to rent apartments, and the baby-boomer generation is increasingly turning to apartment rentals as a lifestyle choice for aesthetic or economic reasons. The number of households earning median incomes above $50,000 (the usual threshold for apartment renters) accounts for more than 70% of all 25 or older households. As would be expected, the number of households headed by younger adults diminishes as the income scale goes higher.The 25-44 year-old group declines throughout, but the 45-to 64-year- old and 65 and older age cohorts begin increasing after the$100,000 median income threshold. As discussed previously, Naples is known for its high income, older residents, be they full-time or snowbird residents. Livingston Road Apartments will appeal to many households in the 25-44 year-old age cohort, and more than 14,000 of these households in Naples have median incomes of$50,000 or more; more than 5,200 earn$100,000 or more. Households at higher income levels will be renters by choice at the Subject property, whereas median household incomes ranging from$70,000-$120,000 will qualify for various rent levels. In a sign that bodes well for the proposed project, almost one-fourth of all 25- to 44-year-olds and 46 C 20•17 PP 4.*Knnetms LLC 'AI`s Kii i".„,It`:ta, F Li ) I r w I n s 1 , it v z `��� '? lil (� • AXIOIVJETRIcS® • ilE•# At Imo r.' .JO II.' lam-el . , c 01 'f 10 �i .! afiea; r c mt»ati� II 1������"I lir {I 1 I ' I '� r dig ' l� � � u is IIS ,e 4 i ®`' „ �! �! [� 1; k[ a y� �, Gt [ �. . more than one-third of all baby-boomer households in Naples have median incomes exceeding $100,000 per year. A B C D Annual Subject's Per Unit Subject Monthly Household Household Recommended Income RequiredMonthly Rent-to- Income Income Monthly Effective to Qualify Household income Ratio Required for Required Rent (B X 2.5) Income(N12) (B/D) 30% Ratio $70,000 $1,720 $4,300 $5,833 29% $68,800 $80,000 $1,820 $4,550 $6,667 27% $72,800 $90,000 $2,200 $5,500 $7,500 29% $88,000 $100,000 $2,270 $5,675 $8,333 27% $90,800 $120,000 $2,230 $5,575 $10,000 22% $89,200 The estimated 2016 median household income in Naples is. a little more than $61,000, and the average monthly effective rent in Naples is$1,380 resulting in a market-wide rent-to-income ratio of 27%, indicating a generally affordable market that falls under the 30% ratio threshold. The national average is about 35% The recommended monthly rent for the Subject in current pricing is$2,033, resulting in an average rent-to-income ratio of 40% using the Naples median income for 2016, slightly less affordable than the market average but to be expected for new product of high quality. The average rent-to- income ratio for the Subject at today's recommended effective rents and using the typical qualifying income brackets for each floor plan is 27%. Using the median household income within a three-mile radius of the Subject site of$72,500 yields a rent-to-income ratio of 34%. The table above presents the rent-to-income ratios for each floor plan based on recommended monthly effective rents after adjusting for expected rental increases in the market before leasing begins for Livingston Road. Though the primary market-rate renter cohort will have incomes ranging from $70,000 to more than$120,000, households making as low as$50,000 could qualify with an acceptable level of rent-to-income ratio.The average rent-to-income ratio for the Subject during leasing is 28%. 47 r_t! ;7 PP Arromebtc,LLC ALL Rit3tHTS I ESEPvED '� S �_ . in N'1 'i le Ns :E jj : �AS1OMETRICS 4 , � I 1I I I, giltNfF 9 • Leasing Schedule Summary The table below summarizes the leasing schedule per month for the Subject. SUBJECT LEASING SCHEDULE Total Existing Units 320 Average Monthly Pre-Lease Units 53 Average Net New Leases Through Stabilization 44 Project Start Date January-20 Project Lease-Up Start Date September-20 Project Finish Date January-21 Stabilization Date March-21 Occupancy at Stabilization 96.5% Turnover Rate 45% Retention Rate 55% Conversion Rate of Total Traffic(Incuding All Denials) 20% SUBJECT 12-MONTH ENDING DECEMBER 2020 2021 2022 Average Gross New Leases/month 53 18 16 Traffic/Weekly(Based on Gross New Leases) 61 21 18 Average Total Units Coming Off Lease/month 18 28 Average Turn-Over/month 8 13 Average Units Retained/month 10 15 Average Market Occupancy(Based on Stabilization)I month n/a 97.2% 98.5% Average Effective Rent(Based on Stabilization)/month $2,210 $2,295 $2,367 Average Effective Rent Growth(Based on Stabilization)/month $2.15 $2.24 $2.31 The table above shows a fairly robust absorption rate for the property. Based on the lease-up performance at the metro and submarket level, the Subject is anticipated to lease an average of 30-60 units per month during initial lease-up. After all units are completed by January 2021, the Subject property is expected to open at more than 84%occupancy.With average monthly leasing activity of about 44 units per month, the Subject is forecast to hit stabilization at 96.5% by March 2021. The Subject occupancy is forecast to increase to an annual average of 97.2% in 2021 and reach an average of 98.5% in 2022. The Subject's occupancy is expected to remain healthy throughout the forecast period due to slowing new construction and continued healthy job and population growth in the submarket. The growing demographics of young working adults, along with the increase in older population in the submarket,will help fuel demand for the Subject property. Based on the current set of comparables(as of December 2017),we are recommending average monthly effective rent of$2,033, or$1.98 PSF. However, the Subject will start pre-leasing units toward the fall of 2020, and all units are expected to be delivered by January 2021. By then, the submarket is expected have a cumulative rent growth of 9.4% from now through the time the Subject starts delivering units. This cumulative rent growth is based on the forecast effective rent growth for the Naples market for 2018-2020.Thus, we are applying growth of 8.7%to the current recommended rents (allowing for some slippage), which gives us weighted average monthly effective rent of$2,210 ($2.15 PSF)when the Subject starts to deliver its first units. 48 I---- z 1 I,i `„ [, I I z 119 l' r -€ 9 e I !G fl =' - AX I�►METR try p ' bbl,, r� L!, �, �: „ ina le, - � 1 _' op e. n: li �� 1 r4, -- 1 s ',"1r 't Ai ii n 14 ,w. i ill �� !1, �� SII? I-!_ Re IPS rt mtk�^r 'i %. M U ,-a i 0 a 14 1 t 191 t ] -f t, ,l1 n E1 r3 ;-4 i i tt d 1x i .1 �. ,I[ SUBJECT LEASING SCHEDULE Total 45% Cumulative Units Turn 55% Gross Cumulative Pre-Lease! %ofSub- Year! Units Net New Coming Over Retained New Pre-Lease 8 Occupancy Mkt %Submkt Month Released Leases Off Lease Units Units Leases Occu Conversion Weekly pied Overall Available Available Abs Ca•tura% Rate Traffic 202001 0.0% 320 8.2% 20% 202012 0.0% 320 8.2% 202003 20% 202004 0.0% 320 8.2% 20% 0,0% 320 8.2% 20% 202005 0,0% 320 8.2% 202006 20% 0.0% 320 8.2% 20% 202007 0.0% 320 8.2% 20% 202008 0.0% 320 8.2% 20% 202009 80 67 67 67 21.1% 320 8.2% 8.2% 21.1% 20% 78 202010 160 53 53 121 37.7% 253 6.5% 6.596 21.1% 20% 61 202011 240 42 42 163 50.8% 199 5.1% 5.1% 21.1% 20% 48 202012 320 50 50 212 66.4% 157 4.0% 6.0% 31.6% 20% 57 202101 320 58 - - 58 270 84.5% 108 29% 3.5% 540% 20% 67 202102 320 29 - - - 29 299 93.6% 50 1.3% 1.7% 58.5% 20% 33 202103 320 9 - • - 9 309 96.5% 21 0.6% 0.6% 45.0% 20% 11 202104 320 1 - - - 1 309 96,6% 11 0.3% 00% 4.5% 20% 1 202105 320 0 - - - 0 310 96.8% 11 0.3% 00% 4.5% 20% 1 202106 320 0 - - - 0 310 96,9% 10 0.3% 0.0% 4.5% 20% 1 202107 320 0 - - - 0 311 97.1% 10 0.3% 0.0% 4.5% 20% 1 202108 320 0 - - - 0 311 97.2% 9 0.3% 0.0% 4.5% 20% 0 202109 320 0 67 30 37 37 311 97.3% 9 0.2% 0.0% 4.5% 20% 43 202110 320 0 53 24 29 30 312 97.4% 9 0.2% 0.0% 45% 20% 34 202111 320 1 42 19 23 24 313 97.7% 8 0.2% 00% 9.0% 20% 28 202112 320 2 50 22 27 29 314 88.2% 7 0.2% 0.1% 22.5% 20% 33 202201 320 0 58 26 32 32 314 98.2% 6 0.2% 0.0% 2.2% 20% 37 202202 320 0 29 13 16 16 314 98.3% 6 0.1% 00% 22% 20% 19 202203 320 0 9 4 5 5 315 98.3% 6 0.1% 00% 22% 20% 6 202204 320 0 1 0 0 0 315 98.3% 5 0.1% 0.0% 2.2% 20% 0 202205 320 0 0 0 0 0 315 98.4% 5 0.1% 0.0% 2.6% 20% 0 202206 320 0 0 0 0 0 315 98.4% 5 0.1% 0.0% 3.2% 20% 202207 320 0 0 0 0 0 315 98.5% 5 0.1% 0.0% 4.3% 20% 1 202208 320 0 0 0 0 0 315 98.6% 5 0,1% 00% 43% 20% 1 202209 320 0 75 34 41 41 316 98.6% 5 0.1% 0.0% 22% 20% 47 202210 320 0 59 27 32 32 316 98.6% 4 0.1% 0.0% 2.2% 20% 37 202211 320 0 47 21 26 26 316 98.7% 4 0.1% 0.0% 2.2% 20% 30 202212 320 0 56 25 31 31 316 98.7% 4 0.1% 0.0% 2.2% 20% 36 Assumptions of the above leasing schedule: 1) The construction of the project is expected to start during January 2020. 2) It is expected that 60-80 units per month will be completed each month beginning in September 2020 and that all units will be released upon completion in January 2021. Pre-leasing should begin in September 2020. 3) Turnover rate is estimated at 45%. Axiometrics' market visit revealed that renewal rate in the market range from 50%to 55%. Similar turnover rate is expected in the Subject because of the location and expected renter demographics. 4) Conversion rate of 20% based on the national norm. 5) Weekly Traffic: Number of inquiries per week. Important future dates highlighted on the above table: January 2020: Start Date September 2020: Lease up starts January 2021: Construction ends and all 320 units are delivered to the market. March 2021: The Subject occupancy reaches stabilization at 96.5%. 49 ,,17 PP A flornetrrs LLC ALL PIC:PITS NESE PVEU L ! ,° � �? o 11 8 AXI ? METRICS101 Ei ;F r.! tit�i t 0: I Q I HealPace rc'rnpa^t 1: � ��m �� ii tt® 1 December 2022: The Subject achieves peak occupancy at 98.7%. Summary Evaluation of the Project The Subject is a planned multifamily development to be built in the northern portion of Collier County in the Naples metro area of Florida. Construction is estimated to begin in January 2020 and conclude in January 2021.The development is recommended to feature 320 apartment units encompassing 328,340 square feet of net livable area. The total unit mix will consist of 144 one- bedroom units(45%), 144 two-bedroom units (45%) and 32 three-bedroom units (10%). The Subject, at delivery, should have top of market interior amenities to exceed the quality of existing competitive properties within the market. Recommended community amenities are expected to be included in the capital expenditure for the project and also be some of the best in the market. The current set of apartment projects in lease-up or under construction in the area surrounding the Subject site will have been completed and leased by the time the Subject begins leasing in the fall of 2020. Besides the Subject's 320 units, the area has only a few identified planned projects. Planned properties in Naples are located several miles to the south of the Subject site and will not be competitive.The two closest planned properties are in Bonita Springs to the north (southern Lee County) and are not expected to attract the same renter profile as the Subject. With projected apartment rental household formations of 400-500 per year and total cumulative forecast apartment absorption for 2018-2020 of 3,500 units, there should be ample demand for both the Subject and other planned communities in the fast-growing Naples market. Only the Subject will appeal to the underserved high-income, luxury apartment resident that has had to rent condos or single-family homes to this point. This demographic will be well served by the Subject. Pre-leasing should begin about September 2020 and construction will be completed by the end of January 2021.The Subject's unit mix appears appropriate for the market given the location and current look of the area. Individual market-rate unit pricing is based on the assumptions used for this study due to the newness of the Subject and comparables in the area.The Subject will reach stabilization at 96.5% occupancy by March 2021. The Naples submarket's supply and demand fundamentals are expected to remain stable through the Subject's leasing period. The forecast occupancy during 2020-2021 is expected to average 95.7%, with average effective rent growth of 3.4%. 50 C2t117 PPAwKwnetrics LLC,` AL= 1q161-11 :E0 EXHIBIT V.E.1 LIVINGSTON—VETERANS MEMORIAL EAST SUBDISTRICT PUBLIC FACILITIES REPORT Collier County Public Utilities will provide water service for potable and fire protection needs as well as wastewater service. The subject property is within the North Service Area. The county has sufficient capacity to provide water and sewer. The estimated potable water and wastewater average daily and peak requirements for the subject property are as follows: Potable Water 147,000 GPD average daily (Peak 198,450 GPD) Wastewater 105,000 GPD average daily (Peak 141,750 GPM) According to the Collier County 2017 AUIR,currently there is an existing landfill capacity of 17,244,316 tons, and a ten-year landfill capacity requirement of 2,625, 495 tons. The estimated life of the landfill is 50 years. This is adequate to accommodate additional tons per capita generated by the proposed project. Stormwater retention and detention will comply with SFWMD requirements, and State and County standards for off-site discharges will be met, resulting in no adverse impacts to stormwater management (drainage)level of service. The adopted level of service for schools is based upon permanent FISH capacity: 100% for high school Concurrency Service Areas (CSAs); 95% for elementary CSAs; and 95% for middle school CSAs. The subject site is within the E8,Northwest Area 2 CSA for elementary schools,the M4 Northwest Area CSA for middle schools,and the H4 Northwest Area CSA for high schools. The E8 CSA includes two elementary schools, Laurel Oak and Veterans Memorial. They have a combined FISH capacity of 1,793 students, a 2016/2017 peak enrollment of 1,739 students, and a projected 2021/2022 enrollment of 1,789 students (100% capacity). According to the Collier County Public Schools Capital Improvement Plan(CIP)for fiscal years 2018 through 2037,the opening of a new charter school in the 2017-2018 school year is anticipated to affect enrollment in this CSA. The enrollment at Laurel Oak is being monitored. Long-term re-locatable classroom capacity was added to the permanent capacity in 2010. The H4/M4 CSA includes Barron Collier and Gulf Coast High Schools, and North Naples, Oakridge, and Pine Ridge Middle Schools. The high schools have a combined FISH capacity of 3,606 students, and a 2016/2017 peak enrollment of 3,888 students, and a projected 2021/2022 enrollment of 4,000 students (111% capacity). The middle schools have a combined capacity of 3,361 students, a peak enrollment in 2016/2017 of 3,015 students, and a projected 2021/2022 enrollment of 2,977 students (89% capacity). According to the CIP, enrollment at Gulf Coast HS is being monitored and temporary alternatives to address overcrowding may be implemented prior to permanent relief with the opening of a new high school in 2023. The proposed residential subdistrict will increase population by approximately 1,050 people(420 units at 2.5 persons per households), and will not increase demand for emergency medical services. An EMS/fire station is located at 16280 Livingston Rd., which is located along Livingston Rd., adjacent to the northwestern portion of the property. The subject site is within the North Collier Fire&Rescue District. See attached Traffic Analysis for transportation impacts. H:\20I712017092\WP\GMPA\2nd Resubmittal\Exhibit V.E.1-Public Utilities Report(7-13-2018).docx 2726 OAK RIDGE COURT,SUITE 503 ® T RAN S P O RTATI O N FORT MYERS,FL 33901-9356 AOFFICE 239.278.8.3090 FAX 239.278.1906 CONSULTANTS, INC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SIGNAL SYSTEMS/DESIGN TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD/VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GMPA) & ALLURA RPUD PL#20170004419 (GMPA) PL#20170004385 (RPUD) (MAJOR STUDY REVIEW FEE - $1,500) (METHODOLOGY REVIEW FEE - $500) (PROJECT NO. 1712.10) PREPARED BY: TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. Certificate of Authorization Number: 27003 2726 Oak Ridge Court,Suite 503 Fort Myers, Florida 33901-9356 (239)278-3090 Revised: April 12,2018 EXHIBIT "V.E.3" "4 TR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. EXISTING CONDITIONS III. PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AMENDMENT & REZONING IV. TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION V. PROJECTED CONCURRENCY VI. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS VII. CONCLUSION 7 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC I. INTRODUCTION TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. has conducted a traffic impact statement for projects seeking Comprehensive Land Use Amendment and rezoning approval. The approximate 35.57 acre subject site is located at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard in Collier County, Florida. This report has been completed in compliance with the guidelines established by the Collier County Transportation Planning Division for developments seeking the aforementioned approval. The approximate location of the subject site is illustrated on Figure 1. Currently, the future land use designation for the subject site is Urban Residential Subdistrict which allows a density of up to 4 residential units per acre. The proposed GMPA will establish a Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict to allow the approximately 35.57 acre subject site to be developed with up to 420 multi-family residential units or a density of up to 12 residential units per acre. Currently, a 15.38 acre portion of the subject site is zoned RPUD (Della Rosa PUD) which allows up to 107 multifamily units. The remaining 20.19 acres of the subject site is zoned A-Agriculture which allows up 1 residential unit per 5 acres. The proposed Allura RPUD rezoning will allow the approximately 35.57 acre subject site to be developed with up to 420 multi-family residential units or a density of up to 12 residential units per acre. The analysis in this report will determine the impacts of the proposed change in land use as well as rezoning to allow the approximate 35.57 acre subject site to be developed with up to 420 multifamily residential units. The transportation related impacts of the proposed Comprehensive Land Use Amendment and proposed rezoning will be evaluated based on the estimated build-out year of the project and the impacts the proposed amendment and rezoning will have on the surrounding roadway infrastructure. Access to the subject site is proposed to be provided to Veterans Memorial Parkway via a single full site access drive and to Livingston Road via an exit only. Page 1 �srrr rr� `T'` ,ri7F . €tl`h�1R^t a . _ 1. '- As, , -4,,;I 104,1"`. W.I VISO.,,, ,,,.„ivi; .. ei.,,,- 1 \ :.t. oNg S. Y.{ r ., L}5 � h4.- --.: 111 - ��` I i ` ,, . 1,1,;•° \ '� r , 1 S < '•�`CL.t^ t C - c � S fin.• L f '(: il.:4Hi �� � f to j, !' ��..� �_ \w_--1'i G •'4 \ — ,, 1:67, -v ''‘ _''' :„ � r .r F _. , a r - • • ° ..,. ' 11 -}/ W . .� --_* _--_?ms xr 1 , Q, t ci n� n r c l CYh Yr N S I { `may _.._ _{ a{ r r1 3 g y Pn my - -< a y -_ yw E • g \\ PROJECTSJTE , '� .1rt ` y.y-11 u s ,•-•''', , '- „0. ,- . ‘-, ' ,,;Q I ' r'tr . v -t1-. /;�-. S awr t r{7„ y Y!._�t , !t. _ • ,;or-, ,< _-Ecn �..:�a Pyr�.�� �S :{. K x f 1 rt � -i $i c s ' -,7:.-7-4,-,,, r i; .. ! az, "'Al, .:. L.' a :"...__,,,,......r..-4!..a 6'... r y r- &ant s. :-.7-1,,,--„,„,a .. r- ,,R1,6.4. .‘„,11,24.1 «.�� El . " . r R.^}f .a '"` • is .tee h t� r a _ —1. 1. , t. "'t :T a .i .. �4. 1 t I r1 _ 4.s .1 ' i — F E 1 11 �q .: ts t ~ t''''' 4 t C I 7,0 •---- G...5'-.a.s� CI 1 141. �'_, < ,1....--1 1 .f �r% , c , r,y\� °t _ .. t „,..,4.„,,, ,,- ;, f �j yv 1, til , 0 v•.1. ,7 ti t III t Y,YL �� f 4t L 1 � J a i =s- a ., ,I(.4 , z, 1: ��.�v-1 u_aJ � ••a _ �3�=- f L- �/s f c�” � i •3 R �.i, 1- _ 31yy: �� �Immok�ale • ti_o,e=Rd= - 8.. ....46 r.. l Aii i. g t , l �I � � t tri . , ` ,t I t, — — PIP' r . t 1l `"'} -;"I'.. ',s 47 tis;? ; } ` i it.t. ___- 1:.s.---._'' ,war ..� a ...'•-!.'"41/ ,Nr s '—..,} ' "} t. " / •'*�. 1V� i`1••' ' • ,n -`y- f i %j y i O., 7 % ,K l � � �� Kt I. ' µ- , L ',Z....1.4.... il TRANSPORTATION LIVINGSTON PROJECT LOCATION MAP `1CONSULTANTS,INC VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD. EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GMPA) & ALLURA RPD Figure 1 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Methodology meeting notes were exchanged with Collier County Staff via e-mail in order to discuss the proposed Comprehensive Land Use Amendment and rezoning of the subject site. The initial meeting checklist and the latest methodology notes are attached at the end of this document for reference. This report examines the impact of the development on the surrounding roadways. Trip generation and assignments to the various roadways within the study area will be completed and analysis conducted to determine the impacts of the development on the surrounding roadways. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject site is currently vacant. The site is bordered by Veterans Memorial Boulevard to the north, Barrington Cove Neighborhood residential uses to the east, vacant land to the south, and by vacant land and the North Collier Fire Station#48 and Livingston Road to the west. The subject site is located within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMA). The Northwest TCMA is bounded by the Collier/Lee County Line to the north, the I-75 right-of-way to the east, Pine Ridge Road to the south and the Gulf of Mexico to the west. Veterans Memorial Boulevard is a two lane undivided roadway that borders the subject site to the north. Collier County's 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) does not report any data for Veterans Memorial Boulevard. Veterans Memorial Boulevard in the Collier County's Needs Plan is shown to be widened to four lanes as well as being extended from Livingston Road to US 41. Collier County's Needs Plan is attached to the Appendix of this report for reference. Veterans Memorial Boulevard, east of Livingston Road has a posted speed limit of 35 mph and is under the jurisdiction of the Collier County Department of Transportation. Livingston Road is a six lane divided arterial roadway that borders the subject site to the west. Livingston Road north of Mediterra Boulevard is a four lane divided arterial roadway. Livingston Road from Imperial Street to Immokalee Road has a minimum Peak Hour, Peak Direction Level of Service Standard (LOS) of "E". The Level of Service Page 3 74 TR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Standard Volume for this segment of Livingston Road (Roadway Link ID# 51.0) is 3,000 vehicles in the peak hour, peak direction. Livingston Road has a posted speed limit of 45 mph and is under the jurisdiction of the Collier County Department of Transportation. III. PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AMENDMENT & REZONING The proposed Land Use Amendment would change the future land use designation on the approximately 35.57 acre subject site from Urban Residential Subdistrict to establish a Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict which will allow the subject site to be developed with up to 420 multi-family residential units or a density of up to 12 residential units per acre. Table 1 summarizes the land uses that could be constructed under the existing land use designation and the intensity of uses under the proposed land use designation. Table 1 Livingston Rd/Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Subdistrict(GMPA) & Allura RPUD _ s Land Uses Existing/ Proposed Land Use Category Intensity 142 Multi-family Existing Urban Residential Subdistrict Dwelling Units (4 DU/Acre) Livingston Road/Veterans 420 Multi-family Proposed Memorial Boulevard East Dwelling Units IL Residential Subdistrict (12 DU/Acre) Additionally, a 15.38 acre portion of the subject site is zoned RPUD (Della Rosa PUD) which allows up to 107 multifamily units.,The remaining 20.19 acres of the subject site is zoned A-Agriculture which allows up 1 residential unit per 5 acres. The proposed Allura RPUD rezoning will allow the approximately 35.57 acre subject site to be developed with up to 420 multi-family residential units or a density of up to 12 residential units per acre. Table 2 summarizes the land uses that could be constructed under the existing zoning category the intensity of uses under the proposed zoning category. Page 4 7/ TR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Table 2 Livingston Rd/Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Subdistrict(GMPA) & Allura RPUD Land Uses ting/ `,Proposed Zoning District Intensity Existing RPUD (15.38 acres) 111 Multi-family A-Agriculture(20.19 acres) Dwelling Units Proposed Allura RPUD(35.57 acres) 420 Multi-family Dwelling Units IV. TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION The trip generation for the proposed development was determined by referencing the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) report, titled Trip Generation, 10`h Edition. Based on the request from the Collier County, a trip generation utilizing the 9th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation report was also provided. This data was provided for informational purposes only and is attached in the Appendix of this report for reference. Land Use Code 221 (Multifamily Housing Mid-Rise) from the 10`" Edition of the report was utilized for the trip generation purposes of the proposed multi-family dwelling units. Table 3 outlines the anticipated weekday AM and PM peak hour trip generation based on the existing land use category. Table 3 outlines the anticipated weekday AM and PM peak hour trip generation based on the proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning. The daily trip generation is also indicated in this table. Table 3 Livingston Rd/Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Subdistrict(GMPA) & Allura RPUD Trip Generation Based on Proposed Land Use Amendment and Rezoning • Weekday AM:Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Daily Land Use Iu Out Total ` . I Out Total (2 way) Multi-Family Housing 36 104 140 107 69 176 2,287 (420 Dwelling Units) Page 5 7T TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC The trips the proposed development is anticipated to generate were assigned to the site access drives and the surrounding roadway network. The project traffic distribution was determined in the methodology with staff and is illustrated on Figure 2. Figure 2 also illustrates the assignment of the total project trips to the site access drives based upon the project traffic distribution. V. PROJECTED CONCURRENCY In order to determine which roadway segments surrounding the site will be significantly impacted, Table 1A, contained in the Appendix, was created. This table indicates which roadway links will accommodate an amount of project traffic greater than the 2%-2%-3% Significance Test. The trips generated as a result of the proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning on the subject site was compared with the Capacity for Peak Hour— Peak Direction traffic conditions as defined by the 2017 Collier County Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR). Based on the information contained within Table 1A, Livingston Road, south of Veterans Memorial Boulevard is anticipated to be significantly impacted by the proposed development. In addition to the significant impact criteria, Table 2A includes the concurrency analysis on the Collier County Roadway network. The current remaining capacity and Level of Service Standard for each roadway segment analyzed was obtained from the 2017 Collier County Annual Inventory Update Report (AUIR). A five-year planning analysis was also conducted. In order to estimate the projected 2023 background traffic volumes, the existing 2017 peak hour peak direction traffic volumes from the 2017 AUIR were adjusted by the appropriate growth rate. These projected volumes were then compared with the 2017 existing plus trip bank volumes from the 2017 AUIR. The more conservative of the two volumes was then utilized as the 2023 background traffic volume. Page 6 LEE COUNTYr '- \\\ N 411\ 4 COLLIER COUNTY p. c W_in E V /_I S N.T.S. (107)36{ t 1 8 I i I Lc)I I —I R. 1 I co I--1 1 I t221VETERANS MEMORIAL PKWY. 68(45) N 1 I i { LT. .1- SITE 1 if_..7 I 1 - I 1 d I y 1 Z o X114(10) O co � 1 U 1 0 + Z J ,ocr N.—r— Te; -1- IMMOKALLE RD. 4, + y ‘'7 (22) 41-.30%.... (32) 11 J I 41-20%♦ a 0 11) +, LEGEND ♦ 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR SITE TRAFFIC ®-(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR SITE TRAFFIC 41120%-110. PERCENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION TRIP DISTRIBUTION & SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT /A TRTNSPORTATIONCONSUTANTS,INLIVINGSTON RDJ VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD. EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GMPA) &ALLURA RPD Figure 2 TRTRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC The concurrency analysis was performed by subtracting the project traffic volumes that will result with the proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning from the 2023 background remaining capacity in order to determine whether or not sufficient capacity will be available after the addition of the net new traffic associated with proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning approvals. Based on the information contained within Table 2A, there will be sufficient capacity on all surrounding roadways, except on Immokalee Road, west of Livingston Road to serve the net new trips generated as a result of the proposed development. Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road is projected in the year 2023 to have insufficient capacity without the addition of the trips generated as a result of the proposed development. Therefore, Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road is considered as a pre-development deficiency that this project should not be responsible for. Figure 3 was created to indicate the results of the concurrency analysis on the adjacent roadway network. As can be seen within Figure 3, a positive capacity is shown after the addition of the peak hour trips from the proposed development on all roadway links, except for Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road. Additionally, Veterans Memorial Boulevard in the Collier County's Needs Plan is shown to be widened to four lanes as well as being extended from Livingston Road to US 41. Should this improvement be constructed, the traffic congestion may be alleviated on Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road. Collier County's Needs Plan is attached to the Appendix of this report for reference. The Developer is committing to meet at least two of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies listed in Policy 6.5 of the Future Land Use Element contained within Collier County's Growth Management Plan. Policy 6.5 is attached to the Appendix of this report for reference. Page 8 11- LEE COUNTY N COLLIER COUNTY W ! 9' E IN 1,671 (1,635) S [1,647] 1.25% N.T.S. U- C N g VETERANS MEMORIAL PKWY. C I-- —, I C.,- - 1 G 1 i 1 SITE 1 '----J 0 eC 1,671 z (1,648) I— [1,602] 0., 2.32% IMMOKALLE RD. -214730 (-245) 1,287 (709) [-235] (1,281) [716] 1.04% [1,271] 0.61% 0.52% LEGEND 000 2023 CURRENT REMAINING CAPACITY (000) 2023 REMAINING CAPACITY W/AM PROJECT TRAFFIC [000] 2023 REMAINING CAPACITY W/PM PROJECT TRAFFIC 0.0%PROJECT IMPACT PERCENTAGE ORtatioN 2023 REMAINING CAPACITY ON SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED LINKS //TR t�aNSCONSUPLTANTS, ON LIVINGSTON RD.!VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD. EAST INCRESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GMPA) &ALLURA RPD Figure 3 TRTRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Based on results shown in Table 2A, Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road is shown to operate above the volume to capacity ratio of 1.0 in the year of 2023. Policy 5.7 of the Collier County's Transportation Element states that "each TCMA shall maintain 85% of its lane miles at or above the LOS standards." Attached to the Appendix of this report is the Northwest TCMA report which shows that the Northwest TCMA currently meets 98.9% of its lane miles above the LOS standards. With the addition of the Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road insufficiency, the projected percent lane miles meeting the LOS Standard will decrease to approximately 94.8%. Therefore, with the addition of the project traffic to the surrounding roadways and based on the results of analysis containing within this report, the proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning meets the minimum 85%threshold as described in Policy 5.7 of the Collier County's Transportation Element. Policy 5.7 is attached to the Appendix of this report for reference. VI. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS An intersection analysis was conducted utilizing the latest version of the program SYNCHRO° to determine the operational characteristics of the signalized intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard during the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Peak hour turning movement counts were conducted by TR Transportation at the intersection in January, 2018, after the start of Collier County public schools. The peak hour turning movements were adjusted for peak season conditions based on peak season factor data as provided by FDOT in their Traffic Information Online resource. The FDOT peak season correction factor is included in the Appendix of this report for reference. The existing peak season traffic volumes were then increased by a growth rate factor to determine the projected 2023 background turning movement volumes. Table 3A of the Appendix illustrates the methodology utilized to formulate the appropriate annual growth rates for each roadway segment. The turning volumes projected to be added to the intersection as illustrated on Figure 2 were then added to the 2023 background volumes to estimate the future 2023 traffic volumes with the project. These volumes are based on the data from the spreadsheet contained in the Appendix of this report titled Development of Future Year Background Turning Volumes. Page 10 7AT TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC The SYNCHRO© summary sheets, attached to this report for reference, indicate that the signalized intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS in 2023 both with and without the project trips in the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. In the A.M. peak hour conditions, the intersection is shown to operate at a LOS "C" both with and without the project traffic added to the intersection. In the P.M. peak hour conditions, the intersection is shown to operate at a LOS "B" both with and without the project traffic added to the intersection. Therefore, no intersection improvements will be warranted based on the intersection analysis conducted as part of this report. Turn lane improvements at the site access drive intersection will be evaluated at the time the project seeks site development plan approval application. VII. CONCLUSION The proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning is to allow the approximate 35.57 acre subject site to be developed with up to 420 multifamily residential units. The site, located at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, meets Collier County Consistency and Concurrency requirements. The surrounding roadway network was analyzed based on the 2017 Collier County Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR) and future 2023 build-out traffic conditions. As a result, sufficient capacity is indicated along all surrounding roadways, except for Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road in 2023 both with and without the proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning approval. Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road is projected in the year 2023 to have insufficient capacity without the addition of the trips generated as a result of the proposed development. Therefore, Immokalee Road west of Livingston Road is considered as a pre-development deficiency that this project should not be responsible for. In addition, the subject site is located within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMA). Based on the concurrency analysis contained within this report, the proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning meets the minimum 85%threshold as described in Policy 5.7 of the Collier County's Transportation Element. Page 11 7AIT TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Intersection analysis was conducted at the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard. The results of this analysis indicate that the signalized intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS in 2023 both with and without the project trips in the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Therefore, no roadway improvements are recommended in order to accommodate the proposed Land Use Amendment and rezoning. K:\2017\12 December110 Della Rosa RPUD Zoning Comp Plan Collierl4-12-2018 Report.doc Page 12 APPENDIX METHODOLOGY MEETING NOTES APPENDIX A INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply. Location: via e-mail People Attending: Name, Organization, and Telephone Numbers 1) Stephen Baluch, Collier County Transportation, (239)252-2361 2) Michael Sawyer,Transportation Planning(239) 252-2926 3)Ted Treesh,TR Transportation Consultants, Inc., (239)278-3090 Study Preparer: Preparer's Name and Title: Ted Treesh Organization:TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. Address &Telephone Number: 2726 Oak Ridge Court, Suite 503 Fort Myers,FL 33901 (239) 278-3090 Reviewer(s): Reviewer's Name&Title: Stephen Baluch, Site Plan Reviewer,Transportation Collier County Transportation Planning Department Reviewer's Name &Title: Organization&Telephone Number: Applicant: Applicant's Name: Stock Development Address: Telephone Number: (239)449-5227 Proposed Development: Name: Livingston/Veterans PL20170004385 (RPUD) PL20170004419 (GMPA) Location: Southeast quadrant of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Pkwy Land Use Type: Multi-Family Residential ITE Code#: LUC 221 —Multi-Family Housing(Mid-Rise) Proposed number of development units: 420 Dwelling Units Other: N/A Description: Multi-Family Housing -.la�i;.r--.r C:2,' .. -"i3.• c%; -. .i tr, PUDA/GMPA Existing: Currently the site is vacant. A portion of the site is zoned RPUD (Della Rosa PUD). A Growth Management Plan Amendment will request the land use change from Urban Residential to establish the "Livingston Road/Veterans' Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict" to allow an increase in residential density from 4 dwelling units per acre to 12 dwelling units per acre. Comprehensive plan recommendation: Change from Urban Residential to a Subdistrict to allow an increase in density from 4 units/acre to 12 units per acre Requested: N/A Findings of the Preliminary Study: Project is anticipated to generate less approximately 212 net new PM peak hour trips. See the attached trip generation tables. Study Type: Small Scale TIS ❑ Minor TIS ❑ Major TIS 11 Study Area: Boundaries: Livingston Road County line south through Immokalee Road (Links #51.0, 52.0 and 53.0), Immokalee Road east and west of Livingston Road (Links #42.1 & 42.2) based upon the Collier County 2%-2%-3% Significant Impact Criteria. Additional intersections to be analyzed: Livinston Road @ Veterans Pkwy Horizon Year(s): 2023 Analysis Time Period(s): AM &PM peak hours Future Off-Site Developments: None Source of Trip Generation Rates: ITE Trip Generation, 10`h Edition Reductions in Trip Generation Rates: None: Pass-by trips:None Internal trips (PUD): None Transmit use: n/a Other: n/a Horizon Year Roadway Network Improvements: None Methodology&Assumptions: Non-site traffic estimates: 2017 AUIR Site-trip generation: ITE Trip Generation 10th Edition—LUC 221 (Multi-Family Housing (Mid-Rise) ^.,,= __::,r„ >my='ar e .r,r;, adosgy.. r:rvr•,7eS .. •d: Trip distribution method: By Hand — 35% to/from the north on Livingston Road, 65% to/from the south on Livingston Road, 15% to/from the south of Livingston Road south of Immokalee Road, 30% to/from the west on Immokalee Road and 20% to/from the east on lmmokalee Road Traffic assignment method: By Hand Traffic growth rate: From comparison of the 2010 &2017 AUIR's Special Features: (from preliminary study or prior experience) Accidents locations: Sight distance: Queuing: Access location & configuration: One full-site access to Veterans Parkway Traffic control: Signal system location&progression needs: On-site parking needs: Data Sources: ITE Trip Generation Report, 10th Edition Base maps: Prior study reports: Access policy and jurisdiction: Review process: Requirements: Miscellaneous: SIGNATUURES Study Pri•a er Reviewers Applicant TRIP GENERATION LIVINGSTON/VETERANS GMPA/PUDA ALLURA Table 1 Trip Generation Multi-Family (Mid-Rise) ITE Land Use Code 221 i Weekday A.M.Peak Houieekday P.M.Peak Hour Daily L Land Use In Out Total I In Out Total (2:way) 1 Multi-Family Housing 36 104 140 107 69 176 2287 (420 Units) Pa\ Land Use: 221 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Description Mid-rise multifamily housing includes apartments,townhouses, and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels(floors). Multifamily housing(low-rise) (Land Use 220), multifamily housing(high-rise)(Land Use 222),off-campus student apartment(Land Use 225), and mid-rise residential with 1st-floor commercial(Land Use 231)are related land uses. Additional Data In prior editions of Trip Generation Manual,the mid-rise multifamily housing sites were further divided into rental and condominium categories.An investigation of vehicle trip data found no clear differences in trip making patterns between the rental and condominium sites within the ITE database.As more data are compiled for future editions,this land use classification can be reinvestigated. For the six sites for which both the number of residents and the number of occupied dwelling units were available,there were an average of 2.46 residents per occupied dwelling unit. For the five sites for which the numbers of both total dwelling units and occupied dwelling units were available,an average of 95.7 percent of the total dwelling units were occupied. Time-of-day distribution data for this land use are presented in Appendix A. For the eight general urban/suburban sites with data,the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m.and 4:45 and 5:45 p.m., respectively. For the four dense multi-use urban sites with 24-hour count data,the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 7:15 and 8:15 a.m.and 4:15 and 5:15 p.m., respectively.For the three center city core sites with 24-hour count data,the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 6:45 and 7:45 a.m. and 5:00 and 6:00 p.m., respectively. For the six sites for which data were provided for both occupied dwelling units and residents,there was an average of 2.46 residents per occupied dwelling unit. For the five sites for which data were provided for both occupied dwelling units and total dwelling units, an average of 95.7 percent of the units were occupied. The average numbers of person trips per vehicle trip at the five center city core sites at which both person trip and vehicle trip data were collected were as follows: • 1.84 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 7 and 9 a.m. • 1.94 during Weekday,AM Peak Hour of Generator • 2.07 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. • 2.59 during Weekday, PM Peak Hour of Generator Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition•Volume 2:Data•Residential(Land Uses 200-299) 71 The average numbers of person trips per vehicle trip at the 32 dense multi-use urban sites at which both person trip and vehicle trip data were collected were as follows: • 1.90 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,one hour between 7 and 9 a.m. • 1.90 during Weekday,AM Peak Hour of Generator • 2.00 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. • 2.08 during Weekday, PM Peak Hour of Generator The average numbers of person trips per vehicle trip at the 13 general urban/suburban sites at which both person trip and vehicle trip data were collected were as follows: • 1.56 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,one hour between 7 and 9 a.m. • 1.88 during Weekday,AM Peak Hour of Generator • 1.70 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. • 2.07 during Weekday, PM Peak Hour of Generator The sites were surveyed in the 1980s,the 1990s,the 2000s,and the 2010s in Alberta(CAN), British Columbia(CAN),California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida,Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ontario,Oregon,Pennsylvania,South Carolina, South Dakota,Tennessee, Utah,Virginia,and Wisconsin. Source Numbers 168, 188,204,305, 306, 321, 357, 390,436, 525,530, 579,638, 818,857,866, 901, 904, 910, 912, 918, 934,936,939, 944,947, 948, 949,959, 963,964, 966, 967, 969,970 72 Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition•Volume 2:Data•Residential(Land Uses 200-299) ,{`� Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (221) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units Ona: Weekday Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 27 Avg. Num.of Dwelling Units: 205 Directional Distribution: 50%entering, 50%exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 5.44 1.27- 12.50 2.03 Data Plot and Equation 3,000 X X 2.500 X X 2,000 X Lu X a. X X X 1,500 X X X 1,000 X X X X XX 500 ♦. X X X X X 00 100 200 300 400 500 X=Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation:T=5.45(X)-1.75 R==0.77 ,{e Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition•Volume 2:Data•Residential(Land Uses 200-299) 73 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (221) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 53 Avg. Num.of Dwelling Units: 207 Directional Distribution: 26%entering, 74%exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.36 0.06-1.61 0.19 Data Plot and Equation 300 X 73 N c X W Q. 200 n X X X X •X. X X X 100 X X X X X X 9. X , - X X X-*XX X X 0 X 0 200 400 600 800 X=Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation:Ln(T)=0.98 Ln(X)-0.98 R'=0.67 74 Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition•Volume 2:Data•Residential(Land Uses 200-299) Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (221) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 60 Avg. Num.of Dwelling Units: 208 Directional Distribution: 61%entering,39%exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.44 0.15- 1.11 0.19 Data Plot and Equation 400 X 300 0 w F X X X. X X 200 X X X X XXX 100 X >#C X X X X X XXX X X X X � X 00 200 400 600 800 X=Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation:Ln(T)=0.96 Ln(X)-0.63 R==0.72 iwmw Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition•Volume 2:Data•Residential(Land Uses 200-299) 75 I- 00 . < z z z 2 2 B ■ ` o — w @ @ @ ` 0 P4 ° cl cc?o co o u § w f 2 V. 0 § K $ a el , IN § F 77 re ® � - , § S CO. N 2 0 e a \rt tIJ J a ; IN 0I 0 0 0 a & a k 10 0 ` \ / � 0 0 - @ g 2 .II: c4 § ) © co S 2 ; a r 2 r- § u > > m 0 § Cl) « m § \ - 0 0 0 Crl0 L 2 0 2 t , © o � Lt tu } Q¥ $ j w & UI >a 8 M ■ , u . rt � k B § k k k § j / U z z _ ■ 0 z z ` 0 — 10 g 0o. 0 I- k sr 0 : z co 0 0 § 0 n w ; ■ ) re - u z 2 ; w o a. LLI \ ( ( to IT 0 b ¢ § 0 % % k ".•SI- - k q 2 0 0 8 \ 0 m / k § \ 0 0 \ j 2 7 ) % % - . i # \ - § O. O. _ N , @ 2 2 §.. N m N N N > > § ) 0 CD V N- 0 g X ± M § / 2 L0U 8 6 5 tIc En \ B 8 , « > $ E E o % % % % \ \ @ # w w j k _ _ < 2 � ) < a- $ \ co / / Q f ) R 2 2 4 = tz ::.,a It _oa uuuuc^_uauuaauaa.,mac,ac',,nuincf,auccaua�uuc,ac,..,umocaauocucc _ _ is y oe; . _mss;', -,_g-4,12w u=... '__r -_ •-_-a-r-="= 43. -. • _,` ='fi rr _r'_ _- il .. X47, _- ''' _ r, '- rr_ r,,4r,�.. . - " - -.t _.i Ul _ P-1'4 p> j `17c -___F'-- _ ^ -''- =--r.�ir._- _-'•, n r ,_..r.r.r.�-. ri.,r.^c y› • o n-- , i- "�-r << , r -r . n. rr UI n= 37—=23 L_ z Z Z Z ZZ'/-n_z=. 'w ..� ^ .+..amu.UZ ZZZZ,.ZZ=ZZZZZ ZZZZZZZwu�w�w wu g t n ...,. -�a=CcO w._C aaC__u..0 u a'a''-. .u..7c: .... Cc___-1=ww uc -A E1a` 5G 6'30 = "2 "' c2c=oiii9,9,a>?eceeea>_ -_e-^r 7ccn_ .-.«^c2c°Qo=r,^cocaFc_ o ' r' _ __ __ _s-Y- _'d m 's x m s z z _ -`i ' - g a_ s 3 .27 L X g z'p_ a=a= _ __ v__Y 9= ._=a __ - - 'e c c-sac 5_ _ Dayt.sd°= LwY, r1 r1'_ r r, r n g y n 4` n Jv C.Li. „...+-^.0 S.=,„...UU..0 C+„i...L1rJ''..V V==x=G'J=UUJC..CU U^J L'1=m J4CC C:. Z ▪i, _f. .r. F l 4_+,v.r. 3 n-n Z --WL 2 0 , - MEA • ,-..__ 3 i_,1 n> ,- r _-_--G__v, r_, `-x - ,- rl-- - . . r,_ ri F+ ail 1---.1 :t_O _ z - 4=rrii.v r, K- .,__ • n -r_ -__ --- 27.,.:. _,_ nnri uil 1. - R - -Z T'r ri r.v.N _ --r,A rt fi _ - - r.Z..._� _rr - ri r,rv,- 21 'tfl , . --rv,r.r..r....'_r, _ <_r,__ri r,r.- E W ,i J LL:Ja:Z'f.ZZZ^r.ZZZuI%IZ L'1:J,::1'�'.,1JJ"'i>i»Z2Zl ZZZZ�%n�1:n- -J'�J.i'_')'�ZZZZZ K `o J'J•�.^.CC^uC""'•'••C JJ W J=CC CCJ�:u:LL..l w ,�, J��CC CCC C.:s w JW CCCC_J-u _ _ 33 .r$szI avv.11.0i_, _n,r.+..n :..5 Di.;..v.4.n . c c.,-.2` v.c .c r.r._E c 1 •r.r.v.v. .4 n 5 C C..- C _C»>ri z^C------- z33 C C Cr�3'» J�C C C C C CCC C : C C Y �:. y nn •x - = ; x = z_`-g - t- z:aT z= --.1 v,12 _ _ _ _ ,7- 1:; .4-2f � = : y = a' Z g423gtr, .0 _ _�c-ii -_ _ _ syeoi_ gpo_ _ - - P,s-3z_-_ =--=4d ' -_ _ ly=. - 1l 5532 '= 0SV: ;. czxccn +i,EcCL- _- = ¢ -_ _ :: r = C c-_ = c Tg▪ , t 1 yA1,<_ - _=,5 c C t ai�-'� ? 3 = 3 Z -� � -C-C g LZ 2 I fF-.. J 3."rm4 c _ >L L 1=-->. e =__= i I..' �Q'L= —f- ' _ _ L 1 G -'U t-- _ _ — - _ _ _ = • - 55 t -5.7,i'"--=== I 7. T.--,177 y sg]s_J J1-uF!-u i Z Z Z Z 2 :1 4 .7 :.:J,11 , % .1 ---:—, 5E _ _- _ _ --_ . 2_ - - ccc. Y, 1, issi . -- F�r1-=F - _ PC '3n1� , YC2 2- T t -. -,- Y n: 22 . _ _ - - tt ▪ - J3-=-ii Z'Gn`"vl-n2nn1%nnnwvt- g:=r ,-!=r= ,=-r-. o III SEM Kx1'OCCY Ni 1'=1r1'xYYS l ^ .r r' # ' HHHHi ' z' _„.. ,_ ,uc, .,c,:..,.....,.,c.c,c,c ,,., xn l`.i�n �nni» � »opo �= _r= o ni. ...r.na ---'ie U.-'- nr...v. n>-r x.5'4'4 - '_ - -_- oo?o 0000- -_- TABLES 1A, 2A & 3A w 2 } 2 § 2 z z g ■ 7) O a , § / § \ 0 0 g § � ° § ( ) K $ a N N § 0 xw § / K CD Zr m § S \ \ 0 0 — o_ I , 1CC 14 Q 02- 7 a a .- M D K • — z § @2a [ ® . o kik m 0 b o > ® K at \ to) § § )- ; E a ® n 0 § > V) } e k ( £ ( } « § § } \ S Q o o \ o_• w ce � ` ® 2 § m R ( / w c u z ce « © k § 0 0 0 10 < u. 0 U 7 ■ m z z a ° b UJ „ Q g o ( > e CO _ m 1 n § 0 a) / K / m m z I— 2 : , n m0 « ix ■ = b I"'• J § % E co ( ( W 0 ( t § 00 0 U o o E 7 7 § D co g 0 0 0 0 00 00 Z m 2 k § LU m ° \ 2 8 8 ] B �\ 0 0 0 _ CD CD CL ce E W , q 9 w { £ § G d «NN , . @ z Ii uw ) > #tu 2 N N N N N N I I w 5 > > _ z a- / ( 0, k To To \ ( ) X Ti £ £ e 7 W W @ k k ) / - 8 8 ■ > > ; ) _j \ § '5jjj \ \ I I ) � ) ) < I 2 k e e \ / } 2o 2 2 3 I ( o0e £ II0 / mk \ § R ) ) ) z) n 0 > / . ( eg u \ / - , a< t ( ! q § .- § 2 7 N /U 4• ( E ■ j w \ w , , , 0 2 § , . a, 1.... ..- V, ( § re& / 9 § , m 0 © Co • ckZ N NN N �p § 03 § UJ 2 [ 22q � _ a m \ [ \ f R b ! , 0 2CO 01 o ■ § § ] § , nil, N -J re § ; k 4 $ ; m , © \ « ezt gi \ } - @ = 9 2 2 RI < N § 0 - } } , , co x \j kI- . s & ■ e « ;a , « D ® / I ) 0 ii ii 0 0 \▪ $ m Q © ; ; 3 ■ # j _ _ = eE` § 0 \ \ § w k IY ` g 2 z zLu / LU k / § f 6. ! i § § §§ « e , mn , ) Z z 2 0 _ _ 0 - 2 \ 2 « , \ Cl) > > ` Z 7E _ § � , - - ¥ LI ! f / Ii .c u_ ) \ \( ( ) k ( ) @ ! « a F. 2 § 5 „ ) § k i � m ui ! { Ix « 2 a 2 \ a / \ - # # 2 2 f) ) E k\ TABLE 3A ANNUAL GROWTH RATE CALCULATIONS BASED UPON HISTORICAL AUIR DATA 2011 2017 ANNUAL ACTUAL CURRENT AUIR AUIR YRS OF GROWTH GROWTH ROADWAY SEGMENT ID# VOLUME VOLUME GROWTH RATE RATE Livingston Road Imperial Parkway to Immokalee Road 51.0 1,074 1,180 6 2.00% 1.58% Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road 52.0 1,667 1,610 6 2.00% -0.58% Immokalee Road Livingston Road to 1-75 42.2 2,461 2,460 6 2.00% -0.01% Airport Road to Livingston Road 42.1 2,349 2,790 6 2.91% 2.91% All traffic volumes were obtained from the 2011&2017 Annual Update Inventory Reports(AUIR) •In instances where the historical data indicates a reduction in traffic or insufficient data was available to calculate a growth rate due to construction,a minimum annual growth rate of 2.0%was assumed. SAMPLE GROWTH RATE CALCULATION 2017 AUIR 4(1IYrs of Growth) Annual Growth Rate(AGR)= -1 2011 AUIR 1,180 "(1/6) AGR(Livingston)_ -1 1,074 AGR(Livingston)= 1.58% 2017 AUIR REPORT r. n ry n AF. n F n.. NN C n> 7 4LlIa E. =aa. c. c,oac.ec,u=mc._oc.eaoa,o;.CoL,mt,mom:..c.:.....o=.,.....Cax=;.na:.on E' N_. -xnSr.S..T—v 2rvRS v.z_ v.Zr.z%n,-TLLi3Ts SE znTR2r.i,—XX v> �'i 2 x i= Fi S.Y- r. = _ "p1 snv E;F -ie4+3-- U...! _ria «5: G1 -r N-__T- .r.-- --y.-i ..... rvr.Nr.r.- in----t T - —n. APM e. ^r a , '•a_ _Aei It• eS,ge•_}-C e,eCi1 i 0=yise Xi C i'i __is s _ _-.—=—r i z . __ �z3 -_- NN v. N.=Try n Nry .n. 7.'.1,•21,1 3 ,• 94.7.1;!.s -Y.'..A111= 4 & =c Ci rv�.nn Nrv.'.- «�. - -Nrva.ry - - Nrvry �. �. nrvN .�.%rFn LL < .0 a C : ZZZ 2 Z2w A.2'/:.w w wwm5 J V u u'x u Z ZZZ Z.ZZNZ ZZZ2Z ZZ ZZ ZZ.Jy0..J Y s W a i- w • GY C..._J•JJ.I CCO CC'1.00COOOmJ =OOLw wu CO w c O CCCT w t9_'s1C COCIC'.'.mmvaw K te Jz r.r.v. .:a r N v.ay.'S v.= -S.isv.v.m T,,, v.v.v. a av 3 v.F..a r.a v.�' m l s ' 3] iii2 ,CC tal i,7 V 2-Oiv2.TOC 2 eT`rveC.Caeniii avizi OCCi°i.9R9 c2np _s v _ _ ^ ii _5 _ _ -- { ��- _ _ -- s. -CSC e- z , _ - 9 . v c, s= a - 3-a ___ z i 5= - 7 i = _- i z 7-= 9= 1 -- 6,r _ 3 a __ i 7 -h >C lNC r= x'_'<1;.f z'.. •'< 7.G>O »C'J- J3�--'-7 YC�<«>.^...< -_.. 1 700, i Y- v- - 44T. Z T. - i 31 _ _ - _-e t 3 F a l v a _ _y • -1 3 v Y— —_ _ g - -- _ r ! --- _19Y ' , - _ -an1aY 24-131 1 _ f b7Yn721 J 3O_ 5Hnjd .iu aa :! Y' 53azi1Plig° s 3 - + 3 3 3 3 Y m z z! --- 72111a s s-_- 3 a . -- - ;n = :: . ' .. : : =: :b; : = :1111"'" 331-a�sdz-�!z= 333==5 " ' ;3 3=3d3=Ss=83==9-= '_`1s >s F t 4:3= - 4 a 4 ,•7- _-z:e.'r r = ? a sh:= e = 2 d h?e -`e: 11 e �<a <ed�c aaaaa^...: :.3 c:oc;ooc:;:i.GGG i. ,-- Y !!! ! ! _ -__ 33;14 a 3_ --ri l - _ -=3 15=-73331;' T6a__§_ �_ _ai_7_� _ri���� _? --1.= = l 0 -P.Nr.R v.v r z_ --N .T.,t.6 r NNe_Y Z MN NNN Mne-%r.hr.14.141414.r.r.r.nr.r4T T T 1 E. - of = I .JD. :.G'v t,c.. S.m:.,:,m .�.'.av 0 C .7t.�.•.==o:,'v Y======•r07GC'.C,=====L 00 CL E'''' i _-_ 4,6 r T e'--- - n z,I i?.Tv.v r.,lE g v..r. i'ry fir r 1 ,n c r.4 r 7,,�;g r P i_ -_ __:-iY C 3^___ - - -= _ _ -_---. _tan n,n 2-= r. ._ :nil g 5 n MC obs' . . _ r.= :_r. ==c .="-.n :...: 7� :.=_ o-_ =_= _==3=- =•.,r _ __ ._ . «S;`$ rvi-A ry rAg igLI _ 'c q“»gt mss_#=-ri,., -4c'iiig _ °WW. It-j5 .�3 __ _- AAW «_ ' _- r 1_=-,.y _r 3-nry':;.,r__ _ ";r__z-''a r a -_ _ _ r ., ,zvrv .,_ ry Y.Y;-. _- t ., N-r-,rvr.t _ -_n ,rv-- `____ -rvv.r.o,7-Z_ry_ Ary 3°` :3,==-r, �ry . :;s-,..sr=.drvr.rr,:i---r.r.r.rr. 11;,3i3 7 + =J1 JZ.Z Z Z%Z2Zwut Zww?;'-::t, w...J>i i"i>ZZZ!2ZZZi Y.Vi•J,Y:L ww W W w W J'w 2Z ZZZ R w - G= •.m0n000_J....C^ann. ....000m 00.0'.-I'-000000000==-07000Jmwwm '^ E 'Ji caiv.v. - ...r.=..r. .+.+.r.i.mr.r._:.r..nr.r.v.r.- v. a3 ...v.�.=. v.r. ... ;� 53 ....=-; C7^^C^0 '?COL?= i R;i ii 3 7e-_i P N C C e C e 7_ I 7 _ _=- a .t6 Y Y - 5 _ : Y 3 6 - xt1.4 -4t1,11- d- Y. y m y- 4 , lzI - f7a ' o Crr2 � = rY=0: J` - . % o - -gr^ nFS= = 3= c _z -- _ _ _ 50 rY?U 2..s Yz Lm " n^S,:,r..iv'iY.E,3V,J'„t V Hm .,4G i0i 1. i Vii• , E C 3 _ - a Y _ _ -- �-' 3 _- s z_ == 1 i g '_ _ t s 4 x T{i 3 r= s. =- =_3' _' 1 Y 0_ _ 3 .. B3z'xs'15ro ' -4.a ., . = W-_ _ z 3 _ ..n agtF.,c. '1--41.-. z'z"=s`.;:___ 1111-W5 ,44$/ Y _ _g i ! y z _ ' _ J 0 2 2 7_7 Z iii a h d.i . - 1 i 2T. Y z s `--___-a r u ry Y M v n Y s a a v _ - = c ` ' -�3 2 Z L.^.;f i-t r:_Y Y.x xi. l:q if v--F-� -r. r r-r- "sf it zzizzscsszszzacs rvY,�e'1Z' 33ji'rzf'•y33„T.,T' Tilg7,.,H ttt ..., ,., ,,NIG,,,,,.. ,t,• ' • • nY.'.r'.✓r' ❑� »�Dom.,7. i' -,-r a .,:-�........v.< AI ---t;< .+.ter r r.^.;.... t-r: r.i: 3-;.;-aa.v. _ -- - - , ^:o-.,r.t,....rr xxxxxxx:xa= " " - " " - " '_-= COLLIER COUNTY NEEDS PLAN & PROJECTED COLLIER COUNTY DEFICIENT ROADS ATTACHMENT "H" appeiviv-Nceuf Flan tCh,vr 101 • 23rd Street SW Brantley-Keane Avenue Golden Gate Boulevard Enhanced 2-Lane Collector 60 feet 3.0 1 2 Airoort Pulling Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Immokalee Road(CR 846) B-Lano Divided Arterial 132 feel 2.0 97 Bald Eagle Dr Collier Boulevard San Marco Road 4 lanes 100 feet 1,3 3 Bonfield Rad Tamiami Trail East(US 41) Wilson Boulevard Extension 4-Lane Divided Arterial 200 feel 7.6 4 Camp Keais Road Oil Well Road(CR 0581 Immokalee Road(CR 846) 4-Lane Divided Arterial 200 feet 5,2 5 Collier Boulevard(CR 951) Golden Gate Canal • Green Boulevard 6-Lane Divided Arterial 132 feel 2.0 6 CR 951 Extension Immokalee Road(CR 645) Heritage Bay Properties 4-Lane Divided Arterial 120 feel IS 7 CR 951 Extension Heritage Bay Properties Lee County Line 2-Lane Arterial 80 feet 1.5 8 Enterprise Avenue Airport Pulling Road Livingston Road 4-Lane Divided Minor Collector 148 feet 1.0 9 Everglades Boulevard Golden Gate Boulevard Immokalee Road(CR 846) 4-Lane Divided Arena) 200 feel 9.3 96 Everglades Boulevard Interstate 75(1-75) Golden Gate 4-Lane Divided Arlene' 200 feet 5.3 10 Florida Tredeport Boulevard New Markel Road SR 29 Loop Rad 2-Lane Arterial 200 feet 2.6 11 Golden Gale Boulevard Wilson Boulevard Desoto Boulevard 4-Lane Divided Arterial 150 feel 5.8 12 Goodleile-Frank Road Orange Blossom Drive Vanderbilt Beads Road 6-Lane Divided Arterial 156 feel 0.9 13 Goodlece•Frank Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Immokalee Road(CR 646) 4-Lane Divided Anneal 49-156 feet I.6 14 Green Boulevard Extension West Livingston Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 4-Lane Divided Arterial 156 feet 2.0 14a Green Boulevard Extension West Over Interstate 75(1-751 4-Lane Divided Arterial 200 feet 0.2 15 Green Boulevard Sancta Barbara)Logan Boulevard Sunshine Boulevard 4-Lane Divided Collector 100 feet 1.0 16 Green Boulevard Ext 1 16111 Ave SW Collier Boulevard(CR 951) 23rd Street SW 4-Lane Divided Collector 148 feet 2.1 17 Green Boulevard Ext 116th Ave SW 23rd Street SW Everglades Boulevard 2-Lane Collector 80 feet 6.8 18 Interstate 75 11.751 Collier Boulevard(SR 051) Golden Gale Parkway 6-Lane Freeway 360 feet 3.3 19 Interstate 7511-75) Golden Gale Parkway Pine Ridge Road(CR 8961 8-Lane Freeway 360 feel 2.6 Interstate 75(1-75)High Occupancy Vehicles 20 (HDV)lanes Pine Ridge Road(CR 896) Lee County Line 4-Lanes Limited Access 360 feel 7.4 21 Immokalee Rad(CR 846) Oil Well Road(CR 858) Shady Hollow Boulevard 6-Lane Divided Arterial 160 feel 1.4 22 Immokalee Road(CR 846) Shady Hollow Boulevard Camp Kais Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 120 feel 172 23 Immokalee Road(CR 846) Camp Reals Road Eustis Avenue 4-Lone Divided Arterial 120 feet 2.5 24 Immokalee Road(CR 846) SR 29 Airpork Boulevard 4-Lane Divided Arterial 120 feel OA 25 Immokalee Road Exlension Camp Reams Road SR 29 2-Lane Collector 80 feel 2.7 26 Keane Avenue 23rd Street SW Inez Rad 2-lane Undivided Minor Collector 15.124 feel 0.9 26a Keane Avenue Inez Road Wilson Boulevard Extension 2-Lane Undivided Mina Collector. 16•124 leer 2.0 27 Little League Read Lake Trafford Road SR 82 4-Lane Divided Arterial 160 feet 4.1 28 Logan Boulevard Green Boulevard Pine Ridge Road(CR 896) 6-Lane Divided Arterial 132 feet 29 Logan Boulevard Pira Ridge Road(CR 896) Immokalee Road(CR 846) 4-Lane Divided Ma)or Collector 148 feet 4.2 31 Massey Sheet Vanderbilt Beach Rad Immokalee Road ICR 0461 2-Lane Collector 80 feet 2.0 32 New Gordan River Crossing Goodlelte•Frenk Rood Airport Pulling Rad 4-Lena Divided Minor Collector 102 feet 2.3 32a New Garden River Badge at Gordon River 4lane raised median bridge 95 feet 0.4 Enhanced 2-Lane Divided Major 33 Northbrooke Drive Immokalee Road(CR 8461 north to end of ouhlic right-of-way Collector 60 feet 2.1 34 Old US 41 Tamiami Trail North(US 41) Lee County Line 4-Lane Divided Major Collector 150 feat 1.5 --- 35 Oil Wet Rad!CR 858 Everglades Boulevard Oil Well Grade Road 6-Lane Divided Arterial 216 feet 3.9 36 06 Well Rad 1 CR B58 Ave Marie Entrance Camp Keais Road 6-Lane Divided Arterial 200 feet 1.0 37 Orange Blossom Dnve Airport Pulling Road Livirgslon Road 4-Lane Divided Major Collector 102 feet 0.7 38 Randall Boulevard Immokalee Road(CR 846) Everglades Boulevard 6-Lane Divided Arterial 180 feet 3.4 39 Randall Boulevard Everglades Boulevard Oil Well Rad ICR 6561 6-Lane Dmded Anenal 180 feel 3.9 40 Rattlesnake Hammock Road Tamiami Trail East(US 41) Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension Slane Derided Arterial 132 feet 3.8 41 RatIlesrake.Hemmock Rad Extension Collier Boulevard(CR 951) Benfield Road Ext 2-Lane Collector 80 feet 1.3 42 San Marco Road(CR 92) Collier Boulevard Tamiami Trail East(US 41) 4-Lane Divided Arterial 102 feet 11.5 43 Santa Barbara Boulevard Painted Leaf Lane Green Boulevard &Lane Divided Arlene' 132 feet 1.7 44 SR 29 Interstate 75(1.75) Immokalee Road Extension 4-Lane Divided Arterial 200 feet 14.0 45 SR 29 Immokalee Road Extension Immokalee Road ICR 846) 4-Lane Divided Arterial 200 feet 5.0 452 SR 29 01h Street Immakatee Drive 4-Lane Divided Arlene) 130 feet 0.9 46 SR 29 Immokalee Drive New Markel Road North 4-Lane Divided Anenal 130 feet 1.1 47 SR 29 New Market Road North Hendry County Line .4-Lane Divided Arterial 200 feet 5,5 48 SR 29 Loop Road Immokalee Road(CR 8461 Florida Tradeport Boulevard 2 lane undivided arterial 200 feel 2.4 49 SR 29 Loop Road SR 29(South) Immokalee Road(CR 846) 2-Lane Arterial 200 feet 3.3 46a SR 29 Loop Road Florida Tradeport Boulevard SR 29(North) 4-Lane Divided Arterial 200 feel 5.6 50 SR 82 SR 29 Lee County Line Slane Divided Arterial 192 feet 7.0 51 SR 04(Davis Boulevard) Airport Pulling Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 6-Lane Divided Arterial 132 feel 5.8 52 SR 951(Collier Boulevard) N.of Marco Island Bridge Tower Road 6-Lane Divided Arterial 132 feel 7.0 53 Tamiami Trail East(US 41) Collier Boulevard(CR 951) Greeeway Rad 6-Lane Divided Arlene! 200 feel 3.0 54 Tamiaml Trail East(US 41) Greenway Rad 6 L's Farm Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 200 feet 25 55 Trade Center Way Extension Airport Pulling Road Livingslon Rad 2-Lane Collector 60 feet 1.0 56 Tree Farm Road Collier Boulevard(CR 951) Massey St 2-Lane Collector 58 feel 1.0 57 Twin Eagles Boulevard Extension Vanderhill Beach Rd Immokalee Road(CR 846) 4-Lane Divided Collector 150 feet 2.0 50 Vanderbilt Beach Road Tamiami Trail North(US 41) Airport Puelrg Road 6 Lane Divided Arterial 132 feet 2.1 59 Vanderbilt Beach Road Cotter Boulevard(CR 951) Wilson Boulevard 4-Lane Divided Arlene! 200 feel 5.0 58a Vanderbilt Beach Road Wilson Boulevard Desalt,Boulevard North 4-Lane Divided Arterial 200 feet 57 80 Vanderbilt Drive Wiggins Pass Road Bonita Beach Road Enhanced 2-Lane Major Collector 100 feel 27 81 Veterans Memorial Boulevard Tamiami Trail North(US 41) Livingston Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 150 feet 2.6 63 W estdox Road Little League Road Wesl of Carson Road 2-Larva Collector 56 feet oA 64 Whippoorwill Lane Green Boulevard 1Whippoonvill`Nay Pine Ridge Rad 2-Lane Collector 56 feel OA 65 White Boulevard Collier Boulevard ICR 951) 31st Sheet SW 2-Lane Divided Collector 102 feat 1.2 4-Lane liaised Median bodge(22' Median)with 4'Bike Lanes and 6' 65a While Boulevard Bridge west of 31st Street SW Sidewalks 0.2 86 Wiggins Pass Road Vanderbilt Drive Tamiami Trail East(US 41) Enhanced 2-Lane Major Collector 12 feel 1.0 67 Wilson Boulevard S Wilson Boulevard Extension Golden Gale Boulevard 4-Lane Miner Arlene! 150 feet 5.4 68 Wilson Boulevard Golden Gale Boulevard Immokalee Road(CR 846) 4-Lane Divided Arterial 150 feet 3.2 69 Wilson Boulevard Ext.f White Lake Blvd Collier Boulevard ICR 951) Benfield Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 130 feet 22 70 Wilson Boulevard EAI./Black Bum Rd Benfield Read Wilson Boulevard 4-Lane Divided Arterial 130 feet 3.7 71 Wolfe Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Collier Boulevard(CR 951) 2 Lane Collector 56 feet 0.7 72 Critical Needs Intersection Immokalee Road(CR B481and Tamiami Trail East(US 41) single point ratan interchange 73 Critical Needs intersection Immokalee Road(CR 846)and Livingston Road single point urban interchange 74 Critical Needs Intersection Immokalee Road ICR 846)and Collier Boulevard(CR 951) single paha urban interchange 75 Critical Needs Intersection Immokalee Road(CR 846)and Randall Boulevard single pont urban interchange 76 Critical Needs Intersection Pine Ridge Road ICR 896)and Airport-Pulling Road single pant urban interchange 77 Critical Needs Intersection Pine Ridge Road(CR 896)and Livingston Road partial interchange point urban interchange coil 2 78 Critical Needs Intersection Interstate 75(1-75)and Collier Boulevard(CR951) loop ramps 79 Critical Needs Intersection Interstate 75(1.75)and Everglades Boulevard Diamond Interchange BO Critical Needs Intersection Tamiami Trail East(U041)and SR 29 Sigatizadon-Mast arm assembly 81 Crilcal Needs Intersection Tamiami Trail East(US41)and Collier Boulevard(CR 951) single point urban interchange 82 Critical Needs Iaersec5on Davis Boulevard(SR 84)and Airport Putiri Road single point urban interchange 63 Critical Needs Intersection Gorden Gale Parkway and Livingston Road single print urban interchange 84 Critical Needs Intersection Tamiami Trail North(US 41)and Golden Gate Parkway single pant urban interchange 98 Critical Needs Intersection Tamiami Trail Easi(US 41)and San Marco Road(CR 92) single point urban interchange 85 Bridge 1 23rd Street SW.one block North of While Boulevard •2 lane Bridge Construction 102 feet 86 Bridge 2 16111 Street NE.south of 10th Avenue NE Bridge Conshuci0n 59 feel ATTACHMENT H ,..-am.-.tI,., -1 Year Expelled Defoent 2023 IMMOKALEE RD E _..... _ ,....... La^�R.udnai.. Niro/Nest 7Cn1A INSET:SIN' 1 I.e„d :mmi..re Rd. Bntlgo at 471hAve.NE " ROSE rograrrmed tang nn a A p Road Year E-'"Wed Logan Bled N. ROW:FY2018 F nRS FY 020) ' ' ^s-='s' rpan , fw . cau ,o 6.,__,,,,,,. Descent 2026 (By 0Wars1 Design a Mitigation:FY2020 Pursuen Ellie ,no,ng Devon FY2021 Conscdon FY2022 3027A 0ExCH HO WYear Expected -- -- ----- real Emc r t20211 Deficient 2027 Intersection Improvements I fir. —` r / Design:FY2019 N IT'r.fA ` ROW FY2020 .p ed0 fdert 2027 �' z Intersection laa1951 Construction:FY2022 A r t,at FIFO P_nt Excelled ' J Intersection(20151161 _ 7 D 5 f 3 ) i d' VETE?ua�!E,,,,A'r / ._ - - 'j Oh WELL RD _____.... Persue Sten ara EIS Fund ng Y nl ITC.A 1. etn '� Tree FaimM'ppducst- Yen,Expectedo 18y Othenl W De t 2019 > 1 iMMO0ALEERORD ell ✓^x �' rtn 1 C\IA ' RANDALL BLVD �] Immokalee Rd _ lvvc-,ti' varaero:n Seam Rd - • Endes al 8th St,NE w ' I Randal Interseaion `"" ,v:tlen a i-Lv+es • PD d E Underway s7ucLran'F:2020 `//V0ER91LT ' Corridor Study Underway vrdi EdBILT 96ICH RD o ' �.... Orange Blossom 1 r m BEACH RD EXT. H,, • j _ B d 1 ifilh St.NE d I --Lanes z m 9 Study:FY<"Old IO Design dgesa Iron:t NE G) S Q o GOLDEN GATE BID9 C Design FY2019 - o 'an rp '�y C Wc0 FY2021 TROW:oFY2021 t m u y Cosa n Under ConstNction ° 0 _or,.ruc-an Future - PINE R R _ -Y �oeaed We an!2023 Des.gnlBurtl.FY2018 T Year Expected u u -QREEN!� - Continue:o monitor 3 Oefc ant 2025 m ? Y15 , '0 BLVD F st Central-it-MA Vanderbilt Beach Rd.Eat. m `ionnwest TCLIA e�q ^_ v.hc vllaeea New 3-Lane(of future 6-Lane) n X .Y - i ate'/}►. Lok s Byrd. rcennecwn Road-tray to Relieve Congestion on x', A YearExpellee! - - T I CanseLn -."Y2021 S 2022 Immokalee Rd and Gulden Gate Blvd. y ..GIDE aAT'e PKWY' Cef a 1203 3 _ Design:FY2016 East Central TCMA 3 ROW iAl uaauon.FY2079 ' RADIO 0.0 S _� __ 1-75 Cansuoctom FY2021 1.75 •n;crse o Improvements A ._--.__.. '� City Gale Blvd N Stow SROW- 1019 M159WD !By Others) CanarTucn t ®. 'NllsoNBlackbum Corridor Study U dermay ,i1 Whim Benfied IBV Others) East Central:CMA l , S1udyPE:FY2018 Intersection Improvements(FOOT) ..s Ada ROW) Oesign:FY2021 rear Expected Der e'en,:727 RATTLESNAKE FY2021&2022 ROW'FY2018-2020 q HALIMDCK RO -.., - -- Construction FY2021 o Year Expecled Deficient 2025 Year Expected Defie.ent 2027 ,ley u __ hU09atlan:FY2018,F1'2020-2021 Continue to Yon'ior - :pA Year Expected Deficient 2023/East Central TCh1A nlersectanimprovements Legend ROWS Canstrucuon:FY2019 Year Expected Deferent 2027 - - Continue to Monitor IMOD enhancement Project N Year Expelled Dehcem - Existing Deficiency 2026/Ea,!Central-CMA ' Year Expected Deficient 2020 Wrtlen to 6-Ln;P06E Funded 15/16 L Puma Stale Funding( ) �Projeded Deficiency<5 Years p lProjected Deficiency 510 10 Years S Year Expelled Deficient 2024 -It _- PutUS a I TCEA Zri' TC91A/TCEA Boundary Year Expected Deficen12027 - - F Centime to Monitor f .. ' PROJECTED COLLIER COUNTY DEFICIENT ROAD . ` "` " -•` •— ' biles 9- nix _--.�... FY 2017-FY 2027 .,A COLLIER COUNTY NORTHWEST TCMA REPORT • TCMA Report Collier County Transportation Concurrency Management System .. ' 'PkHr-PkDir t+1 >:. Lene Miles. AUIR ID. S6wt Name - from To - WC Ratio Length *Lane Lane Miles ` VC m 1.00 Northwest TCMA 98.0 Tamiami Trail North Lee County Line Wiggins Pass Road 0.71 1.67 6 10.0 10.02 99.0 Tamiami Trail North Wiggins Pass Road Immokalee Road 0.94 1.52 6 g.1 9.11 100.0 Tamiami Trail North Immokatea Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 0.75 1.51 6 9.1 906 101.0 Tamiami Trail North Vanderbilt Beach Road Gulf Park Drive 0.75 1.26 6 7.6 7.58 102.0 Tamiami Trail North Gulf Park Drive Pine Ridge Road 0.61 1.44 6 8.6 8.64 109.0 Vanderbilt Beach Road Gulfshore Drive Tamiami Trail 0.71 1.34 2 /7 2.68 110.1 Vanderbilt Beach Road Tamiami Trail Goodletle-Frank Road 0.81 1.87 4 7.5 750 111.1 Vanderbilt Beach Road Airport Road Livingston Rd. 0.64 3.22 6 19.3 19.30 114.0 Vanderbilt Drive • Lee County Line Wiggins Pass Road 0.48 2.52 2 5.0 503 115.0 Vanderbilt Drive Wiggins Pass Road 111th Avenue 0.46 1.49 2 3.0 2.99 117.0 Wiggins Pass Road Vanderbilt Drive Tamiami Trail 0.45 1.05 2 2,1 2.10 1.0 Airport Road Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 0.57 1.97 4 7.9 7.89 2.1 Airport Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Orange Blossom Dr. 0.68 1.53 6 9.2 9.18 23.0 Goodletle-Frank Road Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 0.95 1.80 2 3.6 3.60 24.1 Goodlette-Frank Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Orange Blossom Dr. 0.59 0.88 4 3.5 3.52 24.2 Goodletle-Frank Road Orange Blossom Dr. Pine Ridge Road 0.65 1.53 6 9.2 9.18 39.0 111th Avenue N. Gulfshore Drive Vanderbilt Drive 0.43 0.51 2 1.0 1.01 40.0 111th Avenue N. Vanderbilt Drive Tamiami Trail 0.48 1.00 2 2.0 2.01 41.1 Immokalee Road Tamiami Trail Goodlette-Frank Rd. 0.66 1.47 6 8.8 8.84 42.1 Immokalee Road Airport Road Livingston Rd. 0.90 1.96 6 11,8 11.79 51.0 Livingston Road Imperial Street Immokalee Road 0.43 3.31 6 19.8 19.85 52.0 Livingston Road Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 0.53 1.99 6 12.0 11.96 53.0 Livingston Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Pine Ridge Road 0.48 2.21 6 13.3 13.26 63.0 Seagate Drive Crayton Road Tamiami Trail 0.57 0.48 4 1.9 1.93 64.0 Pine Ridge Road Tamiami Trail Goodletle-Frank Road 0.67 0.50 6 3.0 3.02 65.0 Pine Ridge Road Goodletle-Frank Road Shirley Street 0.70 0.67 6 4.0 4.05 66.0 Pine Ridge Road Shirley Street Airport Road 0.87 0.81 6 4.9 4.88 67.1 Pine Ridge Road Airport Road Livingston Rd. 0.86 2.09 6 12.56 12.56 2.2 Airport Road Orange Blossom Dr. Pine Ridge Rd. 0.65 2.92 6 17.5 17.51 41.2 Immokalee Road Goodletle-Frank Rd. Airport Road 0.84 2.47 6 14S 14.81 42.2 Immokalee Road Livingston Rd. 1-75 0.71 1.78 7 12.5 12.48 62.0 Old US 41 US 41(Tamiami Trail) Lee County line 1.09 1.57 2 3.1 000 110.2 Vanderbilt Beach Road Goodletle-Frank Rd. - Airport Road 0.70 2.40 4 9.6 9.58 111.2 Vanderbilt Beach Road Livingston Rd. Logan Blvd. 0.74 3.11 6 18.7 18.68 57.88 :x`.218.72 285.58'::' Total Lane Miles: 288.7 Lane Miles r1.0 WC: 285.6 t"WC Rain based upon Tae Traffic.ncindag Traffic Cowes•Trip Bank•lath Vested Tnps Percent Lane Miles Meeting Standard: 98.9% MASTER Attachment F-2017(090617).xlsm TR-5 NORTHWEST TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT AREA (TCMA) a 1 1111 o 0. O. N r. I Z Li 1 o ! c a }ro w a� FI • oP ii � � ' ! 5z ' .*: () 2 I W — --f N a/1l9 NVJOI a i W 6 1- 1.1; , i I `, d ° 1 in o 3 ' m >1 { te . O• ICC ,, 7 ON NOlS�JNIAI1 p CD 16. oa$Nnlfld idOdaro C 1..itt, ,s, ..,,6.711": i .., v w 08 0. )1NV21A-31i31QOOJ :71N 104 COto = Q s,,\\to 461 t- oIX °. l�rt 2 -: N iai frvvlwvl Ei o , ,� CO w �"' t0 Ix ,.s, Z ~ Z `' Q 10 3 � � as rued3aNHA t to ta 031 Z p1 11 � I II c 1411,w- f II t 0ISIIs Y age-1...�.o _� 7 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT POLICY 5.7 Policy 5.5- Commercial developments within the South U.S. 41 TCEA that choose to obtain an exception from concurrency requirements for transportation will provide certification from the Transportation Planning Department that at least four Transportation Demand Management (TQM) strategies will be utilized. Policy Achievement Analysis: Collier County recommends revisions. Commercial developments within the South U.S. 41 TCEA that choose to obtain an exception from concurrency requirements for transportation must provide certification to the Transportation Planning Department that at least four Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies will be utilized. Monitoring of the use of the TDM strategies must be included in the annual monitoring report and modifications to the applied TDM strategies may be made within the first three years of development if they are deemed ineffective. Policy 5.6 - The County shall designate Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) to encourage compact urban development where an integrated and connected network of roads is in place that provide multiple, viable alternative travel paths or modes for common trips. Performance within each TCMA shall be measured based on the percentage of lane miles meeting the LOS described in this Transportation Element, Policies 1.3 and 1.4 of this Element. The following Transportation Concurrency Management Areas are designated: Northwest TCMA—This area is bounded by the Collier-Lee County Line on the north side; the west side of the 1-75 right-of-way on the east side; Pine Ridge Road on the south side; and,the Gulf of Mexico on the west side (Map TR-5). East Central TCMA — This area is bounded by Pine Ridge Road on the north side; Collier Boulevard on the east side; Davis Boulevard on the south side, and; Livingston Road (extended) on the west side(Map TR-6). Policy Achievement Analysis: Collier County recommends revisions. Commercial developments within the TCMA must provide certification to the Transportation Planning Department that at least four Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies will be utilized. Monitoring of the use of the TDM strategies must be included in the annual monitoring report and modifications to the applied TDM strategies may be made within the first three years of development if they are deemed ineffective. Policy 5.7 - Each TCMA shall maintain 85% of its lane miles at or above the LOS standards described in Policies 1.3 and 1.4 of this Element. If any Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for a proposed development indicates that fewer than 85% of the lane miles in a TCMA are achieving the LOS standards indicated above, the proposed development shall not be permitted where such condition occurs unless modification of the development is made sufficient to maintain the LOS standard for the TCMA, or the facilities required to maintain the TCMA LOS standard are committed utilizing the standards for committed improvements in Policy 5.3 of the Capital Improvement Element of the Plan. Policy Achievement Analysis: Collier County recommends text remains. Collier County reports on the operational status of the TCMA's each year in the AUIR. Policy 5.8 - Should the TIS for a proposed development reflect that it will impact either a constrained roadway link and/or a deficient roadway link within a TCMA by more than a de minimis amount (more than 1% of the maximum service volume at the adopted LOS), yet 9 Transportation Element FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 6.5 Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No.2017-48 adopted December 12,2017 h) Bicycle and Pedestrian facilities that would be expected to reduce vehicle miles of travel and automobile work trips generated by the development. i) Including residential units as a portion of a commercial project that would reduce vehicle miles of travel. j) Providing transit shelters within the development(must be coordinated with Collier County Transit). (XI I)(XV)(XXX)(XLIV) Policy 6.5: In order to be exempt from link specific concurrency, new residential development or redevelopment within Collier County's designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) shall utilize at least two of the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, as may be applicable: a) Including neighborhood commercial uses within a residential project. b) Providing transit shelters within the development(must be coordinated with Collier County Transit). c) Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connections to abutting commercial properties. d) Providing vehicular access to abutting commercial properties. (XII)(XLIV) Policy 6.6: All rezoning within the Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) is encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development(PUD). Any development contained in a TCMA, whether submitted as a PUD or non-PUD rezone shall be required to be consistent with the native vegetation preservation requirements contained within Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. (XII)(XLIV) Policy 6.7: All new development, infill development or redevelopment within a Transportation Concurrency Management Area is subject to the historical and archaeological preservation criteria, as contained in Objective 11.1 and Policies 11.1.1 through 11.1.3 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. (Xlll)(XXX)(XLIV) OBJECTIVE 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. (XLIV)=Plan Amendment by Ordinance No.2017-22 on June 13, 2017 23 FDOT FLORIDA TRAFFIC ONLINE (2016) PEAK SEASON FACTOR 2016 PEAK SEASON FACTOR CATEGORY REPORT - REPORT TYPE: ALL CATEGORY: 0300 COLLIER COUNTYWIDE WEEK DATES SF MOCF: 0.87 PSCF 1 01/01/2016 - 01/02/2016 2 01/03/2016 - 01/09/2016 0 98 0.95 1.13 * 3 01/10/2016 - 01/16/2016 0.91 1.09 /....N * 4 01/17/2016 - 01/23/2016 0.89 1.052 * 5 01/24/2016 01/30/2016 0.88 1.01 * 6 01/31/2016 - 02/06/2016 0.87 1.01 * 7 02/07/2016 - 02/13/2016 0.85 1.008 * 8 02/14/2016 - 02/20/2016 0.84 0.97 * 9 02/21/2016 - 02/27/2016 0.84 0.97 *10 02/28/2016 - 03/05/2016 0.84 0.97 *11 03/06/2016 - 03/12/2016 0.84 0.97 *12 03/13/2016 - 03/19/2016 0.84 0.97 0.99 *13 03/20/2016 - 03/26/2016 0.86 *14 03/27/2016 - 04/02/2016 0.89 0.99 *15 04/03/2016 - 04/09/2016 0.91 1.02 16 04/10/2016 - 04/16/2016 0.94 1.05 17 04/17/2016 - 04/23/20161.10 0 18 04/24/2016 - 04/30/2016 0.968 1.13 19 05/01/2016 - 05/07/2016 1.00 1.15 20 05/08/2016 -05/14/2016 1.02 1.15 21 05/15/2016 - 05/21/2016 1.05 1.21 1.2 22 05/22/2016 - 05/28/2016 1.073 23 05/29/2016 - 06/04/2016 1.10 1.23 24 06/05/2016 - 06/11/2016 1.13 1.260 25 06/12/2016 - 06/18/2016 1.16 1.33 26 06/19/2016 - 06/25/2016 1.15 1.32 27 06/26/2016 - 07/02/2016 1.15 1.32 28 07/03/2016 - 07/09/2016 1.15 1.32 29 07/10/2016 - 07/16/2016 1.14 1.32 30 07/17/2016 - 07/23/2016 1.15 1.31 31 07/24/2016 - 07/30/2016 1.15 1.32 32 07/31/2016 - 08/06/2016 1.15 1.32 33 08/07/2016 - 08/13/2016 1.16 1.32 1.33 34 08/14/2016 - 08/20/2016 1.16 35 08/21/2016 - 08/27/2016 1.16 1.33 36 08/28/2016 - 09/03/2016 1.17 1.33 37 09/04/2016 - 09/10/2016 1.17 1.34 38 09/11/2016 - 09/17/2016 1 18 1.34 /•'-'\ 39 09/18/2016 - 09/24/2016 1.15 1.362 40 09/25/2016 - 10/01/2016 1.13 1.30 41 10/02/2016 - 10/08/2016 1.10 1.26 1.2 42 10/09/2016 - 10/15/2016 1.086 43 10/16/2016 - 10/22/2016 1.05 1.24 1.21 44 10/23/2016 - 10/29/2016 1.03 45 10/30/2016 - 11/05/2016 1.01 1.16 46 11/06/2016 - 11/12/2016 0.99 1.14 47 11/13/2016 - 11/19/2016 0.97 1.11 48 11/20/2016 - 11/26/2016 0.97 1.11 49 11/27/2016 - 12/03/2016 0.98 1.11 50 12/04/2016 - 12/10/2016 1.13 51 12/11/2016 - 12/17/2016 0.98 1.13 52 12/18/2016 - 12/24/2016 0.95 1.09 53 12/25/2016 - 12/31/2016 0.91 1.05 1.05 * PEAK SEASON 21-FEB-2017 10:54:33 830UPD 1_0300_PKSEASON.TXT TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT LIVINGSTON ROAD @ VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD m E ,cr co H o t0fi M d' O corN M co CO M 0 N O (0 lco r0 U a+ co cr to CD h h i() et N 0 h0 00•1 00 E5 C N 0 rn 00 te) N .o-- c- N a 0 0 h e- 4) 00 co VI IX) NT M s-- N O M O h M b C rte.. Q 0 0 0 o 0 T c co 0 3 O O 'a F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pO oC t h 0 o Y m = o ci co D O et e} O N 0 3 E O N r co a0 s- s- s- T M e), O tMD N r O 7 r !hD _ to to L r O O O O to to g N co C eT V O co o ��„ L O O r M d' d' co r N r co e- Nt •0 •0 R - to ) E- 0 0 co 0 O O) Q > L N a M M h O of N M O ,a to O 2 co co co of t0 h N h N O CO 03 to cs 0 h 0 0 h N U) M O O t 0 N O.y 01 0 M tD I h 0 h 10 t0 M 0 in 0 po Qf" rrNNh MNNN o in h rO m0V"' ' C O O co r� m 6 0 0 0 0 0 co O O O O co o O 0 t V 0 lZ0 `3 1- 0 0 0 2 / 'a ' M 0) M to CD r 0 ti h COal7 r N M h T h r T` N o M r O O A: N O o in _ N d L co C t 2 t0 v. t0 h M o to N O O N O OD o et h co p L N N N tO h N 0 0 T 01 0 0 O O 0) .L J Z F r r r r to N N N r CO e- h M O (` h 00 O O V T E G. ) r N r r I e9' O (` r T. T t+) 0 h O 0 0 'L.: to co 0 0 C 0-2 0 N 01 V CO O 0 c0 h I" a) o et co et ws a r Ni N N h M . M N ,-, O N 0 r r 00 L O O 0 0 +V > D '5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t a 0 (( m> - 0 0 o Z /�� p iti d t0 ems- r r et N r N h O N O N O q' ^ R V coi�° . r,I r co 0 O O O T3 2 y N tl') h a) t0 O h co N L r b er N r CO t0 r o r 0 N cV O o t- in co re ` h r o 0 0 0 C d o Ico NoL co M N 71 hr TO t . 0 O co N R M t-.© r 7 N 0 0 0 N T Cn 0 C m _ To e 2 t0 00 O) r cD t r CO o M N co O tt) 10 co co O G 0 r ID N CO M 0 M N N N I O O r O et csi h r oi O O •; E Qom. r r N 0 O r- O E N C O O O a) on C = 3 0 0 0 0 0 co o 0 0 0 O co O O t 11:. o to co to (- o O 0 Z a a) c [) T 0 N XN cotD N r N CO O COW W O O r O. CO O J r h N r y r r Na) M 0 o O O 0 h e(' NCD - @y O O cc_ v D O) co.o to C X C C 7 M t0 h h M N to CO to C 01 Cr) O t0 O) O 41 >N ..c- r N 1.- N N N N N ev N — O - T V 0 0 0 0 Cl) to, J 0 �� O M t0 h e- Cr' CO e- 0 0 0 O N r O a co CoMtT J c m Q' O O O 0 O C 1- 6 N O C m C co N O co O to O 6() >- N •- ~ d u B n n n n o coo a`; o o a o p e o Q Y Q.mac Q p=, O U. �= 0 0 0 0 1- 0 0 0 0 ►- 1- Q i- F d 4 0 E 0 0 i co 0 m c co c oN U 0 hi ei Is m 0 U -0 II.' = F.) N Veterans Memorial Blvd 2 Q 38 17 73 0 CO Right Thru Left U-Turn l�Cs1 N,/ 4 < 01 v- %-- a a r .a CO ORI � I ,, CO tt>v f M _ rN \✓ OO N d L E co c 't Li 0` 4z •— 1-' Om LL • N ° 7 7 iT N Q .J r ~ (:!•11^;) \i a N d .J Ca !a gaga E M ag<aa j 0 4-1 d .0 IX wnl-n tial m41 agBi C CO To' - �� 00 L9 £L S9Z M E a) D7 2 pnl8 w lePoaW m sue.aleA m a) m 0 I; _ a)a) N rE aa) v 0) E Q C a) c: m E H v N CD CO 0)) 0 o oro I o o O o L.. c0i w U) '� N N N co to h t0 N y°f. 0 T N p `N- C � 0 toO h C Cr." '@ N 0 t# r h C0 N 00 0 t0 M 0 0 co O C N Q 0 N s- N N h N NN N O) 0 o h °) O o N- o 0 DO 0 0 Z a F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 CO > 0 0 Z N w LY} a To 0 ° ° m u> 0 0 0 U 13 0 7 0 M N t0 [f r M N CV V' M 0 N ICS C7 O `o r in n :; Y d.0 J r o o - o N N 2 N to as W N M O LO r N N N r r of N 00 0 MrCCO co O �, - C to r.5 to /� > 0 a Li. '� to (a. to I h N CA 0 10 [0 M O) h O O O to ` r h' r r to N r N r h O N. 0 0 h C COW r' 0 Nta Tel t0 co O I M .a. in .' r 6 h O O • et T''' Qi_ M N M M ,_ of M of M r O 10 N 0 n r 0 mr- C 0 0 O T D j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o I O 0 (00 N. 0 0 r Z are s re) LO 0 r C 7 '1) r .- N CO CO CO M N 0) O O tri M 0 0 T N. CO y p -� r O 0 0 r o t0.a s p)L 2 0vt3 M o 0M i LMhON r '11•+ JZE. N N N M M t) M r O) 1) 0 '0' C; O M Vi 0) N O O O h h r N, co 0 co O h O co tD d, Al r r r co 0a M r o ti 0 Co A+ V co O O o 5W : i. N a C a:° co h h h °) 1n m °) h h tD 0 o h co0 RS Q 0 N N M N +r„ N N r N 0) 0 N‘- 0 n 0 00 L r 0 0 0 0 ++ >_ > > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o t . o Iia ` m h o o r Z 72 MI 0 7 0) V- r V r N r ate- r V 1r° 0 ‘-- V. N 0 0 co0 rco E,°Q J r to O O eh- o � N 2 ,o N 0 OIll 40 CD =CK 7 N. O N r Vh O O r N M 0 O 0 0 Oh M M L. O 0 ++ y m 0 0 M N N O r h O M .... 00 h C O 0 M 0 u7 O T > r r N r N r M CO 4* 0 0 - M L" dr r O (n r >C co o p,l0 O) N O co I O a h to M O O 0 o O trn co J a) <H N N N 0 N N N N O W 0 1- Or 0 1 N ` C] O o a tO j § 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ) 0 z [L Es H > ce u) °) °) etDn °) : m o 0 v o 0 M m O.0 0 SD -L 0 0 0 r- 0 Lr 1n N L C 13 LL C 0)�' i r CO 00 h N 0 0 b h N d t0 N 0 0 N 01 U C L O O tb O tO M M N [} M O ty o M °) E oo..Q > N F" r r r OV N. N N N N O) e. co M O C" a) o 0) L� -� 0 _to.6 2 ,CD o) M M M CO V. e} CO CO M 0 4 N o o 0 M h O .J t03 lY O O co r o C E 7 }- y O C G_ A 0 N 0 N 0 to O 1n a ~ +e Z c• O r M a O r M V a,+ C w t1 w U = r2 U.LL Z d U tO <O l0 tD 0 h h is is 0 i o G.a o o o i 0.Y LL.. 0.. 0 LL 0 I- r r e- r N. r r r r N. 0 F- Q N. F- a a 0 IP • E 0 0 N c6 0 ce c co c O C N o 0 0 CU 0 o 0 U *0 m to to Veterans Memorial Blvd .-4 2 33 3 61 0 Q. 00 Right Thru Left U-Turn 04 l <....„ ,,,i, ....„, 4 1 V' T V"' 13> COW E O 1~ (n 03 K3 F- \<C> V ti N \fL/ M ter. O �1 V . M S C� N mQa \\ c t w 0iLt1 r Ca L n N al Q Qi H -;f co Y �/ J J �• 71 a' d d 03 d L 2 a. o- E ate+ M im fLM * a 0 F O 0 as GD a 'V et C N r a in > uinl-n Ile, nJ41 1116ia C m co m •�_ g0 Zb 8 91 0 E r) J pixie lelaowaw sueleteA a) al c a m` o. > u) -E• v m a) tY c N 0 cn com;,c en >{O c J(LYI 3 F- O 6 O E O Z Z m O m 0 iZ U J DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE YEAR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES c U) 0• GOjO N N Co NLC) M M O r - N ` c,`=-2' c0 Cr) O � 111 OO COOT Cfl � � NSP• Ch s- N o W U) Q CO OCfl CA O) mco co O p O co 03 CO WNe- N N N N W •- N CO O c - to o O W � � O � c �Y U) 0) Or 0c- r O W N N O7 o W () � � Zg OOCG OoW , � OOrG r Lnj =I— N O x Y co 0. d o d CC in a C � CC In OOa) M mMO � OOM toM O < � N Ct. to N L O) CU $ 1- OtflO o N N I- N � rn 0 CO Co m t coo 0. 0 0 O Cl. Nco O O O O � c' c- N r N r r L as 3 4) 0 1- To•C � dOO -00 0 U 1-- 10 -0711M � dO O Lo 1 MCO 0 N (Ni E = 0 LL 2o Q_ O N 0 C CC 1.0 0) O O M cr) CO � CO O CO O N O O mM M O et NCG CO M OOnt Is-- 1- V. Z `- N Z - N 0 C E @ o F- ~ Cn 00 o (G co 0 its 0 13 co 0000.Lo M 8c.f) N � M m .4. 0La cc?, to ' OO Z �` � O CV Z , N— ,O O N P c- > CC N 0 C CI r '- o N _J U) co 0 Ci) a) j U) ,e.L.J O C C CO Z N e- co NOM M en Z O •r 0 O r -5 N J (2, N a) a) E C d N 7 7 o O O 7 U O O E > O E V U u_ 7 U U � p) a) ., o O 0 > E o 0 C CO 0 0 > E 0a Ci �O g I- = + aa)i m I' o + oo 0 0 S. jv o o 5 > c 2O ) 7 c 0) = .eU cn R 7 0) 7 CO 0) c .y m o 2 Co O) C Y 2 -5 2 O C o Co • C o C O CO 41 'j O) ` CT o m � 'E � a as 0 o 'c E co a) mm coi o ca c = 0 O a , N 7 0 o CO CO ti 0 p I- u) c .0 "' co a) m I- u) C r m - Co 0 0 �c 22 .5 In- .0 c) a) C •O . N ` COC+•) coN CO i O CON ONN .4+ 0 5 Q 0 7 O-. 0O) O '- O 4 a) 7 0 O COCO CCQ. O 0 >- N Q. N Q Q_ U 0 >- N Q. N INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY SHEETS Ii LIVINGSTON ROAD @ VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD 2023 PEAK SEASON BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Lanes, Volumes, I imings 2023 AM l'eaK bacKgrounO 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 02/05/2018 Lane Grote EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4 ¶ 44++ r l +T+ r Traffic Volume(vph) 60 15 296 85 20 44 329 924 43 53 1212 39 Future Volume(vph) 60 15 296 85 20 44 329 924 43 53 1212 39 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 0 0 0 0 310 310 315 315 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.892 0.960 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.992 0.972 0.950 0.950 Satd.Flow(prot) 0 1648 0 0 1738 0 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Fit Permitted 0.915 0.392 0.115 0.279 Satd.Flow(perm) 0 1520 0 0 701 0 214 5085 1583 520 5085 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd.Flow(RTOR) 236 25 123 205 Link Speed(mph) 30 35 45 45 Link Distance(ft) 812 1110 676 536 Travel Time(s) 18.5 21.6 10.2 8.1 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 Adj.Flow(vph) 64 16 315 90 21 47 350 983 46 56 1289 41 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 395 0 0 158 0 350 983 46 56 1289 41 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase . _ 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split(s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 22.0 43.0 43.0 11.0 32.0 32.0 Total Split(%) 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 27.5% 53.8% 53.8% 13.8% 40.0% 40.0% Maximum Green(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 16.0 37.0 37.0 5.0 26.0 26.0 Yellow Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 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 2.0 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) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag 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 Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green(s) 16.4 16.4 46.5 40.3 40.3 31.3 26.3 26.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.62 0.54 0.54 0.42 0.35 0.35 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.92 0.82 0.36 0.05 0.19 0.72 0.06 Control Delay 22.0 76.9 34.5 12.1 0.1 10.1 25.1 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 22.0 76.9 34.5 12.1 0.1 10.1 25.1 0.2 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Lanes, volumes, iimings tUZ,D IAM rUdi DdLI\yiuuI Ill 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 02/05/2018 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT. SBR LOS C E C B A B C A Approach Delay 22.0 76.9 17.4 23.8 Approach LOS C E B C Queue Length 50th(ft) 67 63 116 115 0 10 210 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 171 #171 #250 147 0 24 264 0 Internal Link Dist(ft) 732 1030 596 456 Turn Bay Length(ft) 310 310 315 315 Base Capacity(vph) 582 207 467 2732 907 301 1780 687 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 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.76 0.75 0,36 0.05 0.19 0.72 0.06 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:80 Actuated Cycle Length:75 Natural Cycle:65 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:0.92 Intersection Signal Delay:23.4 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: - 3:.Livingston Rd&Veterans Memorial Blvd EMI NMI 41-- 4\05 't 06 08 Mil N 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Zuzi 1-'Ivi teak bacKgrouna 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 02/05/2018 Late=GrPuR_ ..tt,.,0L EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR. NBI; NBT KR SBL SliT Lane Configurations 4 4+ "I ++1 r vi +++ r Traffic Volume(vph) 14 9 88 71 3 39 106 1666 42 44 1081 35 Future Volume(vph) 14 9 88 71 3 39 106 1666 42 44 1081 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 0 0 0 0 310 310 315 315 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.893 0.954 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.994 0.969 0.950 0.950 Satd.Flow(prot) 0 1653 0 0 1722 0 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Fit Permitted 0.949 0.790 0.195 0.105 Satd.Flow(perm) 0 1579 0 0 1404 0 363 5085 1583 196 5085 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd.Flow(RTOR) 94 31 123 205 Link Speed(mph) 30 35 45 45 Link Distance(ft) 812 1110 676 536 Travel Time(s) 18.5 21.6 10.2 8.1 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 Adj.Flow(vph) 15 10 94 76 3 41 113 1772 45 47 1150 37 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 119 0 0 120 0 113 1772 45 47 1150 37 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase . 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase ' Minimum Initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split(s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 22.0 43.0 43.0 11.0 32.0 32.0 Total Split(%) 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 27.5% 53.8% 53.8% 13.8% 40.0% 40.0% Maximum Green(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 16.0 37.0 37.0 5.0 26.0 26.0 Yellow Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 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 2.0 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) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag 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 Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green(s) 9.8 9.8 45.5 42.6 42.6 40.7 38.2 38.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.68 0.64 0.64 0.61 0.57 0.57 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.52 0.28 0.55 0.04 0.20 0.39 0.04 Control Delay 13.1 28.8 6.4 11.0 0.1 7.3 11.8 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.1 28.8 6.4 11.0 0.1 7.3 11.8 0.1 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, I imings 2023 PM PeaK background 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 02/05/2018 Lane Group , Eat. EBT E8R WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SST SBR LOS B C A B A A B A -- Approach Delay 13.1 28.8 10.5 11.3 Approach LOS B C B B Queue Length 50th(ft) 10 36 13 186 0 5 109 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 51 83 35 276 0 18 175 0 Internal Link Dist(ft) 732 1030 596 456 Turn Bay Length(ft) 310 310 315 315 Base Capacity(vph) 545 448 599 3251 1056 239 2914 994 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 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.27 0.19 0.55 0.04 0.20 0.39 0.04 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:80 Actuated Cycle Length:66.6 Natural Cycle:65 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:0.55 Intersection Signal Delay:11.5 Intersection LOS:B Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min)15 Splits and Phases: 3:Livingston Rd&Veterans Memorial Blvd \001 t02 —0'04 I MEI NM4-06 � 1 _ Oa Mil 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 2023 PEAK SEASON WITH PROJECT TRIPS Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 AM NeaK VVI t H I-'roject 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 04/12/2018 -) -► Tc '_ k- 4\ t P \* it d Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4+ '1 +44 lr " t++ ? Traffic Volume(vph) 60 15 296 153 20 66 329 938 66 66 1212 39 Future Volume(vph) 60 15 296 153 20 66 329 938 66 66 1212 39 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 0 0 0 0 310 310 315 315 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.892 0.963 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.992 0.969 0.950 0.950 Satd.Flow(prot) 0 1648 0 0 1738 0 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.903 0.418 0.119 0.275 Satd.Flow(perm) 0 1500 0 0 750 0 222 5085 1583 512 5085 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd.Flow(RTOR) 236 23 123 205 Link Speed(mph) 30 35 45 45 Link Distance(ft) 812 1110 676 536 Travel Time(s) 18.5 21.6 10.2 8.1 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 Adj.Flow(vph) 64 16 315 163 21 70 350 998 70 70 1289 41 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 395 0 0 254 0 350 998 70 70 1289 41 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase _ Minimum Initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 r Minimum Split(s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split(s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 22.0 43.0 43.0 11.0 32.0 32.0 Total Split(%) 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 27.5% 53.8% 53.8% 13.8% 40.0% 40.0% Maximum Green(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 16.0 37.0 37.0 5.0 26.0 26.0 Yellow Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 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 2.0 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) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag 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 Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7,0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green(s) 20.0 20.0 46.9 38.2 38.2 31.5 26.5 26.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.59 0.48 0.48 0.40 0.34 0.34 v/c Ratio 0.71 1.23 0.85 0.41 0.08 0.25 0.76 0.06 Control Delay 19.1 166.5 37.1 14.2 0.8 11.1 27.1 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 19.1 166.5 37.1 14.2 0.8 11.1 27.1 0.2 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, l imings 2U23 AM I-'eaK VVI I I1 t- roject 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 0411212018 - —IP -‘4t c ,— t /* 1 '! Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR LOS B F D B A B C A Approach Delay 19.1 166.5 19.2 25.5 Approach LOS B F B C Queue Length 50th(ft) 68 -152 114 116 0 13 210 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) #174 #296 #247 149 6 29 264 0 Internal Link Dist(ft) 732 1030 596 456 Turn Bay Length(ft) 310 310 315 315 Base Capacity(vph) 556 207 445 2462 830 284 1705 666 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 v/c Ratio 0.71 1.23 0.79 0.41 0.08 0.25 0.76 0.06 ��. Area Type: Other Cycle Length:80 Actuated Cycle Length:78.9 Natural Cycle:75 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.23 Intersection Signal Delay:32.5 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.2% ICU Level of Service F 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. Splits and Phases: 3:Livingston Rd&Veterans Memorial Blvd 01 1 02 —"D4 MI IIIIII 11111111 105 * 06 08 MIMI 1111•1 MI 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Lanes, volumes, I imings Lu[,' rivi reatc vv i i n rroject 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 04/12/2018 --0' -r► le. .- 4\ t , \ 41 Lane',01:910 Wil. , E@T. ,efi WEIL MT WBR NE, NBT NEAR SBL. : . F. F1 Lane Configurations 44 44 11 +4+ r 11 4+1 Traffic Volume(vph) 14 9 88 116 3 53 106 1676 112 81 1081 35 Future Volume(vph) 14 9 88 116 3 53 106 1676 112 81 1081 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 0 0 0 0 310 310 315 315 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.893 0.958 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.994 0.967 0.950 0.950 Satd.Flow(prof) 0 1653 0 0 1726 0 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Fit Permitted 0.951 0.768 0.189 0.109 Satd.Flow(perm) 0 1582 0 0 1371 0 352 5085 1583 203 5085 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd.Flow(RTOR) 94 27 123 205 Link Speed(mph) 30 35 45 45 Link Distance(ft) 812 1110 676 536 Travel Time(s) 18.5 21.6 10.2 8.1 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 Adj.Flow(vph) 15 10 94 123 3 56 113 1783 119 86 1150 37 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 119 0 0 182 0 113 1783 119 86 1150 37 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase - . Minimum Initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split(s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 22.0 43.0 43.0 11.0 32.0 32.0 Total Split(%) 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 32.5% 27.5% 53.8% 53.8% 13.8% 40.0% 40.0% Maximum Green(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 16.0 37.0 37.0 5.0 26.0 26.0 Yellow Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 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 2.0 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) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag 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 Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green(s) 13.4 13.4 45.0 39.0 39.0 40.7 36.8 36.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.62 0.53 0.53 0.56 0.50 0.50 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.66 0.31 0.66 0.13 0.39 0.45 0.04 Control Delay 11.1 35.6 8.2 15.3 2.8 13.5 14.2 0.1 Queue Delay .0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 11.1 35.6 8.2 15.3 2.8 13.5 14.2 0.1 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 PM Peak WITH Project 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 04/12/2018 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR LOS B D A B A BB A Approach Delay 11.1 35.6 14.2 13.8 Approach LOS B D B B Queue Length 50th(ft) 10 66 17 214 0 12 124 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 49 129 42 316 25 38 198 0 Internal Link Dist(ft) 732 1030 596 456 Turn Bay Length(ft) 310 310 315 315 Base Capacity(vph) 504 397 541 2712 901 220 2561 899 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spiilback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.24 0.46 0.21 0.66 0.13 0.39 0.45 0.04 Area Type: Other Cycle Length:80 Actuated Cycle Length:73 Natural Cycle:65 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:0.66 Intersection Signal Delay:15.0 Intersection LOS:B Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 3:Livingston Rd&Veterans Memorial Blvd 4- 05 $ 06 08 ME 1.1. 1111111 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS LIVINGSTON RD/VETERANS MEMORIAL GMPA/PUDA ALLURA RPUD ITE TRIP GENERATION REPORT, 10th EDITION Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Multifamily Housing Ln(T)=0.98 Ln(X)—0.98 Ln(T)=0.96 Ln(X)—0.63 Mid-RiseT=5.45(X)— 1.75 (LUC 221) 26%In 74%Out 61%entering 39%exiting T=Trips, X=Number of Dwelling Units Table 1 Livingston Rd/Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Subdistrict(GMPA) &Allura RPUD Trip Generation Weekday A.M.Peak Hour Weekday P.M.Peak Hour Daily Land Use In Out Total In Out Total (2 way). Multifamily Housing Mid-Rise 36 104 140 107 69 176 2,287 (420 Dwelling Units) TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS LIVINGSTON RD/VETERANS MEMORIAL GMPA/PUDA ALLURA RPUD ITE TRIP GENERATION REPORT, 9th EDITION Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Apartment T=0.49(X)+3.73 T=0.55(X)+ 17.65 T=6.06(X)+ 123.56 (LUC 220) 20%In 80%Out 65%entering 35%exiting T=Trips, X=Number of Dwelling Units Table 1 Livingston Rd/Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Subdistrict(GMPA) & Allura RPUD Trip Generation Weekday A.M.Peak Hour Weekday PPeak.Hour Daisy' Land Use 9 ` In Out Total.. In_ ;'. Out Total (24ay) Apartment 42 168 210 162 87 249 2,669 (420 Dwellin_Units) NIM Summary Altura RPZJD(PUDZ-PL-20170004385) Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict(GMPA-PL- 20170004419/CP-2018-1 September 6,2018,5:30 p.m. Collier County Public Library Headquarters,Sugden Theater 2385 Orange Blossom Drive,Naples,Florida 34109 The NIM was held for the above referenced petitions.The petitions are described as follows: 1) A Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series to establish the Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict, which will permit up to 420 multi-family rental dwelling units on property located on the south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard,just east of Livingston Road [PL-20170004419/CP-2018-1]; and 2) A Residential Planned Unit Development Rezone from the Rural Agricultural(A)zoning district, part of which is within a Special Treatment (ST) overlay, and a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) known as the Della Rosa RPUD, part of which is within a Special Treatment(ST) overlay, to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Allura RPUD,to all construction of a maximum of 420 residential multi-family dwelling units. Note: This is a summary of the NIM.An audio/video recording is also provided. Attendees: On behalf of Applicants: Keith Gelder,VP Development, Stock Chris Johnson,Director Land Development, Stock Robert Mulhere,FAICP,VP Planning,Hole Montes Chris Mitchell,PE,VP Operations,J.R.Evans Engineering Ted Treesh,TR Transportation.Consultants County Staff: James Sabo,AICP,Principal Planner,Zoning Services Section Corby Schmidt,AICP,Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Approximately 80 members of the public attended. Mr. Mulhere started the presentation by introducing himself, the other consultants, and County Staff. He explained the NIM process,the process for approval,and provided an overview of the project. Following Mr. Mulhere's presentation, there was approximately fifty minutes of questions from the public in attendance. The members of the public who attended identified themselves (primarily) as residents of Mediterra to the north, Brandon to the east, and Enclave to the west. The following issues were raised: Page 1 of 2 H:\2017\2017092\WP\PUDZ\NIM\NIM Summary(9-11-2018).docx Existing Traffic Concerns Several questions were raised in regards to the proposed access point to Veterans Memorial Boulevard on the north end of the site,and Livingston Road,near the fire station on the southwestern portion of the site. The access point to Livingston Road is egress only. The proposed ingress and egress point on Veterans Memorial Boulevard meets the connection separation requirements from the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard. To reduce vehicle trips, an interconnection to the adjacent commercial parcel has been proposed if developed with commercial uses. Concerns were raised in regards to existing traffic, speed of travel, and accidents on adjacent Livingston and Veterans roads. Mr. Mulhere explained that a Traffic Impact Study (TIS), performed per Collier County methodology, concluded that the proposed development would create no substantial traffic impacts.Mr.Treesh further explained the county methodology,and how data for the TIS was collected. Impacts to School District Concerns were raised in regards to the impact of residential development on the capacity of schools. Mr. Mulhere stated that as a part of the application process, the planning department of the Collier County School Board has reviewed the proposed development and determined that there would be no substantial impact.Mr.Muihere further explained that the applicant would be required to pay impact fees as a part of the development process. A portion of these impact fees are paid to the Collier County School District, which will then be used to alleviate capacity issues throughout the district. Mr.Muihere then went on to explain impact fees and how they are determined. Design Questions were raised in regards to the height of the proposed buildings, the size of the units, and the wetlands on site. Approximately 14.74 acres of wetlands will be preserved, which is the majority of the southern portion of the site. The proposed buildings are oriented so that the mass of the buildings will be facing the wetlands, or Veterans and Livingston road.A Type B buffer is required to the east, adjacent to Brandon RPUD.Mr.Muihere explained that a Type B buffer provides visual screening,as it is required to be 80% opaque within a year. There will be parking garages between the residential development to the northeast and the required buffer,providing further screening. General/Misc. General questions were asked in regards to the size of units and the target market. Mr. Gelder stated that although it is early in the application process,the units will most likely range in size from 800 square feet, to 1,500 square feet and be comprised of one,two,and three bedroom units.The units will be market rate, and will most likely attract young professionals. Mr.Mulhere indicated that application materials are available to the public via the county website. The meeting concluded at approximately 6:40 PM Page2of2 H:\2017\2017092\WP\PUDZ\NIM\NIM Summary(9-11-2018).docx apLr Naptro DaiLij Nrww NaplesNews.com Published Daily Naples,FL 34110 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Natalie Zollar who on oath says that she serves as inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida;distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida;that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed.Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Na- ples,in said Collier County, Florida,and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida,for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Customer Ad Number Copyline P.O.# HOLE MONTES INC 2092331 Altura NIM Pub Dates August 20,2018 'Lj Y?ii2e4Z/1 (Sign ture of affiant) ";;;;744.: KAROL EKANGAS4 .e I: Sworn to and subscribed before me ��� • NComndsSIonIGG12G04Public—State of t� ss. This August 2018 MyComm,Expires Jul 29,2021 g21, 4 %. `04' 6mdedtbeoghN+IbrutNetiyAsa anel ClOyin (Signature of affiant) Na its BMW NeWS PEOPLE IN THE NEWS LOTTO 1144-3ea7s14113 s-p, lapsed that were holdingupthe en- Aug•t5 01747Y0fld 1 $ •,� lotto numbers are drawn each Wednesday and additional postage pad n N•pks Florida ma mom, ¢C trance toaresortwherethe Backstreet seturdeyet1L16 omwed,esdaaisdtsetdractoa Postmaster.send N5P6ab1Ba) U t ,reg Boys were set to begin a concert in wglbaf°rssnmmn. reqPouest ta1I fore I..Ird,N,ILmrtMbn - f !k Aug,to wimnrs•• Mout 339-31 to:1100 Mmekdn Road,NeWes,R]41+0 I; f. 1 139-zs4poo or 80-900-710s i1 ' WinStar World Casino and Resort s.atatt 9/7 57,017.50 Subscriptions SO t ?1 k +, I.a� says in a statement posted on Twitter ;°al, yy5i b'npnANkv;rsIhlwnNg:bywre.ty re subscribe ern k.chem.ha Spur wooed,all f- -t .1±.a ?, on Saturday that the resort began an thres four or005N nth fit more per play.7he 8444go-7ws n emit n•Mesaaliynewasgenn.N,wm C"a evacuation at about 5 p.m.whenllght- KTRAnu�mo,twm2tos,ysll bedrew=fin m A: )ustbebmthedo0 ed°detIsse Mooned the All fug mess subsoiptbm Include accessb `�- A:' .r•-+• � ning was Within 4 miles of the casino. eneckpot cash pales xm be Mooned for the drat eaplesn•wsrom,tablas mobile and the••N•wsp.Pe` Michelle Yeoh,from left,Henry The company says about 150 patrons •Nu"mers aher•i•sat"l`•t•xrAAwlmsats 'Pullman inc.Ston-Sun pant salon delivery. Golding and Constance Wu star In did not evacuate and when the storm MEGA MILLIONS ra0)mo. P Aup.l7 rt46-sad 1.5901 3 awn ea:cosine.Frl-sun print edition delivery:swmo. "Crazy Rich Asians." hit with BOm h winds,it knocked ZS: 9p0naccess ina wmWdo0tatlltien delivery: aUCKO/WARNER BROS,ENTERTAINMENT VIA AP Wer trusses and the entrance COI- MEGA MILLIONS drawings are conducted et dont, troll lapsed onthem Ofthel4 people taken Nesdaand Rlday Nghls.Rw e0R0Ft5 rwmbers Coglw onnlyl(eawraprint home edition 11101,00 to a hospital,two have been released. ltgold hell).eljy or.°w°,a.t..mm erlbach an five OS Avprint edition delivery subsallMens Indud•th• 'CraryRich Asians'shines WinStar said the concert was post- ambers pus the Mese seulowly lhel•dent,or oned.BandmemberKevinRichard- talany"°nladmot-wtmmgcornbinatlomtowin Thanksglving Oa Pam adki°n,wNrh 5ramose,mad.* bright at the box office p Oernepass. the can Thanksgivuw Day newsstand pack and five sontweetedthettheconcert hadbeen NoMmerAug.l7iAuv.311adepet 410th emmt,mse addsperyeaagesMil which Rh• oyou 000 fans. Aug,17 Fla-Wows s MP Payout Nang corn••dddonl rtmves ver be/date of to your Glitz has won out over guns at the sold out with about 12,000 rofisnm 0/- f0 bW,q mrmspordhv to N•tlelverydat•ache cameo a you request that w•nil degas pant oration for North American box office this week- 5•of-s o/o act vacation orotheraa7mmalbtcrvtionmmthalea, endas thegildedromance"Cr Rich Ward,Rushdie draw large crowds Metier/Om 991.aacedalflat=that eSoweplal.. I ecludhg your RA men to our content through our to wintwo to fourames line noNatkpaprlaa,fart! °a diplulphdrmr- eForthfen days of delivery of Asians"took No.1 Wer Mark Wahl- at Mississippi book fest peryay.The Megapller numbs selected right the artedmonforthatre50115 questwawa connnueto berg'saction-packed"Mlle 22" batorsthe MEGAM UMSdraw,wladeteminetho chug.you the subvdption fee.AWr sateen delivery mNtlpliertm that draw. days.your subecapuon continues and we wlnnet charge Studios on Sunday,estimated that NatiorJesmykAWard POWERIIALL lou 0e.4.55055"...."57.".5"."'.....,55"5.' "Crazy Rich Asians"took in$25.2 roil- winner Jesmyn Ward Aug.le 34-3441-0147.16 03 delivery of the pant•daien.Uwe h0sdeewerapanl lion from 3,384 locations over the toldahome-state audi- Aug,15 1z-1s4ae7w.16 a1 edltlortsubsal we oonwill"-eyeo you want wonted emount ofharg.thefilm o to take Wednesda and muds),rights °vbaccncelyousyouwption, p.urmr9esyw Wu has banked keds$34milion since ence is nJackson,Mia- 05s place until 10 mud canes your subscription, Wu has banked $34 million since sisal on Saturday atwsspm.aytidceu*Aug.,m mghtofdOMng. PPi. Nol•drs°tmaa.rlWg.lB;Aug.uJackpotscgM E3Pals a mmedmt method 5'll°5m>55.117 paying opening Wednesday,fax surpassing that she's working on aw,le FlavdM.rs• slPaout payment toptioa Tostart or 184440 7100.itch*subscslptlon two books. parmmteoEaat+nea+-goo nos. early industry expectations.aSM s r�spa i %o fire. Shale ce :Menat per edition,Sunda riper It's a surefire win for the Slat cgs- One is a New Or- Ward •Namb•n.R.r+Iashshow ww.rplauaaa.rs- edltioa tdbuted by Warner Bros.,which cost leans-basedstoryabout LUCI(Y MONEY Delivery Service $30 miilionto produce. the slave trade.The other is a young Aug,17 64e-3347.40 Warner Bros.' shark movie "The adult novel about an African-Amed- Aug.la 7.10/043.1 Circulator,[unmoor Cam Center ttopen Me fell to second place with Can gkl With Supernatural powers. Draw,ngstae placWe100 1040ay and Frida nights the Monday-WayBim.-7 p.m.and limned hours Saturday $, pan Purchase tickers until lOAOpan Mt the dgh+oF end suda-Ifyou have not received your P.a.IP/ S23.2 million in its second weekend. Wardandacclaimege thorSeesat theam+ng, 830 am Monday-nada or by 7>m.Saturday,please WahPoex$s R-rated"Mile 22"opened Rushdie attracted large audiences at Aug.17 winners s+paout d.tem 800.7105 before pm.to melon vedkfor a poi ,je °� 50 3 51,575.003 a.SdilserO sofor aneganeln•cnasm;the with an estimated$13.6mi1Ron. th'esfo ississt Book Festival. -Edition On sunder photocell before 7130 wooloraDuauya sessions inside the state Capt- pANTA5V6 Ednamomwpyorbr.ttaoM.mars.samg+a• Oklahoma fans injured in storm tol and at a church nearby,dozens of A,ng 19 N°tawl.bl• SeEdition s-/g-1114030 penId ed without 0.press"ofn000n o the not Naples at Backstreet Boys concert authors spoke on,wide range of The ics,inr]lniingfood,sports,politics and Thepentaa6dnv4ngic at 11:16 pm.rightly. oohNews.The ptnpmesesembd the orejes Aug,19 whoa. !/Payout Daly lnyadv.puement at a noes the e e to miser At least 14 people were in ured and civil rights history• 541911 1 5238.033.83 care!thattvepulashntM•a oma The a%I.Owe P P j —From wire reports 4.0515 De5 513440 agrees oat of epamssIned Hislop beyond the amoounis taken to hospitals after trusses col- P paid for the space actually occupied by that portion of PICKS 2,3,4 AND S the advertisement in which tin tour occurred,whether oda 3,3,4and 5numbers are dawn twice daily,at such elver adue team negagenc•ofOmpublisher's CORRECTIONS 1:3opm.anars7pm Piots PICKS PICK4 PICKS emptyeeseten of aM[h>rtab8eyond be no the Aug,lv night 0-0 7.6.7 5.744 9444-3 Imtun-lnsmorth adedwabam. beyond the The Daly News promptly corrects all errors of substance,Gasifications are published when an.today e'•7 007 944-3$4.4-64 amount Member ofsMenferAWlf.d Medb if editors ink we havinformation made nhelplreaders better understand nn.and p.m. $OY1Ce_p ne,da wiled p eratl..mtin 0youthinkwe have made an error,call us at 435.34356etWean9 a.m.and5p.m.Monday 598421-PIAYnwww.ndon•rysom printed on.nayded False through Friday. TheThe public is imof to attend a neighborhood fo Information applicantatikf held n tintRoeat 1. n/_ it. "' t�,__ ,', ,M pub,Fc in i Hole attln Inc on behalf of thermao meeting the held by time and e%O,{�itgHr' W,a.'• j,( it location: - Thursday,September 6,2018 at 530 p.m. Fresh new looks for your holt? Collier County Public Library Headquarters Sugden Theater •'rt,, - L 2385 Orange Blossom Drive,Naples,Florida 34109 F f ou al di Qt.desl9ner fabrics-a• _t Please note that the Collier County Public Library does not sponsor or endorse this 1Nr,ClesaIe.pr1Ces.evelyday program. „,` The following formal companion petitions have been made to Collier County: •Our.onsite-wOricroom.caR helj7.With anything from'•- minor re airs to major recovering and complete 1)Petition PUDZ-PL20170004385-An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners repawl J, r of Collier County,Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004.41,as amended,the Collier s re upholstery projects ',..41....,::- County Land Development Code,which established the ntmprehensive zoning regale- e . lions for theunincorporaled area of Collier County,Florida,by amending the appropriate { zoning atlas map on maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described 4t - _ real property from a Rural Agricultural(A)zoning district,part of which is within a - ”' , t '• Special Treatment(SI)overlay,and a Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD) ) t; t`dd "t}-. known as the Della Rosa RPUD,part of which is within a Special Treatment(ST)overlay, t! to a Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD)zoning district for the project to be p t 'C;t known as the Altura RPUD,to allow construction of a maximum of 420 residential multi- • r q - - family rental dwelling units on property located on the south side of Veterans Memorial # Boulevard,just east of Livingston Road,In Secom113,Tewnship 48 South,Range 25 East, ✓ consisting of 35.57*acres;providing for the repeal of Ordinance No.07-73;and by pro- #,t vas_.y vidinghw an effective date;and �..., L,\ v1 � 1,� a 2)Petition GMPA-PL.20170004419/CP-2018-1,Livingston Rood/Veterans Memorial - { .t; - - g ... s Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict-This amendment seeks t0 establish the Voter- s. _ ans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict,which will perntit up to 420 multi- k d t�,t. I,tR 41 family rental dwelling units on property located on the south side of Veterans Memorial c As le 1 (i i•�(QL Boulevard,just cast of Livingston Road,in Section 13,TOwnship 48 South,Range 25 East, , 4p tr j(Lilo -,: consisting of 3557*acres. 9 ....--„;,—._...0:4;,1_:,.'40P.Ikt - d e'F''n c P : Il. f. 1rLXs '"Ia f ""'M1t; r., \, Ii '*0 p�§i- j Ar � kl�a... >.'', _. ;— 1 1.1P I ` _'i� t } Call.us today at 11 `t ._____ :.-t-_-, ^-1 ;� -; 23.9-417 9107 OFF 1 - - _� 1 1 le `t j Bost,Ba.rboung has stockced tttq. your workroom order. eens 1 `t: ides from floor to setting With L J I �M wNa Allure RPUD beautiful de lgner rabric , liuwtr IN SALE ENDS SATURDAY '�'."°'"'°' '""'•"°" ' all-below wbolesa% ctl1 °H/a: r k' WE VALUE YOUR INPUT FABRICS BY NAME BRAND DESIGNERS Busi ►RNs ,RR4O StalgtKEH01Jss lirefTt aiVERS hNDMORt- Honnnd and ssohep jest with th app end ts and rs Care nalcome CounytoMtenythe re una le TOMHYIrliltnnM SIJtB(--.-_-t ,-..,. .:o,`a.l+bf -ed _ - tion and discuss the project with theapplleants and Confer County staff.lfyou are unable ..-'...,-;-.4,i,-.1.- In attend this meeting,but have questions or comments,they can be directed by mall, OVA OPEN IdOEJ•SAT 10A M-5:30PIA phone,or email to: NAPLES Robert).Mulhere,FAICP,Vice President,Planning Services ARGOO NS Hole Mentes,Inc. .14,5 TAl4IAMI TRAIL F. 950 Encore Way,Naples,Florida 34110 7,39-4t7-61o77 DeFnbaics fl Vow Honnc BOCABA RGOONS-COAL Phone:39-254-2IX01,email:Onbmuihem®hmenp.conl August 20,2018 ND.2092331 WU III HOLE MONTES ENGINEERS•PLANNERS•SURVEYORS 950 Encore Way.Naples,Florida 34110 a Phone 239.254.2000 a Fax:239.254.2099 August 20,2018 Re: Allura PUD (PUDZ-PL-20170004385) Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Growth Management Plan Amendment(GMPA-PL-20170004419/CP-2018-1) HM File No.2017.092 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice President, Planning Services and Business Development of Hole Montes,Inc.has filed the following formal applications with Collier County: 1)Petition PUDZ-PL20170004385-An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for.the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein.described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district, part of which is within a Special Treatment (ST) overlay, and a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) known as the Della Rosa RPUD, part of which is within a Special Treatment (ST) overlay, to a Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD)zoning district for the project to be known as the Allura RPUD,to allow construction of a maximum of 420 residential multi-family rental dwelling units on property located on the south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard, just east of Livingston Road, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 35.57± acres; providing for the repeal of Ordinance No. 07-73; and by providing for an effective date; and 2)Petition GMPA-PL-20170004419/CP-2018-1,Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict-This amendment seeks to establish the Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict,which will permit up to 420 multi-family rental dwelling units on property located on the south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard,just east of Livingston Road,in Section 13, Township 48 South,Range 25 East, consisting of 3 5.57±acres. In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to hear a presentation about these petitions and ask questions.The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Thursday, September 6,2018 at 5:30 p.m. at the Collier County Public Library Headquarters, Sugden Theater,2385 Orange Blossom Drive,Naples,Florida 34109. • Please note that the Collier..County Public Library does not sponsor or endorse this program. Should you have questions prior to the meeting,please feel free to contact me at 239-254-2000. Very truly yours, • HOLE MONTES,INC. Obert J. Mulhere,FAICP Vice President,Planning Services RJM/selc AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled • Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the County to be notified ° The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date,time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance. (Signature of Applicant) ROBERT J. MULHERE,FAICP (Printed name of Applicant) • STA 1E OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER • The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before.me this 21st Day of August 2018, by ROBERT J. MULHERE, FAICP, who is personally known to me or who has produced as identification. JJv r (Signature of Notary Public) (Notary Seal) CONu.I1i g, Vann\ Printed Name of Notary llll r ttttt STErtiANi..tuRo1: "1 ,` % Notary Public-State of Fiorida Commission#.FF:539990 y�� My Comm.Expires Mar 9,;020 'ie d`' Bonded throe%IaionalNa A5sn. H:\2017\2017092\WP\PUDZ\NIM\Affidavit of Compliance NIM(8-21-2018).doc 16176 ABERDEEN AVE ALEX JOSEPH ALESSANDRI I TARA M ALLURI NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 i 16406 BARCLAY CT 16380 ABERDEEN WAY NAPLES,FL 34110--000Q I NAPLES,FL 34110--0000 ARNDT,WILLIAM P . , ASSISI,FRANCISCO AUFDENKAMPE, ROBERT ANNE MARIE CADWALLADER SULEN,EDWARD=&LISA L MARGUERITE AUFDENKAMPE _I 16365 ABERDEEN WAY 16403 BARCLAY CT 16360 ABERDEEN WAY NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 ' NAPLES,FL 34110-0000 i NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 i BARBOZA-COLLANTES,JUAN CARLOS BARRINGTON COVE NEIGHBORHOOD • BENFATTI LIVING TRUST MEGGIE SUZANNE BARBOZA ASSN INC 16277 ABERDEEN WAY 16293 ABERDEEN WAY 10541 BEN C PRATT • NAPLES,FL 34110---3409 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 SIX MILE CYPRESS PKWY#100 FT MYERS,FL 33966---0000 BLICKENSTAFF,LUTHER BERNARD I I BOURK,ADAM JONATHAN BUCHMAN,MICHAEL ALLEN 16473 CELEBRITA CT I 16411 BARCLAY CT LISA RENEE STAMM NAPLES,FL 34110-0000 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 1 16213 ABERDEEN AVE NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 • CARVELLI,GIUSEPPE&AMY • CHEFFER,GREGORY TODD • CHEUK,TRACY P 16234 ABERDEEN WAY ELEANOR KIKU CHEFFER 2069 36TH ST FL 2 i NAPLES,FL 34110-0000 i 16301 ABERDEEN WAY . ASTORIA,NY 11105---0000 j NAPLES,FL 34110-0000 I I i COLLIER CNTY CRUZ,MARGARET A&OSCAR R CUCCINELLO JOINT LIVING TRUST C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT } 16423 BARCLAY CT • 1 16246 ABERDEEN WAY 3335 TAMIAMI TR E,STE 101 •NAPLES,FL 34110-0000 ! i NAPLES,FL 34119--0000 NAPLES,FL 34112---0000 I Ii D R HORTON INC DAENZER,CHRISTOPHER JOHN • - DAPPER,DANIEL IVAN 10541 BEN C PRATT MICHELLE RENEE DAENZER KIM P VANJA ANDREWS-DAPPER • 6 MILE CYPRESS PKWY STE 100 16177 ABERDEEN AVENUE 16297 ABERDEEN WAY FT MYERS,FL 33966--0000 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 I DORCY,STEPHEN G DUDAS,VIOREL ECKERLINE,PETER MELANIE A QUIRION-DELANEY LOREDANA OANNA DUDAS • 1492 HUNTER DR 16281 ABERDEEN WAYI 16325 ABERDEEN WAY •• ! WAYZATA,MN 55391--0000 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 ! NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 ENCLAVE-LIVINGSTON LLC FEINBERG,EMILIA FILIPOV,GEORGE 870 111TH AVE N#5 16329 ABERDEEN WAY 885 6TH AVE APT 17C NAPLES,FL 34108-0000 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 NEW YORK,NY 10001---0000 I FONTANA,FRANK C&LINDA L GATTONE,ANTHONY RICHARD GERALD NEBBIA LIVING TRUST 16348 ABERDEEN WAY • I BARBARA A GATTONE 16422 BARCLAY CT NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 16189 ABERDEEN AVE I • NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 •` NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 I ' A irk® label size 1"x.2 5/8"compatible with Avery®5160/8160 VI JI\,IYlll.l ll'\LLJVI Iiv VVILLI VI\JIB,LV vvl"IV/'\IY I I IVIY I vLl\v.+, -rvlvV.J v SARA MARIE GILLES JANE GORELICKEFROSINI GREKOS 13410 BARCLAY CT 16209 ABERDEEN AVE 16373 ABERDEEN WAY NAPLES,FL 34110-0000 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 GUERRA,JOSE&SARAH HALL,MATTHEW S&STACIE M HANNON,CATHERINE&KEVIN 16415 BARCLAY CT 16352 ABERDEEN WAY JOSEPH PAUL PELLETIER III NAPLES,FL 34110-0000 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 16262 ABERDEEN WAY NAPLES,FL 34110-0000 HARTWICK,NICOLE MARIE HEALEY,JOHN JOSEPH HEMMERT,BRIAN T&MELISSA B JOSHUA JAMES HARTWICK LAURA ANN HEALEY 16238 ABERDEEN WAY 16427 BRACLAY CT 16426 BARCLAY CT • NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 MAPLES,FL 34110---0000 HERNANDEZ,HECTOR IVAN HOPKINS,BRUCEJ&SABINE T HUNTT,JOSEPH WILLIAM . 16388 ABERDEEN WAY 1569 PRESTON TRAIL LANCY LYNN HUNTT NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 CARMEL,IN 46032---0000 1428 MCCLURE DR ALLEN,TX 75013--0000 JIANG,YUAN JOHNSON,MARY F JOHNSON,TREVOR SCHICK CHANGSONG LUO . 16485 BUONASERA CT JENNIFER MARIE JOHNSON 12012 MONTROSSE PARK PL NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 16336 ABERDEEN WAY ROCKVILLE,MD 20852-0000 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 KENNETH R BIEDERMAN REVTRUST KIMM,PAUL HYUNKYU KOKA,ALTIN ' SHERYL K BIEDERMAN REV TRUST BRANDI NICOLE KIMM 43-43 161ST ST 16493 BUONASERA CT16418 BARCLAY CT FLUSHING,NY 11358--0000 NAPLES,FL 34110---3232 NAPLES,FL 34110--0000 • KOWALSKI,ANDREW A&BETTYJ LACKEY,CHRISTOPHER RYAN LANDS JR,ELBERT LOUIS 12923 STONE TOWER LOOP BROOKE NICOLE LACKEY ELIZABETH JANE LANDS FT MYERS,FL 33913---0000 16357 ABERDEEN WAY 10353 FLAT STONE LOOP NAPLES,FL 34110-0000 BONITA SPRINGS,FL 34135--0000 LAPORTE,MATTHEW&ERIN LEE,TRACY LEVITAN,PEYTON E 16384 ABERDEEN WAY YONG-JIN PARK 16430 BARCLAY CT • NAPLES,FL 34110--0000 16419 BARCLAY CT NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 LIVINGSTON/VETERANS LLC LIWET LLCMACKENZIE,AMY GEANT 477 DEVILS LN 25397 N NORTHBRIDGE RD ALASTAIR NEIL MACKENZIE NAPLES,FL 34103---0000 HAWTHORN WOODS,IL 60047-7359 16308 ABERDEEN WAY NAPLES,FL 34110-0000 MACKINNON JR,BRUCE WMACK-LISTON,DENA MAHONEY,JEROME&DYAN MEGHAN K MACKINNON DAVID J LISTON III16489 BUONASERA CT 1046 GREENWOOD AVE 16270 ABERDEEN WAY NAPLES;FL 34110---0000 WILMETE,IL 60091---1754 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 A ru 016.6® label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery®5160/8160 . 75 BENJAMIN ST 11935 SW 15TH CT 11935 SW 15TH CT OLD GREENWICH,CT 06870-0000 DAVIE,FL 33325-4633 DAVIE,FL 33325---4633 1 MARC L CATALANO REV TRUST MARKO,PIRO&LAURETA , MARLAC LLC 11935 SW 15TH CT I : 4 BREDDER CT i I 25397 N NORTHBRIDGE RD DAVIE,FL 33325--4633 ELMWOOD PARK,NJ 07407--0000 i HAWTHORN WOODS,IL 60047---7359 . • i 11 . ) I , • MARON JR,EDWARD ARTHUR MARTIN,ROSELYN D MARUSIK,DANIEL HOLLY ANN RUSSELL , JORDAN MARTIN 62 3RD ST 16181 ABERDEEN AVE I 16407 BARCLAY CT BONITA SPRINGS,FL 34134--7321 NAPLES,FL 34110-0000 NAPLES,FL 34110--0000 • I II tv1AT OGA PARTNERS LLC MEDITERRA COMMUNITY ASSN INC MELINDA K GARLAND TRUST 6001 PELICAN BAY BLVD APT 602 15735 CORSO MEDITERRA CIR i 16453 CELEBRITA CT NAPLES,FL 34108---7116 NAPLES,FL 34110---2706 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 . MENEZES,ASHOK PETER MILLOUR,LAURENT FRANCOIS • MOEN,MATTHEW M 16305 ABERDEEN WAY ) SHEILA DENISE MILLOUR : '• JENNIFER ROSE MOEN NAPLES,FL '34110---0000 i 16274 ABERDEEN WAY • 16265 ABERDEEN WAY . • NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 NAPLES,FL 34110--0000 l MUNOZ,JAVIER OMAR&JANINA NICOLETTA,PETER V NNF/NORTH COLLIER FIRE RESCUE 16289 ABERDEEN WAY DANIELLE M NICOLETTA 1885 VETERANS PARK DR NAPLES,FL 34110--0000 16400 ABERDEEN WAY I NAPLES,FL 34109---0492 • NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 OZSOY,ALP PARRISH,DOREEN L PATEL,PRAKASHBHAI NATALIA NOEMI VILLAGRA DENNIS G BAAR REV LIV TRUST i HITESH S BARVALIYA 16188 ABERDEEN AVE PO BOX 933 1 16309 ABERDEEN WAY . NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 SEAHURST,WA 98062---0933 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 I ' PATINO,PETER&TRACY L PERGJINI,FREDERICK J PETISCO,GUSTAVO ADOLFO 16180 ABERDEEN AVE I 60 HILLSIDE RD . I ROSE PETISCO NAPLES,FL 34110--0000 GREENWICH,CT 06830---4835 • I 16369 ABERDEEN WAY • • NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 1 POLLIN,CEDRIC&DOROTHEE PORECI,ANILA . PUCHALLA,MICHAEL &STACEY 1 16266 ABERDEEN WAY ( 93 ROBINHOOD RD ",' 16273 ABERDEEN WAY NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 CLIFTON,NJ 07013---0000 I NAPLES,FL 34110-0000 RENDA,ANTHONY"F RENDA,DEANNA LYNN . RICHARD ALAN SOMMERVILLETRUST 16205 ABERDEEN AVE ! ) 16242 ABERDEEN WAY ' I 3580 7TH AVE NW I NAPLES,FL 34110-0000 1 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 i i NAPLES,FL 34120-1608 1 eft a me ' ® label size.1"x.2 5/8"compatible with Avery®5160/8160 • 16392 ABERDEEN WAY 9 COMPASS CT 16402 BARCLEY CT . NAPLES,FL 34110--0000 LONG BEACH,CA 90803---4302 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 SELIGER,SHAWN JASON SIER,MARC PHILIP&NILSA SILVERMAN,NORMAN&MARCIA P 16312 ABERDEEN WAY 16184 ABERDEEN AVE 16332 ABERDEEN WAY • NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 • SPAIDE,JAMES&DEBORAH SPIGELMAN,SAMUEL SETH STARKMAN,ANDREW&BRITTANY 16457 CELEBRITA CT JULIA ANN SPIGELMAN .16364 ABERDEEN WAY NAPLES,FL 34110---3265 28 W 38TH ST APT 9W NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 NEW YORK,NY 10018---0000 STATELONG INVESTMENTS LLC STONE,DAVE THOMPSON,SCOTT E&LAURIE A 657 DORANDO CT 16317 ABERDEEN WAY 16477 CELEBRITA CT MARCO ISLAND,FL 34145---1911 NAPLES,FL 34110--0000 NAPLES,FL 34110---3265 • TORMEY,VINCENT P . TRINITY REAL ESTATE TRUST URSULA KURPAS-SIGI REV TRUST • BERNATETTE MARY TORMEY 1000 PINEBROOK RD 635 BRIDGEWAY LN i 16356 ABERDEEN WAY VENICE,FL 34285---6426 NAPLES,FL 34108---0000 NAPLES,FL 34110--0000 . VANDERMOLEN,DAVID JAMES WALCZAK,ROBERT L WARD,PATRICK J&DIANE E GRACE LAUREN VANDERMOLEN AMANDA JANE WALCZAK 5790 TREELINE DR 16340 ABERDEEN WAY • 16285 ABERDEEN WAY • TIPTON LAKES NAPLES,FL 34110--0000 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 COLUMBUS,IN 47201---0000 • ZHANG,DENG LIANG S ZHEZHA,KRITON ZHOU,HONG 16328 ABERDEEN WAY JORIDA GUDA JOHN ALBERT MACLEAN V ' NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 16320.ABERDEEN WAY 5930 THREE IRON DR#3201 • NAPLES,FL 34110--0000 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 • 1 i • eite"PA firm r t+° label size 1"x 2.5/8"compatible with Avery®5160/8160 • 7) E.) -Hc i ti ' v L• 13 ;Yi ,f *1... .1:: ti '"1 E E u • 4 L , )- p -� oEw ,:e Qt. W a_00 a a) ,A. E a)W O QI � CD Era, co ,, 4 ‘.3 ' ; ...,- ; zW di [-, 0 >. ° 0 . '14 II) 7:: a• , c rt. 4.„4..... 0 - � kLI� OVUo � � _ _ COQ F N W * E ; La 2 - g W ; E o t H a f y ,, -).,, - > . 2 cuV co = CU , 7 c - - - 7 f6 2 0i-`'1 t r: a) X c.) W g '‘Z :4; t' '4 .E7 . e ,, OE 2 :F., -a '''''I 1 ) -n ' -' -' � () c c _ 0. to in &) di 4) N\t) ,4 `. . l'3 • CU 6) \NS,;1 , ,Ni in 4 z z , _ pn .1.' ,,,,- .> . .. ------Et.;:i a n '-- iv) (t wge`' A ° _ ° 4- Za � x ) y 00 As• � `� `.� ° u f0 C ,- q\, H 3 o as �J `T 1 V\ Il� � � i � 2- e L i,% - ct coof9 21 ` old S "4) I' m 0. L t,. FJ a.,0 0 0 W j9- - „...._ IV c) c: lil H 4.4y y Q. , W FZ m ,� y0 N Q f3 Qom. HcraUr" � N I,c tz Go 1-4 b _ c v Q 4J 0 © = U H N N W a°'i 0 H , ' y�� - \4 g g N ►-a W E �• c Ti -J _� c /b Z - , U y Z � � -v., v. '�� q �- 4L- k• 6 - A � C7w � _ � � CO c � `� c` ` ,0 ,...t:1,-) o ga.04 � � w � `° Ewe L v c:::4 W' v d J � � ao cn O. oc " y �_t vik 11 � ' Z fill c 43 L I. U ,_ _.:1_ i CU i 'L.4 - A A 11-v ✓) y y >. Q f`�' Svc ` ^� ,4 r.\:= NV8 a) a = :_-_,. 4v: --, c .. -.4.._ 4 -04" z tom, -3 0 s N yCl. —, jf} � u ( � � �` • 'a yc CI) 4 O ` \.. r bz, DL! g k. ....„,... .., _ cr) , , ..... ./) d _.... ) _,., z) ,,, cs....„, , -,-, .., . ,.. . „ 0 L.. .. E (13 t-- a- 1:2. SI o o W , C �" y `' 1.4 � .,� _ ^, ,_ i. t, ' 1 .- 65 r ok \t —4 ,-_-- : ,4 __, - ..s' p \fit i- CU m pCj u. = c c cn M N % J #- M 3 W d� [� fill z ate` \ 411 ,2 CD N - • O " CU g g 1-4 Fa ar , c o c m N i O W N C) -1 .n `= = y j -.. Q UJ c./ 44 g 0 iltil AcuL. P.I 44 c S_• , # Q• O E-1 W VJ OVQ. CD N h 1 a OCA o � Co. 4 to 4 „,z PaC7Q �� � _ To. aD � L � i W g N 0ccc \ „ e ( �` • a ;+ H L L0 • O _ p 'T40 = 0 3 N 0 v 7 0 ` AQ O I _. 7.. O U fII = , " • Q. 'Q 2 �� 4) >. ii c A 0 V1 f9 i ate, \ I 0 h OV --$:›0� °. F LJ i --i--- ''''' j a }..7 0 i U .c COAu ,..._ , .„ . -CO CU +a ++ a-. c y -ice . ` --I D, La2 d c .0 t6IbAs3 i, Qj 0. Nii V '-,-...:, 44. ' & A t 0 Nir.J. 0 , J C i 'C -u L Jam, s'( J� tm t7 �1^ :111017: `�_f ,,(17__ '",24, .,%.\': < �. : j' cosi w �� fir' CJ 00 ai 0. L ' :- • yi W a n o o Jl �'` (-- z• ig.) ,c<- , , 4)\ i,, g ( ) 0 .E. F3 1 ------1 Q '11 _zi t`A-3 .1) /+y� d0-4 0 ° Q- o Ti •id y } c° ' A Z N Ei 4 8 � Q. 5) � N � RC1Wr � NN 43 g :15 Cii 2 ‘ < ‘ 4 , ,://L i %.\ 1 i .. 41 A •� � � Ili u-0. 3 c E co i, Zo P— Z wcH em3 8 .''• C rO . g °u6 , 44 Z r.{ CD C c •C 7.=o � gNNw * avgs c ` ill H w a ug. c2 Z 1"61 PC4 P.'1 = Z Z g 8 'E til ‘-' e , ._.\ kS- ' A ,1 ,- , C Ga+A A CI W N c c 2 sC 0 C � 0 Z ''' T:E5 tlij re 4 tJ. ‘.c 'C' .0... , 4 0 ,,__,_. (/ pd4 4 N (12l c � T „ aWc a 3 - 1 1cN T N o4.1A � Z WN OA' N-a OD 15 • y c 3 ` -9 -J H g l tl o u O r+ W acC a o F••� +'• N � 3 L Niir` � oo � o 1 -4 • NO O AA umC N m L Y g -0 H = O d ' 2 'd W • - s , N sZ W ° mss Z - ,6 c , -,,) , E 0 -0 : t... i__I' 6 i O 0 N UI C ., \) 1 _ I. N.) ` J�vj N..... Hto .' M L c 0 r� � , .. ` .a lc?) L W ) (VY_ 4/ 0 rC a ..� .0 13 Cl) c ° 0 a 2 .�. tv" .44 ° - E .� �� v W2 L e ^\�} N E v C LIU -' i� V — N. 0 A a C � J M� n "� ° � � �NM rr) r-c z � Co �l � - WN C.) m = 1f:'N 0 J '11T. 15 c c ' ' .� W 414 E....) m >>. :, o , c , , 00 u 00 �+ C co E .°c U ' H C1� 00 �"4 y 3 �° c oa o . _ \u/ H �/i O N Q' ° g g E + a qi ,,,.,a E =* CD 13 b u Q ,--, ' '--Z '' ''.\ §- 1( -S - / 7� F-I FI ~ ,X) = Ca IL.4L. tS \. r=1 Cip � L i° `1, S '. t --® ga E-1 -'1 � 2 z ,.., , ,..i., . . L.) ._ ,.. +.. ... , aj ® [-4 oo CrQ 1/0 ° H Q U \-- . '' Os' t1/41 ---; t41 Nk. ITi A al a. ''a r r- J-- R z an 0 L Y L • L N =o c°� .n ° Y o ' s..1 a) cu r) v) A = �J 1_ rN1 / V/ 1 _ 'D a) +, Z a o ro .c .= L ( � J (Y, (' T CIJ 4, 12 I-.0 lal - J .. x ,, r— ' • ► ► T1•► (CHAPTER 8,COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT) A zoning sign(s)must be posted by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent on the parcel for a minimum of fifteen(15)calendar days in advance of the first public hearing and said sign(s)must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent through the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not be construed to supersede any requirement of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to the Administrative Code,Chapter 8 E. 1. The sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not more than five (5) feet from the nearest street right-of-way or easement. 2. The sign(s)must be securely affixed by nails, staples,or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post,or other structure. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage. 3. The petitioner or the petitioner's agent must maintain the sign(s) in place, and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered. If the sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable,the petitioner or the petitioner's agent must replace the sign(s NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STA 1'h OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY,PERSONALLY APPEARED Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER PL-20170004419/CP-2018-1 Hole Montes, Inc. , 950 Encore Way SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR AGENT STREET OR P.O.BOX Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Naples, FL 34110 NAME(TYPED OR PRINTED) CITY,STATE ZIP STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this 14TH day of November 20 18, by Robert J. Mulhere personally known to me or who produced as identification and who did/did not take an oath. ufk1r k SignatUre of Notary Public Stephanie Karol Printed Name of Notary Public irowdbigibeamdbodhodimairmandwidbalhoo My Commission Expires: .•• 'un"o"'' STEPHANIE KAROL (Stamp with serial number) , ArliN Notary Pubk•State of Florida mI• I Commission of FF 939980+ My Comm.Expires Mar 9,2020 Rev.3/4/2015 4 �'9•7 OF f', eZded through%hong wary Assit W' W k c v, Q - Z .... � 0 4 �rC � o � oc � = a cWc � � oCO '� an c2 (6 WCC _ c4 = � � � os z °i Lai CC Z C Z 2 0 cc F' ty' 4 J Cakk Q .z <` Q N W r [.a Z 3 + .� 0.) _ 0 Lii W J Z S Y,.. J t�lf c_+ CC • W p = t.2 C3 J �_ q E _ a ut CC U, LL W O 1-. ,1-,,,' y d ^›.'. = - `• O '+� Z Z W 9 �_ CCL I— t4' W _ `+ Qr =CC ca Q 4.1• H CO m. ami E Z W Z = Z W ffi . / m2 cil J Qa.. a F- Ju. CPSCNA *� O. W Cc cc CD d0 dS- ›. 01 ['S WI ' )- W Z •a T, o r CO II? W 4 Q . d W o W G C7 SOC + W O } d p Cii cc • Z W 40 Mil Ec Oil ON W V G L W Z O W = Q �.4. - = - \ LAI r r_., W C �. a u. H C3 �. ._Z i t - - _ Asa r 2 ▪ a ® C \' a W r #:y ,141,:",,,,-* ' CZ 0 141 ` W . = W -^ 0 = C) . Y r iA ti� ,; . V S. C? Lt r� Q W . . mm CGS' + _" `i rte, _ IC cm. o cc � + I , I N- Q aro 2 Z a Z = _ O O 4 . r , , ■�■ } . o W zo 6� SI C° USA` • Ch Z 113. a' t' a Z» elt W d , ;1' • a) mo5Ic''63a0. ra m 1.,. 1- Nr' 2 V Jac 3SCpQ =glia .L * Z ti = 0 2 f 4 2 N '3_ ...... - W a� _ •--I ti i 4 .-. O a 4 ~ U. F- r r I-- iCa) 0 L7 W W W U W Y i I � \ ':4 � . ® I, � x � � 2 0. Wap � � �, . 2 n =.cl -a—.1 – r m o ^ GW C]c ,. -, HNagI- a LL 1- 1... 1 1� ` `I 0 -I j e- a a ~ W 0 I- Lii LJJ L+•1 � a ' - J Z j Z , r LY y C �' -` =' � W Z W 4. a— � Q a O CI � � W -i O � ."" t Y - N U? Z ^ La = - �+ \ �. I:.. Q Z = W W W a N C. C) W?` ` 3 y t._ ., a. • �W O O Q X S O v V `f" P. ,.;- .�. 4agd rtt c.,1 03 � ' 3 .r 4. :`' - i. t 0 r) 0 0 W "1 a ®CC 9= 1--1--Flaw -- s Z: v s $ Q a of Z = O aC V W ¢ Or Q U C � p W () CC cc Q Z a F VI 0 C3 CC o s VI d Z W W a p LL 4 Q J G Z L01 H 1- J CD CC Z C3 C,? < C41.20- g2 2 7 f .J _ in Cs.2Q V E O pWG O ri () ® O ^. g W 6®1 @ O V 1.t LLii- 14 CI •' .W.1 I- W N W Www CCae Q- U C= Q Q ® J t� La 7- /� � � W � ~ cz y o_ y t~— �1/ � � q � cr C dC ¢ vy Z 1111 2 ti:cQiea a � LL iCI � F=C....) w — M 2 .Zmi-- xO W 4 — • m W I-cis v, 4 � 9 s • .. QS `W3ZW U) apo 0 C, CI=- H LL 7y' .J J = 1.- 0 J C11 ••41- ¢ 0d z 2Z Ir N Z. d CO p F G 2 p W = Q C? CG MO cg �.- vw = m ® W � u LSM ted CCD Ism a - It "' s +:� u' a+- J6_ W } �i Cy W ▪ ti'. T= 4gJ .J -J O Q J • ccA V m a U F'- h- Gi I- Z▪ ILU C LI p s W Z O > d.. V x W t . _ CA �` d W N = = C-- Z }� u"" p Q C.> 1® N Ch } N V1 V!w PJ CL 2 V W W t_ _ al W cc W ¢ p it) ria Cal Z at C g Y W t• "imO " W V /1J Z ILI ICI. Lai X ••••• W O MEM ® ® - 4pEa of ¢ Q CC1— CC CDoa Wo > o � � 4 QC3 CO •- Z soQn Z %- ¢ O Y r-- au Q ® r •C > aa t- o. CO 1® �9 - ICE N c4J2v � s ti .. C7 = a to G 4 x 4 G _. z N N d S Q tJ C_ H 0 Q - o ...r JC - W CI.i 4 LL O G p Q o ,.,,, CC et. u• O s p 1- J r to CV = Lai _... , R W O LL F- p_ v = W tL _ r ® = MIN —NJ =•• p ® aC7 LI t- U = R _ W app W P. - Of, 02 '" Gaza, Q W c:, <-.) O N VI Is- 2 F- O 6 {L H 2 " = W ►- QV' 1- 1- d `u ra LAJ tL d tLI Z =! W w W Z W to b 4x i''''' - } \. CO Z L-7, O W W 0 ® Z t d Q "fir .. I .. vs O 2 y . O V ® 1.1.! h 2- d ,.4E—alW W W d ro d- C) W =,.. _. ... .._. Lia yr .ci a t- sC ' t.3 00 1- C.ST& { SUPPORT DOCUMENTS U.S. Needs 4.6M New Apartments by June 12, 2017 WASHINGTON,D.C.,June 12 2017—Delayed marriages,an aging population and international immigration are increasing a pressing need for new apartments,to the tune of 4.6 million by 2030,according to a new study commissioned by the National Multifamily Housing Council(NMHC)and the National Apartment Association(NAA).It's important to note that: ■ Currently,nearly 39 million people live in apartments,and the apartment industry is quickly exceeding capacity; • In the past five years,an average of one million new renter households were formed every year,which is a record amount;and, • It will take building an average of at least 325,000 new apartment homes every year to meet demand;yet,on average,just 244,000 apartments were delivered from 2012 through 2016. Based on research conducted by Hoyt Advisory Services and commissioned by NAA and NMHC, the data includes an estimate of the future demand for apartments in the United States,the 50 states and 50 metro areas,including the District of Columbia.For the purposes of this study,apartments are defined as rental apartments in buildings with five or more units.The data are available on the website www_WeAreApart ments.org. The increased demand for apartments is due in large part to: • Delayed house purchases.Life events such as marriage and children are the biggest drivers of home ownership.In 1960,44 percent of all households in the U.S.were married couples with children.Today,it's less than one in five(19 percent),and this trend is expected to continue. ■ The aging population.People ages 65-plus will account for a large part of population growth going forward across all states.The research shows older renters are helping to drive future apartment demand,particularly in the northeast,where renters ages 55- plus will account for more than 30 percent of rental households. ■ Immigration.International immigration is assumed to account for approximately half(51 percent)of all new population growth in the U.S.,with higher growth expected in the nation's border states.This population increase will contribute to the rising demand for apartments.Research has shown that immigrants have a higher propensity to rent and typically rent for longer periods of time. "We're experiencing fundamental shifts in our housing dynamics,as more people are moving away from buying houses and choosing apartments instead.More than 75 million people between 18 and 34 years old are entering the housing market,primarily as renters," said Dr.Norm Miller,Principle at Hoyt Advisory Services and Professor of Real Estate at the University of San Diego. "But renting is not just for the younger generations anymore.Increasingly,Baby Boomers and other empty nesters are trading single-family houses for the convenience of rental apartments.In fact,more than half of the net increase in renter households over the past decade came from the 45-plus demographic." "Apartment rentals are on the rise,and this trend is expected to continue at least through 2030,which means we'll need millions of new apartments in the U.S.to meet the increased demand.The western U.S.as well as states such as Texas,Florida and North Carolina are expected to have the greatest need for new apartment housing through 2030,although all states will need more apartment housing moving forward,"said NAA Chair Cindy Clare,CPM."The need is for all types of apartments and at all price points." There will also be a growing need for renovations and improvements on existing apartment buildings,which will provide a boost in jobs (and the economy)nationwide.Hoyt's research found that 51 percent of the apartment stock was built before 1980,which translates into 11.7 million units that could need upgrading by 2030.The older stock is highly concentrated in the northeast. "The growing demand for apartments—combined with the need to renovate thousands of apartment buildings across the country—will make a significant and positive impact on our nation's economy for years to come,"explained NMHC Chair Bob DeWitt."For frame of reference,apartments and their 39 million residents contribute$1.3 trillion to the national economy.As the industry continues to grow, so will this tremendous economic contribution." Other highlights from the report include: • • Demand is expected to be especially significant in Raleigh,N.C.,with a 69.1 percent increase in new apartment units between now and 2030,Orlando,Fla.(56.7 percent),and Austin,Texas(48.7 percent).Also notable,the demand in the New York City metro area will call for an additional 278,634 apartment units,Dallas-Ft.Worth,Texas(266,296 new units),and Houston,Texas (214,176 new units). • Propensity to rent is higher in high-growth and high-cost states. ■ Hundreds of thousands of new rental units will be needed by 2030 in states such as California,Georgia,Arizona,Florida,North Carolina,Nevada,New York,Texas,Virginia and Washington. In conjunction with the study's release,the website w1vw.WeAreApartments.org breaks down the data by each state and 50 key metro areas.Visitors can also use the Apartment Community Estimator—or ACE—a tool that allows users to see the trends in their state or metro area to determine the potential economic impact locally. For more information.visit www.WeAreApartments.org. ice\ i Study urges Collier County to act soon to create more affordable housing . 5t„eft ,gregs[unley�anaplesnens.com;239-263-4738 _ `iI-S_._. tt,t , .... -;._,'i' CLCSE Throwback Thursday:"Golf Capital of the World"Naples in 1958 w ;.: ;1'1. , t 1 kilo ..., ,.tos,v, ,A0 . . ... .. ,.. i a4 N, r`` w, w»...;,,,,. „',,, ' g _ 4: ,"4%. E�.. a x� r., a ,d .. } 4. !Photo:Stab) The beaches and weather here might make Collier County unique,but the degree of difficulty in finding a place to live does not. Around the country,communities like the Naples area,resort and retirement towns,all struggle with finding affordable places to live for the bulk of their workforce,said Philip Payne of the Urban Land Institute. Payne helped lead a weeklong housing study in Collier. When workers have to commute,it strains already crowded roads and makes it harder for businesses to recruit and retain employees, Payne said. Counties also lose out on an untold amount of commerce and tax revenue when almost its entire middle class shops,spends and eats across town lines,where they can afford to live. "Collier County does indeed have a housing affordability problem,”Payne said. "It's not at this moment a crisis,but it will become one if its not addressed.Given the growth projected for this area,it will be a crisis far sooner than you might expect." Panelists from ULI—development experts from around the country—spent the past week studying the housing market in Collier.They presented their preliminary findings and early recommendations to county commissioners Friday. The study will continue for the next three months,when a final list of recommendations will be delivered to the county. Collier begins affordable housing study Two in five households in Collier County are cost-burdened,spending more than 30 percent of their income on rent or a mortgage,ULI found. One in five households are severely burdened,spending half of their pay on housing. "These are first responders,health care providers,entry-and middle-level job professionals,"Payne said. "These are service workers.These people make up over 50 percent of the workforce.They are the people responsible for the high quality lifestyle here.' Compounding the problem is that homeowner's insurance in Collier is among the highest in the state.Many neighborhoods require homeowner association fees.Almost all homeowners in the county need flood insurance. 'Groceries cost 11 percent more in Collier County than in Lee,'Payne said."Restaurants are 22 percent more expensive than in Lee County." A total of 85 percent of the neighborhoods in Collier are virtually closed to families that earn the county's median income,the ULI study found. To start addressing the problem,Collier County doesn't need to reinvent the wheel,Payne said. "Collier has been studying this for years,'Payne said.'The real need here is for action and implementation. "This will require political will and leadership because not all of our recommendations are going to be popular,but they are essential to viability of Collier County." The county should immediately bring back its affordable housing trust fund and this time use it,the ULI panel said. In 2006,the county created a trust fund that was to be used to spur the creation of more affordable housing. But the county never collected the vast majority of money owed to the fund and never spent the money it did collect. Collier needs to rewrite its density bonus incentives,which haven't worked here for years,the study found. "Incentives here have clearly failed,"said Hilary Chapman,a panelist and housing programs manager for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments."These should be reasonable,flexible and allow for creative partnerships.Bonus density needs to be revised to make sure these are financially feasible. "Offering up to 30 units per acre could be more realistic." The county also needs to streamline its government,to push projects through the system faster and allow greater predictability and certainty for developers who build affordable units. Changes to the county's zoning and the land development code require a supermajority of commissioners to agree,which means that with just five commissioners,two people can essentially kill a development at any point.Commissioners should either get rid of their supermajority requirements or increase the number of people on the board from five to seven,the study said. Commissioners should also let more zoning issues be decided by their staff,rather than bringing as many decisions before the commission. "We recommend that you streamline the project approval process when affordable housing is provided,said JoAnne Fiebe,a panelist from the University of South Florida."You can do this by just increasing the number of approvals that don't need to come before commissioners. It just causes this great uncertainty because you only need two board members to stop a project.' There are a number of under-capacity commercial properties,half-used strip malls and empty retail centers.Collier should consider rezoning those properties to residential to allow for cheaper housing,the study report recommended. Rental vacancies are nearly nonexistent,typically at 1 to 2 percent,a clear indicator the county needs more rental units to keep costs down. the study found. The county either needs to help increase the number of rentals here,or help increase the wages of its workers by considering raising the minimum wage,the panel said. 'While you may have some time,time is of the essence,"Payne said.'We think you need to increase the supply of affordable rental housing,adopt smarter codes,reactivate the affordable housing trust fund and use it.' Commissioners will host a workshop to discuss the recommendations in detail sometime this month.The date of the workshop has not yet been set. comc-c-nwar 2t1tirEIIt\£O E4 EMAILMORE Collier County Florida January 20—February 3, 2017 _ - $ ' ,t,...-....J''''sates * ,.`—,—..,. sq ' `< L - a*^o 4,,, i.t r ,. I -' At a e a. ri A* . ,4 - kr + any {f . a r 111 • Collier Count" Florida Expanding Housing Affordability January 29—February 3, 2017 About the Urban Land Institute THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE is a global,member- a variety of factors affecting the built environment,includ- driven organization comprising more than 40,000 real ing urbanization,demographic and population changes, estate and urban development professionals dedicated to new economic drivers,technology advancements,and advancing the Institute's mission of providing leadership environmental concerns. in the responsible use of land and creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide. Peer-to-peer learning is achieved through the knowledge shared by members at thousands of convenings each ULI's interdisciplinary membership represents all aspects year that reinforce ULI's position as a global authority on of the industry,including developers,property owners, land use and real estate.In 2016 alone,more than 3,200 investors,architects, urban planners,public officials,real events were held in 340 cities around the world. estate brokers,appraisers,attorneys,engineers,finan- ciers,and academics.Established in 1936,the Institute Drawing on the work of its members,the Institute recog has a presence in the Americas,Europe,and Asia Pacific nizes and shares best practices in urban design and level regions,with members in 76 countries. opment for the benefit of communities around the globe. The extraordinary impact that ULI makes on land use deci More information is available at uli.org.Follow ULI on Twit sion making is based on its members sharing expertise on ter, Facebook,Linkedln,and Instagram. Cover photos:Wilhelm Rosenkranz(top);Beth Silverman (bottom). ©2017 by the Urban Land Institute 2001 L Street,NW Suite 200 Washington,DC 20036-4948 All rights reserved.Reproduction or use of the whole or any part of the contents without written permission of the copy- right holder is prohibited. l l 2 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report r.. About ULI Advisory Services THE GOAL OF THE ULI ADVISORY SERVICES pro- able to make accurate assessments of a sponsor's issues gram is to bring the finest expertise in the real estate field and to provide recommendations in a compressed amount to bear on complex land use planning and development of time. projects,programs,and policies.Since 1947,this program has assembled well over 600 ULI-member teams to help A major strength of the program is ULI's unique ability sponsors find creative,practical solutions for issues such to draw on the knowledge and expertise of its members, as downtown redevelopment,land management strate- gies, land developers and owners, public officials, gies,evaluation of development potential,growth manage academics,representatives of financial institutions,and ment,community revitalization,brownfield redevelopment, others.In fulfillment of the mission of the Urban Land military base reuse,provision of low-cost and affordable Institute,this Advisory Services panel report is intended to housing,and asset management strategies,among other provide objective advice that will promote the responsible matters.A wide variety of public,private,and nonprofit or use of land to enhance the environment. ganizations have contracted for ULI's advisory services. ULI Program Staff Each panel team is composed of highly qualified profes Thomas W.Eitler sionals who volunteer their time to ULI.They are chosen Senior Vice President,Advisory Services for their knowledge of the panel topic and are screened Beth Silverman to ensure their objectivity.ULI's interdisciplinary panel Senior Director,Advisory Services teams provide a holistic look at development problems.A respected ULI member who has previous panel experience Paul Angelone Director,Advisory Services chairs each panel. Steven Gu The agenda for a five-day panel assignment is intensive. Associate,Advisory Services It includes an in-depth briefing day composed of a tour of the site and meetings with sponsor representatives, James A. Mulligan • a day of hour-long interviews of typically 50 to 100 key Senior Editor community representatives,and two days of formulating David James Rose recommendations.Long nights of discussion precede the Editor/Manager panel's conclusions. On the final day on site,the panel makes an oral presentation of its findings and conclusions Sara Proehl,Publications Professionals LLC to the sponsor.A written report is prepared and published. Manuscript Editor Because the sponsoring entities are responsible for Betsy Van Buskirk Creative Director significant preparation before the panel's visit,including sending extensive briefing materials to each member and Deanna Pineda, Muse Advertising Design arranging for the panel to meet with key local community Graphic Designer members and stakeholders in the project under consider- Craig Chapman ation,participants in ULI's five-day panel assignments are Senior Director,Publishing Operations Collier County,Florida,January 29—February 3,2017 3 Acknowledgments ON BEHALF OF THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE,the In addition,the panel expresses its appreciation to Steve panel would like to thank our sponsors,the Board of Coun- Hruby,Nick Kouloheras,and the other members of the ty Commissioners of Collier County—Penny Taylor,Donna affordable housing committee for their assistance and Fiala,Andy Solis,Burt L.Saunders,and William L. McDan- support throughout the engagement.The panel also iel Jr.The panel would also like to thank the city of Naples, thanks ULI Southwest Florida,which will continue to be a the city of Marco Island,Everglades City,the Collier County local resource for Collier County moving forward. Affordable Housing Advisory Committee,and the Commu- nity Housing Plan Stakeholders Committee for inviting the Finally,the panel would like to thank the approximately 90 panel to examine housing affordability challenges in the residents,business and community leaders,and repre county,and it thanks the community at large for being so sentatives from the Greater Collier County community who warm and welcoming. shared their perspectives and insights during the panel's stakeholder interviews. Special appreciation goes to Kimberly Grant,director of Community and Housing Services;Cormac Giblin,Grants and Housing Development manager;Steve Carnell, head of Public Services;County Manager Leo Ochs;and the rest of the county staff members for the time and effort they have devoted to the project. 4 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Contents ULI Panel and Project Staff 6 Background and the Panel's Assignment 7 Study Area and Surrounding Context 9 Current Conditions 11 Vision:What Do You Want to Be When You Grow Up? 17 Implementation 20 Conclusion 37 Appendix A: Implementation Schedule 38 Appendix B: Examples of County Housing Initiatives 39 Appendix C: City of Austin, 2014 Robert C. Larson Policy Leadership Award Winner 40 r-. About the Panel 43 Collier County,Florida,January 29—February 3,2017 5 ULI Panel and Project Staff Panel Chair Lacy McManus Director of Program Development Philip Payne Greater New Orleans Inc. Principal and Chief Executive Officer Ginkgo Residential New Orleans,Louisiana Charlotte,North Carolina John Orfield Principal Panel Members BOKA Powell Dallas,Texas Hilary Chapman Housing Program Manager Cassie Wright Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Project Manager Washington,D.C. Urban Ventures LLC Denver, Colorado Ian Colgan Assistant Executive Director Oklahoma City Housing Authority ULI Project Staff Oklahoma City,Oklahoma Beth Silverman Senior Director,Advisory Services Joanne Fiebe Florida Center for Community Design and Research Steven Gu School of Architecture and Community Design,University Associate,Advisory Services of South Florida Tampa,Florida 6 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Background and the Panel's Assignment COLLIER COUNTY HAS BEEN DESCRIBED as The Panel's Assignment "unique"and"one of the most beautiful places in the world."Although the community is unique,the issue of There is no question that Collier County has a housing housing affordability is not.In fact,virtually every commu- affordability problem.The highly desirable area is home to millionaires and billionaires from around the world.The nity in the nation is,to some degree,struggling with this issue.It is especially true in retirement and resort commu- nities,which have significant numbers of service workers munity.Like many affluent resort communities across the and high real estate values. United States,those influences have created a develop- ment pattern that caters to select segments of the com- The issue of housing affordability is not new.The panel is munity.The local economy is focused on retail, hospitality, impressed with the time,the effort,and the quality of work services,and agriculture;however,high housing costs that has been invested in this subject by the commission- have priced out much of the workforce needed for the ers and Collier County staff.Many of the panel's recom- county to function.As a result,large numbers of employ- mendations mirror and ratify the work that has already ees are commuting long distances to and from work,and been done. employers are having an increasingly difficult time recruit- ing and retaining workers.Community leaders are seeking From the panel's perspective,the real need in Collier strategic recommendations on how to address the issues County is for action and implementation.This implementa- surrounding housing affordability in Collier County. tion will require political will and leadership.In addition, the community at large will need to prepare for and adapt In March 2015 and again in March 2016,the Board of to the growth that is certain to occur in the county.Not all County Commissioners(BCC)held an affordable housing of the panel's recommendations will be popular within the workshop.The BCC has also received several recommen- community at large,but the panel believes such recom- dations for programs and incentives to address housing Although Collier County is the mendations are essential to the long-term viability and affordability in Collier County,including establishing an site of multimillion-dollar homes, it faces a significant housing sustainability of Collier County.An integral part of this affordable housing trust fund,providing even greater affordability problem.Part of strategic vision will be developing a plan that ensures that density incentives to support affordable housing develop- the challenge stems from a significant lack of supply in affordable housing will be available to all of the county's ment,and providing inclusionary zoning with pay-in-lieu-of terms of housing type and level citizens. options.The larger Collier County community has come of affordability throughout the county. W 9 I . w Collier County,Florida,January 29—February 3,2017 7 together around this issue.In October 2015,the United would recommend that the county implement as it Way sponsored a community-wide forum about affordable produces affordable housing units in the county's urban housing.The Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce's and rural areas? Board of Directors has also established a work group to address this issue. Summary of the Panel's Collier County has invited the ULI Advisory Services panel Recommendations to help the county develop a community-wide approach to It was evident to the panel during its interviews with corn- address housing affordability issues. munity stakeholders;its review of comments compiled Collier County has asked the panel to focus on the follow- from a countywide,online,public survey;and its multiple ing key questions: study tours throughout Collier County that much work has already been done to address housing affordability chal- • Why is it important for the county to have a balanced lenges.The panel hopes this report not only will serve as supply of housing,in terms of type,tenure,attainability, a blueprint for implementation,but also will help solidify an access,and distribution? ongoing strategy to meet the county's spectrum of housing •According to key stakeholders,including residents,what affordability needs.With such goals in mind,the panel's are the major obstacles to producing and sustaining primary recommendations include the following: affordable housing and workforce housing in Collier ■ Create a vision for the future of the community. County?What can be done to mitigate those obstacles? g Recognize that housing affordability affects all segments • What are the stakeholders'perceptions of affordable of the community. and workforce housing and of the existing tools and programs in place to support it?What are stakeholders' (in- um the county's supply of affordable housing(in- /-•"\ recommendations for change? cluding rental housing)by adding to the current supply and by maintaining existing affordable units. • How can public policy encourage the redevelopment of underused areas of the developed coastal area that • Adopt a smart code that distinguishes between the includes affordable and workforce housing while ensur- and rural parts of the county. ing that such housing will also be a component of new • Reactivate the Affordable Housing Trust Fund—and use it. development in the urban and rural fringe areas. • Recognize that transportation is part of the housing • What policies,strategies,and best practices have affordability solution.Develop solutions that link housing worked in places similar to Collier County that the panel with access to transportation options. • Establish transportation corridors to target mixed- income, multifamily housing development. ■ Consider establishing an enhanced minimum-wage ordinance. 1_ altaitaaasse gest a . g. � ® Raise public awareness,educate,and communicate Y '� with the community about housing affordability. Collier County circa 1930-1945. m 8 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report /-... • Study Area and Surrounding Context 1 LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST END of the Florida Charlotte Maki- "----'`---',, `"" II eninsula, is the lar est land Fort'4'�y�! HENDRig-lie qla: iii!, est Palm Beach p CollierCounty g county by \1 j _ PAL BEA I Cape 1 BAynone:c area in the state.The county contains a variety of differ- II • alee, r ent communities including the city of Naples,inland Im- _' -—- rgat { t. mokalee,and Marco Island,as well as four large nationally Naples 7 ort Lauderdale CO LIER BflOWARO •,� protected environmental areas.According to the 2010 "` '41` B'N AEB� r 1-— ��r ollywood census,the population breaks down to 65.7 percent non- GULF IL Hispanic whites,25.9 percent Latino,6.6 percent African •''- ' i fa-n---iia- " iami OF `� t_ , I-i American,and 1.1 percent Asian.This diverse community, , fy`'DE 61x�yn•NP DADE r •_'(' both geographically and ethnically, makes Collier County MEXICO Whitewater Bak Hoineste4d ' t ATLANTIC unique when compared with similar tourist destinations. ,, E" NP .. 011b However,this diversity has also led to housing issues 1 OCEAN throughout the county. ' Key Focus Areas Key West,_ '�`' Although the county was examined at large,the panel was Located in southwest Florida,Collier County is the largest county by land area in the state. asked to focus on the following key areas: • The city of Naples is an incorporated municipality Collier County bordering the Gulf of Mexico on the west and the Florida .-Immokalee area unincorporated Collier County urban area on the east. Naples measures just 14 square miles and has some - - of the highest housing costs in the country.The limited Urban r i -4:-.-71:-.- 1 3 -_ number of commercial areas consists primarily of retail are -+ centers and financial institutions. City of 4 -- I - <— Rural lands/Estates area Naples 1 Lc HA l a — _ • The urban area is located between the city of Naples v '_l ,.2.--1.7::...1 - , I and the rural lands(which run from the coast to about —._ ten miles inland). Most of the housing,commercial,re- 2 -,:�. tail,and other services are located and permitted in this o Nf� -- • area.The urban area is characterized by large, planned, {$ gated communities and by strip-mall developments. 0 �'; ` -- x�= ...-w - --- s The rural lands and the Estates area are located ,w1:;),„4:- w between the urban area and the more environmentally ` "=:" o ' ,- _.e -- FL t. sensitive areas to the east.The Estates area is largely The panel's study area encompasses the entire county.However,key focus areas within the study composed of platted,subdivided lots that range from include the city of Naples,the urban area,the rural lands,the Estates area,and the Immokalee area. Collier County,Florida,January 29-February 3,2017 9 about one acre to more than 20 acres.During the The Immokalee area is an agricultural center of the Florida Land Grab of the 1950s,land parcels were county.It is located in the northeast section of the divided and sold,creating the largest subdivision in the county and is characterized by residential,commercial, world with tens of thousands of home sites.Designated and industrial development.A significant percentage of as privately owned,single-family lots,the Estates area's the affordable housing units available in Collier County commercial and retail opportunities are limited.West are located in the Immokalee area. Habitat for Humanity of the Estates are the rural lands,which are primarily development projects,such as Carson Lakes and Faith farmland and environmentally sensitive areas that are Landing,are built here,as are other affordable housing designated for future cities and towns.The first town developments,including Hatcher's Preserve. to be built in this area is Ave Maria.Once the project is built out,it will have up to 11,000 residences and 1.7 million square feet of retail,office,and business park uses spread across its 4,000 acres.Ave Maria is located at the intersection of Oil Well Road and Camp Keals Road in eastern Collier County.The main entrance—on Oil Well just west of Camp Keals—leads to the town center. 10 A RI Advisory Ser ions? osl Rspor Current Conditions AFFORDABLE HOUSING HAS MANY definitions and housing,which is causing poor communication,misunder- perceptions.Oftentimes,the multitude of definitions and standings,and misaligned goals relative to the topic.Ac- opinions creates confusion when people are attempting to cordingly,the panel recommends reframing the terminology both study and solve issues of housing affordability in any of housing affordability around the concept of cost burden. given community or geography.Many definitions of afford- able housing refer to a percentage of area median income Reframing the Idea of Housing (AMI)as defined by the U.S.Department of Housing and Affordability Urban Development(HUD),Other definitions are careful to delineate between"affordable"and"workforce"housing— HUD defines"cost burdened"as the following: often defined as above or below 80 percent of AMI.Regard Families who pay more than 30 percent of their gross less of the definition used in the affordable housing industry, income on housing costs, which includes mortgage for most people what represents"affordable"is more of a gut feeling that is influenced by their daily context. principal and interest,property tax,and homeowners insurance payments. Throughout the study process,the panel consistently heard about Collier County's housing affordability problem. Other definitions add other housing costs,such as utilities, condominium or homeowners association fees,and ongo- However,the panel also perceived that there is a lack of clarity and agreement about the definition of affordable ing maintenance or repairs,but the overall concept is that if a household is paying more than 30 percent of its gross income toward housing,then that is a concern,and from a DWI L'MLet I Gina Ne What Is policy standpoint,such cost may need to be addressed. Affordable The advantage of using the cost-burden terminology is Housing? that it does not put the focus on income alone;instead,it 0 examines income as compared to housing cost.Therefore, it has a localized outcome that recognizes the different , housing markets that exist nationally,regionally,and even within a single city or county. • The 30 percent cost-burden threshold has been around for several decades.The idea was originally established • �46q rzY by the 1937 National Housing Act,which also created the a fr*""• '7-- Y1 public housing program.At that time;eligibility to live in public housing was based on income limits,rather than The Center for Urban Pedagogy,a New York City nonprofit maximum rents;a tenant's income could not exceed five organization dedicated to using the power of design and art to to six times the rent.Since the late 1930s,the 30 percent increase meaningful civic engagement,created the guidebook What Is Affordable Housing?with pictures and diagrams to help explain income limit for rental housing has been reevaluated and affordable housing issues in New York City. Collier County,Florida,January 29–February 3,2017 11 Glossary of Housing Affordability Terms Affordable housing:Generally,a home or apartment neighborhood consists of a variety of household incomes occupied by a household that pays 30 percent or less of and opportunities for meaningful interaction,including its gross income toward its mortgage or rent.The term is parks,schools,and shopping. also widely used to refer to housing that is subsidized or rent-regulated and that is occupied by a household that is Moderate-income housing:Per federal regulations, "low-income"(see later).The term used in this manner can households whose incomes are between 81 percent and be limiting—there are growing numbers of households that 95 percent of AMI.The government may establish income are within a range of incomes,that live in unsubsidized or ceilings higher or lower than 95 percent of AMI on the basis unregulated market-rate housing,and that have a problem of an analysis of prevailing levels of construction costs,fair with"housing affordability"(see later). market rents,or unusually high or low family incomes. Area median income(AMI):The median household Naturally occurring affordable housing:Generally, income of each metropolitan statistical area(MSA)adjusted housing that is"affordable"to"low-income"and for family size.The U.S.Department of Housing and Urban "moderate-income"(see earlier)households that is not Development(HUD)publishes AMIs annually.AMI is used currently federally subsidized or rent-regulated. to determine the eligibility of applicants for most housing Preservation:Generally,providing the necessary physical assistance programs. improvements and financial capital to enable a currently Extremely low-income housing:Per federal regulations, occupied rental property to remain"affordable"(see earlier) a household whose income does not exceed the higher of and in decent condition for a sustained period of time. the federal poverty level or 30 percent of AMI(see earlier). Preservation programs can also target owner-occupied housing,thereby providing assistance to homeowners that Housing affordability:Refers to the ability or the lack allows them to make improvements to their homes and to thereof of a household to meet its housing expenses with remain in them. ..•� a reasonable and sustainable share of its income,generally spending no more than 30 percent of gross income on Public housing:Rental housing owned and operated by housing costs,without regard to the household's income or local housing authorities that primarily serves"extremely whether the household lives in subsidized,rent-regulated, low-income"(see earlier)households.Roughly 2.6 million or market-rate housing. people live in the nation's 1.1 million public housing units. Very few public housing units have been built in recent years. Housing cost burden:Per the federal government,refers to a household having to pay more than 30 percent of its income Supportive housing:Generally,"affordable housing"(see for housing and possibly having difficulty affording other earlier)combined with social services to assist vulnerable necessities such as food,clothing,transportation,and medical populations,such as the homeless,the disabled,the care.A housing cost burden is"severe"if housing costs addicted,and the elderly. consume more than 50 percent of a household's income. Very low-income housing:Per federal regulations,a Low-income housing:Per federal regulations,a household whose income does not exceed 50 percent of household whose income does not exceed 80 percent of AMI(see earlier),adjusted for family size. AMI(see earlier),adjusted for family size. Workforce housing:Generally,housing that is Mixed-income housing:"Mixed-income"has a twofold "affordable"(see earlier)to households earning between meaning.In accordance with federal housing policy,HUD 60 and 120 percent of AMI(see earlier).In high-cost areas, defines a mixed-income building as"comprised of housing incomes may be as high as 150 percent of AMI.Some units with differing levels of affordability,typically with some definitions exclude owner-occupied housing. market-rate housing and some housing that is available to low-income occupants below market-rate."In accordance Source:ULI Terwilliger Center for Housing. with widely held housing industry practice,a mixed-income 12 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report /-"•\ housing have been around 30 percent of a household's - gross income(https://www.census.gov/housing/census/ kts‘ir/ � x _ publications/who-can-afford.pdf). Used in conjunction with the 30 percent cost-burden threshold is severe cost burden,which includes house- holds that pay more than 50 percent of gross income toward housing costs.Those households are the most at During the study tour,the panel observed that in several communities risk regardless of locality. multiple cars were parked in front of each home,thus supporting the theory that people are living together in order to afford the high cost of housing in the county. Defining the Cost-Burden Problem adjusted several times,ranging from 20 to 30 percent at In 2015,Collier County had a population of 343,802 and any given time. 140,131 households.The Shimberg Center at the Univer- In 1981,the housing burden rate for rentals was rees- sity of Florida estimates that of the 140,131 households, tablished at 30 percent of gross annual income.Gradu- 58,685(40 percent)were cost burdened in 2015—mean- ally,this limit was extended to homeownership. In the ing they spent more than 30 percent of their gross income mid-1990s,Fannie Mae and.Freddie Mac would purchase on housing.Of those 58,685 households,29,342 were mortgages only if their principal,interest,tax,and insur- considered severely cost burdened—meaning they spent ance(PITI)payments were 28 percent or less of the more than 50 percent of their gross income on housing. borrower's gross income for a conventional loan and 29 This finding means that two out of every five households in percent for a loan insured by the Federal Housing Admin- Collier County are cost burdened,with one in five severely istration.Since that time,almost all cost-burden limits for cost burdened. Table 1: Cost Burden in Collier County Burden for Three-Person Household Earning 30 to 150 Percent of Area Median Income Percentage of income Percentage of income Percentage of income Annual household Percentage of area needed to afford needed to afford needed to afford income median income median rent* ! median-price home** median-price condo*** $20,160 30 61 149 101 $29,600 50 41 101 69 $47,300 80 26 63 43 $59,125 100 21 51 35 $65,038 110 19 46 31 $70,950 120 17 42 29 $88,688 150 14 34 23 Sources:U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development;The 2016 Collier County Economic,Demographic&Community Profile; the American Community Survey. "Median gross rent is$1,020 per month,as defined by the Shimberg Center in 2015. *'Median sales price is$405,000,including mortgage and interest at a 20 percent downpayment for 30 years,plus estimated homeowner's insurance,property taxes,and flood insurance. ***Median sales price for condominiums and townhouses is$257,000,including mortgage and interest at 20 percent downpayment for 30 years, plus estimated homeowner's insurance,property taxes,and flood insurance. Collier County,Florida,January 29–February 3,2017 13 However,the issue of cost burden may be larger than the in health care,public safety,and professional sectors numbers indicate.Not all of the households counted in the are more likely to experience a cost burden than are the census are year-round residents,and most of those part- people holding executive,management,and supervisory time households have incomes that support their residence positions.Also,single-income households,which can in the county,which is a second residence.Therefore,it include one-to four-person households,are more likely is likely that the actual percentages of cost burden are to experience a cost burden or even a severe cost burden substantially higher among residents who live in the county when living in Collier County. year-round. Table 2 provides a representative sample of employment To better understand the meaning of"cost burdened" in positions in Collier County and what people in such posi- Collier County,the panel analyzed the correlation between tions can afford in the local market.Across the board,the household income and housing prices or rental rates. In ability to afford houses priced at the median sales price 2016,the estimated AMI for Collier County was$65,700, from 2015 was low.The ability to afford rental units at the and the average household size was 2.47. median gross rent(plus utilities)was more reasonable, with affordability attainable for some of the people holding For a snapshot of the cost-burden issue,see table 1. professional positions. Who Is Cost Burdened]rii i3oRieP'®t.""ty? During the panel process,the panel heard many stories The people who are cost burdened in Collier County are regarding how difficult it is to recruit service industry work- crucial to the local economy.They provide key public ers, particularly those who work at the resorts and hotels, safety,education,and health care services to the corn- including housekeepers,front-desk staff members,and munity's residents. In addition,they are responsible for golf course attendants.The panel's analysis of cost burden the high-quality lifestyle that makes Collier County such a for those jobs indicates that there is substantial cost special place. burden for such workers unless they share living space or Examples of workers in the cost-burdened category commute long distances. include the following: One critical challenge for Collier County businesses is • Health care:Nurses,medical assistants,senior service the ability to recruit entry-level professionals. Mid-and providers upper-level professionals in public safety,education, government, and health care can afford a wider range • Education:Teachers and other school employees of housing.However,such is not the case for entry-level professionals,who often end up living far away from their • Public safety:Police officers,firefighters source of employment(particularly in Lee County).Having • Service industry workers:Wait staff,hotel staff,retail employees who reside outside of Collier County and who and trade salespeople,golf course employees,land- commute long distances for work often means a high level scape maintenance workers of attrition for businesses.Furthermore,when people who work in the county are commuting to adjoining municipali- • Entry-level or nonprofit professionals:Bank tellers,social ties to live,the county bears the costs of the roads without workers,office managers,government employees the benefit of receiving the tax revenue. Not every person in those fields will have difficulty finding Collectively,the employment sectors that are the most housing that is affordable. For example,dual-income at risk to incur a significant cost burden represent more households have increased purchasing power.However, than 50 percent of the local labor force.But beyond that, people receiving entry-level and median income rates the sectors represent the core of county,public safety, 14 A LLD A6vDsuni Se v]ccs - i rt 7":2:1'.: Table 2: Estimated Cost Burden for Households Headed by Selected Wage Earners Annual wage range Housing cost as percentage of gross income Profession (entry to median) Median gross rent 2015 median home sale price Health care Registered nurse $47,000—$65,000 24% 38% Medical assistant $30,000—$35,000 41% Emergency technician $28,000—$36,000 42% Education Teacher $44,000—$59,000 28% Teaching assistant $22,000—$24,000 45% Public safety Firefighter $39,000—$57,000 29% ; 43% Patrol officer $47,000—$59,000 26% 41% Service workers Maid and housekeeping $18,000—$22,000 Massage therapist $26,000—$55,000 37% 44% Concierge $25,000—$31,000 48% Entry-level/midtier professional Human resources specialist $35,000—$55,000 31% 45% Dental assistant $33,000—$43,000 36% Administrative assistant $22,000—$33,000 Housing cost accounts for less than 30 percent of gross income(not cost burdened) f Housing cost accounts for 30 to 50 percent of gross income(cost burdened) Housing cost accounts for 50 percent or more of gross income(severely cost burdened) Sources:U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development.The 2016 Collier County Economic,Demographic&Community Profile;the American Community Survey. and education services,and those services support the Going Beyond the Root of the background of the lifestyle,health,and overall vitality of Problem the county. If one is to understand the full spectrum of housing afford- Other important groups of residents with substantial needs ability,it is critical to examine the aspects of the challenge include low-to moderate-income seniors,both those that go beyond housing costs.Those additional crucial who live independently and those who require services; factors include added housing costs, housing supply residents who require mental health treatment and various and availability,transportation costs,and future growth other services;and very low-wage earners.Those resi- implications for the county,and such factors are examined dents face virtually no supply of housing or no continuity in in further detail in the following sections. being provided social and health services.Most experience long wait lists at the few available housing sites,and many Added Housing Costs have to be relocated outside of the county to areas with a In Collier County,housing affordability for homeowners greater concentration of housing and services. (and especially first-time homeowners)means more than Collier County,Florida,January 29—February 3,2017 15 just taking into consideration PITI.Utilities and home- categories,the panel looked to see how many units were ownership association fees also come into play when available below the cost-burden threshold of 30 percent determining housing affordability and cost burden.After (table 3). interviewing several area stakeholders,the panel believes that the percentage of cost burdened Collier County The analysis provided several interesting results.Although a households is even higherthan outlined in the earlier reasonable number of condominiums were available(but no section.One reason the percentage is higher is that many additional homeowners association fees were considered households cannot afford a 20 percent downpayment, in the analysis,which may have resulted in fewer options), which means they must pay private mortgage insurance, very few single-family homes were for sale,and there were thus reducing the amount of home they can afford.In very limited rental options,which indicated a particularly addition,almost all areas of Collier County require flood constrained rental market.For any worker or single-income insurance,which adds a substantial monthly cost on top of household with income between 80 and 100 percent of all the costs just described.Moreover,Collier County has AMI,options were extremely limited,to say nothing of those one of the highest homeowner insurance rates in Florida. households making less than 80 percent,which represent a substantial percentage of workers who are cost burdened. Availability Transportation When one considers cost burden and affordability,one must also consider availability and quality.Housing units Crucial to the cost-burden conversation is the combination at the bottom of the cost spectrum often are made up of of housing cost and transportation cost.According to data a high percentage of units with quality and maintenance from the Center for Neighborhood Technology, households at 90 to 100 percent of area median income can incur concerns. housing and transportation costs of 75 percent of their If one considers the total number of units existing at differ- gross income.That figure is 61 percent for households /" ent rental and sale prices,availability of those units at any between 100 and 120 percent of AMI.Furthermore,de- given time can significantly constrain access to housing pending on the distance from employment and other activity that is affordable. centers,transportation costs for Collier County households can fluctuate wildly.In some cases,households may incur The panel took a"snapshot"of units available on the 5 to 10 percent more in transportation costs if they are market using readily accessible,publicly available portals located farther away from employment and other services. to find housing(Zillow.com,Trulia.com,Apartments.com). Using the income bands of 25 different employment Growth Implications In a county expected to grow significantly in population Table 3: Collier County Housing Market by 2040,what does that finding mean for the future?The Snapshot county is expected to add 58,000 households over the next Units Affordable for Households Earning Less Than 100 23 years.If the local issue of cost burden is not addressed, Percent of Area Median Income then—at a minimum-11,000 more households will Housing type Number of units experience severe cost burden(above 50 percent)than do Single-family,for-sale homes 125* households today.Given ever-rising real estate values and Condominiums 65-250** a seemingly bottomless demand for higher-end homes and Single-family rentals 0 rentals,the likelihood of both the number and percentage Multifamily rentals 23 of cost-burdened households increasing is high. Sources:Zillow.com;Apartments.com. *3.8 percent of inventory on multiple listing services "Priced at$120,000 to$175,000 16 A ULf Advisory Services Panel Report Vision: What Do You Want to Be When You Grow Up? THE PANEL TOURED KEY AREAS of Collier to get a ■ Enhancing and sustaining a visually attractive and aes- comprehensive look at the county.The panel also inter- thetically pleasing community with character viewed more than 90 stakeholders during this process, reaching out to residents,elected and appointed officials, • Ensuring an efficient transportation system business leaders,real estate developers,and nonprofit • Diversifying the local economy leaders.From the study tours and interviews,the panel did not hear a strong consensus regarding the path forward What the Future of Collier County for Collier County. However,several common themes and community values were frequently raised.Those traits are Looks Like both existing and aspirational:some have already been im- Collier County's current debate on housing affordability plemented across the county(such as the Blue Zone and is not a new one.The panel heard repeatedly about the the commitment to beautification),while others are indica- community's reservations regarding another discussion on tive of recent concerns and current shortcomings(such as housing affordability—the topic has been widely discussed economic development and traffic).The common themes for many years—with the Great Recession and housing and community values include the following: downturn halting past efforts.These on-again,off-again discussions reflect the cyclical nature of this issue and the ■ Maintaining Collier County's reputation as a premiere related concern it raises. tourist destination Today,with new interests and partners realigning around • Growing and maintaining a strong real estate base and the housing issue,a variety of pathways and solutions retaining steady values can be explored.Considering the overall values raised by • Retaining a safe and healthy community community members,the panel believes two key scenarios Collier County is home to pristine beaches and enviable weather;it also boasts a mix of urban,suburban,and rural land use patterns. Nonetheless,the panel believes that Collier County does not have a vision for what it wants to be in the future.(Left to right:Ave Maria, Naples's iconic beaches,and the panel's public reception.) aY r ¢ ¢ • w a r Collier County,Florida,January 29–February 3,2017 17 face Collier County:a future with action and a future with- the specific strategies for all residents of Collier County, out action.A wide range of options and interventions exists having a proactive policy right now will redirect the current within this dichotomy and will produce varying outputs housing and demographic trends and will create positive and results.The scenarios presented next are intended to benefits for the county. illustrate specific certainties that the panel believes will be inevitable under current conditions. The local economy will benefit by retaining a self- sustaining employment base in which people can work The Future of Collier County without Action in Collier County's Sheriff's Department,public schools, on Housing hotels,and restaurants and can live in the county.The If county leaders choose not to respond to the current benefits include an increase in tax revenue generated housing needs,it is likely that the current market condi- by the in-county residents,a lesser strain on existing tions and trends will continue to advance and evolve. transportation infrastructure,and an increase in the qual- Local employers will continue to have difficulty hiring and ity of life for this vital segment of the community.Also, retaining key employees in the county,which will create a employers will have a better chance of attracting and "brain drain"out of the community and into neighboring retaining talented and skilled workers in the county,which jurisdictions,such as Lee County. Not only does this will improve the overall quality of life in the county and will market condition place a strain on employers'ability to build a stronger middle class. hire and retain high-quality talent,but also it means more workers and middle-class laborers will be commuting With the growing aging demographic,a proactive policy greater distances,thereby increasing transportation con- will make the county a more hospitable place for longtime residents to age in place and to receive health care.Also, gestion and mitigating quality of life and civic engagement. keeping this older demographic in the county will generate In addition,Collier County's local economy will lose tax county tax revenue from the group's use of local pharma- revenue as incomes earned in the county leave to neigh- cies,grocery stores,and specialized medical services.By boring jurisdictions because out-of-county employees tend taking a proactive approach toward addressing housing, to spend a greater portion of their income by going to gro- Collier County can develop a vision that expands on and cery stores,restaurants,and dry cleaners in their residen- enhances the existing unique qualities of the county. tial communities.Therefore,Collier County will continue to sustain the burden of influx infrastructure strain,while Why a Vision Is Important receiving no tax revenue from it.Those conditions create an intensified landscape of competition between counties, The panel believes that the overall priorities of the county instead of mutual collaboration for the betterment of the lack a collective vision;without such a vision,aligning region.With no action on housing,Collier County will be and prioritizing government processes and policies will forced to create reactionary policy and will have more dif be challenging.Collier County is still facing near certain ficulty when guiding future growth of the county. changes—with or without a unifying vision—particularly regarding the incoming population and real estate growth. The Future of Collier County with Action on Housing If one considers the expectations around building growth Conversely,if the county takes appropriate action and and residential influx,the problems facing the county today intervenes,the aforementioned trends could be redirected will be amplified in the coming years,thus exacerbating in a more financially and economically sustainable direc the current pain points(traffic,workforce,costs).In short, tion for the county.Although the panel report will identify the status quo in Collier County will work only for a limited number of people and for a limited amount of time.The 18 A till Advisory Services Panel Report • Provide key considerations around quality of life for all residents,as well as how to improve and maintain it. 40" ■ Provide a range of housing options that are accessible to -1' "I+ r the full spectrum of consumers.Housing options should be economically and geographically diverse throughout the county,as well as having a range in sizes and types such as single-family homes and rental apartments. Additional key factors to consider when providing hous- ing options include the reasonable proximity to jobs, schools,amenities,and transportation choices.There As part of the study,the panel met with community stakeholders, including residents,business and community leaders,and other should also be an inclusive mix of income levels in dif- representatives from the larger Collier County community. ferent neighborhoods. • Grow and sustain a thriving economy that includes panel feels strongly that without proactive management, the anticipated growth will erode the very qualities that qualities such as livable wages,job opportunities that provide pathways to wealth creation and upward mobil- attracted people to the county in the first place. ity,diversified industries,and a diversified workforce. The panel recommends that the creation of a vision for ▪ Provide accessible,multimodal transportation options Collier County should come from the county itself,as a that safely and efficiently connect all residents to jobs, self-directed exercise,and should be inclusive of all stake amenities,and services.In addition,provide clear holders.However,to ensure the exercise and the results directives to governing entities to help align policies and have the desired effect,the panel provides the following processes with the envisioned future for the county. elements that the county should include in its vision: Collier County,Florida,January 29—February 3,2017 19 Implementation THE PANEL IS IMPRESSED WITH the planning and programs entirely.There is no need to reinvent the wheel study that has already been completed regarding housing when existing structures already support the development affordability in Collier County.The panel's recommenda- of more affordable housing. tions reflect and endorse much of the work that has al- ready been completed.However, what is abundantly clear The Housing Trust Fund to the panel is that action and implementation are crucial The housing trust fund(HTF)is an example of a national to creating sustainable solutions.Implementation of the best practice that Collier County currently has at its panel's recommendations will require sincere action, disposal but does not use.More than 700 HTFs exist tremendous political will,and strong leadership.For addi- nationwide,and they are often a critical element of a tional reference,the panel has created a proposed imple- jurisdiction's overall housing policy. mentation schedule to provide a blueprint for how to move Collier County's HTF should be sustainable and predict- forward on the recommendations described throughout able,given the long planning process involved in housing this section in the short,medium,and long term.(See ap- development.The county should keep in mind that what pendix A.) can make an HTF challenging is finding viable revenue The panel's major recommendations are organized around sources.Other jurisdictions have funded their trust funds the following six core strategies to address housing afford- through sales taxes,real estate transfer taxes, linkage fees P—N, ability: as part of the zoning ordinance,inclusionary zoning in-lieu fees,condominium conversion fees or demolition fees, ▪ Increase supply; and hotel and motel taxes.The best and most common Maintain supply; revenue source for a county HTF is a document record- ing fee,which is a fee paid upon filing various types of • Regulate and govern; official documents with a state or local government.This fee is one of the few revenue sources that most counties e Enhance transportation options; can commit to,and the panel recommends Collier County e Enhance wages;and consider this approach. ■ Engage,market,and educate. Development Incentives The county's existing developer incentives have clearly Increase Supply failed to transform existing development patterns and allow for greater production of housing that is affordable How can Collier County meet its current and future hous- to a broad range of low-to moderate-income households. ing needs?One approach to achieving the goals is by Any developer incentives need to be reasonable,be flex- adding housing that is affordable to households with a ible,and allow for creative partnerships to produce new, wide range of income levels. There is good news to share: affordable homes.The panel strongly recommends that several strategies include simply making improvements to the county put increased emphasis on multifamily rental existing procedures and vehicles rather than creating new 20 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report County Housing Trust Fund Dedicated Revenue Sources Revenue Source County Trust Funds Document recording fee Arlington County,Virginia;9 New Jersey counties; 54 Pennsylvania counties; 39 Washington counties Property tax Kalamazoo County, Michigan; King County,Washington Inclusionary zoning in-lieu fees Sonoma County, California Tax increment funds Alameda County, California Delinquent property tax penalties and Toledo/Lucas County, Ohio interest(land bank) Real estate transfer tax Columbus/Franklin County, Ohio Hotel/motel tax Columbus/Franklin County, Ohio Developer impact fees/proffers Fairfax County,Virginia Food and beverage tax Dade County,Florida Sale of foreclosed properties Traverse City, Michigan (now expired) Sales/use tax Summit County,Colorado General funds North Valley/Chico,Alameda County,Los Angeles County,Santa Barbara County,Sonoma County,and San Luis Obispo County, California;Tompkins County, New York(with Ithaca and Cornell University);Arlington County, Virginia; 24 counties in Iowa Source:Housing Trust Fund Project,Center for Community Change,2016. housing as a means of addressing its affordability housing i ,; situation. Multifamily rental housing is the most cosh _�, effective way to provide housing that is affordable to the average working person. The panel recommends that existing density bonuses be reassessed to allow for and provide incentives for more ; '‘' mixed-use development and greater efficiency of land use l_ i throughout the county.This recommendation will be dis- cussed in greater detail later in this report,but the current an example of existing density 7 that allows for a mix of uses in density bonus program needs revision to allow for higher downtown Naples along Fifth densities to ensure that additional mixed-income,mixed- . avenue. tenure(rental as well as homeownership)developments are Impact fees are an often-cited source of frustration to financially feasible.Examples of this type of increased den- those creating both market rate and affordable housing sity include Bayfront and Naples Square,at more than 20 products.Not only are high impact fees an impediment to to 30 units per acre rather than the average 2.5 units per new construction of affordable housing,but also they can acre in other residential communities.The density can also be erratic and can be an ineffective way to raise revenue. be flexible to allow for complementary adjacent uses and to During periods of high growth,they can produce lots of reflect different preferences in the urban and rural areas. cash,but during slow periods of growth,the revenue provided by such fees falls,sometimes precipitously. Collier County,Florida,January 29—February 3,2017 21 Inclusive Housing Strategy: Tysons Corner, Virginia A sprawling edge city begins to remake itself as a more Research also indicates that the program has not deterred developers walkable,sustainable place,with transit-accessible,mixed- from delivering profitable projects in the county. income housing at its core. By state law,the ADU program does not apply to high-rise buildings— Fairfax County,Virginia,home to 1.1 million residents,is the most precisely the type of development the county wants to see near transit in populous county in the Washington,D.C.,region and is one of the most the Tysons transformation plan.Recognizing that this exemption would prosperous in the nation,with a median household income of nearly undermine the opportunity to provide a wider range of housing choice in $113,000.The county's development since the 1960s and its image Tysons,the county expanded its inclusionary policy so it could be applied today have been shaped by the growth of Tysons Corner,a roughly more effectively in the area.As a result,20 percent of all high-rise units 1,700-acre area originally marked by the intersection of state Routes 7 in Tysons must meet affordability requirements,albeit at higher income and 123.For a half century,"Tysons"has epitomized the commercially levels than the ADU program.Though low-and mid-rise buildings are still successful suburban employment center and retail destination,which is covered by the ADU program,their developers are encouraged to meet dominated by large office buildings occupied by white-collar companies the higher standard as well. and high-end shopping malls. As of June 2016,356 affordable units had been delivered in Tysons. Tyson's enormous economic success—it was the nation's 12th- Future development up to allowed densities could result in the creation of largest central business district as recently as 2014—came over time as many as 4,200 units in the area.Tysons will also generate funding to with substantial costs in the form of traffic congestion and sprawling support affordable housing through payments that office,retail,and hotel development.The number of homes and apartments fell far behind the development projects must make in return for receiving county approval number of jobs;investment fell short of needs in cultural amenities, to build at greater densities—generally either a one-time contribution of green space,and schools;and transit options were limited.Tysons's very $3 per square foot or annual payment of$0.25 per square foot for 16 economic model came into question. years.As of 2014,this policy was projected to generate more than$64 million for investment in affordable housing in Tysons through a trust fund. For local business leaders and elected officials,the future of Tysons depends on whether it can reinvent itself as a more complete community. The capacity of Tysons to become a more equitable community is Under the rubric of a"Transforming Tysons"plan,Fairfax County has interlinked with its evolution into a denser,more walkable area and with established goals to be met by 2050:increase the number of Tysons its careful use of inclusionary development practices and incentives as residents to 100,000(from 19,000 today),double the number of jobs to that evolution occurs.Researcher Christopher Leinberger,whose work 200,000,and ensure that at least three-quarters of the new growth is has suggested that more-walkable urban places can advance an array of within a half-mile of Metro stations(four stations opened in the Tysons social-equity outcomes as well as deliver superior economic returns,has area in 2014).Fairfax County also intends Tysons to be a mixed-income noted of Tysons:"Many of the neighborhood associations surrounding residential community-a place where construction and service workers, [Tysons]became supporters of increased density because of the teachers,and others in need of more affordable housing can afford promised walkable urban future.NIMBYs(not in my backyard)became to live.To achieve that goal,the county has ambitiously expanded a YIMBYs(yes in my backyard)." longstanding county policy that has been a national model for promoting inclusionary housing development. The Tysons inclusionary housing policy is not perfect.In exchange for requiring a higher percentage of inclusionary units than under the existing Equity Strategies,Results,and Challenges ADU program,the county raised the income levels of eligible families, reflecting the realities of development feasibility.To serve families with Since 1990,the county has generally required residential development very low incomes,the county will need to offer development subsidies projects(excluding high rises)to set aside a share of units(generally 5 to through the trust fund and other sources. 12.5 percent)for households earning 50 to 70 percent of the Washington metro area median income.Developments receive a density bonus— And while the Tysons policy appears to be working well for rental permission to increase the size of the project—to help mitigate the apartment buildings,it has proven more problematic for for-sale economic cost of delivering the below-market units. projects.In November 2016,the Washington Postreported:"County leaders are considering relaxing the 20 percent expectation for high-rise This affordable dwelling unit(ADU)program has generated more than condominium projects,after developers complained that it will make it 2,500 affordable units to date,with about an equal mix of rental and harder to secure financing for their typically smaller buildings."The county for-sale housing.Research indicates that Fairfax County ADU homes and worked with the development community to revise the policy to reflect apartments are overwhelmingly located in low-poverty neighborhoods market conditions that had changed since it was put in place,and the first and in areas with schools comparable to those in places without ADUs. condominium project was recently approved. 22 A ULB Advisory Services Panel Report The high fee structure,however,reflects the limited sources available to Collier County to support develop- Case Study: Palm Beach County ment of all types.The panel recommends a review of the Workforce Housing Program impact fee structure to consider how to better incentivize Palm Beach County's Workforce Housing Program developers to build a spectrum of housing types and sizes. requires all new developments of more than ten units to Further,the panel recommends that the current impact fee provide units for households earning 60 to 120 percent deferral program cover all types of income-restricted hous- of AMI in exchange for additional density allowances ing,regardless of whether it is single-family, multifamily, on a sliding scale.Developers have the flexibility to senior,or special needs housing. meet the affordable housing requirements by paying an in-lieu fee,building units off site,or purchasing National Best Practices and deed restricting market-rate units.To date,more than 1,400 affordable or workforce units have been In addition to enhancing existing tools to create affordable approved as part of 36 developments.In addition, housing,the panel recommends tailoring several national nearly$900,000 of in-lieu fees have been collected best practices to Collier County's unique characteristics to from three developments. supplement the county's ability to meet current and future housing needs. The program was established in 2004 but gained traction in the market only after 2009,when the Inclusionary zoning(IZ)is an approach to add to the supply county made substantial revisions as a result of recommendations by the real estate industry, of affordable housing options by linking the zones to the including homebuilders and realtors.An evaluation of creation of market-rate housing.IZ programs have been the program found that the county's incentives fully used across the country since 1972 and vary greatly in offset the cost or lost profit incurred by developers in terms of their structure and requirements.Given the under- providing the affordable and workforce units. use of the existing density bonus program,the county needs to consider a more proactive approach to increase the supply of housing options for all of its residents. designate public land for public goods,such as affordable Although IZ programs may not produce a high volume of housing.CLTs are nonprofit,community-based organiza- units,such programs have the unique ability to provide tions whose mission is to provide affordable housing in the choice to residents to live in communities with better perpetuity by owning land and leasing it to those who live access to transit,jobs,and schools. in houses built on that land.Although CLTs may have a broad mission,their primary role is providing successful IZ programs can be flexible in implementation to fit the homeownership opportunities for generations of lower- needs of the county and to fit different project types.For income families. example,the county may want to allow for the provision of inclusionary units to be produced off site;the payment for A related approach to the CLT is to consider a ground units through a fee-in-lieu arrangement to the HTF;or the lease structure.This approach both dramatically reduces creation of partnerships between for-profit and nonprofit the cost of the land to the developer and helps ensure developers so the units best fit the respective business long-term affordability for the housing built on that site. models and expertise. The city of Naples has used this approach in at least two instances at the Jasmine Cay and Carver Apartments. Mitigating the cost of land—something that is fixed, limited,and a significant challenge to all developers in The panel also recommends that the county immediately . Collier County—can be addressed through vehicles such undertake a review of the current land inventory to identify as a community land trust(CLT)and through a program to parcels that may be available for housing development Collier County,Florida,January 29—February 3,2017 23 opportunities.This review can be accomplished using a cross-agency strategy,and the county should find ways to engage with community stakeholders to identify possible sites and building intensities.A related part of using public o oft land for public good is to colocate affordable housing with the renovation or creation of new public facilities.One suc- cessful example includes building affordable housing for seniors adjacent to a new public library ata development called the Bonifant in Silver Spring,Maryland. -' 4/Tar It is not the sole responsibility of either the government The Bonifant in downtown Silver Spring,Maryland,is a transit- or the private sector to provide for the housing needs of oriented development for lower-income seniors that is adjacent to the new Silver Spring library and within walking distance of transit and all residents in Collier County.The best way to produce bus lines. housing effectively that meets a broad, rather than narrow, range of housing needs is through effective public/private supply.The National Housing Trust finds that renovating an partnerships.Elements of effective public/private partner- existing property can be one-third to one-half as expensive as new construction. Renovating older properties does ships include creating a shared vision,clear roles and responsibilities,consistent and coordinated leadership,and not require new land for development,takes advantage of frequent communication. existing infrastructure,and reduces construction waste. Collier County has an existing renovation code available Repurposing Vacant and Underused Retail Space to developers looking to refurbish existing properties,and Another unique opportunity for Collier County to add to the county should encourage its use through incentives its supply of affordable housing is to take advantage of mentioned previously,such as through expedited permit- existing vacant and underused retail sites along major ting and inspections and by reducing or deferring the transportation corridors through a conversion to multi- associated fees. family residential buildings.This effort would accomplish The county can identify opportunities proactively by track- several goals simultaneously,including these: ing properties with expiring affordability covenants(using • Returning underperforming buildings to the tax rolls and resources such as the National Housing Preservation generating revenue for the county,and database)to ensure that existing rental properties remain affordable for the long term.The county should also • Providing an option for rental apartments along existing explore implementing a right of first refusal to purchase transportation corridors without the need to create new infrastructure. The panel strongly recommends that the county take an inventory of vacant and underused commercial parcels that might be available for The county's regular rental housing surveys have found va- housing development cancy rates in multifamily rental buildings to be extremely low,at 1 to 2 percent,thus indicating a significant unmet demand for rental housing options. Maintain Supply One of the most cost-effective and efficient means of providing affordable housing is to maintain the existing - 24 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Inclusive Housing Strategies: Pasadena, California Pasadena(population 140,000),a southern California Pasadena has emphasized links to transit by clustering city renowned for its high quality of life,faces formidable mixed-use projects near light-rail stations,major corridors, challenges in providing affordable housing in an expensive and employment areas.Because of efforts to encourage market with high land costs and a limited amount of transit-oriented development,the majority of residential developable property.Sustained price appreciation and mixed-use projects built during the 2000s were has made housing unaffordable—even for households located within a half mile of a transit stop or employment earning more than$100,000 annually.Through an array center.More than 50 percent of the affordable units of incentive-based programs,including an inclusionary produced under the IHO were developed along such major housing ordinance(IHO)and a density bonus,the city corridors.Two large IHO projects have been developed has supported development of more than 5,000 transit- close to Gold Line light-rail stations,and a third project oriented housing units since 2001,including 1,370 units of (totaling 212 units)is forthcoming. affordable and workforce housing. In addition,Pasadena's efforts to promote affordable The Housing Incentives Fee Program,adopted by the city housing have extended beyond simple subsidies to council in 2004,incentivizes production of affordable encompass community outreach.According to William housing by providing developers with significant reductions Huang,the city's housing director,"The success of in impact fees,building permit fees,construction taxes, affordable housing is rarely only financial.Even if funding and transportation fees.The city adopted its density bonus is secured,gaining public acceptance is a prerequisite." ordinance in 2006,which provides developers of housing projects that include affordable units with a bonus in the number of units that may be constructed on a site. (either by the county or by a nonprofit partner)expiring ■ Permit higher densities in urban areas for projects with use properties so the county can prevent the loss of any affordable housing by-right. housing that is affordable to low-and moderate-income residents and that might result in displacement. ■ Revise the governance structure,and streamline the process. Regulate and Govern Review and Revise the Land Development Code After a review of existing regulations,interviews with Good codes are the foundation on which great communi- stakeholders,and an understanding of current market ties are built.When done well,codes make it easier for a conditions,the panel determined that the county faces community to implement its vision.However,the current inherent difficulties,unnecessary costs,and a lack of Land Development Code(LDC)does not consistently sup- predictability to developing affordable housing projects.Al- port and encourage growth in already existing urbanized though internal and external market forces play a large role areas of the county(those areas generally west of Collier in the success of the projects,the county could reduce Parkway).Many of the LDC's ordinances are geared approval times and costs while increasing predictability in toward large-scale,planned-unit developments(PUDs) the review process in three steps: on greenfield sites. ■ Update regulations to encourage affordable housing Conversely,smaller scale redevelopment and infill sites development in desired areas. in already developed areas of the county are challeng- ing to consolidate,may need to address adjacent uses and neighborhood concerns,and often require additional Collier County,Florida,January 29–February 3,2017 25 density to make them financially feasible.Because of the buffer and landscape requirements,and other incentive- way that current codes are written,PUDs generally have based measures.In addition to the county's creating a been more predictable to entitle and have fewer barriers Smart Code,several LDC revisions could make it easier to obtaining funding.Although difficult to develop,projects to develop affordable dwelling units in urban portions of in the urban areas of the county can yield great benefits the county: by placing residents near existing transit,employment, shopping,and other daily needs and by reducing strain on • Reduce parking standards:Consider establishing existing infrastructure. standard percentage reductions in minimum parking requirements for urban portions of the county where Even though Collier County routinely amends portions there are more transit services,where opportunities exist of its LDC,consideration should be given to initiating to walk to shopping and employment,and where shared an effort to overhaul the code by implementing a Smart parking opportunities exist to promote efficient site Code,also known as a Unified Development Code(https:// design and reduce development costs.Typical parking transect.org/codes.html)to encourage the development standards for multifamily housing in more urban areas of affordable and mixed-income housing.Smart Codes range from 1 to 1.5 spaces per unit. are designed to differentiate between more urban and rural conditions that reflect the different characteristics • Create well-defined compatibility,building mass- and priorities found across the county.Unique standards ing,and buffer standards:The panel heard about for the different tiers of density encourage a more diverse several recent development applications in which corn development pattern while encouraging affordable housing patibiliiy with adjacent existing communities has fueled in a mixed use,pedestrian scaled environment.In a Smart distrust between existing neighborhoods and developers. Code framework,all regulatory standards are combined The conflicts are in part due to a lack of clear expecta into one streamlined document to prioritize environmental tions as to what is required by the LDC.For infill develop n protection,high-quality design,and compatibility with ment projects that include affordable housing,this lack of existing patterns of development. certainty causes an unnecessary burden on developers while at the same time residents have concerns about The focus of the urban tier should be to stimulate and property values and existing views.As an example,Okla- accommodate infill growth while encouraging affordable homa City created a development guide(http://planokc. housing,This focus can be accomplished through org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/planokc_Chap2_ residential density bonuses,mixed-use height bonuses, DevelopmentGuide.pdf;page 71)that focuses on urban reductions from parking requirements,modifications to design solutions for compatibility related to building scale and site design.It provides clear expectations to both the existing neighborhoods and developers as to what " should be expected when designing the site and massing of buildings.Those types of standards can also help set community expectations if it is determined that redeye!- ,e ;e_ — opment of nonfunctioning golf courses is appropriate. ° `,a1 4 tli Wry ''" ate' '47114_ � . 1'I'', - r�t r 1 ■ Permit guest houses as accessory dwelling rental — units:There are a number of existing guest homes,pre- The The Bayfront Naples dominantly in the eastern portions of the county and the development is an example Estates,that—if permitted to be used as rentals—could of successful and appropriate density and mixed use - have an immediate effect on the supply of affordable development in Collier County. aw 26 A till Advisory Services Panel Report rental housing.Additional rental income could also have in large PUDs,smaller infill sites in the western urban a positive effect for families who own the units.Although portions of the county need additional density to be effects on transportation,schools,and other facilities financially viable.This need was confirmed during the should be considered,these units have already been panel's interviews where developers consistently stated constructed,are occupied,or have been occupied in the that to provide affordable housing on site,the number of past.Making them legal to lease allows code enforce- residential units allowed per acre should be significantly ment to better regulate the units while limiting exploits- increased.For example,30 units per acre may be a tion of renters. more realistic maximum density to properly incentivize market-rate developers to provide affordable housing. Encourage smart-site infrastructure:According to In addition,to properly capitalize on infrastructure,mini- a number of interviewees,the panel heard that several mum densities should be provided for residential units onerous land development requirements add unneces- per acre.Bonus density is even more important given the sary expense to overall project costs.The requirements approximately 9 percent of unentitled land.Finally,the further exacerbate challenges to providing affordable AHDB program is logistically challenging for market-rate units in projects.Examples include requiring sidewalks builders to administer. on both sides of the street,right-of-way commitments, utility spacing,and other requirements that are more m Identify strategic opportunity sites:As illustrated burdensome to on-site development than are the neigh- in the map above,the panel also recommends that boring Lee County standards. the county consider further density increases in limited urban areas of the county such as the Bayshore Gateway Targst Certain Activity Centers for Significantly Triangle CRA where high-quality transit facilities along Higher Density with the Provision of Mixed- lncce Hnusinn transportation corridors are provided. Collier County currently has high concentrations of housing Streamline the Project Approval Prccrss when in particularly low-density areas of the county.A healthy Affordable Housing is Provided mixed-income community has higher densities to promote Land use decisions are largely decided by the five-member a walkable environment but not high concentrations of Board of County Commissioners(BoCC)by a super- low-income housing in one place.Mixed-income corn- majority rule.According to developers,land use attorneys, munities are a market-based approach and include diverse planners,and other land development professionals,a housing for people with a range of income levels.Mixed- great deal of uncertainty exists in knowing whether or not income communities are healthier than homogenous, a zoning application will be approved because it takes only low-income neighborhoods because they prevent blight, two board members to veto a project. For projects that in- support upward mobility,and help retain property values. dude affordable housing, this lack of certainty is a key im- The panel recommends the following two approaches to pediment to project viability.In addition,although all board achieve these goals: members are charged at looking at the county,no at-large Strengthen the Affordable Housing Density Bonus board members are specifically charged with overseeing (AHDB)Program:The current maximum residential regional and countywide issues.The panel recommends densities permitted in Collier County are generally 16 considering adding two at-large board members,making units per acre within specified activity centers of the the new BoCC a seven-member board,and reducing the county when affordable housing is provided(excluding super majority to a five-out-of-seven approval process. transfer of development rights opportunities).Although If adding new BoCC members is not feasible, the panel maximum buildout of density is frequently not achieved recommends reducing the super-majority requirement to a 27 Collier County,Florida,January 29—February 3,2017 • ,. Enhance Transportation Options 1/2\,\, 7„ i ,� Collier County,the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organiza- tion(MPO),and the city of Naples have done extensive ., , . ._ ry i .., : , - , public outreach and planning for alternative mobility op- tions in the county.From the Collier County Master Mobility Plan(2012)and MPO's Comprehensive Pathways Plan Pin-,k?id i e Road (2012),there are clear strategies and recommendations for enhancing transportation access across the county. In ad- a� _ dition,there are policy frameworks such as the complete - streets,the existingcommunitymovements includingthe �l ) 61b ei � Naples Pathways Coalition,the community Blue Zone,and v, - the various committees and task forces that are informing The panel created a € � �- T . ' a range of government entities.Those efforts have created conceptual framework to help an exemplary foundation of outreach and data to inform identify activity centers and transportation corridors with a _ r4% and to guide the implementation of a thorough alternative higher density of mixed-income housing development.Activity i .,,,_ Z'; transportation system. centers are denoted by red _ - - aU squares and transportation Such assets and engagements are critical in the context corridors by purple lines. '' :,:z; - s of housing affordability,because transportation costs simple-majority, which will provide greater certainty.For ex- and convenient,efficient access to jobs seriously affect ample,Hillsborough County,Florida,has a seven-member the attainability of housing and the overall viability of a board with three at-large board members. community.For instance,even if housing is affordable,the costs of transportation can outweigh the financial benefits Although there is an expedited construction permit review of those price points. process,the panel recommends this process be expanded to include comprehensive plan amendments and zon In addition,the very workforce that most directly benefits ing approvals.Comprehensive plan amendments could from accessible and efficient transportation systems also be reviewed concurrently with a zoning change for serves as the backbone of the Collier County economy: projects that include affordable housing.This change to thus,it relegates this workforce to commutes of several the project approval process could also be extended to hours or to life-threatening conditions(via bike and pedes include a concurrent processing of a zoning application trian commutes),and it inhibits this group's productivity and site plan.Consideration should be given to increasing and employment access.Whether it is a bank teller driving the number of administrative approvals that do not require to work in Naples,a landscaper riding his bike to a gated BoCC approval that will streamline the process and provide community,a waiter taking a bus to a local restaurant,or greater certainty. a teacher walking to a neighborhood school,the workforce of Collier County needs a range of transportation options Although not strictly related to incentivizing affordable that align with and support a range of housing choices in a housing,Fairfax County,Virginia,provides concurrent variety of areas. processing(see www.fcrevit.org/publicationsfdownload/ DevelopmentlnCRD_CRA.pdf)for comprehensive plan By enacting and implementing many of the recommenda amendments and zoning applications as an incentive for tions that the plans call for, not only will Collier County be a redevelopment of older areas of the county. more accessible community,but also it will be a healthier and more fiscally conservative area.As the aspirations and 28 A VU Advisory Services Panel Report Compreherurve Pathways Plan via -'I Ma5fe'tfuhihryPar °Or 1111 i a '1111L To enhance transportation,the panel recommends the adoption of many of the strategies and recommendations from the Collier County Master Mobility Plan(2012)and the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization Comprehensive Pathways Plan(2012). La [rti,we,.cu tenants of the Blue Zone Project espouse,active lifestyles 45 minutes.For transit riders dependent on a bus service are the key to healthy living.Providing a more integrated to get to work or to other services and the MPO's ameni- network of mobility not only provides workforce access ties,the infrequency of the service can make transporta- but also provides access to healthier lifestyles. In addition, tion and access an increased difficulty.For riders who with estimated road costs averaging$4.6 million per lane might have multiple stops or transfers,those headways mile, identifying proactive approaches that will reduce can change what would be a short car ride into an all- congestion and stress on roadways will save the county morning or all-evening commute. significant funds in the future. If directed effectively,however,the transit service can For all of those reasons,creating greater synergies be an extraordinary asset for the Collier County work- between housing and transportation decision making and force,potentially reducing the group's commute and investments is vital for Collier County.Although the panel car ownership costs.According to the Federal Highway applauds the efforts of past plans and initiatives,it strongly Administration(FHWA),the average American family recommends leveraging the engagement and resources spends 19 percent of its household budget on transporta- already in place to create a robust multimodal transporta- tion.For families that are in transit-efficient locations,this tion system that better connects labor,jobs,services,and cost decreases to 9 percent;for those in auto-dependent amenities to housing.It is time to act on the work of the communities,it increases to 25 percent.Thus,transporta- past several years and to implement. tion costs can directly add or subtract substantial funds from families'household budgets,thereby increasing cost In keeping with the plans and efforts mentioned previously, burdens or providing more flexibility in household budgets. the panel recommends that Collier County specifically pursue and prioritize the following recommendations in an In light of the budget realities,the panel recommends implementation phase. implementing the recommendations of past planning efforts and aligning affordable housing investments and Integrate Bus Routes with Affordable Housing bus routes to the greatest extent possible,specifically Locations considering and including the following: Currently,the average headway(the average interval of time between buses pausing at a given stop on a route)in ■ Identify transportation corridors for multifamily Collier County is 1.5 hours,with the shortest headway at development:In keeping with best practices from corn- Collier County,Florida,January 29—February 3,2017 29 munities such as Charlotte,North Carolina,Collier County should identify specific corridors that connect to major Case Study: Arlington County, job centers and that incentivize specific zones for further Virginia multifamily development.By linking residential growth to In Virginia,Arlington County's Special Affordable the transit system,the county will relieve stress on the Housing Protection District(SAHPD)identifies transportation system by encouraging transit ridership neighborhoods with existing affordable housing within and by creating more effective commutes for the work- the county's metro corridors.The goal of the SAHPD force in affordable locations. is to retain affordable housing opportunities(through preservation or replacement)in the county's high-cost • Implement park-and-ride systems:Park-and-ride transit corridors.In instances where redevelopment is is a term that describes a traffic management practice proposed within those districts,developers can achieve where drivers leave their cars in parking lots of identified higher densities if they include one-for-one replacement commercial centers(typically on the outskirts of urban of existing affordable housing as part of their project. areas)and travel to the job or employment centers on (One-for-one replacement has been interpreted as replacing the number of bedrooms or the gross floor public transportation.Given the significant footprint of area on a one-for-one basis.)Replacement can occur development across the county,as well as the potential either on site or at a similar location off site. for additional neighborhoods such as Ave Maria develop- ing in the rural lands area,working with commercial centers to create a park-and-ride system would take the region to directly connect tourism workers to key congestion pressure off the internal traffic corridors areas of the city,including downtown and the Strip.Not and would provide workers living in outlying areas with only is the service successful,but also it is widely used simpler commutes to job centers.Already,circulator by the workforce to access jobs and housing. routes provided by the Collier Area Transit System(CATS) provide circulator services to and from major commercial Enhance Bike Lane and Pedestrian Systems centers,like the Super Walmart.The panel recommends According to the Collier County MPO's 2014 Pedestrian consideration be given to enhancing, modifying,and and Bicycle Safety Study—a complementary report to the marketing those routes as park-and-ride opportunities.In 2012 Comprehensive Pathways Plan—a survey of 478 addition,the Florida Department of Transportation(FDOT) respondents resulted in 62 percent reporting that they already operates many park-and-ride facilities across the had felt"threatened for personal safety during bicycling state,thus facilitating vanpool and carpool options. or walking trips."For Collier County to reduce transporta- tion road costs,effectively move the workforce across the • Explore bus rapid transit and express service lines: community,and create healthy avenues for residents to Recognizing that there are specific areas of greater trap- engage in civic activities,this number must be mitigated sit ridership,CATS should explore the creation of either and the recommendations of both studies should be bus rapid transit or express routes to link specific areas advanced.Steps toward this goal include the following: to job centers via an express,limited-stop route.This approach is in keeping with the effective best practices • Implement the Comprehensive Pathways Plan for that CATS has already established around many of its the county:Advancing the thorough recommendations bus lines.The opportunity now is to enhance what is in of past studies is a meaningful next step in this process, place and to create demand-driven transportation lines but specific prioritization should be given to the"crash serving workers.Las Vegas,another tourism dependent corridors"and"crash clusters"identified in the safety economy with a wide geographic footprint,has imple- analysis. mented bus rapid transit and express service lines across 30 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Establish Sustainable,Secure Revenue for Transit . i and Alternative Mobility . CATS is serving an increasingly vital need in the county as workforce demands intensify and traffic concerns grow. I 111 However,if the service is going to be able to keep up with the demands already placed on it,a critical element is that the service has a sustainable source of revenue it can leverage and depend on.Given the expenses of highways ($4.6 million per lane mile),prioritizing proactive invest- ments in transit today could save the county significant An example of the successful and well-used bike lane infrastructure funds in the future.In addition,given the growing bike and along 15th Street,a major downtown corridor in Washington,D.C. pedestrian needs of the county and the multitude of com- munity benefits that those amenities provide,a revenue • Enhance safety for transit mobility:The recommen- source should also be identified and provided for such dations of the 2014"Safety Study"should be prioritized additional capacity. and funding should be allocated for the full implementa- tion of key safety issues,including continuing educa- Create Ride-Sharing Option tion for traffic engineers and law enforcement officers, With smartphone apps and online connectivity,fantastic application of the FHWA's bike and pedestrian best and successful tools for ride sharing are available that practices,and continued integration of best practices in can be conveniently and affordably accessed.The county engineering design.In addition,the panel recommends should explore promoting such resources and working with addressing lighting,street signage,and public awareness nonprofits to promote convenient ride-sharing options for for bicyclists and pedestrians. populations living in more suburban or remote areas,like the Estates,Ave Maria,or Immokalee.The New Orleans • Hire a bike and pedestrian coordinator for the Regional Planning Commission sponsors one such ride- county and leverage expertise at FDOT:To take full share platform,the New Orleans GreenRide,which uses a advantage of the recommendations and work already social media platform to connect riders and carpoolers. completed,a specialized coordinator should be hired at the county level to advance bicycle and pedestrian priori- ties,including reviewing future roadway projects for bike Enhance Wages and pedestrian enhancements and safety considerations. For several decades,middle-and lower-middle-class In New Orleans,a bike and pedestrian coordinator was wages across the United States essentially have been able to advance the implementation of more than 100 stagnant while housing costs have risen significantly.This miles of on-and off-road bike lanes after the project trend has resulted in increased pressure on affordability was embedded in the local Department of Public Works of housing.One effective option to address this issue is through a grant from the local utility company and sup- to increase wages.The panel has identified two possible port from the Louisiana Public Health Institute. options for Collier County. Collier County,Florida,January 29—February 3,2017 31 Denver Transit-Oriented Development Fund The Denver Transit-Oriented Development Fund was - established in 2010 with$13.5 million in debt capital to == create and preserve affordable housing along current and future transit corridors in the city and county of Denver. iii=. In 2014,the fund was expanded to serve the surrounding l'i { seven-county region and is now capitalized at$24 million. r; aiu11 Borrowers may use funds to purchase,hold(for up to five 'i "' •"' u years),and develop sites within a half mile of fixed-rail P f!�'�' transit stations or a quarter mile of high-frequency bus stops.The fund has closed 11 transactions totaling - nearly$16 million,with a pipeline of more than 900 - permanently affordable units and more than 150,000 Denver's new Regional Transportation District rail system has o square feet of commercial and community space.Returns eight rail lines servicing 53 stations along the north,east, to capital providers(public agencies,foundations,financial southeast,southwest,and west rail corridors. institutions,and community development financial institutions)are generally 2 to 6 percent. can have a profound impact on its ability to afford housing Rrt,uO�1u -\Nnivc r,„�,ise�t,.� 0 within the community. o . NRIDE Home GreenRMe7morlat Second,the panel recommends instituting enhanced • minimum wage ordinances.Several U.S.cities including ^. Metro New Orleans G ° '•a w Albuquerque,New Mexico; Flagstaff,Arizona;Malibu, S+a n�f 7-nir esmple `w Melia N:ra C lanns ;;etnRAe s cal***?r f, '.' -a California;Miami Beach,Florida;Portland,Maine;and fieconnect commuters Olt carpoNrrratObaa Washington,D.C., have attempted to address the issue �1'L-+tta!k iMlf•M1R IOS N:d rnnvnn[M� ,,i,..cost vamp u.i senxenone ntluctlone .. .,. of housing affordability this way and are seeing positive "^ results. In virtually all cases,the ordinances call for a mod UkLlflg J:s qule"no Abe'�' 9 est immediate increase in the minimum wage followed by nal and acyl': n,-,11ane e, a series of incremental steps spread over a period of three 'i Won In or Resister to five years that ultimately lead to a mandated minimum wage of$13 to$15 per hour. wt.,.ft worth? Ready.Ser_Co. .":::” 'm ` " �.'° '� Engage, Market, and Educate ..7:',;=r7 ...� fr..aa« .r-wear " nxaa.rw.e«reiar ca,wi �: Beyond moving ideas into action, education and com- munication also are critical pieces of a comprehensive and EA— !ip tt,iW Mal,liux] '. successful strategy for implementing housing affordability. Metro New Orleans GreenRide First,government employees are one of the largest groups If one is to combat the often false and confusing myths links commuters with carpool matches in the New Orleans affected by housing affordability issues in Collier County. regarding what affordable housing is,what it might look metropolitan region. On the basis of cost burden for this group,the panel rec- like,and what unintended consequences it might create, ommends the county consider enhancing wages for county it is crucial to educate the entire community about the full employees.Even modest increases in salary for this group range of benefits that a balanced supply of housing brings, 32 A VII Advisory Services Panel Report /'e\ to raise awareness,and to make affordable housing a vis- 'n"' DD... ible problem to everyone. „ .1,-41 11,ireN ae, ert ENVISIONING p i tir East New York r Starrett City ❑ ,, Bolster Existing Programs and Processes AllELOP 1'E TI' : / • n..n2010� • LKIT �4� m.•.. .911 The county government has already developed an afford- • WHAT IS s -- able housing database that tracks for-sale and rental units AFFORDABLE t-_. / throughout the county.However,the panel recommends HOUSING? :-7 enhancing this database to include and track new units _ . •'` �J +.„- _, y coming online and to include their sunset dates so that the ,. New York ----,� county has a clear understanding of the supply of afford ' . able units in real time. �.�. '"`"° ' 4.* , This information should include comprehensive details, •°+,/ rte,•""' including addresses,bedroom sizes,square footage,rental r tr rates,for-sale rates,and neighborhood location.An en- 9 .... hanced database will also help ensure that the community '-'1"/".: has a credible source of real-time information that shows : ',•. l 1...s. that affordability is spread throughout the county and not — . • 1 r concentrated in any one district. • ` �. :ar ` By improving existing housing information online,the 4, ,e0.m, county will create a robust information portal for exist- '' /---., ing and prospective residents to learn about the county's housing programs and any workshops or events related number of plans and technical recommendations,but un- The Center for Urban Pedagogy less theyare beingcommunicated to the public at large in created an online map to help to housing in the county,ensuring that residents have the g educate users on the many right information to make housing decisions. a clear and concise manner that is understandable by all, facets of affordable housing and to allow them to explore the such efforts will go nowhere. income demographics of any The panel also recommends that existing housing applica- New York City neighborhood, tions are streamlined for residents and handled directly by To start,the panel recommends that the county develop the county instead of by individual developers.During the a comprehensive marketing and communications plan panel's review,it heard from the development community that appeals to a wide variety of audiences:the current that developers are responsible for accepting income veri- and potential residents,the business community,the local fication applications,which they are simply not qualified to community organizations,and the proven donors within the manage.This process should be administered either by the community.The plan needs to appeal to people who are county or an administrator managed by the county,such seeking housing,to people who support housing afford- as a private or nonprofit lender. ability,and to those who are skeptics.The message should be tailored around those three key audiences and the Ian- Raise Awareness and Communicate with the guage used should be culturally sensitive,age appropriate, Entire Community and multilingual.Ideally,the strategies will include written, Although the links between housing affordability and verbal,and visual approaches. communications may not be immediately obvious,public awareness,communication,and an overall education cam- The key to the program's success is the hiring of a cre- paign can help ensure that ongoing efforts around housing ative,community outreach specialist.This person should affordability succeed.The panel has seen a tremendous be a full-time county employee and engaged in public Collier County,Florida,January 29—February 3,2017 33 n 1,,.l ,., Seekers of affordable housing.Building on an enhanced M online inventory discussed earlier,the panel also recom- t mends the county create an affordable housing directory t t, 1 for those residents seeking housing.The directory will list _... both rental and for-sale opportunities and will draw from the county's live online database.However,because not .411 One of the many community "� iir everyone is comfortable with(or has access to)the Internet, Villt workshops conducted in the the panel recommends two options for this database: Park View and Pleasant Plains neighborhoods in Washington, la t .---.--. ■ A web-based platform,and D.C.,as part of the community a engagement video project SEE/ , CHANGE DC. ■ A printed document that is updated periodically(e.g., meetings,neighborhood events,and other aspects of quarterly). countywide community engagement.The key to com- The panel understands that a housing resources guide is munity outreach is for it to occur where people already already in place,but it recommends including a resource are.People will not go out of their way to go to those types guide that is for first-time homebuyers and that includes of meetings;the meetings must be brought to them.For information about housing assistance for downpayment example,the outreach specialist should hold the same programs, information about renters'assistance,and workshop on three different dates and times to ensure information about other community resources available to those with atypical work schedules can still participate and the public.The purpose is not only to provide information be engaged. about how someone can afford housing,but also to provide Create a Residential Toolkit information in a way that allows people to become engaged in the community and connected with their community. The county should create a residential toolkit to address three constituencies:seekers of affordable housing, In addition,the panel strongly recommends the county supporters of affordable housing,and skeptics of employ a housing counselor or expand existing housing affordable housing. counselors'current responsibilities.The housing coun- 11x.. 'W. \ , \lilt i___„, 3 \ 4. 4,20 -- 4 . x.:. The panel recommends that Collier County think creatively about - if" 4 community engagement,marketing,and education strategies. _ Volunteer programs such as planting projects related to new housing developments and YIMBY(yes in my backyard)campaigns are great - ways to raise awareness of and to engage the larger community in housing affordability issues. "` ' .•••\ 34 A Ut.i Advisory Services Panel Report I selor should collaborate with the community engagement Supporters of affordable housing.Collier County is specialist and other relevant county employees to create privileged to have an engaged and effective philanthropic a robust educational program around what cost burden community, But the county needs to figure out how to get means.Also,it is essential for the housing counselor to the group involved in affordable housing issues.The panel develop programs and resources around household bud- recommends partnering with the philanthropic community geting and wealth creation that will help residents improve around specific fundraising campaigns,such as spe- their financial management. cific housing development projects or facade or exterior improvement programs. In addition,the county should Case Study: SEE/CHANGE DC Though not specifically about housing,SEE/CHANGE DC is an example How:SEE/CHANGE DC is part of OP's comprehensive creative of a successful,creative,community engagement project to encourage placemaking initiative:"Crossing the Street:Building DC's Inclusive Future community building and foster dialogue about rapid neighborhood through Creative Placemaking"grant from the Kresge Foundation.The change.Something similar in Collier County could help create discussion grant is intended to"promote community-building in neighborhoods that about housing and community and could give greater visibility to housing are experiencing rapid demographic and social change,to engage affordability challenges. residents in conversations about the future of the District as OP embarks on an update of D.C.'s Comprehensive Plan,and to demonstrate or test What it is:The video art project puts a human face on how population select placemaking recommendations articulated in OP's neighborhood change and revitalization are affecting two Washington,D.C., neighborhoods:Park View and Pleasant Plains. plans and District Department of Transportation transit corridor studies and livability studies."In December 2015,OP released a request for When:During fall 2016,video portraits of community members were applications seeking qualified curators and project managers to work projected in storefronts and on street corners along a main corridor— with OP and other District and community stakeholders to define and Georgia Avenue,N.W.,in the Park View and Pleasant Plains neighborhoods. implement temporary creative placemaking projects.Curators were selected in early 2016 and projects,such as SEE/CHANGE DC,were Who:SEE/CHANGE DC was imagined and produced by the Pink Line implemented during 2016. Project+Citizen Innovation Lab,created by Composite Co.and BellVisuals, and funded by the D.C.Office of Planning(OP)and the Kresge Foundation. For further information,see www.seechangedc.com. SEE/CHANGE DC is a creative video project that uses community engagement as it inspires community building and fosters conversation about neighborhood change. `:.4ek, 1 - ditto, --IP c.the sfreet ;r • Meet ref neighbors d- gip- Collier County,Florida,January 29–February 3,2017 35 partner with the philanthropic community to develop fun help debunk myths and perceptions related to negative and creative community volunteer projects and programs implications that are often falsely associated with afford- to raise awareness and bring the community together. able housing(e.g.,increased traffic,crime and density,de- Examples include planting projects related to new housing pressed property values). In addition,creating a workhouse developments,public art initiatives, "welcome wagon" media campaign could be another valuable approach to programs,and"yes in my backyard"(YIMBY)campaigns. community-wide education about housing affordability and Those types of programs can go a long way toward bring- whom it affects. ing the community together. Skeptics of affordable housing.Do not leave out the skeptics of affordable housing.The panel recommends creating a"myths and facts"brochure(available in a printed format and on the county's housing website)to 36 A Acv:scily conclusion IT IS THE OPINION OF THE PANEL that Collier Coun- economy?Does the county want to limit growth,or does it ty absolutely has a housing affordability problem.It is not want to embrace it?Regardless of the answers,it is—in a crisis yet,but if housing is not addressed,the panel be- the panel's opinion—essential that the county address the lieves that it will become a crisis.Given the growth projec- issue of housing affordability.This approach needs to be tions for the county,the panel believes this problem will a priority.Housing affordability is essential to creating and occur far sooner than expected. maintaining a vibrant,sustainable community. All of the panel's recommendations are intended to help Although the county may well have some time to imple- the city and the county provide housing that is affordable ment the panel's recommendations,time is of the essence. for the full range of incomes found within the community. Failure to act now will put at risk the very things that make Collier County so special.Maintaining paradise is both a First and foremost,the panel believes the county needs privilege and an obligation. to immediately come to a consensus and establish a clear vision for the county about how to move forward.Does the county want to remain a community that primarily relies on tourism and retirement,or does it want to diversify its Collier County,Florida,January 29–February 3,2017 37 Appendix A: Implementation Schee 11 Implementation Schedule Added Supply Regulation and Governance Communication and Education Strategies Short Term Review existing land inventory for possible Draft additions to the Land Develop- Develop inventory of affordable housing affordable housing development sites, ment Code(LDC)and the Growth units and update regularly. 0 to 3 years including commercial sites for conversion. Management Plan to include inclu- sionary zoning and expand expedited Develop a marketing and communications Develop a cross-agency strategy to permit review process for all affordable plan. consider other public facilities. projects. Employ a housing counselor. Identify and vet funding sources to Permit guest houses as rental units. reinstate Housing Trust Fund(HTF). Expand and enhance educational Revise the LDC to include a smart code programs to that makes it easier to create mixed ®Explain housing affordability income developments. m Explain cost burden Identify strategic opportunity sites for density increases such as the ■Assist residents(renters and homeowners) Bayshore Gateway Triangle in household budgeting. Community Development Area. Create an expedited and/or concurrent comprehensive zoning plan approval process.Offer administrative approvals for certain applications. Medium Term Implement an inclusionary zoning program. Plan for additional increased density in Continue to refine and update affordable certain activity centers with the provi- housing inventory. 3 to 5 years Implement an expanded fee waiver/ sion of mixed-income housing. deferral program. Update and refresh the marketing and Add at-large Board of County Commis- communications plan as needed. Fund HTF to take advantage of other sioners members and/or reduce the financing vehicles(LIHTC,AHP,etc.)to super-majority rule. Update and refresh educational tools and support affordable housing development. programming as needed. Develop a process for commercial-to- Review and refine resources and tools residential conversions. available to the housing counselor. Long Term Conduct an annual review of HTF levels Continuously review and monitor the Continuously review and monitor affordable and report on fund expenditures. LDC and revisions,strategic opportu- housing inventory,marketing and com- 5 to 10+years nity sites,and updated comprehensive munications plan,and educational tools and Adjust the inclusionary zoning program to zoning plan approval process to ensure programming,as well as resources and tools balance the needs of residents with those that the desired goal of increasing the available to the housing counselor,to ensure of developers and the current market. availability of affordable housing is that the goal of increasing the availability of Continuously review and monitor inclusion- being met. affordable housing is being met. ary zoning program,expanded fee waiver/ deferral program,and commercial-to- residential conversions process to ensure that the goal of increasing the availibility of affordable housing is being met. 38 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Appendix B: Examples of County Housing Initiatives Private funding for housing development and services: Helping low-income families access opportunity neighbor- Santa Clara County,California(www.housingtrustsv.org/) hoods:King County,Washington(https://www.kcha.org/ about/education/) Mobilizing owners and resources to preserve existing affordable units:Cook County,Illinois(www.preservation- Inclusionary zoning:Palm Beach County,Florida(https:// compact.org/) uli.org/larson-policy-awards/robert-c-larson-award- finalists-palm-beach-county-florida/) Utilizing publicly controlled real estate to support mixed- income development:Arlington County,Virginia(https:// projects.arlingtonva.us/plans-studies/land-use/public- land/) Collier County,Florida,January 29—February 3,2017 39 Appendix C: City of Austin, 2014 Robert C. Larson PolicyLeadership Award Winner „,„ . ROBERT C.LARSON HOUSING POLICY ` , Pfl : �; AWARDS— lY 2014 WINNER ORGANIZATION City of Austin,Texas YEAR OF IMPLEMENTATION 2000 AFFORDABILITY City of Austin 100 percent of units affordable to households at or below 80 percent of median family income(MFI), Austin, Texas, has adopted a multifaceted approach to with 12 percent serving house- holds at 30-50 percent of MFI address the challenges of providing affordable housing NUMBER OF UNITS PRODUCED in the vibrant and steadily growing city. Outstanding 18,406 programs include a voter-approved bond program and WEBSITE a city ordinance to incentivize the development of nttpilhousingworksaustin.org/ www.austintexas.gov/departmenU affordable housing. These efforts have yielded 18,406 imagineaustin units since 2000. Austin(pop.885,000),the capital of Texas,is a national leader in job creation,education,and research,and offers residents a high quality of life with an array of recreational and cultural amenities.Over the past two decades,in the face of rapid and steady population growth attracted to the city,Austin has also encountered corresponding increases in residential rents and home prices.To overcome the resulting squeeze on affordable housing for low-income households,Austin has pursued a multifaceted package of housing programs.These tools include the Housing Trust Fund,the Housing Bond Program,developer incentives, public/private partnerships,and impact statements. • Housing Trust Fund(2000).Since 2000,the Austin City Council has directed$8.8 million in local funds to the Housing Trust Fund(HTF). The city dedicates to the fund 40 percent of incremental tax revenues derived from private sector developments built on designated city- Terwilligef Center for Housing owned property. 40 A till Advisory Services Panel Report • Housing Bond Program(2006).When 63 percent of voters approved an allocation of$55 million,Austin for the first time in its history used general obligation bond funding for affordable housing.Through May 2012,the Housing Bond Program had created or retained 3,055 housing units,of which 73 percent are affordable to households earning 30 to 50 percent of MFI. DEVELOPER INCENTIVES "Because of GO Bond funding, • S.M.A.R.T.HousingTM(2000).S.M.A.R.T.Housing the City of Austin has reaped is an incentive program designed to encourage direct and indirect benefits accessible,mixed-income development by providing development fee waivers and an including increased income expedited review process for developers who set (through wages), increased local aside 10 percent of housing units as affordable taxes(both property and sales), (S.M.A.R.T.stands for Safe,Mixed-income, and increased local jobs." Accessible,Reasonably priced,and Transit oriented.)Units must also meet the Austin Energy Green Building Program minimum energy efficiency Betsy Spencer rating.The program has produced 15,351 units Director, City of Austin affordable to households earning 80 percent of MFI Neighborhood Housing or less. and Community Development • Vertical Mixed Use(2007).Commercial design .—. standards provide a density bonus and parking standards exemptions in exchange for 10 percent of housing units in mixed-use developments being designated as affordable.These units must be maintained as affordable for 40 years for rental,and 99 years for ownership.The program has produced 41 units to date. • University Neighborhood Overlay(2004).A density bonus and entitlements are provided to developers who set aside housing as affordable in the University of Texas at Austin campus area. f Two tiers of affordability are required-10 percent of units for households earning at or below 80 percent of MFI,and 10 percent of units for households at or below 65 percent of MFI. kik To date, 117 units have been constructed at 50 percent of MFI,ten at 65 percent of MFI, and 357 units at 80 percent of MR. ra . • The Downtown Density Bonus Program (2013)and the East Riverside Corridor Program(2013).Height-density bonus • t programs encourage production of affordable Collier County,Florida,January 29-February 3,2017 41 housing in downtown Austin and in a neighborhood recommended for a future high-capacity transit route. • Transit-Oriented Development(2009).Affordable housing goals have been established through individual station-area plans for areas within a half mile of the Capital Metro commuter rail stations.The overall goal is for 25 percent of all new housing units in the transit-oriented development areas to be occupied by households earning at or below 80 percent of MFI for homeownership or at or below 60 percent of MFI for rental. PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS • Robert Mueller Municipal Airport Redevelopment (1996-present).In a key public/private partnership for the city,the Mueller development when complete will have about 1,200 housing units affordable for households earning at or below 80 percent of Austin's MFI for ownership and 60 percent of MFI for rental. • Private Developer Agreements—Case by Case.The city continues to negotiate the inclusion of affordable "Austin's commitment to providing housing in development agreements with market-rate affordable housing is strong, and developers to bring affordability into developments that our citizens expect the City of otherwise would be unaffordable to low-and moderate- income households.These units must remain affordable Austin to take action on this through 2020. �1 critical issue. I believe Austin's affordable housing bond votes IMPACT STATEMENTS were successful in 2O06 and 2013 • Affordability Impact Statements(2000).Required by Austin's S.M.A.R.T.Housing TM ordinance,an affordability because Austinites wanted to see impact statement(AIS)is prepared by a city staff member affordable housing in all parts of for all proposed city code amendments,ordinances,and our city and believe we all benefit other proposed changes to identify any potential impacts on housing affordability.To date,Austin has issued more from providing affordable housing for low income families" than 150 affordability impact statements. Austin's multifaceted approach to meeting the city's need for Mandy DeMayo affordable housing—from zoning to streamlining development HousingWorks Austin approvals,transit,and green construction—provides an Austin,Texas effective way to consider housing needs in a variety of contexts.While individual programs have an impact,it is the combination of tools that is most powerful,reflecting commit- ted leadership from the city as well as the willingness of Austin residents to step up and vote for bonds for affordable housing. For more information about the Terwilliger Center Awards.see www.ulforg/terwilligeraward. 42 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report r.. About the Panel Philip Payne Sustainability.He is a member of the National Multifamily Housing Council. Panel Chair Charlotte,North Carolina Payne received a BS and a JD degree from the College of William&Mary in Virginia.He has written for various pub- For more than 25 years,Payne's primary focus has been lications and spoken at numerous conferences on a variety the development,acquisition,rehabilitation,and manage of topics including real estate investment trusts,securi- ment of middle market(workforce)multifamily housing. ties regulations,finance,workforce housing,responsible During his career,Payne has been involved in more than $4 billion in multifamily related transactions. property investing,sustainability,and resilience. Payne is currently the chief executive officer of Ginkgo Hilary Chapman Residential,which was formed in July 2010.Ginkgo provides property management services for multifamily Washington,D.C. properties in the southeastern United States and is actively Chapman is the housing program manager for the Met- involved in the acquisition and substantial rehabilitation of ropolitan Washington Council of Governments(COG).At middle market multifamily properties.He is a principal in COG,Chapman collaborates with regional leaders to solve Ginkgo Investment Company,which was formed in July the challenges of homelessness and affordable housing 2013 and which invests in multifamily properties in the and provides research and analysis to support local hous- southeastern United States.From 2007 to 2010,Payne ing policy and practice using a regional solutions-based served as the CEO of Babcock&Brown Residential.Before framework. joining Babcock&Brown Residential,he was the chair of BNP Residential Properties Trust,a publicly traded real As the lead staff person for two technical committees on estate investment trust that was acquired by Babcock housing and homelessness,Chapman collaborates with &Brown Ltd.—a publicly traded Australian investment COG's other departments to integrate housing consider- bank—in February 2007. ations into related fields of health,transportation,and the environment.In her role as lead staff person for the Home- In addition to his duties at Ginkgo,Payne is a member of less Services Committee,she helps coordinate the annual the board of directors of Ashford Hospitality Trust,a New regional homeless enumeration that takes place during the York Stock Exchange—listed real estate investment trust last week of January each year,and she is the principal that is focused on the hospitality industry. author of the committee's findings,"Homelessness in Payne is a trustee and governor of the ULI. He is a mem Metropolitan Washington." ber of ULI's Responsible Property Investing Council(found- Chapman collaborates with COG's housing and planning ing chair);is a former cochair of the Institute's Climate, partners,serving as an advisory board member for the Land Use,and Energy Committee;and currently serves Northern Virginia Affordable Housing Alliance,a participant as a member of the advisory board for ULI's Center for and convener of the Greater Washington Housing Leaders Group,and a planning member for the Housing Association Collier County,Florida,January 29—February 3,2017 43 r–� of Nonprofit Developers'annual meeting.She participated administration from Anderson University,and a bachelor's in the ULI Washington's Regional Land Use Leadership degree from Kalamazoo College.He has been a member Institute and is active in ULI's Housing Initiative Council. of ULI since 2012 and participates on the Urban Revitaliza- She also volunteers weekly at a program site in the District tion Product Council. of Columbia with the Homeless Children's Playtime Project. Before joining COG,Chapman spent nearly a decade as an JoAnne Fiebe affordable housing developer,working with public housing Tampa,Florida authorities nationally primarily through the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development's HOPE VI program to Fiebe is a research faculty member and adjunct instruc- redevelop its most distressed housing units.She had direct tor at the Florida Center for Community Design and responsibility for the construction of more than 250 afford- Research—a statewide research center at the University able housing units and the planning and financing of more of South Florida's School of Architecture and Community than 1,000 more.She also served the government of the Design.Through her work at the Florida Center, Fiebe District of Columbia as a Capital City Fellow. provides design expertise,performs applied research,and manages community engagement programs to address Chapman holds a master's degree in city planning from urban challenges related to the built environment. the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an under- graduate degree in sociology from the College of William Fiebe has 13 years of experience in both the public and and Mary in Virginia. private sectors while managing a range of urban design and planning projects.Before coming to the Florida Center, she worked for the Fairfax County Office of Community Ian Colgan Revitalization on long-range planning,economic develop- Oklahoma City, Oklahoma ment,and policy for transit-oriented development districts in the Washington,D.C.,metro area.Her previous experi- Colgan is the assistant executive director of the Oklahoma ence included managing entitlements for large residential City Housing Authority,one of the largest public housing and mixed-use projects at several development firms. For authorities in the country with 3,100 public housing units the past seven years,she has served on the board of a and more than 4,000 housing choice vouchers.Colgan nonprofit urban design collaborative,the Urban Char- leads all real estate development,planning,and policy rette,which cultivates knowledge of leading urban design initiatives for the authority. practices to build vibrant cities.She also teaches graduate He was previously the assistant planning director for courses at the University of South Florida about city plan- Oklahoma City,where he spearheaded the production ning and sustainable urban development. of the city's Comprehensive Plan, Downtown Planning Fiebe earned her degrees in architecture from the Uni- Framework,and several commercial district plans,as well versity of Miami and a master's of urban and community as the creation of two new tax increment finance districts. design from the University of South Florida,where she also Colgan was also formerly principal with Development worked at the Center for Urban Transportation Research Concepts Inc.,a redevelopment consulting firm that is and coauthored a study on transit and bicycle lanes. based in Indianapolis, Indiana,where he prepared market She has been published in the Transportation Research based studies and redevelopment plans for communities Board and in the National Civic Review,and her research throughout the Midwest and Southeast. was cited in the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide.In Colgan holds a master's degree in urban planning from the her career,Fiebe has led more than 20 public planning University of Washington,a master's degree in business projects including over a dozen community engagement 44 A t!!9 Advisory Services Panel Report charrettes.She participated in ULI's Regional Land Use innovative transportation,land use,and housing policy and and Leadership Institute and was a resource team member advocacy campaign.She has branding and communica- for two Mayor's Institute for City Design programs.She is tions experience from several years living and working a member of the American Planning Association and the abroad in both Auroville,India,and in Paris,France.She Urban Land Institute,is LEED accredited,and is a certified is an active member of the Junior League of New Orleans, charrette planner. a board member of the public transit advocacy organiza- tion RIDE New Orleans,an alumna of the 2016 Emerging Lacy McManus Philanthropist of New Orleans class,and a lead mentor to entrepreneurs in the Propeller small business incubator. New Orleans,Louisiana As the director of program development for Greater New McManus holds a bachelor's degree from the University of Orleans(GNO)Inc.—the economic development alli- Georgia's Grady School of Journalism,a master's degree ance for the ten-parish New Orleans region—McManus in global communications from the American University of is responsible for relationships and for the coordination Paris,and a master's degree in business administration between product and business development.McManus from Tulane University. has positioned the organization's workforce and environ- mental and resilience initiatives as catalysts for wealth generation in southeast Louisiana.In this role,she acts John Orfield • as a liaison between GNO Inc.and private philanthropies, Dallas, Texas business community stakeholders,government agencies, and nonprofit partners to ensure that GNO Inc.'s programs Orfield is both the product and a proponent of the ^ create a thriving regional economy. collaborative style that BOKA Powell exemplifies.The 40-year-old planning and design firm,which is based in Specifically, McManus oversees GNO Inc.'s Coalition for Dallas,specializes in corporate and commercial office, Coastal Resilience and Economy,a business-led advocacy higher education, hospitality,urban living,and senior living. campaign for holistic coastal restoration in south Louisi- A LEED-accredited professional,Orfield is an expert in ana.She also coordinates GNO's workforce development urban planning and sustainability.His 35 years of design programs,including an award-winning outreach series experience includes landmark workplace,academic,luxury to local educators,as well as ongoing engagements with hotel,and residential projects across the United States regional higher-education institutions. In 2015,she worked and Mexico. with the state of Louisiana and New Orleans to bring in more than$233 million in resilience funds to the region Growing up in an artistically inclined family,Orfield devel- through the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban De- oped an interest in exploring the kinship between archi velopment's National Disaster Resilience Competition.On tecture,film,and dance—art forms he sees as related in the federal front,McManus serves on GNO's policy team their portrayal of human experience moving through space advancing reauthorization of the National Flood Insur and time.He has sought out collaborative environments ante Program through the Coalition for Sustainable Flood or created them on the spot in design firms and universi- Insurance.She also represents GNO on the Housing NOLA ties from New York to Indianapolis to Mexico City.Orfield Leadership Team and CONNECT Coalition. considers every project a partnership,not only between the architect and the client,but also with the site itself. Before joining the GNO staff,McManus was the special He sees this contextual approach as one reason there is initiatives manager with the nonprofit organization the no recognizable BOKA Powell"style"—only spaces that Center for Planning Excellence,where she oversaw an Collier County,Florida,January 29–February 3,2017 45 benefit their surroundings as the result of a very intentional from 1984 to 1986,where he earned the Excellence in design process. Teaching award. He also held an appointment as a visiting professor at the Universidad de las Americas in Puebla, Orfield's recent projects include major projects for South Mexico,from 1994 to 1995. west Airlines,including the carrier's corporate headquar- ters master plan,the 1.1 million-square-foot"Wings" Office Building,the Flight Training Center and Garage,and Cassie Wright the 500,000-square-foot Training and Operations Support Denver, Colorado Center at Dallas's Love Field.Other projects include the Texas A&M West Campus student housing complex,which Wright is the project manager for Urban Ventures LLC,a is designed to accommodate 4,000 students in College real estate company that is dedicated to creating healthy, Station,Texas;the Venue at the Ballpark,which is a 241- sustainable communities. In her position,Wright works on unit apartment complex overlooking the Birmingham Bar all aspects of real estate development:from land acquisi ons ballpark;the Hotel Ajax,which is a boutique hotel and tion to project construction.She tests the financial feasibil condominium project in Telluride, Colorado;and multiple ity of projects,actively participates in the site planning and corporate and commercial office projects for Hillwood and design processes,develops marketing and sales related Cawley Partners in North Texas. materials,and closely interacts with project partners.In addition,Wright consults on real estate projects that focus Orfield's higher education portfolio includes more than on the relationship between the built environment and 5.5 million square feet of university architecture,including healthy living. In this role,she researches and implements student housing and academic buildings.He has designed best practices and health-based programming to foster corporate headquarters campuses for Accor,Daimler community development that promotes social cohesion Chrysler,Mercedes-Benz,and Computer Associates. and positive wellbeing. ,ice While a vice-president at Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf Inc.,he completed the iconic 400,000-square-foot Eli Lilly Currently,Wright is involved with the land development of Corporate Center in downtown Indianapolis. Aria Denver,a 17.5-acre,mixed-use, mixed-income project that will include more than 450 units and a commercial In 1996,Orfield joined Dallas-based architecture and plan- component.Upon completion,Aria Denver will promote ning firm HaldemanPowell+Partners.Now known as BOKA healthy living with community gardens,production farms,a Powell,he became a partner and owner in the practice in food-producing greenhouse,pocket parks,outdoor fitness 1999.Earlier,Orfield was a vice president at Indianapolis- equipment,and pathways integrated into the site.Aria based Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf Inc.from 1988 Denver is part of Cultivate Health,a partnership among to 1994.He worked in numerous architectural intern neighboring Regis University,the surrounding neighbor- positions in Houston,Texas;New Haven,Connecticut;and hoods,and more than a dozen nonprofit organizations. New York City, including an undergraduate internship with Funded in large part by the Colorado Health Foundation, Mitchell Giurgola.He earned a master's degree in archi- Cultivate Health is providing infrastructure enhancements tecture and building design from Columbia University in and programming that promote an active lifestyle,increase 1987.He earned his first bachelor's degree in architecture access to healthy food,and offer integrated health in 1980 and a second bachelor's of architecture in 1982 services.Wright is co-manager of the Colorado Health from Rice University in Houston. Foundation grant and is managing the implementation of A lifelong educator,Orfield was a member of the fac three major infrastructure projects(i.e.,production farms, ulty of the University of Houston College of Architecture improved bicycle facilities,and neighborhood wellness loop)that are included in the Cultivate Health initiative. 46 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Wright is also actively working on the Aria Cohousing proj- ect.Cohousing communities are intentional,collaborative neighborhoods that combine private homes and shared spaces.In cohousing,residents actively participate in the design and operation of their neighborhoods while sharing common facilities and good connections with neighbors. Aria Cohousing is the redevelopment of a 35,000-square- foot convent into 28 condominium units and shared community spaces including a community dining room, kitchen,multipurpose room,guest room,and sunroom. Finally,Wright is project manager for STEAM on the Platte, a 3.2-acre,mixed-use project in Denver's abandoned, industrial corridor along the Platte River.In its first phase,STEAM will feature the conversion of an existing 65,000-square-foot industrial warehouse into office space and the creation of a courtyard and promenade that con- nects to the river's edge. Wright holds a master's degree in city planning from the University of Pennsylvania and a bachelor's degree in soci- ology and anthropology from St.Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota.She serves on the nonprofit board for Soul Spring,as well as on the Mile High Connects Advisory Council. Collier County,Florida,January 29—February 3,2017 47 .._ \� .� 1 .....> ...,_ ,.. ,... ,.... »/ \, L ti k.\\\< %/\ \ l}\ 1 m . . .G \ 4. m@ LSe�W \ \» Washington,D 20036 `gym www.&Jq 0 Printed on recycled paper. U.S. Apartment Demand — A Forward Look ; ti o' vv,i4 a-'' 'll�1111! �„ €- 1 al . No - _ '-4?_,,,-.,„_ ' 1,1111Ni ot. --,,,,, - ill U k. Ir 1 ( q� Iry R � , fl 1 11 f� fi i fly 3ma im 1 I ,I( a © , ..._ ill' " ( ,,I,d.:4,Il um 1 pp gi_TI:,0 ' ��' p r I if '; ( .° i I - ..--- ‘'•0 i If .. ,s, h � � t;. a ..-' m 11 NATIONAL MULTIFAMILY A A HOUSING ' In COUNCIL NATIONAL APARTMENT ASSOCIATION Prepared by: Hoyt Advisory Services, Dinn Focused Marketing, Inc. and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors, LLC May 2017 Estimating the Total U.S. Demand for Rental Housing Table of Contents Page Executive Summary 3 U.S. Rental Demand 5 Estimating U.S. Population 5 Estimating U.S. Households 8 Total Housing Demand 14 Home Ownership Rates and Rental Demand 19 U.S. Rental Housing Demand 24 Rental Demand for Institutional Investment 26 Other Rental Property Types 28 Scenario Analyses 30 National Trends Worth Watching 32 Conclusions on U.S. Rental Housing Demand 38 State Key Issues and Trends 39 Metro Market Key Issues and Trends 44 Appendix 1: Institutional Ownership of Single Family Rentals 52 Appendix 2: Owner vs. Renter Demographics 53 Appendix 3: State and Metro Market Tables 55 Appendix 4: Metro Market Overviews 61 Appendix 5: Methodology 162 2 Estimating the Total U.S. Demand for Rental Housing Executive Summary The housing bubble fallout of 2007-2010 resulted in a paradigm shift in the U.S.among many households. Disillusioned by the bursting of the house price bubble that destroyed equity, many former home owners continue to rent today. Younger households,seeking more mobility and often saddled with student loans, postpone home ownership or choose to have the flexibility of renting. Demographic shifts also affect home ownership and the result has been a declining home ownership rate and corresponding increase in the percentage of households that rent. Some of this shift came about in the same housing units,as owned units became part of the rental inventory and today some one-third of all rental units are single-family units. Tighter underwriting standards by lenders have resulted in a tighter supply of both multifamily and single-family housing with prices and rents exceeding the growth in income for the past decade. Housing affordability,especially on coastal markets, remains low. Housing supply is adequate in most markets but there are many exceptions especially along the Northeast and Western U.S. coasts at certain price segments. Affordable market-based housing is only achievable with greater density and smaller sized units,yet land-use policies and political approval processes have moved in the opposite direction adding greater regulation and restrictions. The internet and social media have facilitated quick mobilization for groups that feel threatened by new housing developments that will add traffic and parking congestion in their neighborhood. Demographic shifts,student debts and tighter underwriting continue to suggest substantial rental demand in the future. Among the major drivers of metro and state level household growth are in-migration policies and trends. As a whole,the U.S.depends on immigration to fuel the labor market. Any declines in immigration rates will severely curtail both the growth of the U.S. economy and future housing demand. In recent years,several metropolitan areas would have had zero or negative population growth were it not for international in-migration. Their natural population increases have been more than offset by domestic out migration and yet international migration has significantly supplemented the population. These metros includes Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia,St. Louis and New York. Among the metro markets studied,migration rates are a key telltale sign of the local economy's direction. Those metros with strong economies also have significant population growth rates often derived from in-migration from both domestic and international sources. Examples include Houston,Charlotte,Austin and Tampa-St. Petersburg. Markets such as Washington D.C.and San Diego have strong international in-migration but experience domestic out-migration. Uncertain in our housing outlook is the longevity of the current rental stock. This study assumes a base rate of economic obsolescence of 0.5%or 720,000 units per year on average through 2030. If the economic life of a housing unit is reduced to 100 years(1.0%per year),on average,then we need 1.4 million housing units per year just to replace the lost housing units. The type of housing needed in the future is also shifting towards units that accommodate older households. 1 April 2010 to July 2016 3 Given the maturity of the current economic cycle,the forecast assumes that the U.S. economy could go through two recessions by the end of the forecast period in 2030. Even under this scenario, all 50 states and the 50 metropolitan markets in this study will need new multifamily housing going forward to meet a growing population base. The Southern states driven by economic growth,low costs and diversified demographic growth continue to lead demand forecasts with metropolitan markets in Texas and Florida ranked in 5 of the top 6 places. Phoenix,Atlanta, Raleigh and Las Vegas also rank in the top 10. Slower growth markets are more likely to experience new demand growth in specific neighborhoods. Developers and investors should evaluate these markets carefully for new growth as well as revitalization of existing neighborhoods. These markets are frequently located in the Midwest and Old South and include markets such as Cleveland, Milwaukee, Birmingham, Pittsburgh and New Orleans. Growth drivers also vary greatly by metro market and will shape the format of new construction going forward. A few markets will continue to attract new renters of all ages,while many will experience an increasing proportion of demand from 35+aged cohorts. The 65+aged cohort will account for a large part of demand in some low growth markets, particularly those experiencing net out-migration trends. Income and ethnicity trends also vary significantly by market. While some markets embrace growth,others are restricted either geographically and/or by policy. Supply-restricted markets tend to have higher rental costs and lower affordability. Markets with both high rental and high for-sale housing costs risk losing population bases to lower cost areas. The middle class,including necessary professions for a healthy economy such as teachers, police and fire-fighters,cannot afford average rents in these markets. States with healthy balance sheets and educated workforces continue to be primed to attract individuals and firms from these markets. Several 'known unkowns'could occur going forward that would significantly change the forecast. At the national level,75%of the variance in the U.S. home ownership rate since 1971 can be explained by policy changes such as those that impact capital and banking markets. It is unknown whether policy changes will be put into effect which could impact the applicability of the mortgage tax deductions, particularly for middle income families. Changes in these policies can affect the'own vs. rent'decision and thus the amount of demand for multifamily properties going forward'. The second large'known unkown' at the national level at the time of writing this report is the impact of policy changes on immigration rates. As the U.S. population ages,growth is slowing and becoming increasingly dependent on immigrants who have a higher tendency to rent. As a base case, population growth is expected to slow from 0.9%per year on average from 2000 to 2010 to 0.7%on average from 2016 through 2030. Under this scenario,immigration begins to outpace natural growth (births minus deaths) by 2023. Without immigration, population growth is expected to slow to 0.4% per year through 2030, less than half the pace of the past decade. At the local level,some markets could surprise on the upside. For example, large tech campuses continue to expand in Seattle. A growing hub of large tech firms could attract more than expected small tech firms as well as individuals looking to escape the high costs of Silicon Valley. Detroit is at the other end of the growth spectrum but has been increasingly attracting a few investors who are aggregating large tracts of land. 2 For example,doubling the standard deduction would eliminate the benefits of mortgage interest and property tax deductions for many households and thus,at the margin, provide less incentives to own housing. --. 4 U.S. Rental Demand At the national level, we first estimate total rental demand based upon total population, household size projections, and the portion of the market that desires and can afford ownership given the regulatory environment, interest rates and ease of credit access. The result is the net rental demand in households. We provide some notes on trends worth watching that might affect rental housing demand. We also provide some supply side discussion bringing in the impact of those marginal single- family units that might be rentals or owner occupied. In brief,the national housing rental demand model is essentially the following: 1. Estimate total population growth considering births, deaths and net immigration. 2. Divide this by household size considering probable recessions and demographic trends 3. Equals total households (with a qualifier on homelessness) 4. Add to this the equilibrium vacant housing from market friction, normal vacancy and second+home demand 5. Add to this the housing units lost to real depreciation and obsolescence including normal attrition for changes in use, public improvements, etc. 6. Equals total housing unit demand 7. Estimate the owner-occupied portion of this to derive renter demand, considering credit access, housing policies, existing household debt including student loans and credit debt, housing investment appeal and general affordability. 8. Allocate renter demand for new multifamily rentals of 5 units or more per building as defined by the NMHC. 1. Estimating U.S. Population The U.S. Population is approximately 325 million persons3 as of the end of 2016,growing at approximately 2,229,000 per year which equates to 4 net new people per minute, 6,107 per day. These estimates are based on the three most important metrics of population: births, deaths and net international migration. Of these three parameters, net immigration is the least predictable but most important for forecasting future population. The reason is that as the U.S. population continues to age our domestic death rates will slowly approach our birth rates. We will continue to add net population at the rate of about 1.35 million for 2017 (births less deaths) but the net immigration figure for 2017 will run 0.88 million. By 2023 and beyond the rate of expected population growth from net migration exceeds that of births less deaths.' By 2030, net immigration is expected to run 1.33 million compared to an internal net population increase of 840 thousand. 3 Official estimates from the U.S.Census. 'This is from the U.S.Census as well as Pew Research and others. See for example: "Immigration projected to drive growth in U.S.working-age population through at least 2035" PewResearchCenter.org By Jeffrey S. Passel and D'Vera Cohn, published on:April 17,2017 http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/chapter-2-immigrations- impact-on-past-and-future-u-s-population-change and http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2017/04/lawler- updated-population-proiections.html and http://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=23839. 5 Historically, immigration is highly dependent on the state of the U.S. economy, slowing down during recessions and accelerating during better economic times. For example,while Mexico remains the largest source of persons who obtain lawful permanent resident status in the U.S.', net immigration is balanced by persons leaving the U.S.for Mexico. Over time, immigration from Mexico has been one of the largest from any single country bringing 400,000 people per year from 2001-2005. From 2006 through 2010 the number slowed to a trickle,only 200,000 total over 5 years or a tenth the previous rate.' Since 2010 the net immigration from Mexico has declined to a very small number, and was negative from 2009-2014. Factors for this slow down include a stricter immigration policy on the U.S. side with increased deportation of undocumented immigrants, less demand for unskilled labor, except for agriculture', and positive economic growth in Mexico after the 2009 recession. Asian immigration rates are simultaneously increasing and are now surpassing the combined totals from Mexico and all other Hispanics as the largest single entering ethnic group. Immigrants from Asia tend to be highly educated and have job skills making it easier to integrate into the U.S. economy over a broader range of jobs. For example, 57%of Asian immigrants in 2015 had completed college compared to 13%from Mexico and 28%from Central and South America.' As immigration is approaching half the annual net U.S. population growth rate, it is becoming a critical factor in population forecasts (see Exhibit 1 and Figure 1). What is unknown is whether the U.S. policy towards immigration will be broadly more challenging or more specifically challenging towards single countries or certain group profiles. The Obama administration was characterized by severe, if not extreme,vetting of immigrants. As a base case,we use Census forecasts as shown below, presuming that new immigration policies will sound dramatically more extreme, but should be modest in terms of real impact.' The impact of more restricting policies is explored in the Scenario Analyses at the end of this section. 5 Department of Homeland Security,2015 Yearbook; Mexico accounted for 157,227 of 1,051,031 total persons who obtained lawful permanent residence in 2015,followed by China(70,977), India (61,380), Philippines(54,307) and Cuba (54,178). 6 See MPI reports at http://www.migrationpolicv.org/article/mexican-immigrants-united-states. 'California is especially dependent on Mexican labor for agriculture and would be devastated if temporary work permits were not facilitated. $PEW Research Center report on "Future Immigration will change the face of America" 2015. 'There are some countries that might be more severely impacted by a Trump administration including Syrian refugees,and those from other Islamic countries but it remains to be seen how new policies will play out. 6 Exhibit 1:Population Projections Numeric Percent Natural Net Year Population International Change Change Increase Migration 2015 322,632 3,073 0.94% 1,386 1,119 2016 325,107 2,107 0.65% 1,367 1,097 2017 327,336 2,229 0.69% 1,353 876 2018 329,534 2,199 0.67% 1,368 831 2019 331,700 2,166 0.66% 1,362 804 2020 333,849 2,148 0.65% 1,338 810 2021 336,045 2,196 0.66% 1,188 1,008 2022 338,442 2,398 0.71% 1,212 1,185 2023 340,867 2,424 0.72% 1,203 1,221 2024 343,278 2,412 0.71% 1,166 1,246 2025 345,665 2,386 0.70% 1,127 1,259 2026 348,009 2,344 0.68% 1,079 1,265 2027 350,305 2,297 0.66% 1,023 1,274 2028 352,560 2,255 0.64% 963 1,292 2029 354,777 2,217 0.63% 903 1,314 2030 356,949 2,173 0.61% 840 1,333 Figure 1:Population Projections Plot U.S. Natural Internal Population Increase vs Immigration (OOO's) 2,500 forecast 2,000 1,500 I II 1,000 500 0 I O m CD o1 N V1 00 r I Ci 1� 0 m CD Cl N to 00 .-i Ct I. 0 N N N N. 00 CO 00 01 Cl Cl 0 0 0 0 rI r-I -4 N N N CO Cl 01 01 Cl 01 Cl 01 Cr) Cl 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r-1 r I c-I c-I .-1 I--I c-I c-I .-1 N N N N N N N N N N N ■Net International Migration A Natural Increase 7 The impact of immigration on population growth estimates varies widely. While border states first come to mind as areas that could be heavily reliant on immigration for population growth,we find that many of these areas also attract a large U.S. migration making immigration a small part of total growth, e.g. immigration accounted for only 5.0%of population growth in Texas and Arizona in the 2010-2014 period. To the contrary,we find that immigration is more important to slow-growth states, accounting for virtually all population growth from 2010 to 2014 in states such as Maine, Michigan, Rhode Island and West Virginia, and more than 30%of growth in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Vermont. See the state and metropolitan area reviews of this report for further discussion. 2. Estimating U.S. Households Moving from population estimates to household estimates is simply a function of household size. Household size has declined steadily since 1965, but the rate of decline has flattened in recent years. See Figure 2 below which shows the peak of household size at 3.7 for families and 3.35 for all households in the 1960's. When the population is adjusted for non-households; e.g.,those living in group quarters,the average household size is about 2.54 overall and 3.15 for families as of the 2015 Census. If we divide 325 million by 2.54 we get 127.9 million households as of the end of 2016, but this exceeds the benchmark estimates of 118.2 million per the most current U.S. Census survey. Thus,we used the most complete and current surveys of population and households from different Census surveys10 and other sources to estimate household size and total households. Figures used in this survey are shown in Figure 7. Several factors are causing a decrease in household size. Single persons living alone doubled from 13%of households in 1960 to nearly 27%in 2010(Figure 3). This is a result of influences on both ends of the population spectrum. The median age at first marriage increased from 23.5 for men and 21.1 for women in 1975 to 29.5 and 27.4 respectively in 2016.11 10 U.S.Census B25127 2015 ACS(1-year)table, Moody's Analytics and Hoyt Advisory Services. 11 U.S.Census Bureau, Families and Living Arrangements,Table MS-2. 8 Figure 2:Household Size Over Time Changes in Household Size Source:U.S.Census 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 3.00 2.80 2.60 2.40 ,. �. 2.20 2.00 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 All Households —Families Figure 3: The Rise of the Single Person Household U.S. Single Households and Forecast Source:U.S.Census and Forecast 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 9 Not only are the single households rising as a percent of the population but the size of households overall continues to decline as shown in Figure 4. Households of three or more people declined from 59%of households in 1960 to 43%in 1990 and 38% in 201612. Figure 4: Large Households a Declining Share of Total Households by Size 100% 1",,.1." am7 1111 90% 80% ° 70% = 50% Y toms 40% *=' 30% 20% 10% 0% 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016 Number of People in Household One OTwo Three Four ®Five :Six ■Seven or more Household size by age of householder increases on average until age 40 as young people form families and then begins to decline after age 4013. See Figure 5 below. Average household size is three people or larger for households where the head of household is aged 30 to 49. Conversely, household size drops precipitously to slightly over 1.6 people when the head of household is 75+years. As the U.S. population ages, older (and smaller) households are becoming a larger share of the market. See Figure 6 below. Notably,we estimate that the 45-54 aged household segment will decline from 21%of households in 2010 to 16%in 2030 while the Baby Boomers, born circa 1946 to 1964, are entering traditional retirement age. The 65-74 aged segment is projected to increase from 11%of households in 2010 to 17% in 2030 while the 75+aged segment increases from 10%to 15%of households during the same time period. 12 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Families and Living Arrangements. 13 Source: U.S. Census Bureau,Current Population Survey 2015. 10 Figure 5: Household Sizes Are Smaller for Older Households Household Size by Age of Householder 4.00 3.50 3.00 c N' iiI111iiiii 1.00 0.50 0.00 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-74 75+ years years years years years years years years years years years Age of Householder Figure 6: Older Households an Increasing Share of Total Households Households by Age of Householder 25% N 20% 0 a) 15% Eo-. 10% $. ycu 1 ,{{ I_i . 1 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016 2020 2030 ▪Under 25 3 25 to 29 years ` 30 to 34 years 35 to 44 years ■45 to 54 years 7 55 to 64 years ■65 to 74 years ■75 years and older 11 Another significant trend impacting household size is the increasing share of population growth attributed to international in-migration to the U.S. See Figure 1 above. Notably, households of Hispanic origin14accounted for an estimated 20%of U.S. population growth in 2015 and 43%of net in-migration. By 2030,the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that people of Hispanic origin will account for 24%of U.S. population growth and 41%of net in-migration. This is significant to household size estimates because households of Hispanic origin are significantly larger, averaging 3.25 people per household as compared to 2.42 people per household for non-Hispanics.15 However, similar to overall U.S. household size data, Hispanic households are also declining in size, down from 3.56 people per household in 2001. The implications of the household size and population trends are projected below in Figure 7. The U.S. is expected to have approximately 141 million households by 2030. From the end of 2016 through the end of 2030 the population should grow in total by 9.8%but the household growth rate over than same period is 12.8%, as the household size declines. This is an annual compounded growth rate, in our base case,of 0.7% in population increase and 0.9%in household increases. Note that this is a slower pace than recent historical trends when population increased by 1.2%annually on average from 1990 to 2000 and by 0.9%from 2000 to 2010. Without any net in-migration from other countries, the U.S. population is expected to grow by only 0.4%annually through 2030. Household growth stayed a little more stable over time as household size shrank, averaging 1.2% per year in both 1990-2000 and 2000-2010 and dropping slightly to 1.1%since 2010. While the timing and severity of economic recessions are difficult to predict,the U.S. has experienced a recession every four to ten years during the past fifty years. Thus,we broadly estimate two recessions slowing down household formation rates in the forecast horizon,the first estimated around 2019 lingering until 2020 and the second and larger recession in 2030, possibly starting in 2029 and lingering through 2031. The first recession is forecast to be mild and is based upon the normal economic cycle.16 A second mild recession could occur in 2026 but will depend more on a global economy and is not factored into any of our models. The third recession is estimated to be quite severe and is based upon entitlements (Social Security and Medicare) running out of funding resulting in the need for massive tax increases and some budget cuts.17 The population growth rate in the graph below is shown in lighter gray with the darker column showing households. Normally the household growth rate exceeds that of the overall population, but here we note the effects of the slower household growth rates during projected recession years which is further impeded by lower than historic population growth. The number of households actually shrinks slightly in 2030 as more people double or triple up during a significant recession. 14 Note that origin is separate from race,and thus Hispanic households may be of any race in U.S. Census data. 15 Source: U.S.Census Bureau,Current Population Survey 2016. 16 A variety of sources were used to suggest a recession in late 2019 and during part of 2020. The most convincing of these came from Intensity,an economic forecasting firm headed by Dr.Alan Timmermann. See http://intensitv.com/forecasts. Another economist consulted for longer term economic crisis is Dr.Alan Beaulieu. https://www.itreconomics.com/content/alan-beaulieu. 1'See the very convincing analysis of Alan Beaulieu, http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/dr-alan- beaulieu/us-recession-2019-depression-2030 where he makes the case that the U.S. politicians kick the can down the road until it reaches a crisis point,that being the inability to fund Social Security, Medicaid and other entitlements,along with a maxed out Federal debt creating unsustainable borrowing capacity.The timing estimate here is very much driven by the aging Baby Boomers who will no longer be working and demanding vast increases of medical care in the last years of life. 12 Figure 7:Base Case of the U.S. Household Growth Rate Base Case Projected U.S. Population (left) and Household Growth Rates (right) in 100,000's 3,600 1,500 3,500 1,450 3,400 1,400 3,300 1,350 E1iiiiiIiiIIII 1,300 1,200 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Population n Households U.S. Projected Base Case Households by Year as Used in Figure 4 in 000's Year Population Household Sizer$ Households 2015 323,000 2.53 123,778 2016 325,107 2.52 125,094 2017 327,336 2.51 126,501 2018 329,534 2.50 127,915 2019 331,700 2.51 128,043 2020 333,849 2.51 128,979 2021 336,045 2.47 131,848 2022 338,442 2.46 133,295 2023 340,867 2.45 134,746 2024 343,278 2.45 135,688 2025 345,665 2.45 137,131 2026 348,009 2.45 138,048 2027 350,305 2.44 139,474 2028 352,560 2.44 140,363 2029 354,777 2.43 141,768 2030 356,949 2.45 141,092 18 Assumes 3.0%of population is in group quarters. 13 3. Total Housing Demand While total housing demand parallels the number of households as projected above,the actual housing stock demanded will also be affected by the following factors: • the number of homeless households, • the number of excess or vacant units available to fill new demand, if located in areas where demand exists, • the demand for second and third homes, and last, • the atrophy of physical housing units which will leave the housing market. Later,we will divide the housing demand into owner and renter shares, and when doing so, noting the impact of units that might be part of either stock. a. Homeless Population and Households Homelessness exists in the U.S. at the rate of about 17 to 18 persons per 100,000 population, about half of whom are considered chronic. Thus, on a single night in 2015, more than 560,000 people were without housing and sleeping outside, in an emergency shelter or a transitional housing program.19 The highest rate in any metropolitan market is Washington D.C. at 111 per 100,000 population.20 More expensive large cities tend to have higher homeless rates. Single persons make up about half the homeless household count. From an analysis of long term trends, economic cycles affect homelessness but there is no relative trend based on household income dispersion. During 2016 for example, homeless rates were lower in about two-thirds of the U.S. States and higher in the other third. For 2016 the impact of homeless households requires an adjustment from 125,094,000 down to 124,820,000 households, a reduction of 2/10ths of 1.0%. At the national level this is not very significant, but in some metro markets such as Washington D.C., it requires a modeling adjustment for household demand. b. Normally Vacant Units The U.S. Census Bureau surveyed nearly 134.8 million housing units in 2015,some 118.2 million occupied and 16.6 million of them as vacant representing 12.3%of the stock.21 HAS adjustments that correlate the decennial Census with their current ACS survey provide for 134.7 million housing units in 2015, 120.4 million occupied and 14.3 million vacancies or 10.6%.22 The real question is what is the total demand and growth rate, but part of the demand is a function of normally vacant units. We can break the vacant housing statistic into three parts: There is the normal equilibrium vacancy rate in each market where rents tend to go up when the vacancy rate is below a certain level.23 Residential rentals have the lowest average natural vacancy 19 See http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/SOH2O16 "End Homelessness in America" 2016. 20 See http://www.endhomelessness.org. 21 U.S.Census American Community Survey(ACS) 1-year estimates. 22 HAS and associates adjustments are based on Census metrics only. 23 Source:"REVISITING THE DERIVATION OF AN EQUILIBRIUM VACANCY RATE" by Richard Parli and Norm Miller, Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management,Vol. 20, Issue 3, 2014. 14 rate compared to office, industrial and retail property. At the national level, we estimate this at about 5.0%to 6.0%, although in some local supply constrained markets it normally runs even lower and in some elastic supply markets, it runs higher. As of the end of 2015 the rental vacancy rate for all residential was 6.8%. Note that 6.8%of the rental stock would represent about 2.6%of the total housing stock. There are also vacant homes within the owner-occupied market simply because of imperfect timing, or time needed to repair homes prior to occupancy, or from units vacated after buying a new home. This tends to add 1.5%to 2.0%vacancy to the entire stock of housing. c. Demand for Second and Third Homes The third source of vacant homes is from second and third, and in some cases fourth-plus homes, owned but rarely occupied by wealthier households. These are particularly important in tourist markets, but even at the national level the counts are significant. Nationally this surplus housing figure runs about 6.0%to 8.0%of the housing stock, and it has been growing slowly on a long-term basis.24 Add together vacant rental units at 2.6%of the total housing stock, plus 1.75%for unoccupied owner units, plus 7.0%for unoccupied surplus homes and we get a total vacant estimate of 11.35%, which is in the range of the Census-based HAS adjusted estimates above. For 2016 this suggests a total housing demand of approximately 125.125 million households times(1-.1135)equals 141.1 million housing units. This is similar, but slightly higher than our HAS adjusted estimates above.26 See Figure 8 below where we project total housing units required through 2030. Note this does not equal total housing demand, nor can it be used to derive net units demanded per year until we make further adjustments. We must consider the obsolescence, real deterioration and demolition of existing housing stock based on a variety of causes and also include housing units lost to the process of eminent domain for public improvements, schools, roads, and infrastructure. Fires, tornadoes, and hurricanes also take their toll,yet we seldom see eliminated housing units brought into forecast models of demand. This will be considered next. 'Some of these units may be rented but unreported. Others might be reported as rentals but generally left vacant,so solid and reliable statistics on second homes is a challenge. 25 The U.S.Census Bureau publishes at least five different estimates of the number of households. Each source yields a somewhat different figure. Most of the differences can be explained because of differing methodologies, dates,and whether undercount adjustments have been applied to the series. This study uses a base household estimate as provided by Moody's Analytics which is based on Decennial Census, Current Population Survey basic monthly files,and annual Census Population Estimates. 26 There is also some possibility that U.S. households or individuals are living outside the U.S., including those in the military,and yet at the same time foreigners are living in the U.S. No adjustments are made for such ex-pat type housing demand. 15 Figure 8: U.S. Housing Units Projected Through 2030 Prior to Adjustment for Lost Units U.S. Housing Units Required With No Lost Units (000's) 165,000 160,000 155,000 150,000 145,000 140,000 135,000 130,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 d. Annual Loss of Physical Housing Units The rate of loss of existing housing stock varies according to age and location. A recent study by Bokhari and Geltner suggested depreciation rates on new multi-family dwellings of 4.0% per year.27 The depreciation tended to slow down as properties aged until they approached the end of their economic life. They found an average real depreciation rates of about 1.44% per year over the entire economic life. Quantifying the impact of real depreciation and units lost to natural causes (fires,tornadoes, hurricanes) and demolished for re-purposed property or moved or changed in use is the discussion provided in CINCH reports by HUD. CINCH stands for Components of Inventory Change.28 CINCH data is not consistent nor annual and the last major report covered 2011-2013. During that time 1.567 million units of housing were lost to various causes, or 522,333 per year. This represented about 0.4%29 of the housing stock per year. However, if we used 0.4%of the housing stock each year,that would suggest an economic life of 250 years,well beyond anything statistically supportable. This seems extreme, especially considering the average age of all U.S. housing is currently around 39 years in age, and few homes are over 200 years in age in the U.S. Figure 9 shows the age of the U.S. housing stock broken down by owned vs. rented and year the units were built30, including a category for all mobile homes and 27 See"Characteristics of Depreciation in Commercial and Multi-Family Property:An Investment Perspective" https://mitcre.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Characteristics-of-Depreciation-in-Commercial-and-Multi- FamilV-Property 0317.pdf. 28 See https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cinch.html. See also https://www.h uduser.gov/porta l/datasets/cinch/cinch 13/Renta l-Dvnamics-Report.pdf. 29 Note that loss rates vary by property,tenure and occupier characteristics with renter occupied properties experience loss rates that are about 52%higher than this figure. 30 Source: U.S.Census,American Community Survey, 2015. 16 other property types. Note that there are significant differences in age of housing stock by property type. For example, 30%-40%of single units, either owned (0:1 in the graph below)or rented (R:1 in the graph below)were built before 1960. Conversely, almost none of the mobile home stock was built before 1960, with a large part of the current inventory built between 1980 and 1999. Rental properties that are 5 units or larger(R:5+), a segment frequently tracked by institutional owners, is more evenly distributed with 21% built before 1960, 61% built between 1960 and 1999 and 13% built in the 2000's. Note that this segment has the largest percent of inventory built since 2010, at 5.1%. Figure 9:Age of U.S. Housing Stock Housing Stock Composition by Age and Type of Property 100% 1111 90% Ili 80% II 70% 60% - 50% 44e, i' 4 41:41 -,N144t =444 4 let 40% x 30% , 4 VA A.A 20% 10% r 0% O:1 O:2-4 0:5+ 0:M/0TH R:1 R:2-4 R:5+ R:M/OTH B1939 m 1940-59 1960-79 a 1980-99 ■2000s a 2010+ Using the general number of 1.44% based on the average of Bokhari and Geltner estimates results in an economic life of about 70 years for multifamily properties,which seems very reasonable, assuming owners keep them maintained. One lesson of the Bokhari and Geltner study is that major capital improvements are required to periodically update multifamily properties, or for that matter any building, and without such capital expenditures the wear and tear and loss of real value (gross depreciation)would be much higher. We should also note that the type of buildings we observe which are 250 years-old and still standing have two attributes. They are built of very strong materials, stone or brick and very long lasting roofs. They are also continuously occupied in strong demand areas and well maintained. Today, we tend to use materials that are much less durable. 17 A recent study by Jiro Yoshida found that the depreciation rate for single family residences was about 1% per year but the rate varies considerably by location and other property characteristics.31 This study used a rather limited sample of properties. To be conservative for the best case,we will use a 200-year life and a 0.5% loss rate, noting that at least two thirds of this loss will be due to natural causes. Even this very conservative estimate suggests we need at least 650,000 units of housing production in 2016 and growing with the stock rate simply to maintain what we have.We should not assume that housing, once built never disappears. We will add this 650,000 plus figure to the total U.S. required housing stock, growing in proportion to the total. Please note how sensitive this assumption is to our required housing stock. We are assuming that the existing stock will be here for a while since the average age is only 39 years and that is why a conservative replacement assumption makes sense for the next few decades. In Figure 10 below,we add in the estimate of lost units to derive the total U.S. housing stock required and in Figure 11 we show the net new housing required each year. The average over the entire period is 1.3 million new housing units each year. Some of the variation in required units is based on a slowdown in economic growth with probable modest economic recessions occurring around 2019-2020 and more severely in 2029-2030. Figure 10: Total U.S. Housing Units Required Total U.S. Housing Units Required (000's) with 0.5%Attition Rate on Existing Stock 165,000 160,000 in �r o o a Cr) o m 155,000 mc ti � ' o rn L4 150,000 Ln a o N 145,000 O1 CO a 140,000 S N '-4 135,000 130,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 31"Economic Depreciation in Property Value:Cross-Sectional Variations and Their Implications on Investments" by Jiro Yoshida, Real Estate Research Institute Working Paper,April 1,2017.Working papers can be found at http://www.reri.org/research/working.cfm. 18 Figure 11: Total U.S. Housing Units Required by Year Total U.S. New Housing Units Required By Year (000's) 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 .n ti 0 • 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 -500 -1000 4. Home Ownership Rates and Renter Portion of Housing Demand The characteristics of homeowners vary from those of renters. For example, 35%of renters are less than 35 years old with another 20% less than 44 years old. Only 36%of homeowners are less than 44 years old. Renters are more ethnically diverse with significantly more people of Hispanic origin and Black by race, and have a lower proportion of college-educated persons. Interestingly,tenants in rental properties are somewhat sticky with 59%of renters moving into their units in 2010 to 2014 with only 15% moving in 2015. See Appendix 2 for further details. Globally, home ownership rates vary widely from less than 50%of households to more than 95%32. According to data compiled by the European Mortgage Federation from Eurostat, supplemented by more recent data from Eurostat, the majority of European countries,the 28 countries in the European Union, have home ownership rates that exceed the U.S.' While international comparisons are difficult to measure, countries with extremely high home ownership rates seem to have several factors in common. Many are former socialist countries which gave existing tenants the housing they occupied.34 Ever since the dissolution of the USSR and the transition to privatization,the high home ownership rates have been receding. Culture, the momentum of tax laws and other policies that 32 See http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/06/around-the-world-governments-promote-home- ownership. 33 See http://eyeonhousing.org/2015/06/a-cross-country-comparison-of-homeownership-rates. 34 For example, Romania,Czechoslovakia, and many others. 19 encourage home ownership and economic stability certainly play a role.35 Developed countries like Germany and the U.K. have had relatively stable economies and inflationary environments and do not fear runaway inflation,thus the demand for real assets and inflation hedges are somewhat mitigated. Housing affordability across countries is additionally impacted by a number of factors including differences in tax burdens, housing stock characteristics and income equality36. In the U.S., age is positively correlated with home ownership and the highest home ownership rates exist for those aged 65-74,as shown in Figure 13. We also observe a conversion to renting as people reach 75+, especially for those 80+. The Baby Boomers will be crossing these thresholds in significant numbers by 2025, which could affect overall home ownership rates. While it seems that there is no universal equilibrium home ownership rate,we have modeled home ownership rates over time as noted below. In the U.S., a high rate of housing ownership has been an overall economic policy goal, particularly during the past 50 years, after full employment and keeping inflation under control, but this goal seems to have been punctured by the last housing bust. As shown in Figure 12 below, U.S. home ownership rates have historically had little to do with capital market or economic trends. Figure 12:Home Ownership Rate U.S. Home Ownership Rate 20% 69 68 15% 67 66 v 10% :: i 5% 63 0 62 0 0% 61 60 -5% 59 O N 'ct l0 00 O N l0 CO O N d' t0 00 O N l0 00 00 CO 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 O O O O O e-I 1-1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 O O O 0 0 O 0 O 0 e-i 1-1 c-1 e-I N N NNNNINN N --30 yr Mortgage Rate GDP Growth - - Home Ownership Rate National policies affecting credit availability, banking regulation and lending trends have a significant impact on home ownership rates. Changes in political environments and policies are difficult to forecast going forward, but have had a significant impact on home ownership in the past. In fact,we ss Capital gains tax laws and exclusions for single and married households help to maintain the momentum of sticking with home ownership after an initial purchase, if significant appreciation has occurred. se See http://www.ichs.harvard.edu/sites/ichs.harvard.edu/files/international rental housing carliner marva.pdf. 20 were able to model home ownership rates from 1971 to 2016 with a high degree of certainty37 using three demographic and economic factors and five policy factors. The policy impacts alone explain approximately 75% of the variance in U.S. home ownership rates since 1971. Examples of significant ,..•, policy changes include the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act which intended to encourage lenders to address the needs of all borrower segments of their communities including low and moderate-income neighborhoods, i.e. it intended to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low income neighborhoods, otherwise known as redlining. In 1992,The Housing and Community Development Act passed, requiring that 30%or more of Fannie's and Freddie's loan purchases be related to "affordable housing" (borrowers who were below normal lending standards). However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements, and HUD soon increased the mandates. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act was passed in 1999. It repealed portions of Glass Steagall act, allowing depository and investment banks to merge. Critics often cite it as a cause of the subprime crisis, allowing mergers to create 'too big to fail banks'that did not have enough regulation regarding risk and reserve requirements. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 further limited the regulation of financial derivatives. As a response to the subprime crisis,The Housing and Economic Recovery Act was passed in 2008 in an effort to assist homeowners and restore stability and confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Home ownership peaked in the U.S. in June of 2004. While 10-year Census data routinely reports lower home ownership rates than annual estimates, home ownership rates are estimated to have peaked near 68% in the first quarter of 2005 as a function of easy credit, subprime mortgage brokers peddling high loan to value mortgage options, reasonably low interest rates, appraisals that merely justified prices paid, and rising price expectations by buyers.38 Since the crash which followed in 2008 and beyond, credit standards have tightened significantly and underwriting remains tighter than prior to the crash.39 While many subprime mortgage lenders are no longer in business, most lenders still sell qualified mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and find appraisers who will justify the value, with little skin in the game. History may repeat itself with respect to a new housing bubble, but for now we observe that as of the end of 2016, nearly 10%of the mortgaged households remained underwater. The forecast model does not assume any policy changes going forward, although significant modifications to the tax code were under consideration as of the time this report was being written. Modifications for example that offset or impact the applicability of mortgage interest deductions in the tax code should be watched going forward for potential impacts on home ownership rates. The appetite and investment luster of housing is certainly much less than before 2008. Home ownership rates are notably lower for younger.buyers as shown in Figure 13. This segment of the population has also shown the largest change in home ownership trends since the 2009 peak. While home ownership rates for the 65+segment of the population fell by only 210 bp since the 2004 peak, rates for the under 35 and 35 to 44 segments fell by 840 bp and 1100 bp respectively. The challenge now is to figure out how much of this change is cyclical and how much is secular. Many of those who 37 Adjusted R square on the model of 0.847. 38 See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/homeownership-rate-in-the-u-s-tumbles-to-the- lowest-since-1965. 3e See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/homeownership-rate-in-the-u-s-tumbles-to-the- lowest-since-1965 with a note that minorities now find it harder to qualify for mortgage loans compared to pre- crisis. 21 bought near price peaks or had their credit affected are hesitant to jump back into housing ownership.40 Surveys of Millennials suggest that owning a home has less importance than to the prior generation. Others suggest that this reticence to jump into home ownership will change as the younger generation has children.41 —� Figure 13:Home Ownership Rate by Age U.S. Home ownership Rate by Age Segment 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 C ul Li) N 00 al O c-1 N M L LD N CO CT) O r1 N m cr Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol O O O O O O O O O O c--1 c-1 c'1 c-1 c-1 ei c-1 Ol Ol Ol 41 Ol Ql O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O e-I c-I c-I N N N NNNNNNNNNNNNNN Under 35 —35-44 45-54 55-64 —65+ Unemployment after the 2008 recession hit the younger population harder. Unemployment for 20-24 year-olds peaked at 17.2% in April of 2010, 10%higher than the average for people aged 35 or over, and double the typical difference between the two age groups. The span between the 20-24 year- old unemployment and the 35+year-old unemployment did not come back in line until early 2016. Similarly,the 24-35 year-old unemployment peaked at 10.6% in May 2010, significantly higher than the average for the 35+group. Young adults living at home in both the 18 to 24 year and 25 to 34 year groups increased by about 5.0%in the past decade to unprecedented levels since the data began in 1960 and remain at elevated levels through 2016 with more than half of 18-24 year-olds living with parents and about 15% of 25-34 year-olds living with parents. Additionally, household size increased from 2000 to 2010, particularly in very young households (less than 20 years old) and in the 50-59 aged group, reflecting adult children living at home. The good news for housing demand is that household size trends began to 4°See http://ichs.harvard.edu/sites/ichs.harvard.edu/files/hbtl-06.pdf a Harvard study on housing as a means to build wealth,2013. 41 See http://rismedia.com/2016/07/25/home-ownership-still-desirable-for-millennials suggesting Millennials would like to own homes but are hampered by student debt and mobility concerns. 22 reverse slightly in 2016, particularly for younger households that were again beginning to reduce in size, possibly indicating a reversal of the housing doubling up after the recession. In addition to getting married at an older age, young people are having their first child at an older age. In 2000,the mean age of a woman when she first gave birth was 24.9 years old. In 2014,that age had risen to 26.342. These trends are significant because the median age of first-time homebuyers is 3243—indicating pressure on young people to stay as renters longer. In fact, first-time homebuyers typically account for approximately 40%of home sales, although this figure dropped to a low of 32%as of 2015 (but rose to 35%of survey respondents in 2016). College admissions continued to grow through 2010, and with rising unemployment in the younger population, student debt became an increasing burden. Aside from the tighter credit standards and lower investment appeal of housing, we consider student debt a considerable factor in the home ownership rate over the next several years. As of late 2016 student debt in the U.S., incurred by 44 million borrowers, exceeded 1.3 trillion dollars. Student debt has grown by 500%since 2004. The delinquency rate stood at 11.1%and the average monthly payment was$351.44 Some 70%of the student debt borrowers owe more than $10,000 dollars. The average is now just over$30,000." Converting a payment of$351 a month into a mortgage at 4.5%with a 30-year term has the impact of borrowing nearly$70,000 less; or conversely, it is like adding a second mortgage to any home purchase decision. With an 80% loan to value mortgage,this means the average affordable home is constrained by$87,000 dollars. Another way to look at this is if we use 28%of income towards a home purchase, this equates to reducing income by$15,000 per year. The New York Fed has studied the issue of student debt and has provided the following statistic: in 2005 student debt stood at just over 310 billion dollars and the under 30 adult home ownership rate was about 34%. In 2015 the student debt reached $1.2 trillion and the under 30 home ownership rate declined to under 28%.4fi The point is that the propensity and capability of buying is being significantly curtailed by student debt. John Burns Real Estate Consulting estimated the reduction in home buying as a result of student debt to be 103,000 homes per year, a reduction of 7.6%.47 Some economists have suggested that students who borrow student debt and graduate will get a positive net present value, but this depends very much on the quality of the selected program. Some students will see substantially increased earning power, such as those attending medical schools or business schools, but many of these 44 million borrowers will be negatively constrained and affected by the debt. This will affect the marginal propensity to buy versus rent. We expect the proportion of college graduates seeking to rent instead of buy for the next several years will be somewhere near 55% as they age and start families, and yet this figure could be high. The U.S. Census figure for home ownership by those aged 35 and below slumped from 34.7%as of December 2016 to 34.3%at the end of March,2017. 42 Source: NCHS Data Brief, No. 232,January 2016. 43 National Association of Realtors, Profile of Homebuyers and Sellers Survey, November 11, 2016. 44 See https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics. 45 See http://ticas.org/posd/map-state-data for state by state data. 46 See http://financeography.com/millennial-home-ownership-shrinks-as-student-debt-grows. 47 See"Student Debt's Drag on Home ownership",John Burns,April, 2017. 23 Household wealth also plays an important part in home ownership rates. Wealth is impacted by a number of factors including job growth, income levels, savings behavior and capital market trends. Home prices are a large contributor to wealth,and in turn support spending behavior and purchases of other goods in rising price environments.48 Home ownership rates also tend to rise in high inflationary environments in our model. The last major factor that will lower home ownership rates from 2016 through the next decade are demographics. One parent households, headed by fathers, are nine times as common today as in 1960 and four times as common for single mothers49. The model also adjusts for factors such as age (previously discussed) and race/origin50. For example, Hispanics represent a growing segment of our population. "According to the American Community Survey, only 45 percent of Hispanic households owned their homes in 2013 compared with 71 percent of White Only households. If one were to hold those rates constant as Hispanics become an increasing percentage of the pool of homebuyers,the home ownership rate would drop."51 The home ownership rate of Hispanics is rising with each successive generation that integrates into American society, but the impact of a changing population mix and a lower percentage seeking home ownership must be addressed in any realistic model on the home ownership rate. Additionally, household size varies significantly by race. 5. U.S. Rental Housing Demand Based primarily on the lower appeal of for-sale housing for those households burned by the last housing bubble,the impact of student loans and the changing demographics,we expect a decline in the home ownership rate as shown in Figure 14. In the base case, interest rates are expected to continue to increase at a moderate rate, but higher or faster than expected interest rate increases could cause actual home ownership rates to be lower than those shown below.s2 Figure 15 shows the total rental stock required to meet rental household demand, and Figure 16 shows the result by year. Note that while Figure 15 reveals a perfect and instant market response to anticipated demand,we do not expect the actual pattern to be so erratic. Rather,the time required to anticipate and get development approvals will require significant planning on the part of developers with no assurances of approvals in a timely manner. The actual number of rental units required,from all sources, averages 586,000 units per year from now until 2030. See Figure 16. In 2015 the U.S. added only 306,000 rental units,the most since 1989.At this rate,we are falling short by an average deficit of over 200,000 rental units. 48 See"How do house prices affect consumption? Evidence from micro data" by John Y.Campbella,Joao F.Coccob, Journal of Monetary Economics,Volume 54, Issue 3,April 2007, Pages 591-621 at https://doi.org/10.1016/i.imoneco.2005.10.016. 4s U.S.Census Bureau 50 Wachter and Megbolugbe(1992)estimated that about 80 percent of the gap between White households and Black and Hispanic households can be explained by differences in endowment(including differences in income, education,age,gender, and family type). See https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/citvscpe/voll8numl/ch9.pdf. 51 See htto://www.urban.org/urban-wire/whv-low-hispanic-home-ownership-rate-matters. 52 Note that ten-year bond yields increased by over 70 basis points from early in November 2016 to December 2016. 24 Figure 14:Forecast of U.S. Home Ownership Rate Expected U.S. Home Ownership Rate 65.00% 63.00% 61.00% 59.00% 57.00% 55.00% 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Figure 15: Total Rental Stock Required by Year Total Rental Stock Needed in 000's 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 25 Figure 16:Rental Stock Required Per Year Based on Demand Net Rental Units Needed by Year (000s) 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 -100 �n 6. Rental Demand for Institutional Investment We focused next on properties with 5 or more units which are generally of the investment size and quality needed for institutional investors and have provided a large proportion of the needed stock, some 43%or 16.2 million units as of 2016. See Figure 17 below. The 5+unit segment of the rental market is the focus of the remainder of the report. The 5+segment was further disaggregated to the state and metropolitan market level for all states and 50 select markets throughout the U.S. by a bottoms-up approach of collecting similar data at the state and metropolitan market level. This data aggregated both Census data and where available, data from private data providers such as CoStar® and CBRE° Econometrics. In some markets, particularly those that are characterized by significant institutional investment,the private data providers had significantly more robust data than the Census surveys. In other markets, the Census data was more robust. Thus, a combination of data sources was used to estimate total stock at the metro market and state level. This data was then summed at the state level to an estimate for the U.S. and was significantly larger than the Census sample, equal to 22.95 million units as of 2016. Even with the advent of a new and more permanent single house rental stock, discussed below, we will still need about 328,000 units of rental housing per year provided by larger properties through 2030. Note that as in the base scenario above,the model continues to assume a recession in 2029-2030 that will require no new 5+ rental housing units in 2030. See Figure 18. 26 Figure 17:Detailed Breakdown of the Rental Housing Stock 2015 National Distribution of Occupied Rental Housing Stock by Type Mobile Home or Other 5% 50 or more Units t 12% Single-family Detached 28% 20-49 Rental Units 8% 10-19 Units Single-family 11% Attached 6% ''` . 2 Rental Units 5-9 Rental Units 8% 12% 3-4 Rental Units 10% Source:U.S. Census Bureau,2015 American Community Survey 5-year Estimate Figure 18:Rental Units of 5+ Units Per Year 5+ Unit Rental Stock Needed by Year(000's) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 N -100 27 7. Other Rental Property Types Single-family Housing and Detached Units as a Source of Rental Supply After the housing crisis of 2008, many formerly owner occupied units became part of the rental stock. In fact, several investment funds were created to own and operate single-family housing units as part of the rental stock. The term for this trend is the"Institutionalization of Single-Family Rentals (SFR)". Nearly 200,000 single-family homes are now owned as rental units by institutions. A list of the largest is included in Appendix 1,with the largest as of 2016 listed below: Institution SFR Units Blackstone(Invitation Homes) 47,342 American Homes 4 Rent 46,131 Colony Starwood Homes 32,272 Progress Residential 16,345 This SFR asset class would not have existed were it not for the low investment basis possible via a wave of distressed real estate sales with potential rents high enough to carry the units using modest leverage. Another key factor in the establishment of SFR as an asset class has been the ability to reach minimum concentration scale thresholds for the efficient management of units. Because of the need for scale, much of this asset class is clustered in markets hit hard by the housing crisis, where rents relative to acquisition cost were attractive.s3 Despite institutional interest in SFR, the bulk, some 99%, of all rental SFR units are owned by individuals and private partnerships. In total, some 17 million single-family rentals compete today with the 2 to 4 unit and 5 or more unit rentals. As a percentage of the total rental stock, SFR units surged from 2010 through 2014 and now represent about a third of all rental stock. The result has been a surge in the distribution of small scale landlords as shown in Figure 19 below: 53 The largest concentrations of SFR units are in Dallas, Denver,San Antonio,Orlando, Nashville,Tampa,Atlanta, Charlotte, Phoenix, Miami, Riverside,Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Indianapolis,Jacksonville, Cincinnati, Raleigh- Durham,Columbus(OH),and Chicago. See httio://roofstock.com. 28 Figure 19:Small Scale Ownership of Rental Units Distribution of Rental Units Owned 11-100 units over 100 units 6°0_ 3% 1, 6-10 units 4% \.- 3-5 units 8% 1-2 units 79% While market share of small scale ownership has increased significantly,we have every reason to expect it to decline as market forces prompt a conversion back to the single-family owner occupant in select markets.54 We expect that SFR will continue to be a viable rental stock alternative, especially for families choosing to rent and requiring a larger number of bedrooms, something lacking in the typical larger property multifamily stock. Over time, more 3 and 4 bedroom choices could be added to meet this demand, and new units will be added to the inventory.At the same time, some of the existing SFR units will be converted back to owner occupied housing as prices for the owner market rise relative to the rental market and landlords decide to cash out. Additionally, more rental demand is coming from smaller households. For this reason, we do not expect the SFR units to increase as a percentage of the rental stock and in fact, are more likely to decrease over the long run, until the next wave of distressed sales. 54 See Attom Realty's report called LANDLORD LAND:A real estate dance party is being led by a new breed of rental property investors, March, 2017. htto://www.attomdata.com/landlord-land/#. 29 Scenarios Analysis At the national level, sensitivity analysis is probably less important in that it is easy to imagine a scenario where some parts of the country are growing more than expected while others are growing less than expected. In such a case,we might conclude that no change in the projected demand for new housing units is needed at the national level if the more positive growth areas exactly balance the less positive (or negative)growth areas. Nevertheless,we have laid out a few national level scenarios that might impact the aggregate rental demand. Lower Rentership Scenario: Here we assume that home ownership rates increase by nearly 170 bp by 2030, but remain about 400 bp lower than the previous peak, assuming that the subprime market was a contributor to home ownership rates reaching levels near 2004-05 that are in excess of long-term stabilized levels. See the below table for home ownership rates used in the various scenarios. We also assume a long-term slow-down in net immigration with more restrictive immigration policies keeping immigration to just over half the base case scenario. Household growth is slower, resulting in 1.7% fewer households by 2030 than in the base case. Higher Rentership Scenario: Here we maintain immigration at current rates in the near-term, rising to 1.6 million people per year by 2023 (29%higher than the base case),while we allow home ownership rates to continue to decline based on higher immigration rates,the aging population and continued delay in family formations by younger persons.The resulting total and annual rental unit demand is show in the following graphs. In the downside rental demand scenario,we require 153,000 units of new rental housing per year on average from here through 2029. If we include 2030 we require only 139,000 units on average per year,with a projected deep recession hitting around 2030. In the upside scenario,we require 525,000 rental units on average per year through 2029 and 517,000 on average through 2030. Of course, during recessions units will not be withdrawn from the market, so the averages through 2029 are relevant figures. Home ownership Rates Used in Scenario Analyses Year Base Low Rentals High Rentals 2016 62.2% 62.2% 62.2% 2017 62.0% 62.2% 61.8% 2018 61.8% 62.2% 61.4% 2019 61.6% 62.4% 61.2% 2020 61.4% 62.8% 61.1% 2021 61.4% 63.2% 60.8% 2022 61.2% 63.4% 60.6% 2023 61.1% 63.5% 60.4% 2024 61.0% 63.5% 60.3% 2025 60.9% 63.5% 60.2% 2026 60.9% 63.5% 59.9% 2027 60.8% 63.6% 59.8% 2028 60.7% 63.6% 59.6% 2029 60.6% 63.7% 59.5% 2030 60.5% 63.8% 59.2% 30 Figure 20: Total Multifamily Rental Stock Required by Year in Scenarios Multifamily Rental 5+ Units Needed 35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 00 N- Ol O .-i N M cr ul l0 N W 61 O .--i N M 7N" - ul tD N 00 Ol O O 0 O N c-I .-i ,-i ,-1 ,-I N i-I c-I N N N N N N N N N N M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Base Case -Lower Rentership Higher Rentership Figure 21:Annual New Rental Stock Required by Year in Scenarios New Rental Stock Required by Year 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 (200,000) co Ql 0 0 0 N 088 ,-. e<2 NO ON ON cONl0 NNNO wBase Case Lower RNNcO-eI ntNWcOi rshNrOOilipNNOO NO ONNN gONMN erNOdN R'eN<nterOlNNsDhipNN N8 00 NQNO1 OOM HihN 31 National Trends Worth Watching While the total units of housing required overall will not deviate with a number of other market trends,we feel it worth mentioning some observations influencing the types of units which will be demanded in the next decade or two. These include an upscale shift in rental households, changes in unit sizes,the impact of an aging population,the impact of demographics, better data sources,the impact of an increasingly privatized student housing market,the conversion of affordable units and uncertain future subsidies to housing, and the impact of short term rentals and reactionary regulations at the building level to neighbors to cities. Each will be discussed in turn. 1. Upscale Shift in Rental Households The housing downturn and recent surge in multifamily development have revealed a shift in rental households toward upscale tastes,greater buying power and corresponding demand for new rental product. National field studies using market segmentation modeling's have seen this rising share of renters to be 30%-45%of all rental households in most metro market sectors, a much greater share in the high-demand metros of San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York. Upscale renters will devote more gross monthly income to rent, expect a wider array of unit choice and amenities, and have found a 12-, even 24-month lease aligned with their mobility and career horizon. 2. Unit Types: Expansion at both ends of the size spectrum Family units:The housing crisis of 2008-2010 drove many foreclosed home owners to rental stock. This created a surge in demand for 3 and 4 bedroom units.Some households went into single- family units, as discussed above. Others went into larger rentals within traditional apartment complexes. See Figure 22 below. Here we can see that the proportion of 3+ bedroom units runs about 12%for multifamily properties and 63%for single-family units including detached and attached, creating a better fit for those moving from owned single-family housing, and thus fueling the surge in newly institutionalized single-family rental market after the 2008 downturn. The mobile home proportion of 3+ bedrooms is 44%. The vacancy rate on these 3+ bedroom units is lower than average and the turnover is much lower, suggesting such units add stability to rental streams, although household size for renters is generally smaller and thus a balance of unit size that reflects local demographics must be in place at each property.s6 ss For example,Tapestry Segmentation by ESRI®. 56 Daryl Carter,founder and CEO of Avanath Capital Management suggested that family sized rental units were not a well-served market,yet they typically had half the turnover rates and lower vacancy rates than any other sized units. See http://www.avanath.com/about management-team darvl.php and Institutional Real Estate Investor interview where he suggested these units do not need amenities as much as space. 32 Figure 22:Proportion of Rental Housing with 3+Bedrooms by Type' Percent 3+ Bedroom Rental by Type As of 2011 Source:Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University 70% 60% 50% 40% 44% 30% 31% 20% 10% 0% Single Family Multifamily Mobile Homes Overall Micro-housing units: At the other end of the spectrum, what some households in the older housing of Russia or China would consider typical sized units,we call micro-units. We define micro-units as units which are typically 650 square feet or less, although in New York City a micro-unit might be 250 square feet and in Dallas it will be 500 square feet.S8 The reason for increased demand of micro-units is twofold. First, to keep costs down to affordable levels in high cost markets,the units must be very small. Second, location tends to dominate the criteria for apartment selection and not size. Combine the two criteria and we see a large demand for urban well located micro-units. It is unlikely that too much of this type of housing can be supplied in that it is an affordable choice for typically single occupied households who want to live close to work and social amenities. The development of micro- units has been particularly strong in several markets where they have also been permitted.59 Unlike SRO,single room occupant housing where bathrooms and kitchens and common areas are generally shared, micro-units typically include modest kitchens and private bathrooms.fi0 Some cities have minimum size requirements. For example,the District of Columbia requires units of at least 220 square feet. Seattle and Portland have no minimum sizes and are more likely to see a variety of 57 See:http://www.ichs.harvard.edu/americas-rental-housing. 58 See the ULI report at http://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/MicroUnit full rev 2015.pdf. 59 See http://www.curbed.com/maps/microhousing-micro-dwelling-small-space-living-apartment. so See https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/Understanding-SRO.pdf. Many micro-units under 350 square feet feature built-in storage units and flexible furniture systems(e.g., Murphy beds, hideaway kitchen modules,convertible tables,and so on)to make these smaller spaces work.To put the size of a micro unit into perspective,a 300-square-foot micro-unit studio apartment is slightly larger than a one-car garage but considerably smaller than a two-car garage. 33 combinations of SROs and micro-units with various common amenities.61 We expect to see substantial excess demand for micro-units that provide affordable housing without subsidies. The limits on this form of housing will likely be regulations and neighbors against smaller unit housing, claiming that it will drive up traffic congestion and parking problems.62 Should autonomous cars become prevalent they may negate the arguments about parking and reduce urban apartment construction costs by placing dedicated parking structures in less desirable areas. For example, close to noisy rail yards, airports and generally on the boundaries of urban areas. Parking requirements for most multifamily developments are a significant cost factor adding to the required rents and making units less affordable.63 3. Aging Households: propensity to own tails off when and if we live long enough In the United States,tax laws have been favorable to ownership for those in higher tax brackets, as property taxes and mortgage interest are deductible expenses and capital gains are generally excluded from taxation.64 These laws tend to add significant momentum to the ownership or rental decision. That is,once a household buys a home, they tend to remain as owners for most of the balance of their lives.65 Ownership tends to start to drop off around age 75. See Figure 23 below. For those above 80 years in age the drop off accelerates. This suggests that as Baby Boomers reach 75 years of age and beyond around the year 2025 we should expect some potential drop off in the home ownership rates, assuming our tax laws remain status quo. A lowering of capital gains tax rates could lower the propensity to continue to own after initial purchase,just as price declines pushed many households away from home ownership, now wary of counting on future home appreciation as a reason to buy. 61 ULI report http://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/MicroUnit full rev 2015.pdf. 62 These claims are fairly universal in fights against any new development. 63 See http://www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf. "Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability"August 24, 2016. Todd Litman,Victoria Transport Policy Institute. The abstract of this research is as follows: Most zoning codes and development practices require generous parking supply,forcing people who purchase or rent housing to pay for parking regardless of their demands. Generous parking requirements reduce housing affordability and impose various economic and environmental costs. Based on typical affordable housing development costs,one parking space per unit increases costs approximately 12.5%,and two parking spaces can increase costs by up to 25%.Since parking costs increase as a percentage of rent for lower priced housing,and low income households tend to own fewer vehicles, minimum parking requirements are regressive. 64 This is$250,000 for an individual and$500,000 for a couple as of 2016 as long as a new home is purchased within the required time period.See https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc701.html. For those over 55 years in age, there is also a once in a lifetime exclusion of$125,000 single or$250,000 jointly on home gains. 65 See U.S.Census reports on housing at http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf. 34 Figure 23:Age Versus Home Ownership Home Ownership Rate Versus Age Source: U.S.Census 100 90 80 70 60 50 co 40 30 20 10 <35 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ 4. Demographic Trends Aside from the aging trend mentioned above,the changing mix of major ethnic groups will affect both household size and the propensity to own. Most relevant here and factored into our analysis are the increasing proportion of Hispanic households.66 In 2015 the Hispanic home ownership rate was 45.6%much lower than for whites, but still an increase from prior years. Over half of all new homeowners were Hispanic in 2012, and most analysts expect the home ownership rate for Hispanics to continue to rise. Still the propensity to own remains lower than for non-Hispanics and this may reduce the overall home ownership rate and thereby increase the demand for rental housing. In particular,the single housing rental units and larger apartment units will observe the most demand pressures from this demographic trend. With lower than average income, rental unit affordability stress suggests that low amenity larger units will be in very high demand for some time. 5. Better Data Sources Base Census data and estimates do not track rising renter circulation well, especially the previous upscale renters concentrated in revitalized urban cores. Alternative housing surveys such as the Social Compact Initiative have demonstrated over 12% urban household undercounts in even the more sedate Midwestern markets67. Developer-provided rent rolls of new scaled developments consistently reflect more tenant buying power and younger professionals in growth employment 66 See http://www.housingwire.com/articles/36524-hispanic-home-ownership-on-the-rise. 67 Social Compact Initiative Cincinnati Neighborhood Market DrillDown June 2007. See https://www.uc.edu/cdc/urban database/citywide regional/cinti drilldown report.pdf. 35 sectors. On the supply side, several private data sources collect and categorize multifamily housing stock with greater depth,often including rentals from duplex, condominium and detached housing. Along with base Census data,two such sources were referenced for the HAS estimates throughout this review.6S 6. Student Housing: Increasingly Privatized Student housing supply tends to be measured in beds, not units. This market has become increasingly privatized with universities providing less and less dormitory units. According to Axiometrics, nearly 220,000 beds were delivered in the four-year span of 2013-2016.69 Student housing units in the private market will have more amenities, especially fast Wi-Fi and common study rooms and social areas, and will not be that different from some of the larger apartment complexes located adjacent to campuses. Affinity for such private sector housing varies by campus. Florida and Texas universities are among the most dependent on such housing.70 7. Housing Affordability Employment growth is increasingly occurring in large urban centers. For example, more than 14%of jobs that were created in 2009 to 2016 were created in three metropolitan areas: New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. With this has come significant housing affordability issues. Going forward, job growth is expected to continue in urban centers. Historically, rent control programs have proved to be ineffective in creating affordable housing for the overall market and in fact in some instances have done just the opposite.71 Thus, creating housing will be of utmost importance in growing markets. 8. Affordable Units Converting to Market Section 8 rental subsidies and low income tax credit housing programs have provided nearly 1.4 million units of U.S. rental housing. This is a significant percentage of the rental stock and there is a great deal of speculation that affordable low income tax credit housing units will be converted to the private sector over the next several years. Per rental agreements with 15 year minimums and some 30 year restrictions on such conversions to private market rents, we will observe significant units eligible to convert to the private market. The first wave of such units will hit around 2022 although most industry analysts suggest that these properties will need substantial capital improvements to be able to compete with other private sector market properties.72 What is more likely over the next Presidential term in 68 Costar®and CBRE Econometrics®,with permission. 69 See http://pinecrestus.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Q1-2016-Student-Housing-Market-Update-for- website.pdf. 70 See http://www.fanniemae.com/resources/file/research/emma/pdf/MF Market Commentary 062315.pdf. 71 Rent control encourages wasteful use of space. It discriminates in favor of those who already occupy houses or apartments in a particular city or region at the expense of those who find themselves on the outside. Permitting rents to rise to the market level allows all tenants or would-be tenants equal opportunity to bid for space. See Miller and Geltner, Real Estate Principles for the New Economy,2005. 72 See https://www.huduser.gov/publications/pdf/what happens lihtc v2.pdf and https://www.hud user.gov/porta I/periodica Is/em/su mmerl3/h igh lightl.htm I. 36 2017-2020 is a cut back on public housing subsidies putting more pressure on communities to approve affordable market rate housing. The only way to do this is to approve more units with greater densities.73 9. Short Term Rentals The advent of the shared economy brought with it firms like AIRBnB,VRBO and Homeaway.com that matched home owners with empty rooms or houses or condos. As a percentage of the hotel industry the AIRBnB room count provides up to 20%of the short-term rentals in expensive markets like New York City and 12.5% in San Francisco but only 3.4%overall.74 In many communities a backlash against short term rentals of less than 30 days suggests that these types of operators are more likely to affect the hotel industry and not likely to have a significant impact on the longer-term rental housing market. 73 The challenge remains one of overcoming NIMBY's that suggest traffic and parking will hurt their neighborhood, yet pushing housing further away simply adds to traffic congestion and air pollution. In California,some legislators have proposed a carbon tax on communities unwilling to approve more affordable private sector housing in their backyards.At the Federal level,see I-732's proposal at https://www.wired.com/2016/11/washington-state-pass- nations-first-carbon-tax. 74 See https://skift.com/2016/02/03/measuring-airbnbs-real-threat-to-u-s-hotels-using-industry-metrics. 37 Conclusions on U.S. Rental Housing Demand There are a few very sensitive assumptions in our models that will affect future demand for housing of all types in the U.S. Among these are 1)the net immigration rate and future government policies that may affect an important source of long term household growth in the U.S., and 2)the longevity of the rental housing stock. Given the relatively young age of the U.S. housing stock,just around 40 years in age as of 2017, it is difficult to suggest that atrophy and replacement of existing units will be a major demand driver in the next few years. But, even at 0.5%of the stock per year,we are talking about 720,000 units per year on average through 2030 for all housing types. Changing this to 1.0%for a 100-year economic life doubles the 720,000 to 1.4 million per year. Eventually capital improvements will be required at much higher levels than today or else greater production will be required. Annual household formations in the U.S.will require net new housing increases of about 1.3 million units per year for the next 14 years.The figures would be higher were it not for two expected recessions where households will double and triple up, estimated first in late 2019 and 2020 and then again in 2029-2030. Of the net new housing demand,some 40%or so are expected to be renters despite the momentum of senior citizen owners to keep a home until reaching ages of 75+. In fact,the surge in much older citizens starting in 2025 will contribute to a slight reduction in household size and the home ownership rate. Housing starts are running close to the net new demand, as of late 2016, but there is a mismatch in that units added by price type and supply may not geographically match up with where it is most needed. That is,there is no national and fungible housing market. There are only local markets and segmented markets by size and price points. Thus, some markets will fall well short of housing demand,even though top line average vacancy rates may waver, often reflecting trends in new supply which tends to be oriented towards the highest price points in the market. The propensity to choose renting over buying could dramatically affect the rental demand suggested here. Our numbers are conservatively low on the dimension of choosing renting. To the extent that owned housing is considered a life style choice with less freedom and mobility, significant investment risks and often provided in a size larger than desired or in distant locations from the urban core, rental demand could be even higher than our base case shown here. Single-family rentals have helped to satisfy some of the rental unit demand but we do not expect that market share to continue to increase. Based on 43%of the total rental demand being satisfied with traditional 5+multifamily units,we will need an average of 328,000 units per year from now through 2030 and cumulatively 4.6 million units of 5+ unit housing. New supply will also need to match requirements for all income levels, not just the top tier of the market. Anything short of this will simply drive up rents faster,far exceeding expected household income growth and requiring more doubling up and house sharing. 38 State Key Issues: • More than 100,000 new rental units will be needed by 2030 in states such as California, Georgia, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, New York,Texas and Washington. • Less than 35%of the rental stock was built after 1980 in much of the Northeast indicating significant need for rehabilitation of existing stock. These markets have also tended to be less volatile over the past 20 years. • The Western U.S., as well as Texas, Florida and North Carolina are expected to have the greatest need for new rental housing through 2030, although all states will need more housing. The fastest economic and household growth will continue in low-cost, business friendly states, primarily in the southeast and mountain west. • The 65+age cohort will account for a large part of population growth going forward across all states, especially Florida, Maine,W. Virginia,Vermont, Pennsylvania, Montana, Delaware and Hawaii. Longer term,Arizona and Nevada will also add more senior citizens than average. • International immigration is assumed to account for 51%of all new U.S. population growth over the period through 2030, declining over the 2017-2020 period and then accelerating again. Most affected by policy changes and international fears that the welcome mat might be curtailed in the future are slow-growth states in the Northeast where natural population increases are the slowest. • Renters are becoming increasingly diverse with larger families becoming a more permanent part of the rental demand. Hispanics account for more than 30%of renters in 11 states and their lower propensity to own has helped drive down the expected home ownership rate. • The propensity to rent is and has always been higher in high-growth and high cost states where housing affordability constrains ownership demand, e.g. California exemplifies this trend. • Generally,the home ownership rate increases with age but this trend reverses for those living long enough. The national forecast assumes slower household growth going forward because of the aging population, although this trend varies by state. • Renters over 35 years old are a significant component of rental demand, particularly in the Northeast where renters aged 55+account for more than 30%of rental households. • In fact,the 55+age cohort of renters is greater than the 15-34 year-old segment in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. • The institutional segment(5+ units) of the apartment market is a larger part of the market in higher income states and less affordable housing states. • Affordability issues are exacerbated by high land costs which is the result of natural supply limits or severe political restrictions. Rents as a percent of income are over 44% in California, New Jersey and New York where housing supplies are limited. • Affordable housing is needed in both high cost states as well as in lower income states. Renters with household income below the poverty level account for more than 24%of renters in parts of the Midwest and South. 31%of all renters earn less than $20,000. This figure increases to over 30%in parts of the South and Midwest. Florida and Louisiana have lower housing costs but severe income constraints affecting affordability. 39 State Trends Similar methodology was applied at the state level to estimate rental demand through 2030 for each of the 50 states. See Appendix 3 for rankings and Appendix 5 for methodology. Not surprisingly, as shown in the map below,the fastest growth through 2030 is expected in many of the southern and mountain west states, including Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado,followed by Texas, Georgia,South Carolina and Kansas. Forecast Growth Per Year in Multifamily 5+ Units. h ; n I' A Com ,ei.-o m 3 «w ``° ,HIS j HAS Avg Percent 5—Rental Units Needed 2016- - "".'' 2030 >over 2.0% >1.6%-2.0% ..,a. M irerc RP.. >1.2%-1.6% 'a r.nacc LIVir >0.8%4..2% >under 0-8% Malys*tame.,a' c:.o.a 11,,. kilo«,. f xi Some of the more interesting trends appear when looking at the underlying details. One of the policy risks identified in the model is the amount of international immigration that will occur during the next decade. As discussed earlier in this report, due to the aging U.S. population base, immigration is expected to exceed natural population growth within the next ten years. These trends will be more amplified within some states and metro areas. While border states have proximity to other countries, many of those states also have low business and housing costs, as well as young and growing population bases.Thus, states most at risk to U.S. immigration policies are those states that have slow growth, older population bases, and exposure to international trade and immigration (see below map). These states are predominately located in the Northeast as well as parts of the Midwest, with less exposure in border states such as California and Florida. Our expectation is that there are wider margins of error in the forecasts for these states because of the potential volatility in U.S. immigration policies going forward. See the Metro Market Overview section of this report for further information about demographics, in-migration and growth in the major markets in these states. Interestingly,the major markets do not always exemplify the state trends. For example, while international immigration accounts for a large part of population growth in Michigan, Detroit benefits mostly from natural growth (births minus deaths) and experiences net out-migration including international and domestic migration to other locations. 40 Percent of Population Growth Created by International Immigration slow growth states. + . g ...._ ,,,,,,t. _,. ...,. ---,, .:::, , .. -,„..c.,,,, .‘,.,,, ,-....-- -,,-,,,,,44 it-44.'4447 44.44\44,4v444;4. . .. -....' vim. HAS Percent PopGrowth by Intl Immigration . .. ,,,,,w 2010-2014 _. lli >over 100% aaldrn o 30%-100% pW„.., >10%-30% CIE;8CO ”, c.r.y... a, >under 5% ;a ie Rental affordability is also a significant issue in the U.S. Affordability can be affected either because of low incomes or because of high housing costs. Exposure to these factors varies significantly by state. For example, 31%of U.S. renters earn less than $20,000 per year. As seen in the map below, _ renters below the poverty level account for more than 35%of renters in states such as Mississippi and West Virginia, signaling a significant need for affordable housing in these markets. Large Share of Renters are Below the Poverty Line in Some States. 1. ...a 10.711 ©1 0.0 u 1111 110. 1 0 101 4, , z 51 M�" .-.t.s.u.. HAS Percent Rental Households Under Poverty ,'"`°°"'° amu, Level bk >over 35% % Mu. >30%-35% cw:.. ... >25%-30% rae>aco .". >20%-25% ..»,.. >under 20% a.xvao. o.. 41 In other areas, renters have significant incomes, but the high cost of housing creates affordability problems. In markets such as California, Hawaii, New York and New Jersey, more than 44% of renters are spending over 35%of their gross income on rent due to high housing costs. States such as Florida and Louisiana face a similar mismatch in incomes to rental costs,even though they have lower housing costs. We explore this topic in more detail in the Metro Market Overview appendix of this report. At the metro area level, many of these markets have either geographical and/or political restrictions on new supply that can cause housing costs to soar. Renters in some areas spend a significant share of income on rent. fl; use HAS Percent Rental Households over 35%Gross Income to Rent >over44% a uw.:n >36%-40% eie>n: mtr >32%-36% ., rr >under 32% Ufa For example, a Redfin study found that only 17%of California homes for sale were affordable to an average teacher in 2016, down from 30% in 2012. Affordability is worse in major metro areas. With average incomes of just over$71,000 in the San Francisco Bay Area,teachers can afford rents that are 48%of average rents in San Francisco and about 67%of average rents in the East Bay. Percent Teacher Salary Needed for Average Rent San Francisco 48% Alameda 67% Contra Costa 69% For investors looking to rehabilitate and improve older properties,the proportion of buildings built before 1980 varies significantly by geographic area. As shown in the map below, in the northern states and California, more than 65%of the multifamily housing stock in properties with five or more units was built before 1980. In contrast, less than 35%of the southern markets are in older buildings. While it is unknown how many of these properties have already been improved or renovated,they create a significant market size. In total, 11.7 million units were built before 1980 in the U.S. These units may also serve mid to lower income households which are a significant proportion of the population base. 42 Renovation Opportunities? Markets with a High Proportion of Older Stock Vanrol rwr' I©1 �,k u « r S 73333- It; r nulte ; o HAS Percent of Rental Stock 5- Units Built before ORBS ( " >over 65% >55%-65% 64, >45%-55% FIE >35%-45% r_ < >under 35% Ala.“ c,R_ aom�e ma. Second Tier Affordable Rentals(STAR) Another product type is of significant size and generally left out of the institutional rental market,although they are a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. We call these units Second Tier Affordable Rentals or STAR units. STAR units are characterized as older and lower quality units. Using CoStar® ratings of 1 to 5 for sites of five units or more, STAR units are those with lower CoStar® ratings of 1 to 2. Costar® ratings are based on a number of criteria including building structure and systems, amenities, site and landscaping, and certifications such as LEED and Green Globes. Properties rated 2 have functional architectural design and systems, below average finishes and one to no additional amenities. They have minimal to no landscaping and exterior spaces, and are unlikely to hold green or energy efficient certifications. Properties rated 1 may require significant renovation and are possibly functionally obsolete. STAR facilities are likely to serve lower income populations which are a significant part of the population base in some metro areas, and may represent, in some areas, potential investment targets for upgrading to higher quality properties. States such as California, New York, Michigan and Ohio have a high proportion of STAR units. At the metro market level, the percent of multifamily rental properties with 5+ units characterized as STAR units for metro markets in this study ranges from 61% (Los Angeles)to 17% (Austin)with a metro market average of 36%. 43 Metro Market Key Issues: • New York and Dallas are each expected to need more than 250,000 new apartment units in dwellings that have five or more units over the next fourteen years,growth that is equivalent in size to more than the entire population of over half the metropolitan statistical areas in the U.S. • Raleigh, Orlando,Austin, and Charlotte are expected to be the fastest growing apartment markets through 2030, increasing in size by more than 2.5% per year on average. • In addition to new units driven by net new demand, a sizeable portion of the needed rental housing will be driven by the aging of the structures. More than 65%of the 5+ unit rental stock was built before 1980 in New York, Cleveland, Honolulu, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco. • Second Tier Affordable Rentals (STAR) are also a significant part of the rental market. These lower quality properties generally fly below institutional radars, but represent more than half the 5+ unit rental market in San Diego, Pittsburgh, Detroit and Los Angeles. Some analysts call this NOAH for Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing. Our research suggests that NOAH units are often not tracked by traditional data bases and even the U.S. Census sometimes under- counts this lower quality housing stock. • • U.S. metro markets will face different challenges during the next fourteen years. Some markets are facing serious affordability issues. Half or more of renters in Miami and Honolulu spend 35% or more of their income on rent with 45%or more of renters in Los Angeles, New Orleans, Orlando,San Diego, Sacramento and New York spending 35%or more of income on rent. • Some of the affordability issues can be traced to a lack of sufficient new supply and the high cost of entitlement which drives up housing costs,while other markets are affected more by low income levels and declining economic bases. New supply can be restricted by geographical topography as well as by governmental processes and rules. Markets that have high barriers to entry tend to have higher costs and lower ownership affordability rates and a positive, but lesser positive correlation to rental affordability. • Markets with low ownership affordability tend to have high renter rates. For example, San Jose, Los Angeles,San Francisco, and San Diego have the lowest ownership affordability rates by far of any metro markets in this survey. All four markets rank in the top 10 markets with the highest rentership rate. • Supply restrictions do not correlate as closely to the actual volume of new construction which is more closely tied to demographic and economic growth. For example, Seattle ranks as the fourth most restrictive construction environment and eighth least affordable market, but with total multifamily inventory increasing by 1.5% per year on average from 2010 to 2016, it ranked 10'of the 50 markets in terms of the highest new supply growth. Housing permits in highly restrictive markets may take 10 or 12 years to secure, but such efforts are underway continuously and with such long lags, one cannot use current supply volume as an indication of the restrictiveness of a local market. • High costs of housing are correlated with out migration to nearby areas or even cross-state locations for some areas. For example, Los Angeles which ranks at the bottom for both owned and rental affordability has experienced flat to negative migration patterns since 2000,with slightly better in-migration rates in the neighboring and more affordable Riverside-San Bernardino area as well as increasing out-of-state exits to Las Vegas. Thus, it is clear that housing costs do inhibit the economic growth of a region by inhibiting the ability to hire and retain employees. 44 • Similar to the state trends, southern metro areas rank highly for attracting residents from other areas. Austin, Orlando, Raleigh, Charleston and Houston had the highest in-migration rates since 2010. These markets have more reasonable housing costs and are relatively business friendly. • Regardless of future international in-migration, current ethnic composition is an important factor affecting rental demand. For example, more than half of the San Antonio rental population is Hispanic, as are at least a third of rental residents in Miami, Riverside, Albuquerque, Los Angeles and Houston. Ethnicity is correlated with variations in home ownership rates, household size and other factors that affect the propensity to rent, amenities desired, and unit sizes. • Renter income levels vary widely,with a large portion of the U.S. population falling below the high-end cohort of the market favored by multifamily developers. A third or more of the rental households in Cleveland, Birmingham, Pittsburgh, New Orleans,Albuquerque, Detroit, Memphis-- and Cincinnati earn less than $20,000 per year as of 2016. • Renter populations are also aging. The 35-54 age cohort is expected to account for more than half of new apartment demand in Baltimore, Cleveland and San Jose through 2030,while the 65+age cohort is expected to be the primary growth generator through 2030(outpacing all other age categories combined) in Pittsburgh, Detroit, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Chicago, Philadelphia,Albuquerque and Kansas City. 45 Metro Market Trends: Demand for multifamily properties with five or more units was further estimated for 50 metropolitan markets. See Appendix 3 for a list of markets. The forecasting methodology is similar to that used at the state level adjusting household growth for two modeled recessions through 2030 and adjusting for home ownership rates, age, immigration, homelessness, long-term vacancy levels,the age of stock and the 5+rental unit percentage of the rental housing market. Methodology is further described in Appendix 5. Historical figures for the years 2007 to 2016 are based on estimates of existing multifamily 5+total inventory as developed by the HAS team from several sources including the U.S.Census, CoStar®and CBRE®Econometrics. Forecasts represent the number of units needed in properties with five or more units to keep vacancy rates at long-term stable rates that are typical for that market. The model does not forecast supply,so if supply exceeds this pace,then vacancy could rise. The forecast also does not remove units that could fall outside of typical institutional investor portfolios. We call these units Second Tier Affordable Rentals or STAR units as they represent lower quality properties(see Appendix 5 for a further discussion description.) The metro market analyses included a review of supply restrictions occurring at the local level by reviewing two indices,the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix Developable Land Index. The Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index is based on data and a nationwide survey of local land use regulations including process and approvals, rules, and outcomes. The index includes eleven sub-indices measuring the stringency of the local regulatory environment, including local political pressure, local project approval, local assembly,supply restrictions, density restrictions, open space, exactions, and approval delay. The Lacroix index was developed by Sumner La Croix, Ph.D. at the Economic Research Organization at the University of Hawaii and measures the developable area within a 50-kilometer radii from a central city. Factors such as oceans,wetlands, lakes, rivers and other bodies of water as well as areas with a slope above 15%are defined as undevelopable. The Multifamily Supply Restrictions Index is the sum of each sub index for the metro market divided by the average for that sub index for all the metro markets in this study. A table ranking the 50 metro markets by the supply index is shown in Appendix 3. The index is also shown on each of the Metro Market Overview pages. Higher indices represent markets with more stringent regulatory environments in regards to new housing supply. Of the markets in this study,this index ranges from 19.5 for Honolulu which is the most supply restricted to-6.0 for New Orleans which is the least supply restricted of the 50 markets in the study. (The average index is 2.0 for all 50 markets.) While there are significant variations by market, we find that the supply restriction index loosely correlates to rental markets that are less affordable as measured by the percent of households that spend 35%or more of their gross income on rent, as seen in Figure 24 below. That is, markets that have more supply restrictions tend to be less affordable. Note that affordability is a measure of both income and housing costs. Thus, given the same rents, markets with higher incomes will spend less of their income on rent as compared to rental costs and move further to the left on the below graph. 46 Figure 24:Supply Restrictions and Affordability Percent Households Spending 35%+of Gross Income on Rent 25.0 20.0 15.0 • • 10.0 • • • • • 5.0 • •• ®••�' + a •••••• • •••E • • a, 0.0 -_- _ ._ r_4.._ --k% • •' :• • -5.0 • • • • • -10.0 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% The higher costs associated with supply restrictions are driven in part by less supply in markets with high supply restrictions as shown in Figure 25 below. Note that new supply is also a factor of demographic growth and associated housing needs. Thus,some supply restricted markets do experience growth. In these markets,the result of higher supply restrictions may be longer approval and development time-lines which increase costs and development risks. Similarly, some low restriction markets may not experience inventory growth if they have weak economic and demographic trends. 47 Figure 25:Supply Restrictions and Inventory Growth Avg Annual Percent Growth in Total Stock 1995-2016 25.0 20.0 15.0 -a • • 10.0 • • • • c 5.0 0...... • • > ....•.••• �....®...... a • • Q • 00 • -- •....... cJ • ° • • • • ! • •° • • -5.0 • • -10.0 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% Markets with high supply restriction indices also loosely correlate to lower vacancy volatility. That is,with less new supply,these markets are not as likely to experience over-supply conditions (see Figure 26 below which shows the volatility in vacancy rates from 1995 to 2016 as reported by CBRE® Econometrics). New supply tends to be oriented towards higher rent, class A product. Thus,we also frequently see a higher proportion of older buildings and particularly buildings that we classify as Second Tier Affordable Rentals (STAR) buildings in supply restricted markets. These are non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. See the Metro Market Overview section in Appendix 5 for classification methodology for this segment of the market. These buildings create affordable rental options and may create opportunities to upgrade the site to a higher use in good locations in growing markets. 48 Figure 26:Supply Restrictions and Volatility Vacancy Volatility 1995-2016 25.0 20.0 v 15.0 -0 • • 10.0 47. .L • •• • • • • Lu 5.0 •'•• •P • • • ® • a • •f••'•'• 0. • •.. < • •• • • • • • 5.0 • ••. -10.0 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% The Metro Market Overviews as shown in Appendix 4 illustrate the significant and important variances in both tenant characteristics and the built environment that occur by metro market. For example, income levels for renters in San Francisco are among the highest of 50 metros studied,while renter income levels in Cleveland are more oriented towards lower incomes. San Francisco Cleveland Rental Households by Income Rental Households by Income 140,000 90,000 120,000 80,000 760,00,00000 100,000 80,000 50,000 60,000 40,000 30,000 40,000 20,000 0�0 20,000 e- 10,000 : under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $505 $75k $look $150k $150k $15k $255 $355 $505 575k $1005 $150k $150k While San Francisco boasts a large share of renters earning household income of more than $75,000 per year, more than half of renters earn less than $75,000 per year. In a market with high rental costs,this creates a severe affordability issue for middle class workers as described in the State Trends section of the report. Additionally,the market's severe affordability issue for owned housing drives the rentership rate up and keeps higher income households as renters. While this at first may seem attractive for multifamily owners,when rental costs become too high,tenants begin to leave the -- market. San Francisco has been able to escape an exodus of tenants seeking lower costs in recent times 49 due to the growing tech industry, although it did experience net out-migration in the 2000 to 2010 time period. The Los Angeles market which has low affordability in both the owned and rented markets shows more severity in migration trends. Although out-migration stopped in the 2010-2016 time period, it has yet to show any significant net in-migration trends despite recent job growth in its tech industry as well as other industry sectors. Los Angeles Avg Annual Population Change(000's) -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Furthermore, states with low costs and strong fiscal positions are able to draw both corporations (through tax incentives) and individuals from high cost areas. Indianapolis and Dallas are two examples as shown below. These markets gain new tenants through both natural increases (births minus deaths) as well as net in-migration to the area from other metro markets, states and countries. Indianapolis Dallas Avg Annual Population Change(000's) Avg Annual Population Change(000's) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2000-2010 2000-2010 Natural Increase Natural Increase Net Migration Net Migration 2010-2016 2010-2016 Natural Increase Naturallncrease Net Migration Net Migration 2016-2030 2016-2030 Natural Increase Natural Increase Net Migration - Net Migration The demographics of local markets,and more particularly submarkets and neighborhoods, should also be carefully considered. We see large variations in renter growth by age group across metropolitan markets. In select high growth markets with good migration trends, e.g.Austin as shown below,we see new tenant demand coming from all age groups. 50 Austin New Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 ■25-34 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 14.0 12.0 10.0 III 111111 ' ' 11 c° 642°: Z0 c 0r.i 0r 0 m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ry r� While the results vary widely,the Columbus, OH market as shown below is more typical in that we frequently see new tenant demand increasingly coming from older households. Columbus,OH New Rental Households by Age Cohort 015-24 ■25-34 ®35-44 '._45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 6.0 5.0 4.0 ! lIiiiiji 1.0 0 111111 -10 o cc 0 w -,9:J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In markets with little growth and particularly those with out-migration trends,we see a large part of incremental demand coming from the 65+age cohort of the rental market. Detroit, as shown in the graph below, is an example of this type of market. Detroit New Rental Households by Age Cohort C 15-24 ■25-34 M 35-44 45-54 •55-64 •65+ 8.0 6.0 4.011111111 ' 2.0 11111 00.o II U y y -40 . ' ■ -60 -80 �•.. n ry ry n ry ry ry o 0 0 0 ry ry ry 51 Appendix 1: Institutional Ownership of Single Family Rentals Estimated institutional holdings-single-family rental (SFR) properties Source: Amherst Insight Labs estimates based on CoreLogic County Record and Transaction Data as of 012016 Institution Units Owned Total Managed Count Blackstone(Invitation Homes) 44,386 47,342 American Homes 4 Rent 39,043 46,131 Colony Starwood Homes 27,193 32,272 Progress Residential 14,321 16,345 Silver Bay Realty Trust 6,928 8,798 Main Street Renewal 5,694 6,754 Tricon American Homes 5,103 6,743 Cerberus Capital Management 3,428 5,912 Havenbrook Homes 3,917 4,061 Connorex-Lucinda 2,704 2,994 Altisource Residential 1,522 2,912 Golden Tree Insite Partners(GTIS) 2,182 2,911 Vinebrook Homes 998 1,973 Gorelick Brothers Capital 1,460 1,784 Camillo Properties 13 1,314 Haven Homes 1,253 1,294 Lafayette Real Estate 994 1,271 Transcendent Investment Mgmt 598 628 Reven Housing Reit 216 500 Broadtree Home Rentals 432 468 Prager Property Management 119 277 Pintar Investment Company 151 164 TOTAL 162,655 52 Appendix 2: Renter vs. Owner Demographics Housing Tenure by Age 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 1111 III <35 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ ■Owned 5 Rented Housing Tenure by Educational Attainment 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Less than high school High school graduate Some college or Bachelor's degree or graduate (includes equivalency) associate's degree higher Owned Rented 53 Appendix 2: Renter vs. Owner Demographics, continued. Housing Tenure by Move Date 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% t N o m p p .-i o o rn m rn O N N ci H N N O O O O V O O W 0 O O 01 O1 N N ri c-i Year Householder Moved Into Unit ®Owned ■Rented Housing Tenure by Race -^ 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Proms 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Owned Rented White a Black Asian Other 54 Appendix 3: State and Metro Market Tables Total Population Growth 2016-30 (000) Age Cohort State 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+ Alaska -3 -16 -10 6 19 11 -4 -11 -6 73 ___---___I Alabama -17 -18 26 49 48 11 -32 -52 -34 281 _________1 Arkansas -5 -12 5 18 25 11 -14 -23 -12 164 _________1 Arizona 72 97 167 185 173 116 80 58 103 812 California -244 -457 -116 352 555 237 -24 -77 213 2,993 -________I Colorado 8 14 46 105 120 64 9 -36 -15 398 Connecticut -80 -43 -16 88 59 -11 -75 -88 -27 200 .--•---.-I DC -19 -42 -50 -1 31 36 16 4 1 36 -■■-"---' Delaware -1 -4 3 15 20 4 -10 -12 -2 70 --_--__-_I Florida 142 11 163 350 468 296 104 171 401 2,946 Georgia 80 106 163 193 147 55 6 31 92 871 Hawaii 4 -16 -10 10 32 19 1 -9 -5 93 Iowa -39 -17 -4 31 14 5 -25 -55 -33 187 _________I Idaho 18 13 12 10 21 20 10 -3 -1 131 I Illinois 142 54 -147 -363 -183 -92 -163 -158 -21 979 ---._____• Indiana -40 -9 21 68 37 -9 -57 -81 -36 449 _________I Kansas -10 -5 1 38 36 32 -1 -31 -15 223 _________I Kentucky 0 1 31 29 23 -7 -29 -43 -17 295 _ 1 Louisiana -20 -73 -51 7 65 36 -27 -66 -32 316 --_---___I Massachusetts -123 -69 -22 122 102 11 -89 -93 -2 481 ________-I Maryland -33 -30 -3 56 78 15 -57 -71 5 460 _________I Maine -17 -5 4 10 2 -16 -31 -34 -18 99 -..-I Michigan -158 -98 35 110 35 -97 -170 -192 -88 671 ________-I Minnesota -20 -24 -31 38 66 48 -24 -72 -13 443 _________I Missouri -35 -38 -12 44 63 29 -44 -85 -38 419 _________I Mississippi -5 -7 6 15 5 -9 -24 -31 -11 , 177 _________I — Montana 0 -5 0 16 20 13 0 -17 -16 73 ________-I North Carolina 138 186 233 242 171 74 32 44 80 804 I North Dakota -23 -13 6 29 21 11 -1 -12 -9 45 .--■ ■ Nebraska -11 1 -2 26 21 23 -1 -22 -15 130 ________-I New Hampshire -27 -2 7 29 14 -9 -33 -36 -10 120 _---- I New Jersey 4 127 75 -97 -122 -157 -182 -147 6 674 ---_____-I New Mexico -6 -8 1 24 27 17 -8 -24 -17 132 _ I Nevada 66 59 69 46 38 33 42 48 54 274 I New York -259 -21 227 374 198 -154 -382 -419 -198 436 --'''-.■-• Ohio -89 -96 -6 34 67 -57 -157 -202 -91 783 ----- I Oklahoma 4 -14 0 42 57 41 -7 -38 -23 232I Oregon -8 -6 25 41 51 29 17 -18 -23 282 _I Pennsylvania -202 -166 -69 103 99 -71 -209 -256 -110 813 Rhode Island -27 -16 -4 20 11 -8 -20 -22 -6 73 --- -----I South Carolina 34 31 66 89 80 22 -17 -23 4 392 _I South Dakota 9 4 10 15 16 11 6 -5 -5 26 --■ss..__l Tennessee -16 -24 34 73 69 7 -31 -24 16 512 ___--_1 Texas 187 169 283 517 569 464 275 179 259 2,263 1 Utah 57 44 43 26 51 70 70 27 16 200I Virginia -42 -56 -28 83 105 39 -45 -54 24 666 _____ I Vermont -21 -5 2 18 3 -4 -12 -16 -8 55 ._____ I Washington 21 -30 13 77 141 89 28 -24 3 618 - I Wisconsin -55 -18 0 64 39 2 -66 -106 -37 423 ___---_- West Virginia 2 -4 -3 -6 -6 -14 -16 -31 -31 85 ..I Wyoming 5 -2 -6 0 9 11 1 -11 -12 29 ---- --� Source:Moody's Analytics 55 Appendix 3: State and Metro Market Tables, continued. ,Apartment Demand by Metro Market New Units Needed Avg Annual Metro Market 2017-2030 Rank Growth% Rank Avg Rank Albuquerque, NM 8,897 44 0.9% 31 39 Atlanta,GA 170,095 5 2.2% 9 7 Austin,TX 114,076 10 2.9% 3 6 Baltimore, MD 22,965 31 0.7% 41 36 Birmingham,AL 5,283 47 0.6% 43 48 Boston, MA 66,109 19 1.1% 28 23 Charleston,SC 13,388 38 1.5% 16 29 Charlotte, NC 71,523 17 2.6% 4 10 Chicago, IL 47,826 22 0.5% 47 34 Cincinnati,OH 15,312 34 0.7% 40 38 Cleveland,OH 5,151 49 0.2% 50 50 Columbus,OH 33,048 27 1.2% 27 28 Dallas-Ft.Worth,TX 266,296 2 2.2% 7 1 Denver,CO 55,801 20 1.4% 19 20 Detroit, MI 15,467 33 0.4% 48 41 Honolulu, HI 15,131 35 0.9% 34 35 Houston,TX 214,176 3 2.2% 10 4 Indianapolis, IN 30,901 29 1.2% 26 30 Kansas City, KS 14,007 37 0.6% 44 42 Las Vegas, NV 87,280 12 2.4% 5 9 Little Rock,AR 5,827 46 0.8% 35 43 Los Angeles,CA 164,201 6 0.9% 32 17 Louisville, KY 9,295 43 0.7% 39 44 Memphis,TN 11,719 41 0.8% 37 40 Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, 185,414 4 2.2% 8 3 Milwaukee,WI 5,251 48 0.3% 49 49 Minneapolis, MN 70,783 18 1.6% 15 15 Nashville,TN 29,942 30 1.5% 17 24 New Orleans, LA 6,966 45 0.7% 42 46 New York, NY 278,634 1 0.8% 36 16 Oklahoma City, OK 12,915 39 0.9% 33 37 Orlando, FL 130,177 8 3.3% 2 2 Philadelphia, PA 38,407 25 0.7% 38 31 Phoenix,AZ 150,302 7 2.3% 6 5 Pittsburgh, PA 9,545 42 0.5% 46 47 Portland.OR 46,788 23 1.3% 22 21 Raleigh, NC 74,323 13 3.8% 1 8 Richmond,VA 14,787 36 1.0% 30 33 Riverside, CA 40,499 24 1.1% 29 26 Sacramento,CA 31,914 28 1.2% 25 27 Salt Lake City, UT 16,478 32 1.4% 18 25 San Antonio,TX 53,890 21 1.8% 11 14 San Diego,CA 72,775 15 1.3% 24 18 San Francisco,CA 71,668 16 1.3% 23 19 San Jose,CA 35,942 26 1.3% 20 22 Seattle,WA 98,228 11 1.6% 14 11 Sioux Falls,SD 4,661 50 1.7% 13 32 St. Louis, MO 12,325 40 0.6% 45 45 Tampa, FL 72,933 14 1.8% 12 12 Washington DC 127,962 9 1.3% 21 13 56 Appendix 3: State and Metro Market Tables, continued. Changes in Metro Market Population (000s) 2010-2016 2016-2030 Metro Market Natural Increase Net Migration Natural Increase Net Migration Albuquerque,NM 3.5 -1.0 2.0 4.1 Atlanta,GA 38.7 42.1 34.0 90.9 Austin,TX 16.9 36.8 19.7 45.6 Baltimore,MD 10.1 4.4 7.0 1.4 Birmingham,AL 3.0 0.0 0.8 3.9 Boston, MA 16.3 22.7 14.3 11.9 Charleston,SC 4.1 10.3 3.1 8.2 Charlotte,NC 12.3 27.7 9.9 56.6 Chicago,IL 50.8 -39.3 42.5 -30.2 Cincinnati,OH 8.4 0.0 5.5 4.2 Cleveland,OH 2.1 -5.6 0.2 -6.9 Columbus,OH 12.2 10.4 10.9 11.0 Dallas-Ft.Worth,TX 57.8 71.6 60.7 91.0 Denver,CO 18.3 32.0 15.6 20.2 Detroit, MI 9.8 -7.2 5.1 -5.1 Honolulu,HI 5.9 0.9 4.6 -0.3 Houston,TX 59.4 77.9 63.8 72.8 Indianapolis,IN 11.1 7.7 9.3 10.5 Kansas City, KS 11.0 2.4 8.1 -0.7 Las Vegas, NV 11.9 21.9 11.3 49.1 Little Rock,AR 3.5 2.2 2.4 2.7 Los Angeles,CA 88.5 0.6 84.4 -3.2 Louisville,KY 4.0 4.0 1.9 5.0 Memphis,TN 7.5 -3.2 5.0 3.2 Miami-Ft.Lauderdale,FL 19.2 65.8 12.0 102.0 Milwaukee,WI 6.7 -3.0 4.4 -1.5 Minneapolis, MN 23.6 11.1 20.8 18.5 Nashville,TN 9.8 21.7 8.3 16.8 New Orleans,LA 4.9 6.9 3.4 2.6 New York,NY 107.0 -3.2 98.9 -31.7 Oklahoma City,OK 7.8 9.7 6.5 4.0 Orlando,FL 11.6 39.5 11.4 71.8 Philadelphia,PA 18.3 -0.9 12.2 -1.6 Phoenix,AZ 29.2 44.0 28.0 91.1 Pittsburgh, PA -3.2 2.6 -4.8 4.7 Portland.OR 11.4 22.6 9.1 21.3 Raleigh,NC 8.8 18.4 8.9 46.7 Richmond,VA 4.8 6.2 3.7 5.3 Riverside,CA 33.1 10.5 32.7 2.6 Sacramento,CA 11.3 10.6 10.9 12.5 Salt Lake City,UT 12.6 3.7 11.6 3.6 San Antonio,TX 16.5 27.3 17.2 25.0 San Diego,CA 23.6 11.2 23.7 7.1 San Francisco,CA 22.6 35.0 22.4 20.8 San Jose,CA 14.4 10.4 14.3 4.5 Seattle,WA 22.2 36.6 20.5 33.5 Sioux Falls,SD 2.1 2.3 1.9 1.4 St. Louis,MO 8.3 -4.8 3.8 0.7 Tampa, FL 1.6 35.6 -3.3 56.1 Washington DC 47.8 30.8 44.6 12.2 57 Appendix 3: State and Metro Market Tables, continued. Supply Restriction Metrics Wharton Supply Supply Land Area Restriction Restriction Restriction Metro Market Undevelopable Rank Index Rank Score Rank Albuquerque,NM 11.6% 34 0.37 32 3.00 29 Atlanta,GA 4.1% 6 0.03 24 0.36 22 Austin,TX 3.8% 5 (0.28) 16 (1.82) 16 Baltimore,MD 21.9% 28 1.60 48 11.93 48 Birmingham,AL 14.4% 24 (0.23) 17 (1.09) 19 Boston,MA 33.9% 32 1.70 49 13.06 49 Charleston,SC 60.5% 43 (0.81) 3 (3.47) 9 Charlotte,NC 4.7% 7 (0.53) 9 (3.52) 8 Chicago,IL 40.0% 36 0.02 23 1.58 24 Cincinnati,OH 10.3% 15 (0.58) 8 (3.67) 6 Cleveland,OH 40.5% 38 (0.16) 21 0.34 21 Columbus,OH 2.5% 3 0.26 28 1.90 26 Dallas-Fort Worth,TX 9.2% 12 (0.23) 17 (1.27) 18 Denver,CO 16.7% 26 0.84 43 6.45 42 Detroit,MI 24.5% 29 0.05 25 1.23 23 Honolulu,HI(urban) 92.0% 50 2.32 50 19.47 50 Houston,TX 8.4% 10 (0.40) 13 (2.49) 13 Indianapolis, IN 1.4% 1 (0.74) 5 (5.10) 4 Kansas City,MO-KS 5.8% 8 (0.79) 4 (5.30) 3 Las Vegas,NV 32.1% 31 (0.69) 7 (3.65) 7 Little Rock,AR 13.7% 21 (0.85) 2 (5.43) 2 Los Angeles,CA 52.5% 42 0.49 36 5.30 39 Louisville,KY-IN 12.7% 19 (0.47) 11 (2.82) 11 Memphis,TN-MS-AR 12.2% 18 1.18 47 8.66 46 Miami,FL 76.6% 49 0.94 45 9.30 47 Milwaukee,WI 41.8% 40 0.46 34 4.71 35 Minneapolis-St.Paul,MN-WI 19.2% 27 0.38 33 3.34 31 Nashville,TN 12.8% 20 (0.41) 12 (2.40) 14 New Orleans,LA 74.9% 48 (1.24) 1 (5.95) 1 New York,NY-NJ-PA 40.4% 37 0.65 41 5.98 41 Oklahoma City,OK 2.5% 2 (0.37) 15 (2.49) 12 Orlando,FL 36.1% 33 0.32 31 3.53 32 Philadelphia,PA-NJ-DE-MD 10.2% 14 1.13 46 8.24 45 Phoenix,AZ 14.0% 22 0.61 39 4.75 37 Pittsburgh,PA 30.0% 30 0.10 26 1.78 25 Portland,OR-WA 37.5% 34 0.27 29 3.23 30 Raleigh,NC 8.1% 9 0.64 40 4.75 36 Richmond,VA 8.8% 11 (0.38) 14 (2.33) 15 Riverside-San Bernardino,CA 37.9% 35 0.53 38 5.06 38 Sacramento,CA 15.0% 25 0.52 37 4.13 34 Salt Lake City,UT 72.0% 46 (0.03) 22 2.38 27 San Antonio,TX 3.2% 4 (0.21) 20 (1.35) 17 San Diego,CA 63.4% 44 0.46 34 5.48 40 San Francisco,CA 73.1% 47 0.72 42 7.65 43 San Jose,CA 63.8% 45 0.21 27 3.76 33 Seattle,WA 43.6% 41 0.92 44 7.98 44 Sioux Falls,SD 10.0% 13 (0.50) 10 (3.12) 10 St.Louis,MO-IL 11.1% 16 (0.73) 6 (4.69) 5 Tampa,FL 41.6% 39 (0.22) 19 (0.04) 20 Washington,DC-VA-MD-WV 14.0% 22 0.31 30 2.66 28 58 Appendix 3: State and Metro Market Tables, continued. Second Tier Affordable Rental (STAR) Units Metro Market STAR Share Rank Albuquerque,NM 36% 27 Atlanta,GA 22% 42 Austin,TX 17% 50 Baltimore,MD 31% 34 Birmingham,AL 32% 31 Boston, MA 40% 18 Charleston,SC 35% 28 Charlotte,NC 18% 49 Chicago,IL 39% 21 Cincinnati,OH 48% 6 Cleveland,OH 46% 9 Columbus,OH 39% 19 Dallas-Fort Worth,TX 19% 46 Denver,CO 29% 38 Detroit,MI 52% 5 Honolulu,HI(urban) 41% 16 Houston,TX 22% 43 Indianapolis,IN 25% 39 Kansas City,MO-KS 35% 29 Las Vegas, NV 21% 44 Little Rock,AR 33% 30 Los Angeles,CA 61% 1 Louisville,KY-IN 42% 15 Memphis,TN-MS-AR 38% 22 Miami,FL 37% 26 Milwaukee,WI 43% 13 Minneapolis-St.Paul,MN-WI 44% 11 Nashville,TN 29% 36 New Orleans,LA 41% 17 New York,NY-NJ-PA 48% 7 Oklahoma City,OK 44% 10 Orlando,FL 18% 48 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD 37% 23 Phoenix,AZ 30% 35 Pittsburgh,PA 54% 4 Portland,OR-WA 37% 24 Raleigh,NC 19% 45 Richmond,VA 37% 25 Riverside-San Bernardino,CA 48% 8 Sacramento,CA 42% 14 Salt Lake City,UT 29% 37 San Antonio,TX 24% 40 San Diego,CA 58% 2 San Francisco,CA 54% 3 San Jose,CA 43% 12 Seattle,WA 32% 33 Sioux Falls,SD 23% 41 St.Louis,MO-IL 39% 20 Tampa,FL 32% 32 Washington,DC-VA-MD-WV 19% 47 59 Appendix 3: State and Metro Market Tables, continued. Owner and Renter Housing Affordability SF Owned Housing Renters Spending over "� Metro Market Affordability Index Rank 35%Income on Rent Rank Albuquerque,NM 182 22 44% 41 Atlanta,GA 192 18 40% 28 Austin,TX 157 31 38% 16 Baltimore,MD 199 17 41% 31 Birmingham,AL 203 16 42% 34 Boston,MA 141 38 40% 25 Charleston,SC 147 35 40% 27 Charlotte,NC 147 35 39% 23 Chicago,IL 191 19 42% 36 Cincinnati,OH 272 2 37% 9 Cleveland,OH 291 1 39% 18 Columbus,OH 231 9 37% 11 Dallas-Ft.Worth,TX 174 27 38% 12 Denver,CO 122 42 38% 15 Detroit,MI 260 3 43% 38 Honolulu,HI 71 48 50% 49 Houston,TX 181 24 39% 22 Indianapolis,IN 254 4 40% 29 Kansas City,KS 234 8 34% 2 Las Vegas,NV 146 37 42% 37 Little Rock,AR 244 6 41% 33 Los Angeles,CA 70 49 49% 47 Louisville,KY 228 10 37% 10 Memphis,TN 222 11 42% 35 Miami-Ft.Lauderdale, FL 105 45 54% 50 Milwaukee,WI 181 23 40% 26 Minneapolis,MN 211 14 38% 14 Nashville,TN 175 26 37% 8 New Orleans,LA 180 25 47% 46 New York,NY 122 43 45% 42 Oklahoma City,OK 235 7 37% 5 Orlando,FL 149 34 46% 45 Philadelphia,PA 212 13 44% 40 Phoenix,AZ 155 32 40% 24 Pittsburgh,PA 204 15 37% 7 Portland.OR 125 40 41% 32 Raleigh,NC 183 21 35% 3 Richmond,VA 188 20 41% 30 Riverside,CA 113 44 50% 48 Sacramento,CA 137 39 45% 43 Salt Lake City,UT 153 33 36% 4 San Antonio,TX 166 29 38% 13 San Diego,CA 76 46 46% 44 San Francisco,CA 72 47 39% 19 San Jose,CA 69 50 39% 20 Seattle,WA 124 41 37% 6 Sioux Falls,SD 213 12 31% 1 St.Louis,MO 252 5 39% 21 Tampa,FL 174 28 43% 39 Washington DC 159 30 38% 17 60 Appendix 4: Metro Market Overviews The following Metro Market Overviews provide key metrics on each of 50 select metropolitan rental markets that invite local market leadership response. 61 Net migration prior to 2010 was strong,has since reversed to slightly neg- ative with more expected growth ahead. This remains a key component to rental household growth. Sluggish economic growth hampers new multi- family development and existing rent growth. Multifamily demand begins to ramp up after 2020. luck DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 39 182 3.0 36% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 30,000 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 25,000 Owner Single 20,000 Owner 2-4 units I 1,430 15,000 Owner 5+units I 1,519 10,000 Renter Single 45,035 1N 5,000 fl Renter 2-4 units 18,751 N _ ■ under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- 5100- over Renter 5+units 43,284 $15k 525k $35k $50k $75k $10Ok 515Ok $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 50,000 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 45,000 since 2010 ip4o 40,000 - ' ,.t 35,000 2000- 4,052 o3.. 2010 _c 30,000 ci 1980- 0 25,000 2000 19,980 ,fO 20,000 1960- 1980 14,339 �v 15,000 ; 10,000 cci 1940- EN li 11 1, 1960ore 586 `'S"1 cr N^: 5,000 bef 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15-24 ■25-34 10 35-44 .45-54 0 55-64 ■65+ 74 -o 2.5 N 72 2.0 a70 68 1.5 42 66 0 1111111111 11111 64 0.5 62 ' liii ' ' ' ' 61111111111111111111 111I not adjusted for type of rental -1.5 54 U) Imo. CO IT 0 .-1 N 1,1 d' LO ,40 6- w oo 0 r., W on 0 ,- N M [t N ,D N W a1 0 '-- N m CY Ln .0 t\ 6o a1 0 N O N N N N O O N f+O 0O 00O OOOO OO 000 ,4 -1r-1 , .-1 .-1 , -I ,-1 ,-1 N N N N N N N N N N NNNNNN N NNNN ON 0N 0 N 0 O O 0 O O O O N O ro ,O"a �I ___, MULTIFAMI NAT10N:;L LY 62 I� tr 1 ,-, oHAS a ,..., cat.,r 4SnDiegx°�1 1 50,000 •Owner 40,000 30,000 ---. N . 20,000 O ., M <--1 CI M 10,000 ut L W9 I i' i 1 i , Ili 1 il!M 15-24 25-34 35-44 45.54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 100,000 - 200,000 90,000 III Renter 180,000 ■Renter 80,000 "I Owner 160,000 s Owner 70,000 140,000 e. 60,000 120,000 50,000 100,000 40,000 80,000 30,000 N N 60,000 liiiaoornc0NJ 0ti 20, 00 MI® ill• _ ... _... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -5 0 5 10 15 -5 0 5 10 15 Mining , 2000-2010 Construction 2010-2016 NaturalIncrease M 2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing illii Trade&Transport — 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial SvcsIli . Net Migration Professional Svcs 1.11110111111111 Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&HospitalityMINIIIIMii Natural Increase Government MUNN Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,art index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,Costar°,CBRE Econometrics*,Moody's Analytics*,ESRI°and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in �—..economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 63 y -! MULTIFAMILY I�1HAS . �Iltl� HOUSING _____._ USan De tit COUNCIL. _.__...-. ---_-_ :;5anDieQo° Strong in migrations exceed natural population increases. Solid economic -- - growth expected across all sectors but mining,manufacturing and infor mation. Positive new rental household growth across all age cohorts and consistent demand growth through 2030. Today's rental householders are .. younger and 40%pay over 35%of household income on rent. Definitions on back DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE - 7 217 0.4 22%O Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 160,000 - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 140,000 OwnerSingle 120,000 Owner 2-4 units 17,798 100,000 - 80,000 Owner 5+units ' 33,530 60,000 - - _ N io Renter Single 304,920 40,000 N tn.' 20,000 --,- Renter 2-4 units . 67,379 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 381,727 $15k $255 535k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 300,000 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 '�'' since iim 250,000ACt 2010 16'623 ,...\ 2000- 84,493 -0 200,000 ,,. 2010 o F., 1980- 169,970 O O 150,000 .:, 2000 x ;° 1960 ci 100,000 1980 92,186 i i iN 194a - 50,000 1960 "057 JA CO before - 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15-24 •25-34 G 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 700 a 25.0 3600 not adjusted for type of rental a H 20.0 500 .43 15.0 _. ,' 400 0300 0 T150..0 200 111111111111111111 1 100 0.0 in r• co m O .a N Ol v trl LO h co Si 0 n us w 0 - N en v ui La n e0 m 0 .-1 r, m <r Ln LO N 00 a, 0 O 0 OOOOODO O O O O O O S 0 O N N N N N N N N N 0 N N N N 0 0 2 N N N N N N N NNN NNNNN N NNNNNN �_., NATION AI 64 HOUSING HAS S Universityrsity ai.`.. 300,000 118 Owner <_-.. 250,000 m 7 . w 200,000 = 150,000 _ --.:r \ I 100,000 _- n MN I I u-i i _ rr1 4 O 50,000 v' o N _.. -.. �„ 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 500,000 900,000 450,000 ■Renter II Renter 800,000 400,000 ■Owner Owner 700,000 350,000 600,000 300,000 m 500,000 N 250,000 so a 400,000 M 200,000 cr 300,000 150,000 ,N.i m n co 100,000 liii p 2D0,000 ,y m M eV 50,000 .' =. =p 100,000 = n I i o EN 1 2 3 4 S 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('0005) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Mining 1 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction 1•111. Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing • Trade&Transport IIIMIMINIIMM 2010-2016 Information Svcs I< Natural Increase Financial Svcs mom Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government -- Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStar°,CBRE Econometrics°,Moody's Analytics°,ESRI°and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in .,,economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission.For more detailed analyses and multifamily market insulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team fisted in the publication appendix. w NATIONAL 65 f MULTIFAMILY HASUriIDPSSIei HOUSING I�� COUNCIL .—...�-.---_��' - — e(Sail DleQO' Strong in migrations are double the natural population increases. Good economic growth ahead in most sectors. Growth in new rental households expected in all age cohorts with steady,significant rental demand growth through 2030. Some of the youngest multifamily housing stock seen in the nation,smaller STAR share of affordable rentals. Definitions on bock DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 6 157 -1.8 17% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 70,000 - - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 60,000 Owner Single 380,009 50,000 Owner 2-4 units I 5,524 40,000 Owner 5+units I 6,730 30,000 1 1 1 1 1 i :,3. Renter Single 79,727 20,000 10,000 ' Renter 2-4 units . 37,632 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 179,805 $15k 525k 535k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 120,000 - - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 since 100,000 21,854 2010 2000- -a 80,000 2010 46,226 0 t 0 1980- 0 60,000 2000 73,266 x "To 1960 34,579 iu 40,000 cc 1980 1940- . 3,004 20,000 1960 before III 876 r�., - 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 2096-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0 15-24 ■25-34 0 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 400 v C 14.0 5 350 not adjusted for type of rental o s~ 12.0 I I 300 I 10.0 ' -' ' ' 250 c 8.0 I "_' 1 200 o6.0 150 4.0 100 2.0 50 0.0 II 111111111111111 1 t0 N 00 01 0 0 N rn a N l0 n CO 01 0 N 00 01 0 a-i N Ci ti tt 0 N CO 01 0 N M Cr tl1 t0 ceCO In 0 O O O O O O O O O NO O O O O S O O N O 8 O O O O O O O N N NO N 8 N N 0 0 N 0 -- ,N N N N N N N N N NN NN N NNN N NN N NNN NNN NNN HOUSING L 66 C J4ui 1 MULTIFAMILY HAS Universa TAMT7 1! ll. -.-_....._.-.._..__ t��2Yl DlegO` Owner - -- 100,000 - 75,000 N h. O ,- 50,000 m m to 25,000 ^ co i 1 -�t_ 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ -__� _. .. ._- Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 160,000 400,000 •Renter ■Renter 140,000 350,000 ▪Owner '3 Owner 120,000 300,000 100,000 250,000 80,000 11 i 200,000 1-1 CM 60,000 a O. 150,000 ‘I-iliii m ^ oo 50,000 mCO CO ui 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Mining I2000-2010 ' 2010-2016 Construction MIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing It Trade&Transport --- 2010-2016 Information Svcs • Natural Increase Financial Svcs IIIIIIIM Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality I=MMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINatural Increase Government IIIIIIIIIIII Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). - AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStarn,CBRE Econometrics•,Moody's Analytics,ESRI•and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market •onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATi'>iiAL 67 C ■■rr MMUSIFAMILY N M HAS n. �r •rt HOUSING _--..-.-x,,./11—�./—.... COUNCIL �'!52i1 D1C1?O' Fewer in migrations now and ahead leave natural population increases as to source household growth. Economic growth expected in most sectors. Rental household growth strongest in ages 35-44 and seniors over 65, while fairly diverse in range of incomes,ages and household size. Multi- family demand consistently increases after 2009. -- -. on hack - DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 36 199 11.9 31% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 80,000 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 70,000 ,. Owner Single av x,• 60,000 Owner 2-4 units I 4,931 50,000 40,000 Owner 5+units 34,146 30,000 j ry Renter Single 136,366 20,000 10,000 Renter 2-4 units ■ 43,134 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 174,515 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 140,000 - - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 120,000 41, since 11,208 la 2010 wis P... 100,000 . 2000- -‘, 16,909 -° 2010 S ti 80,000 1980- ° 2000 62,526 I _. 60,000 v 0,- m 1960- 52,592 40,000 i '•` 1980 ry 1940 20,000 - 1960 15,046 before 1940 16,234 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0 15-24 •25-34 2 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 260 -o 7.0 3 6.0 not adjusted for type of rental 0 250 r- 5.0 240 4.0 3.0 I j 230220 u t_i u 4 y . . 2101 ' ' ', , , zoolO !� W 0, O ti N M d' , tO W O IIIIIIIIIIIWWU NOOOO OOO OOOOO O O 0 0 pp0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N NNN NNN N NNN N N NN NNNN0NNNNNN NN NNNNN ... .... NATIONAL 68 /A� MULTIFAMILY I�IY_1l_•1 HAS ` r HOUSING Unn=elslry - cOUNr-I:- - SanDiear , "" -- - 150,000 I Owner 125,000 100,000 75,000 w 50,000 rsi of m .y N N p el ._ _. 25,000 N N uII . o® _ 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55.64 65.74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 250,000 - 600,000 •Renter IN Renter ■Owner 500,000 ®Owner 200,000 400,000 150,000 300,000 100,000 0 r, m o 200,000 ui 3 � rn uiI Ncsi 50,000 M N ixi 100,000 0 O co 1-1 mi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('OOOs) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Mining I 2000-2010 Construction 2010-2016 IlilNatural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing mi Net Migration Trade&Transport - 2010-2016 Information Svcs I Natural Increase Financial Svcs ll Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&HealthMINMINIIMM 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality S Natural Increase Government 1111111. Net Migration IIM RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,Costar*,CBRE Econometrics*,Moody's Analytics°,ESRC*and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission.For more detailed analyses and multifamily market --•consulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 69 HAS. HOUSING � ..� -San - COUNCIL ofSan)71eQ0" COUNCIL Though minor in the last six years,in migrations will source the greatest share of new renter households. Fair economic prospects with job growth ___ in most sectors. Rental market is led by smaller households,varied ages - and incomes up to$75,000. Nearly a third of multifamily units are seen in affordable STAR product. Modest increasing demand ahead. - roc.k DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 48 203 -1.1 32% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 40,000 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250000 300,000 35,000 Owner Single ` :, 30,000 Owner 2-4 units I 1,018 25,000 20,000 Owner 5+units 1 2,731 15,000 N Renter Single 51,398 10,000 5,000 ui as o, Renter 2-4 units In 16,344 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 60,688 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $15ok Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 60,000 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 since 3 264 50,000 2010 2000- 10,590 -a 40,000 2010 6 t co 1980- E 30,000 2000 21,310 y 1960 c, 20,000 m 1980 19,114 i 11 1 ti �' 1940- I 10,000 1960 3,106 befog 3,304 194 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0 15-24 ■25-34 :%35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ a 90 1.4 , 80 1.2 not adjusted for type of rental o I- 70 1.0 60 0.8 4,1 0.6 __. 50 a III I III III ii OA - 40 0.2 0111111111111111111111111 Ill 0.2 1111® 64 4.4 -0.2 ' I 1 1 11 - 1 1 1 i 20 -0.4 is10 -0.6 lJ N CO CO 0 NM Q N a N 00 01 0 N CO 0, 0 .-I N M CO LO a N 00 CO O .-- N M d' 00 0 N CO 0, 0 0 ~ N N N N N 00N MO 0 O 0 o 0 O O o Oo OO O S N 8N o N N - o O o N 8 0 N N N N N N N o N N N NNN NN NNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNN r� ION l 704iii MULTIFAMILY worm Si HOUSING HAS UI11Y'eI51L}� , k COO CIt. ..._....._.._..._...-_...._ .San DIe o' 70,000 -7 ,5` 71 Owner 60,000 50,000 w 40,000 •—• r' .. e �.—... 30,000 cmn 40 o� 20,000 ti tie N ' ci ,-I nn .-y m to 10,000 , 1 , v r• a •,.. „r•I € ..,.. _ ._ __ __ ..,_ 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 120,000 250,000 ■Renter ■Renter 100,000 0 Owner a Owner 200,000 80,000 150,000 60,000 100,000 40,000 1 i JIILI . . L 2000050,000 - NN. 0811r4 Lo ' m L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 0 1 2 3 4 5 Mining 2000-2010 -- 2010-2016 Construction MIMEO Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration ' Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. AS metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStar®,CBRE Econometrics.,Moody's Analytics",E5RI®and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market Insulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. MULTIA 1. 71 a ®,• • 1 g� ; MULiiFAMt6Y "'/� I-)ntVQiSq • ? HOUSING /'� SanDieko. �'� Strong economic growth prospects. Net in migration exceeds local popula- • -- tion increases and is important to the metro economy. Supply restrictions .e;. are led by land use regulation that ranks Boston near the bottom of supply '- opportunities. Most rents are over 35%of income amid younger rental _._ householders,good housing affordability and smaller household size. Definitions on bock DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 23 141 13.1 40% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 160,000 - - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 140,000 Owner Single 120,000 Owner 2-4 units 117,772 100,000 80,000 Owner 5+units all 78,002 60,000 Renter Single I. 95,266 40,000 20,000 Renter 2-4 units 256,685 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 335,107 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k • Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 300,000 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 since 250,000 ` 2010 13,513 -` 40 2000- 35,476 -0 200,000 ev2010 L 0 t 1980- • 150,000 2000 64,341 To iv 100,000 1960- 99,202 c 1980 o+ - 1940- to 50,000 1960 35,077 "'- before 1940 87,498 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 015-24 ■25-34 •35-44 45-54 0 55-64 ■65+ 500,000 20 • 450,000 15 II I 400,000 v 105 I I 11 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 350,000 121 111111111111111111111111 -5 � F 0 4 � y u � = : : � � ... 300,000 ' " ' not adjusted for type of rental -10 250,000 II 0 N w w O .-i N M .7 Lv 0 NMMO N 00 a1 O - N m V N 0 N O0al O ,- N M C' N 0 N DO M 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 00r, .-i ,-1 .-1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , NNNNNNN N NNINNNNNNNN NNNNNN ti;T CI 72 e MULTIFAMILY - C ; f r'A. HOUSING HAS University COUNCI, -.__ c5an Diego Owner «- 250,000 200,000 t 150,000 ..__ -ems 100,000 o CI M. m tfl tr, a _ V7 lD ao m -' 50,000 ci_ uhi ■. 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 400,000 1,000,000 •Renter (Vt. ■Renter 350,000 900,000 Owner Owner 800,000 300,000 700,000 • 250,000 600,000 200,000 500,000 o 150,000 - 400,000 i fl -1 0 300,000 v 100,000 ^ ii N200,0utO uc 50,000 ' N w co ,ii cri 0 mit ■ N 100,000 ■ iri . . ..:'.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Mining 2000-2010 ---�. 2010-2016 Construction MI Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration MINE Trade&Transport MEM Information Svcs 2010-2016 I Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs 1111111111111. Education&HealthIMIIIIIIMIIIIMIM 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStar*,CBRE Econometrics*,Moody's Analytics°,ESRI*and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in ,....6conomic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market isulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. Vig;A 73 ^ �IIIJII MULT[FAMiLY NUIlln Di ! r A it*, Ir 1 HOUSING ■ AS nivetl Q '—•` COUNCIL -...-.....-._...._..---...... Net in migration significantly exceeds local natural population increases _ and is important to the economy. New rental households will span all the _ _ age cohorts. Reasonable economic growth seen in all major job sectors. Rental housing stock is relatively new compared with other metros,yet over a third is seen in more affordable STAR units. Definitions on bock __ DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* -- RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 29 163 -3.5 35% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 20,000 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 18,000 Owner Single 152,873 16,000 - - 14,000 Owner 2-4 units , 1,439 12,000 Is 10,000 ,°,,-,' Owner 5+units ' 4,304 8,000 6,000 Renter Single 33,979 N 4,000 ^ I Renter 2-4 units Mil 14,575 2,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 36,244 $15k - $25k $35k $50k $75k $1006 $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 40,000 - - - 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 35,000 since 2010 4.109 30,000 . 2220°0110-00 0 7,733 25,000 v ,, 1980- ,, 20,000 2000 13,071 x To 15,000 1960- cc ni 1980 9,385 10,000 N a1 i 1940 - 5,000 _ 1940 1960 1,109 6 ■ 837 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15-24 •25-34 i0 35-44 45-54 1155-64 ■65+ 90 -o 2.0 22 80 not adjusted for type of rental 0 1-- 70 1.5 I c 1.0 ;..; ;.. �..,. .� I I ' 60 50 g IIII1 b t 40 O F- 0.5 30 -111111111111111111111111 - _ 0.0 • 20 30 NI -0.5 e7-1 O N co O1 O - N en Cr N la N N at 0 N CO O1 O - N m I(1 to r+ 01 O N N CO CO V) N CO al O O O O O O O O 0 O N N 0 O N CO p pp pp "'� 01 "j .y N N N N N N N N N N m N N N CO N N N N N N N S O N N 0 N N N N N N N N N N 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N �'d ZIA ILY 74 MULTIFAM (A,] HOUSING ■ !AS Uni er e ..z• .. COUNCIL _.W..-_�- __ ,f San Diego. , .- ■Owner 40,000 . 30,000 .,� 20,000 i a• 10,000 4., v 0, 0 N N 1 . .® 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 70,000 - - 140,000 •Renter ■Renter 60,000 M Owner 120,000 ■Owner 50,000 100,000 40,000 80,000 30,000 1 N n 60,000 - - 20,000 N � 40,000 0 + m 1, 10,000 ' c m et 20,000 Lo T m N N V ma 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mining 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing — Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs — Net Migration Professional Svcs 1111111111111111111 Education&HealthiiiiiiiiiiiiiMiii 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government iiiiiiiiii Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStare,CBRE Econometrics',Moody's Analytics',ESRI"and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in --...economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission.For more detailed analyses and multifamily market **Lilting,contact NMHC,NM or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 75 O.A , MULTIFAMILY LUnrvesitY l ���� HOUSING HAS ,. Already significant,net in migrations become a larger source of new renter - = households ahead. Good economic prospects are led by professional ser vices and trade. Rental stock is young and scaled. Like Raleigh,Orlando and Austin,more affordable STAR units account for less than a fifth of metro rentals. Well located metro with an excellent airport. DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* --_ :., RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 10 182 -3.5 18% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 70,000 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 60,000 Owner Single `%' 50,000 iiiiii Owner 2-4 units I 3,209 40,000 Owner 5+units 1 10,835 30,000 N ;l Renter Single 130,297 20,000 ut w of 10,000 I Renter 2-4 units . 30,450 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 135,824 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k 5150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 120,000 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 since 13,033 100,000 . 2010 2000- -a 80,000 `e�:-es 2010 28,485 7.2 4" 1980- 8 980.0 60,000 a`;: 2000 66,146 x 9 1960- El 40,000 # 1980 22,153 . _; n n 20,000 + "* '4 LI; 1 r 1194600 . 3,270 m b1940efore II 2 737 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0 15-24 ■25-34 7 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 111 65+ 250 v 12.0 not adjusted for type of rental 10.0 200 8.0 I I I I IIiIIIIIIIIIIII 150 h I 6.0 r 4.0 4 iR 100 r 2.0 50 11111111 1111 101111 1 11 0.0 -2.0 - 0 N W 01 0 IN en V Lh 40 N 00 0, 0 n W 01 O 'i N m 0'"O'-' ill 40 r W 01 O �-1 N m CF 40 40 N N 4i O N N N N N N M pp 0 0 H rl N N N N N N N N N N ' M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 N 0 N N N N N N N N N 0 N N N 0 N N 0 N 0 N N _� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N MULTIFAMILYN4HC �1 s r 76 HOUSINGNAA HAS University ,...' _`. __.----._-_ VV ,3San Diego' - -= 120,000 Owner — 100,000 _ _ 80,000 60,000 c Irvi . . _ IN 40 000 O en m ._.. liii ii 20,000 ,.‘,. i,t .:.s "„_— -- 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-54 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 220,000 500,000 ■Renter ■Renter 200,000 450,000 180,000 Owner 400,000 J Owner 160,000 350,000 �* 140,000 ..; 300,000 120,000 250,000 100,000 - 80,000 200,000 60,000 1 I i 150,000 .-1 40,000 liii 100,000 ,. n co O V) N u1 20,000 op ^ 50,000 o m - o III oi =NM .IMIN . i . , ,-, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mining i 2000-2010 2010-2016 Natural Increase Construction ---- II 2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs , Natural Increase Financial Svcs —__ ___ Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&HospitalityIIIIIIIIIOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Natural Increase Government Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStare,CBRE Econometrics.,Moody's Analytics.,ESRI®and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in ,...economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market Isulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 77 4066 MULTIFAMILY S HOUSING HAS �.JIllt'eI51t�' WI COU74C11. _--...-. ._._._ ="Sall Diego Net in migrations have been and are expected to remain negative,relying upon natural population increases for renter household growth. Reason- able economic prospects with good job growth and a heavy dependence on Mexico and Canada. Nearly 40%of multifamily is in affordable STAR units. Single and two-person households dominate rental homes. - n back DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE - 34 191 L6 39% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 300,000 - - - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 250,000 Owner Single IF ," .. 200,000 Owner 2-4 units M 135,068 150,000 . m Owner 5+units 207,617 ti N 100,000 _ Renter Single 295,201 U, 50,000 I Renter 2-4 units 330,970 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 640,713 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 500,000 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 450,000 '- since ■ 15,425 400,000 << 2010 350,000 _'... 2000 2010 64,406 m 300,000 1980- 0 2000 250,000 136,214 = 200,000 1960- u 203,737 cc 150,000 1980 100,000 1940- 1960 3"µay 50,000 m", before 1940 135,502 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0 15-24 ■25-34 0 35-44 45-54 •55-64 ■65+ 750 20.0 not ad/usted for type of rents! 0 725 15.0 700 10.05.0 liii 675 1111111111111 11 ii 650 1 625 5.0 Iffiim • ' I ■ . 600 -10.0 575 �n N w w o .-I N m a 'n 50 N w rn O N w m 0 .. N m v in w N w m o ,-5 N m ^C vi So r` w m 0 O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O r, ,-1 ,-i r-I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 . 0000000000000000000000 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NAT101�'^AL 78 MULTIFAMILY ,�,ew�1 + 1"4"" I$4 , I.IIC HOUSING HAS University - 500,000 m.Owner r !. 450,000 y 400,000 l ctli 350,000 300,000 t, lv , t 250,000 ..... g 200,000 w K''.'. vt it a 150,000 vi ri < . _ -- 100,000 • '. M 50,000 1 mAm faN :I .. III .L Y - 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 800,000 1,800,000 •Renter °=`i ■Renter 1,600,000 700,000 f' ;'x", Owner a `<Owner 600,000 1,400,000 ': 1,200,000 `. 500,000 1,000,000 400,000 800,000 300,000 0 `D V) 600,000 l'''.. o N cn 200,000 <1. 400,000 M I k4 n N i':::_ 100,000 ~ 0ri ti 200,000 ''. Ill 0 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 Mining I 2000-2010 --- 2010-2016 Natural Increase Construction EMI II 2017-2030 Net Migration - Manufacturing — Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial SvcsINE Net Migration Professional Svcs IIIIIMMMIIIIIIIIIMIIIMIIOIIII Education&Health IIIIIII2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality MEENatural Increase Government MEM Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStare,CBRE Econometrics.,Moody's Analytics°,ESRI®and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in _--economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission.For more detailed analyses and multifamily market tsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. MULTIFAMILY S University go . "' 'Rollie xouslNc Univ elsit) cu __.___� ;SanDie Metro has relied on natural growth for rental household formations, though modest in migrations will contribute ahead. Economy is stable and growing,despite declines in key manufacturing sector. Rental stock is older with nearly half seen in more affordable STAR units. Annual multi- family demand is flat for next two years,then steadily increases to 2030. DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 38 272 -3.7 48% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 80,000 - - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 70,000 Owner Single 60,000 Owner 2-4 units 8,668 50,000 40,000 Owner 5+units 15,752 30,000 Renter Single 96,160 20,000 • ao • oo 10,000 -,- Renter 2-4 units 56,730 : under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 128,729 $15k $25k $35k 550k 575k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 120,000 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 since . 100,000 2010 3,558 2000- 11,142 =c 80,000 2010 6 _c 1980- 60,000 2000 39,699 1960- E48,195 40,000 1980 1940- - 20,000 1960 11,930 I before 1940 14,205 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast ❑15-24 s 25-34 35-44 _ 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 180 4.0 not adjusted for type of rental c 170 11111111011111 160 0 0.0 u u u ~ , :1453:0iiii1111111111111111111 -1.00 -2.0 v 120 n w m m c w rn c. c c,0 a, c V r-I N N N M O C N O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N p N N � N N N s,. 80 1§rHIC MULTIFAMILY HAS i A HOUSING ��11 ■ t/�lV UIlA'eIS ,,- - • . co .-.u. _._-_--_.____ ��.�... •1-SanDieecr ._ . - .-'-� --. __. _. 120,000 .,. J Owner : �,�,. ...... --- 100,000 ` -_ 80,000 60,000 40,000 iiii N iii. O .20,000 _ - - -' \ _ 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 250,000 500,000 i Renter 450,000 ■Renter 200,000 - Owner 400,000 ` Owner 350,000 150,000 300,000 250,000 100,000 200,000 co 150,000 Lo "n N vs c` 50,000 a o N 100,000 0^ ol co VNIIIL1LL 50,000 ll I. L. cri- 0 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -5 0 5 10 15 Mining j 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing Trade&Transport 111.1111.11111111111111111111111. 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality1111111.11111.1111111111111111. Natural Increase Government111111111111.1.10.1 Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,Costars',CBRE Econometricsa,Moody's Analytics®,ESRI®and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission.For more detailed analyses and multifamily market -salting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. ii:MAL 81 i , MULTIFAMILY I�1 vDiego- cou No 1. HAS , g ss/4,PM*W. } n HOUSING University :„�.: Growth likely to be concentrated in certain neighborhoods as overall net in - -migration is negative with little natural growth. Renter household growth ahead primarily in the 65+aged cohorts. Although forecast to decline,the . manufacturing sector grew slightly in 2010-16;thus could surprise on the upside if it continues to grow. Older stock and nearly half in STAR units. x -- *`;r1ck tifit ;VA , DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE .. 50 291 0.3 46% _. - - �__ - _ Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 90,000 - - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 80,000 Owner Single 70,000 :.t ,_ 60,000 Owner 2-4 units , 13,845 50,000 40,000 Owner S+units 11,552 30,000 Renter Single 106,905 20,000 +4 opI. N r O N 10,000 111 : Renter 2-4 units 55,384 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 137,331 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 120,000 - - - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 since 100,000 2010 II 2,460 80,000 2000-0 -3 BEE nol 0 p 0- 60,000 20 = 2000 24,871 m w 40,000 v 1960- 59,209 o_ ,c 1980 I i i i ry 1940- 20,000 1960 21,701 before 1940 21,341 under 15% 151)4-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15-24 ■25-34 12 35-44 45-54 II 55-64 ■65+ 160 v 4.0 not adjusted for type of rental o 155 3.0 F 1.0 liiiliii 150 o Ol o i_i `' V I i i 1 1 1 145 11111111-111111 -2.0 111- - - - -3.0 . . 11111i 1i 1 135140 1111 -4.0 -5.0 130 1a n 00 in 0 .-0 N CO r 0 0 n 00 01 0 e-i N. N N N N N N N N N 01 n 0 01 0 "-I N 01 C 01 0 IN 00 01 0 .-1 N 01 Cl. 0 0 N 00 01 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 O N ,-i N N N N N N N N N N 01 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O NNNN O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •�0 N 1r1i 82 ® a MULTIFAMILY HAS f ' FA a .HOUSING ■ !r\V University ec t.u. _- �, Diego` _. 120,000 ■Owner 100,000 80,000 .--t ._-, , ._... 60,000 IN i - n - _ �*. '_ 40,000 u sc __ _".. N N f., OI • ni J 20,000 I I ,_.. ___ .__ 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 250,000 500,000 ■Renter 450,000 ■Renter •Owner a Owner 200,000 - 400,000 350,000 150,000 300,000 250,000 100,000 II 200,000i I 0 n 150,000 LI. ao r+ ti 50,000 - ill 100,000 01N HILiLL it C Lo 50,000IN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -20 -10 0 10 20 30 A0 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 Mining 2000-2010 -- Construction 2010-2016Mil Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration imilimm Trade&Transport Information Svcs 2010-2016 Natural Increase Financial Svcs _ Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&HospitalityMiMin Natural Increase Government ® Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStar.,CBRE Econometrics.,Moody's Analytics.,ESRI.and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in `economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market -onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL I�11 83 HAS HOUSINGMiLY �._—.__ ,tY L3n1VCZ51 COMICfL rSanDieQa Net in migrations account for half of the new household formations. Good A' renter depth in younger,single households with incomes up to$75,000. Older rental stock, with most units over 20 years old. Government and ,..Z education sectors result in extremely stable economy. Rental vacancies `" are in balance with steady multifamily demand ahead. - ,,.Lack DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* ._. RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 28 231 1.9 39% ._ _ ,_ Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 70,000 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 60,000 Owner Single 438,813 50,000In Owner 2-4 units 1 7,802 40,,000 Owner 5+units 9 7,866 30000N. u, _20,0F 00 Renter Single 103,439 1. 10,000 `� Renter 2-4 units 64,284 _ under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 130,535 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 120,000 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 ,50,000 since 100,000 m 2010 ,372 N �1 00 0 2000- -0 80,000 2010 13,116 0 1980- 0 60,000 . 2000 47,282 Tc iso1960- r 40,0001 1 i N 1980 44,279 ry 20,000 1960 x',052 1 beforeIIII q 1;<,q 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15-24 ■25-34 2 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 IN 65+ 250 o- 6.0 8 not adjusted for type of rental o 200 '11111111 ; ' ' ' ' ; 100150 - - -1111111 m O nullCO M Ct of l0 , 00 O O H N M CI' 0 0 N 00 IT O fi . . ti N N N N N N N N N N OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 8 0 N 0 N O O O O O O N N N O N NO N N O N M /`—. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ' t n ,!AL 84 ®_ s MULTIFAMILY �© HOUSING HAS University ,' ; - 100,000 Owner 80,000 .-- 60,000 1 ry mss. CV 40,000 M m liii, 20,000 _. 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 200,000 450,000 •Renter ■Renter 400,000 =5 Owner r 4 3 Owner 150,000 • 350,000 300,000 250,000 (". 100,000 200,000 s. 111:‘‘4 m .Y 150,000 o 2 n ° a 50000 100,000 r\ m Yn M alr IILiIIkJi1 .L 50,000 mi 1 _ _ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 2 4 6 5 10 12 14 Mining 2000-2010 Construction 2010-2016 _ _, IM Natural Increase , ■2017-2030 Manufacturing - Net Migration Trade&Transport Information Svcs 2010-2016 Natural Increase Financial Svcs — Net Migration Professional Svcs iiiiMMEIMMIlli Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government 111111.1 .11 Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to SO(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the U5 Bureau of Census,CoStare,CBRE Econometrics.,Moody's Analytics°,ESRI•and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. OSING -_... ._-.-. 85 { MULTIFAMILY 1AUnive• IP - ."-�, COUNCIL .__� _ ... HAS ,VSanDiego- Strong net in migrations now exceed strong natural population growth. --- _ Economic strength now and ahead led by professional services,trade and education. Good renter incomes up to$75,000,though 40%are paying more than 35%of income on rent. New rental households are expected from most age cohorts with strong,steady multifamily demand ahead. DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 1 174 -1.3 19% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 250,000 - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 Owner Single ;`'' 200,000 - . �... Owner 2-4 units 8,-312 150,000 a Owner 100,000 18,303 100,000 -.. - - .• - - - a Renter Single - 311,245 0 50,000 - - v Renter 2-4 units R 105,690 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renters+units 568,070 $15k $25k 535k $50k $75k $100k 5150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 400,000 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 since 2010 45,626 300,000 �� 2000- 0 250,000 2010 98,636 s ,, 19so- 2200,000 2000 253,878 75. 150,000 m 1960- i aa0 1980146,229 100,000 -.t 1 CO 1940. ■ 1,,,2,-0 50,000 1960 before 1 194141 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15-24 1125-34 M 35-44 45-54 IN 55-64 ■65+ N 1,200 30.0 5 not odjusted for a en 00 1,000 - - - 25.0 800 20.0 I 600 3 15.0 :.. .. 1- 10.0 400 11111111111 11111111 5.0 200 0.0 tD t� W Oi O N N M V ' i0 N W 01 O 1\ 00 Oi O ,1 N M d' N O N W Ol O .-i N M V ut to N W M O O O O -,_,IM O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 N .-1 N N N N N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 000 O 000 00 CO 00 O O O O G O 0 0 0 0 ' ...• INNNNNNNN OS N N N N N N OS N N N N N N N *He N,ATiCNAA 86 MULTIFAMILY HAS A �1 HOUSING M L3\ Univeosity '^ COUNCiS. ...-......_._.Y.___.__ ��. ���//�""lllV San Dl2Q0` 350,000 IN Owner 300,000 .,, _ 250,000 ,.,,:':_:. :, 200,000 Y ,�„� 150,000 m `�' Jt rn -.- ILL--: 100,000 r 000 .-.- 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 500,000 1,200,000 450,000 ■Renter II Renter 400,000 „,Owner 1,000,000F. : Owner 4,1 350,000 e 800,000 300,000 250,000 koi600,000 "4:. ,y 200,000 N LD rnim� N400,000 �150,000 .`" aN sr 100,000 v o 200,000 L 50,000 - , ■Ncl ' :. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Mining 2000-2010 Construction 2010-2016 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration Trade&Transport Information Svcs 2010-2016 Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health amimmimin 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government - Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dunn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStar°,CBRE Econometrics°,Moody's Analytics°,ESRI°and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in ��economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission.For more detailed analyses and multifamily market 'onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATioNaL 87 MIILTiPAMILY �© 4. 16e. HOUSING II ■ ./-1S ULanDit)' e COW.,_r: �SanDie wwo- Net in migrations exceed natural population growth and fuel new rental households from most age cohorts. Good renter incomes with diverse ages and household sizes.Strong economic growth prospects in all but a few sectors. Long term supply restrictions may impact multifamily growth . .. as annual demand steadily increases ahead. Definitions on back DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 20 122 6.5 29% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 90,000 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 80,000 f., Owner Single ;-LA 70,000 60,000 - - Owner 2-4 units 1 10128 m en 50,000 0 Owner 5+units a 40,125 40,000 ti N 30,000 N Renter Single Renter 2-4 units . 31,421 123,111 20,000 10,000 i under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renters+units 238,855 $15k $256 $35k 550k $75k $100k 51501( $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 160,000 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 140,000 2 since 17,038 m, 2010 120,000 N �� 2000 37,378 a 2010 0 100,000 1980- 6 80,000 2000 78,503 x Y 60,000 1960- 80,942 =w 1980 40,000 1940- 14,598 20,000 1960.�+� before _ 1940 10,396 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast '-15-24 !25-34 0 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 350 9.0 0 300 not adjusted for type of rental o 80 r- 70 250 6.0 v 5.0 illIliliul . 200 0 4'0 1 150 3.0 2.0 10050 1.D 0.0I _ -1.0 to N W m O ci N m d' g 0 N N Ot O N 0) 0, 0 ,ti N m a u, iO N 05 01 0 ,-1 N m 7 01 )C N o] O1 0 e-I N N N N N N N N m 0 0 0 N a H a N N N N N N N N m O O O O O O O O O O O C O O 000000000000000000000000 N N N N NNNNINNNNN , N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N timic NAA rcarronal 88 {� j MULTIFAMILY uni4 m ` HOUSING .-7AS r'�iry COUNCIL ..._._........._._._._._ --�--. �(52I3 Dim. — 150,000 0 Owner w,, f 125,000 100,000 75,000 N 0 rn m 50,000 m m 5 N 25000 IUli1i. 17,"'J _, - 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85- Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 280,000 700,000 •Renter ■Renter 240,000 Owner 600,000 Owner rta 200,000 500,000 160,000 400,000 120,000 300,000 m 80,000 o cr 200,000 m .y. N ii L —,-I Qml 1111 40,000 100,000 ,?: m 11111 mm Lr) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Mining 2000-2010 y Construction ) 2010-2016 Natural Increase IIIIIIIIIMMOMO ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing — Trade&Transport PIMMEIME 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs IIII Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality IIIMIIIIIIIIIII Natural Increase Government Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar°ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStar°,CBRE Econometrics'*,Moody's Analytics°,ESRI°and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 89 _ MOLTING MULTIFAMILY HAS Univeslty tral11, .ate a.- 4F;. COUNCIL ..._�..._._._.___._... V "San Diego- Net in migration is negative and is expected to remain so with only modest ,- natural population growth. City could surprise on the upside if recent manufacturing gains continue. Renter incomes are lower and 43%pay over 35%of income on rent. Rental stock is older and over half seen in _, STAR units. Multifamily demand ahead is positive but erratic. _ back DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE "' 41 260 1.2 52% - Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 160,000 - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250 000 140,000 - . Owner Single 120,000 Owner 2-4 units 1 16,439 100,000 80,000 n Owner 5+units 1 20,113 60,000 i..c Renter Single 230,927 Co 0 40,000 N o a 20,000 1 I ® Renter 2-4 units . 61,461 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 231,981 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 225,000 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 200,000 Atsince ■ 2010 4,487 175,000 r ice et 2000- 43 150,000 ` 2010 17,900 0 -c $; 125,000 1980- 02000 70,113 o100,000To 1960- m 75,000 x f " 1980 96,142 50,000 N _ -[ 1940- en r=s 1960MEM= 25,714 25,000 t before 17,625 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast El 15-24 ■25-34 M 35-44 45-54 II 55-64 ■65+ 330 v 8.0 9320 not adjusted for type of rental o 6.0 i- '._.11111111111II1 3104.0 ,� 2.0 300 ® M d -2.0U U u V Iii I,,,1 z90 _.: , I 280 111111111111 -4.0 � ' ' -6.0 270 -8.0 260 lD N w w 0 ,-I N rn w u7 lD N COMO N w w o e-i N N N N tD N CO N 0 e-1 N rn N CD lD N 0 al O 0 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 N N N 0 0 N CD 8 g $ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o si N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N • 1;:i MULT.*IF..,:,AMILY 90 A HOUSING �R �IIVI/'C/Z �\ un'vetS L 250,000 Owner .- 200,000 150,000 a, "" .. 100,000 p r - N Ittiii, .n so,000 rr''1:.. ill i 1 1 I 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 450,000 1,000,000 •Renter ■Renter 400,000 900,000 , Owner Owner 350,000 800,000 700,000 300,000 x.51 250,000 a 600,000 ' 500,000 200,000 400,000 M to 150,000 rn 300,000 4HI N t‘irn N 100,000 r` 200,000 .;_: so N Lo m 1A N t0 M m .4- ,i'50,000 I N , ut co op 100,000 z- .. o N .. 01 W N N - LN mom NO Nam 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('0005) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Mining 2000-2010 2010-2016 Natural increase Construction Mil ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing _ Trade&Transport MINI 2010-2016 Information Svcs I Natural Increase Financial Svcs S Net Migration IM Professional Svcs Education&HealthMMini 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitalityill Natural Increase Government iiiiiiNet Migration 1. RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar°ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,Costar.,CBRE Econometrics.,Moody's Analytics",ESRIC and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission.For more detailed analyses and multifamily market -onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. MULTIFAMILY N ltl _ lit HOUSING S University .` '°'. COil tJCli. _._......-.—.._.___.___ ,75a11Diego' Minor net in migration remains an important component of new house- hold growth. Economic prospects are positive in most sectors,albeit de- pendent upon tourism and the military. Extreme land constraints contrib- ute to overall housing shortages,while affordable housing is both smaller and lower quality. Nearly 60%of multifamily units were built 1960-1980. back DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 35 71 19.5 41% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 35,000 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 30,000 Owner Single ti 25,000 Owner 2-4 units I 5,988 20,000 Owner 5+units 35,894 15,000 u `- 0 10,000 I Renter Single 58,874 5,000 Renter 2-4 units 13,968 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renters+units 69,730 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 70,000 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 .- since , 2010 ',762 Art 50,000111` 20p0- o .;.;; 2010 3,165 v 40,000 1980- = 2000 15,270 30,000 1960- g'c '" 1980 40,347 20,000 ''4 N N r N v 1940- 10,000 I I 1960 before 4.296 1940 II under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0 15-24 ■25-34 M 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 43 135 3.0 3 not adjusted for type of rental 0 130 2.0 I I ' 125 v 1.0 NIII " ' 120 F- 0.0 ' 11111111/ . / ..w ! I , ^ I M i ' ' ' 110 - -1111111111111111111111 - - 2.0 105 tD I� M C.i O .-i ry m V ✓� 1p 1� m o N W M O .-I N m a .1 lD N W M O , N m C N lG W M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p O 8 8 8 8 O O O 888 ' " ' N " '8O N NN 000 . . 00 . 0 . .N NNNNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ntri. AL 92 N® �I�I�III COUNCIL LY ■ !r\S HOUSING Unn-ellt} COUNCIL of San Dim ■Owner 40,000 30,000 20,000 'T v „..\ N N N a-1 Q re)10,000 iLi 1 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 60,000 100,000 ■Renter 90,000 ■Renter 50,000 a Owner 80,000 U Owner 70,000 40,000 60,000 I'' 30,000 N o 50,000 d' liii 40,000 cq il I m 20'000 30,000 OS n In N r, 20,000 Ii 10,000 11 .. ., 10,000 I 0 1111 IN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('OOOs) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mining 1 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing . Trade&Transport 1112111.1111 2010-2016 Information Svcs -� Natural Increase Financial Svcs ' Net Migration IIII Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&HospitalityiiiiiiiiiiMEMEMEM Natural Increase Government M=MiNet Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar°ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,Costar.,CBRE Econometrics•,Moody's Analytics.,ESRIn and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission.For more detailed analyses and multifamily market ""''-consulting,contact NMHC,NM or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. SICr:a;rlaa 93 MULTIFAMILY ! " ' >' HOUSING ��� � J Uri nDiey Strong net in migrations and a diverse population drives new multifamily -- demand ahead. The economy is growing,becoming more diversified and less reliant on oil and gas. New rental households coming from most age •- ffi cohorts. More new rental supply relative to demand than most metros --- with a smaller 22%share of multifamily today in STAR units. ,- DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 4 181 -2.5 22% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 180,000 - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 160,000 Owner Single t4 ili {--:!':`71111% 140,000 120,000 Owner 2-4 units ( 5,144 m co I 100,000 r^ 80,000 n Owner5+units j 21747 m 60,000 O Renter Single 277,554 40,000 20,000 Renter 2-4 units ■ 77,643 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renters+units 552,208 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $15ok Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 400,000 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 350,000 since 2010 46,461 f� 300,000 2000- 0 250,000 2010 112,857 1980- 0 200,000 2000 182,551 x 150,000 0 1960- L m 1980 183,324 100,000 i i i 0 cf.° 1940- 50,000 1960 =NM I' '4 111 I before .`? 1 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast ❑15-24 ■25-34 T.4 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 900 I 30.0 5, 800 not adjusted for fype of rental c , 0 ' 700 25.0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 600 20,0 I 500 c ii 15.0 - 400 0 10.0300200 11111111111 .. - .. .. 5.0 100 - - 0,D i 1111111 l0 N 00 00 O •-t N 00 P N 0 0, 00 01 O iii!iiiiii0. 000n0000ncn5nQ O O O O ac,0.1 O co a O O IN O O O O O pp "'� .1 N N N N N N N N M N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O :�® NNINNNNNINNNNNNNINNNNNNNNNN NATIONALPAMIC HMOUULTSIIPNAGNcaua 94 ......... .....� NAA ,wg unI , limr pq 4SanDiego. 300,000 ®Owner ._ 250,000 200,000 r 'i 150,000 r° i I N - 100,000 n N in in I. a I N 50,000 ' I Col n at x'9 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 450,000 1,200,000 •Renter ■Renter 400,000 •Owner 1,000,000 ,, . Owner 350,000 .0.4 300,000 800,000 250,000 600,000 200,000 1s0,000 400,000 r i i <-4 M v IN 100,000ai 4 Ma N N ti 200,000 a?i M M'r''' ni1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Mining111 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction IMINIMMI Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing - Trade&Transport MMIMIIIIIMMIMIMIIIMIII 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs _ Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to–6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,Costar°,CBRE Econometrics•,Moody's Analytics•,ESRI•and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market ..........consulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 95 e N1"IC MULTIfAM7LY - HOUSING IIID/ v\. .9 University coupe❑, v SanDtet*o Strong net in migrations will exceed natural population growth. New rent- al households source from most age cohorts except for the youngest. Their __ economic prospects are good led by professional services,trade and edu- cation. Rental households have good incomes up to$75,000,are older and primarily one or two occupants. Steady multifamily demand ahead. back -._- DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE ' �-- , ._, 30 254 -5.1 25% _ Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 70,000 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 60,000 Owner Single " 463,456. 50,000 n Owner 2-4 units I 4,602 40,000 Owner 5+units l 4,068 30,000 o 20,000 N Renter Single 103,991 NI NI to 10,000 1 I o Renter 2-4 units 1111 38,443 v under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 121,199 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 125,000 - - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 since 100,000 0 2010 10,548 �\ 0 Q 2000- - 0 2010 17,328 t 75,000 1980- 2000 42,578 76 50,000 "+ _� 1960- li 33,859 z ,7.b. 1980 25,000 fl fl - 1940- 7,781 1960 before 9,105 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15-24 a 25-34 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 5 65+ 250 7 5.0 7 not adjusted for type of rental o -c200 EIIIIIIII ! IIII ; I 150 11111 1.01 t OA al V -Lo ID N CO 01 0 N N m Q 0 t0 r W O1 0 n W 0o1 O .-1 N f0 d' 0 to N CO 03 0 NI N m V 0 LD N OD al 0 N N 0 N N N N N 0 0 0 N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S$ g p o � 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 O O 0 \ O N N N N N M O N N N IN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NATIONAL 96 MULTIFAMILY I�1 ■ .wei II` HOUSING HAS UII1h2I51iy a COUNCIL _.-......__.�.----.-.-.. _ - X15371 D1L'QO` a Owner 100,000 75,000 50,000 m 25,000 i i co k. cn 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 200,000 - - 450,000 I Renter ■Renter 180,000 400,000 73 Owner a Owner 160,000 350,000 140,000 300,000 120,000 250,000 100,000 rri 200,000 80,000 V) 150,000 60,0001 'i N N N jill ., 100,0rN.40,000 oco .r51n20,000 °4 tl3 V) 50,0o=® .rf,.:=FFFF I I. I_ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('OOOs) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Mining 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing MI Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs 9 Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government ® Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStare,CBRE Econometrics.,Moody's Analyticse,ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 97 II++� MULTIFAMILY V , : HOUSINGlII n'eDi4 w.COUNCIL _..V_......._. - -_ Population growth is slowing with a modest share of net in migrations going negative ahead. New rental households will source from the older cohorts. Good rental incomes and smaller households. Modest economic growth ahead,led by professional services,education and hospitality. .,.. Increasing multifamily demand is steady though slight. DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 42 234 -5.3 35% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 60,000 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 50,000 Owner Single sittiZ 40,000 Owner 2-4 units I 2,246 30,,000 Owner s+units 1 4,439 fflIh 20000 Renter Single 117,693 Sn 10,000 `t Renter 2-4 units . ■ 44,245 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 116,825 $15k $25k 535k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 100,000 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 co since m 2010 6,899 75,000 ^....i' cn 2000- p 2010 15,573 _c N 0 50,000 000 21980- 41,385 = 20 cul a 1960- sr cc N a .. 1980 36,039 25,000 v iI i1940- 1960 8,684 before 8,245 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 2S%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast :315-24 ■25-34 0 35-44 45-54 IN 55-64 165+ 200 =c 35 ,- 180 I not adjusted for type of rental o 25 r.- 160 140111111111111 N 15 ' 120 -8I `' IIIIIII ' 100 s 80 u U ,.,_, '.,. rr ,,. 60 -11.0 -- -_ II IN 11111 40 -1.5 20 -2.0 \O h CO 01 O .-i N rcl O 0 SO N 00 a1 0 h COp 05 O ei N m C' N to N 00 N 0 N N M Tt .0 h W 0f 0 N O O O N O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N r. Nr, NNNNNNNNNN N NNNNNN r, NN 98T _ MUFLYIFAMILY 41-.1 d HOUSING ■ USS USan coon nivei51ty` Timor Diego° ■Owner 100,000 'Az 75,000 _..._.... .. 50,000 a .,+.. ,--... m co 1111111 V • illi. 25000 Y 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 200,000 500,000 180,000 •Renter 450,000 III Renter Owner Ei Owner 160,000 400,000 140,000 4 350,000 120,000 1 a 300,000 100,000 250,000 80,000 200,000 gal 60,000 v .13 . 150,000 cn ia-icity 40,OODN100,000 20,000 O 1.1. N 50,000II 1111 rn 14, MOM IA' MI ME 1 2 3 4 5 5 7* White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('0005) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Mining 2000-2010 --- 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase II 2017-2030 Manufacturing ® Net Migration Trade&Transport _ 2010-2016 Information Svcs I Natural Increase Financial Svcs iM Net Migration Professional Svcs MMIIMIIIIMIIIMMINEIMIlli Education&Health iiMilii.11111111111112016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality =NM= Natural Increase Government MOM Net Migration II RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar°ratings of 1-S for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStarn,CBRE Econometrics',Moody's Analytics®,ESRI®and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission.For more detailed analyses and multifamily market onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NAP,.IF•:.: 99 �r{V r�� ` MULYIFAMILY URA'Dieg HOUSING $S2TI DIC';?0' COU lr'i:❑, Net in migrations from all age cohorts dominate the sourcing of new rental households as natural population growth eases ahead. Rental households are smaller with good incomes up to$75,000. Economy is slowly diversify- ing away from dependency on tourism. Good multifamily demand has been consistent since the downturn and will increase through 2030. Dein,%ton On hock DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 9 146 -3.7 21% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 70,000 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 60,000 Owner Single '',�. 50,000 Owner 2-4 units 7,811 40,000 Owner 5+units 13,127 30,000 20,000 Renter Single 145,052 ti 10,000 , Renter 2-4 units 49,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 158,004 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k 5100k $1SOk $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 150,000 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 125,000 - since 2010 ■ 5,608 -0 100,000 2004 0 2010 35,942 t 1980- 0 75,000 2000 82,672 7, 50,000 - 1960- 1960 29,735 25,000 11 1960 1 3,454 before 1940 I 593 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15-24 ■25-34 3 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 350 12.0 not ad'usted for type of rental 3 300 10.0 _c 250 8.0 ill 200 6.0 116 I o1504.0 2.0 100 ii-iiiuiiiiiiiiflhllHfl- 0.0 ® 50 -2.0 n ro rn n .-, m a � w m o or m o ,-� N or a �n � n m m o ,-, N a ,n � n w rn o 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o S o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N NNN NNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P4I MULTIF.5.IFAMILY 100 MULT , H HOUSING- - HAS Ulll�'e151I}' ✓ p Ihego, D Owner 75,000 ;g`rir fi 50,000 N ,x; N ., m p o � „.... N N 1, r m 25,000 rq r^ Ii LICA f 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 160,000 300,000 •Renter i,,,-vio ■Renter 140,000 Owner 250,000 M Owner 120,000 200,000 100,000 . 80,000 150,000 60,000 ,-4,0 100,000 40,000 I II II 11 In m m N c 50,000 N 20,000 m • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('OOOs) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mining 2000-2010 -- 2010-2016 NaturalIncrease Construction )♦ ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing ' Trade&Transport —' 2010-2016 Information Svcs i Natural Increase Financial Svcs MONet Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health ® 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government MIN Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to-6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dunn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,Costar*,CBRE Econometrics,Moody's Analytics',ESRI'and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in ,...�economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. n Ar u;a.a, i - 101 , VA I11� MULTIFAMILY Itcoir.fl . /{�L\ �; �4 L'Ian DiIt�' ,. ;>. HOUSING ■vi/�i'/7-`.�` �Vv4 .><SaTt rsity Net in migrations will exceed modest natural population growth. Rental households are fairly diverse in ages,size and incomes. Reasonably good - - - economic prospects led by professional services and education. A third of multifamily rental stock is in affordable STAR units. Annual multifamily demand will remain flat until 2021, then increase slightly through 2030. DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 43 244 -5.4 33% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 25,000 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 20,000 Owner Single °' Owner 2-4 units I 535 15,000 Owner 5+units 1,056 10,000 Renter Single 38,743 5,000 o � N O Renter 2-4 units 111113,995 ■ under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 42,354 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 40,000 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 lork since 2010 5,217 30,000 2000- s 2010 8,538 v 20,000 2000 14,629 76 72 196o- 1 v 1980 11,094 t. 0,000 1960 before 2.190 Ow to - + 1 1940- O 1940 ■ o8b under 35% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15-24 ■25-34 0 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 70 -o 1.2 3 not adjusted for type of rental 0 60 1.0 50 0 11111 0 40 m g t 0 • 30 2 1- 0011111111111 20 0.2 I y u u y I u u 10 111111111111111111111111 '�f (-I , ., N '-'� N M N rd N N CO ■N O CO O O '-I N 1�'1 7 to lD h CO Ot O eY N M a la l0 1� OJ Cl O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O o N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 N N N N NNN NN N N /� N9TIQNALIlLY 102 ,. ...—...—..... HOUSING I�VKI"F HAS , Uf11VfI5 '4 COUNCIL v�_VV__\\ 1C�� �5anDiego° ■Owner 40,000 _ 30,000 r r_''. .1. 20,000 m co o il a-1 m J 10,000I ^i ■ ,- 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 70,000 160,000 ■RenterIIRenter 140,000 `' 60,000 3 Owner P, Owner 120,000 50,000 100,000 40,000 80,000 30,000 N 60,000 m m N ^ 20,000 u�i 40,000 m N o 1 III � 10,000 - 20,000 pvIII .I .a. .L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('OOOs) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 Mining 12000-2010 2010-2016 Construction I Natural Increase S 2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing imi Trade&Transport — 2010-2016 Information Svcs — NaturalIncrease Financial Svcs Net Migration _— Professional Svcs Education&Health IIIIMIMIIIII.I2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government 1. Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dine Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,Costar"',CBRE Econometrics',Moody's Analytics",SSRI®and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission.For more detailed analyses and multifamily market -onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. ij alio t, 103 ��S 1 MULTIFAMILY HAS UnNers .�. COI HOUSING -.--...-.-...a..--_..... ,dSaTI DICQO° COU':C! In migrations in are now similar to out migrations with natural change driving household growth. Diverse rental households source from most ages with a range of sizes and incomes. Strong economic prospects in most sectors. Largest share of more affordable STAR units from the 50 , metros studied. Steady increases in annual multifamily demand ahead. m' DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 1• • 0 5.3 61% Metro includes Orange County Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 450,000 - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 400,000 Owner Single � '-C � � _""` 350,000 . 300,000 Owner 2-4 units 43,689 250,000 200,000 Owner 5+units A132,254 150,000 Renter Single 649,361 100,000 50,000 Renter 2-4 units 324,932 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 1,248,834 115k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 1,200,000 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 1,000,000 since 2010 ■ 34,060 v 800,000 200.0 94,446 o -C N K 0 600,000 000 21980- 301,108 x 20 7° ti vu w CO N 1960- o 400,000 N r� c' 1980 487,778 N C' m m N N N "1 200,00011 1940- 1960 212,305 1 before 119,137 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0 15-24 •25-34 LI 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 1,500,000 40 jIlil1,100,000 1,300,00030 20 -o 10 , 900,000 0 III 111 0 ; LI u u u 700,000 10 - ■ • In ' I ' ' 500,000 not adjusted for type of rental -20 300,00011111111 I 1111111 1 4 N Co Ol O vu 1v vu d' U, U0. N N 01 ,''F',, N W Ot O N N M 7 vt U, N OJ O1 O e-1 N tr1 O' ut U, N W 01 O O O O O O O O O O p p O p O OO O N N N N N N N N M NNNNNNNNN N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -�` N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ' 104 HMOGlToIlFNAGL LY HAS ir aCOUNCIdkll Diego- p Owner _ _. 500,000 - - 400,000 VI 1 - — a e x M. 300,000 /.\ ` ,,f -.- _. .'- -. 200,000 C L'*...�� N ""',k O •-1 M t 100,000 rn rn r Metro includes Orange County - 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 700,000 1,400,000 ■Renter .-779 ■Renter 600,000t Owner 1,200,000 Owner 500,000 1,000,000 400,000 800,000 300,000 m 600,000 oN u 0 ul ii M 400,000 ii m200,000 wO co N 100,000 - 200,D00 fl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -75 -50 -25 0 25 SO 75 100 125 150 175 200 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Mining 2000-2010 ----- 2010-2016 Natural Increase Construction i— ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing — Trade&Transport N 2010-2016 Information Svcs i Natural Increase Financial Svcs — Net Migration I Professional Svcs Education&Health 111M111.11112016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government —1.111 Net Migration I RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to-6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar°ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStar•,CBRE Econometrics•,Moody's Analytics°,ESRD and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market Consulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. f. " NATIONAL 105 is A Mt. -.~A;, MULTIFAMILY HAS L ri ersity 1 -.... HOUSING COUNCIL ..._-_...-.—.—� 5dil Diego Net in migrations source most of the new rental households ahead as nat ural population growth wanes. These households will be older,smaller with more modest incomes. Decent economic prospects ahead amid a -. - retreat in manufacturing. Rental housing stock is older with 42%seen in affordable STAR units. Multifamily demand steadily increases to 2030. Def, i, DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 44 228 -2.8 42% _- Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 45,000 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 40,000 Owner Single 35,000iit7-2.47MILVia .:' ....... 30,000 Owner 2-4 units 3,155 25,000 20,000 Owner 5+units 7,406 15,000 rn Renter Single 62,721 0 10,000 N m o0 5,000 , N Renter 2-4 units ■ 28,538 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 70,430 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 60,000 - - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 50,000 since 2010 3,780 2000- 40,000 2010 8,490 -c 30,000 1980- = 2000 21,096 m c 20,000 1960- 23,705 1980 1940- 7,624 10,000 1960 1940 r;_-,, before 5,735 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-2S% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15-24 111 25-34 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 120 a 2.0 5 not adjusted for type of rental E 100 - - - 1.50 0 111111111111111111111111 1.0 111111111 60 -0.5 - IMO I I I I I l 20 -1.0 _ l'J N W 01 O e-1 N m Q Lf1 ,D N 00 a, O N 0pp 0p1 O .-i N m U CO CO N w N D •-I N M Q' tf1 �D N D] 01 O c O 0 o N o o o 0 NNNNN O S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �� N N N N N N N N N N N N NN NNN N N N N N N NN N N N . N N MULTIFAMILY 106 �© i- 7 HOUSING ����� ■ AS _ COI NAA unieeisity __..-__._. __L oSanDiego' 70,000 ■Owner 60,000 -. - 50,000 t.." 40,000 - - 45 30,000 0 m 20,000 .� N N rn -- rvri IS - •-•7"_ ._-,^ - 10,000 ■ j . - --- 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 140,000 300,000 ■Renter ■Renter 120,000 a Owner 250,000 Owner 100,000 200,000 80,000 150,000 60,000 100,000 rn 40,000 v 0 er 20,000 N LO el, 50,000 in N o tO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mining 2000-2010 2010-2016 Natural Increase Construction ME II 2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing min Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs 8 Natural Increase Financial Svcs — Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality ® Natural Increase Government `1111111111 Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,Costar,CBRE Econometrics*,Moody's Analytics",ESRI5 and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market -onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 107 , ■ S NATIONAL UL MULTIFAMILY ��1 �.ye�/ University Ir 1 HOUSING ■ !r"i ,y�{j]�ie�0- COUNciL Net out migrations from Memphis will reverse,though natural population growth continues to shrink. New rental households will be older with more modest incomes. Economic growth is positive but weaker than most other metros. Slightly increasing multifamily demand through 2030. DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 40 222 8.7 38% ,_ Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 60,000 - - 100,000 200,000 300,000 50,000 Owner Single {.. 40,000 Owner 2-4 units 1 1,314 30,000 Owner 5+units I 2,700 20,000 o Renter Single 90,495 N W O _10,000 Renter 2-4 units 31,915 I. under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 71,218 515k $25k 535k 550k 575k $100k 5150k 5150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 80,000 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 70,000 since 3,470 2010 r... 60,000 '.r`e`i 2000- -a 2010 12,931 2 50,000 cuo '«i 1980- 0 40,000 , 2000 24,415 Tii * 30,000 - -- 1960- 1980 18,464 20,000 _ 1940- 10,000 - 1960 8,807 before 1940 3,131 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast D 15-24 ■25-34 S�35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 140 -a 2.5 T not adjusted for type of rental 0 120 - - 2.0 ,- 100 :215: S 11111 801.0 m o 0.0 0.5 .:, 60 -0.5 II ! . • l ' 20 111111111111111111111111 -1.0 ,o N R1 00 O ,-, N m v S 0 , 00 m o N 00 apl o A-I N m <t Ln to N W c1 o r1 N m d' lrl la r 00 a) o O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O O O p S 8 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 N „�,` N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1:4'/11.10; 14' xu 108 .---.MULSIFA L HAS , HOUSING I 0 Ml."4”M ,Vtit. rJ 1/"ls Unitetsity cou &San Diego= 70,000 C Owner ._r 60,000 '�. 50,000 I 40,000 - I' .'s �� _ .. 30,000 ro ,' 20,000 rcr u, v _._ 10,000 EFi: Mi A. ,MUM BM 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 120,000 200,000 ■Renter 180,000 III Renter 100,000 % C Owner i Owner ,. 160,000 a ", 140,000 80,000 120,000 60,000 100,000 80,000 40,000 1 11 o ry ico E II 60,000 40,000 'l,.20,000 rn 20,000 o o0 V M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Mining 2000-2010 --, 2010-2016 Construction MIN Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing iiiNet Migration all Trade&Transport IIMMIIIIIIIIIIIII 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs IIIIII Net Migration Professional Svcs 11111111111111.1.111... Education&Health 1111111.111111111 2016-2030 Leisure&HospitalityiiiiIME Natural Increase Government MEE Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStar®,CBRE Econometrics°,Moody's Analytics",ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in __ economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. MULTIFAMILY 109 HOUSING FAMILY HAS University. HOUSING •'FA fill COU t:CII. ,,San Diego- Even with natural population growth in the last decade,net in migrations are three times stronger and soon to be five. New rental households will be smaller from most age cohorts. With strong incomes up to$75,000, most renters still pay over 35%of income on rent. Good economic growth __ ahead led by professional services and hospitality. r bc;. back F DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 3 105 9.3 37% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 200,000 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 180,000 Owner Single ' . 160,000 _ _ - ., .r 140,000 Owner 2-4 units . 40,263 120,000 100,000 Owner 5+units 80,000 60,000 ' Renter Single 258,244 rn al 40,000II Renter 2-4 units 1111 114,436 20,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 472,141 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 450,000 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 400,000 since 21,610 as 2010 350,000 r., 2000- 64,240 -0 300,000 2010 5 250,000 - - - - - 1980- 0 2000 165,142 = 200,000 To u 150,000 �^ IN '' 1980 166,430 m 100,000 �' r co co mN 1940- 50,000 Iii 1960 43,912 before ■ 1940 10,798 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15-24 ■25-34 5 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 800 a 30.0 7 700 not adjusted for type o rental a 25.0 ~ 600 20.0 500 - - - III 115.0 400 13 2 10-0 300 III SS 5.0 rwi t :. ,. ..,, .,:: 200 0.0 _ . .1 : .. , 100 111111111 -5.0 .. _ 'v N 00 at O c1 N m d' o Co r- w G1 o N W at o .-I Co m Co ut Co N CO 01 o N ry m Q i.n i0 r- W O1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S CoS o o o o o CoCoo o o 0 0 0 0 01 o 0 0 0 0 N N N N N Nr TIO:J..: 110 _ �' MULTIFAMILY , ,w HOUSING H 8 Universtry +.' court _. .___.___ �• IAHOUSING SanDiego- f_ 250,000 MI Owner 200,000 P _+._ :. 150,000 t 100,000 a o n liii 1 11 11 II 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 500,000 -- 1,000,000 _ 450,000 •Renter 900,000 •Renter ■Owner 3 Owner 400,000 800,000 350,000 700,000 300,000 600,000 250,000 1 500,000 200,000 m 400,000 o .� 150,000 N 300,000 N ;II N100,000 N 200,000N 50,000 - =® 100,000 Ii F.. 0 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector{'0005) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mining I 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing mi Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs (' Natural Increase Financial Svcs NM= Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase _ 111111.111111111.11111111111= Government - ® Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,Costar",CBRE Econometrics®,Moody's Analytics°',E5RI®and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in ,,.,..economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market onsuiting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 1 ....._ HAS i A g MY t11• HOUSING URiVeI51Ly COUNCIL `$ D1CQ0' Growth continues to come solely from natural population growth which is slowing. New rental household growth relies upon householders over 35. Economic growth is positive but sluggish. Rental stock is older and over 40%seen in more affordable STAR units. Multifamily demand is flat for . two years,then increases through 2029. ,- Den, __ DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 49 181 4.7 43% __ -- Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 60,000 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 50,000 Owner Single ' 40,000 Owner 2-4 units ll 19,689 30,000 Owner 5+units 1 15,249 20,000 Renter Single 53,596 i 1 cn 10,000 P: Renter 2-4 units 85,060 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 119,007 $15k $25k 535k 550k 575k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 100,000 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 90,000 ''; since = 3 - 80,000 2010 - 70,000 i 2000- 11,915 2010 E 60,000 a; 0 50,000 1980- = ` 2000 32,626 iTi 40,000 1960- 30,000 1980 37,490 20,000 1940- i i i 1960 17,120 10,000 before 1940 16,446 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast E3 15-24 ■25-34 0 35-44 45-54 •55-64 ■65+ 120 o- 4.0 not adjusted for type of rental 0 115 - 3.0 F= 2 0 1 1 1 1 IIIlIiIIIIIII 110111111-1111111 11 1.0 105 F 0.0 1I u i 10 1111 111 -1.0 -2.0 • 111 950 -3.0 90 ,0 N 00 ,0,, 0 a-- N M Cr in tD N 00 0, 0 0, CO 00 0 - N Ni } ul 15 N 00 el 0 N N M d" Ui OD N CO 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N �� 1 o:. 112 s SIFARIILi' HAS � TRIM*"> HOU °, HOUSING UIllVeI511y ou,:cr _. 90,000 "' II Owner 80,000 ---a 70,000 60,000 50,000 --- .-. .>, 40,000 a _. 30,000 r� iIii,... _. .-i — a 10,000 'o,.. '' -- 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 160,000 350,000 •Renter -a; ■Renter 140,000 300,000 r Owner n Owner 120,000 , 250,000 100,000 200,000 t, 80,000 = 'a•• 150,000 60,000 v Tr m 100,000 2 O 40,000 f-.,1N N o 20,000 Ell N O co N O 50,000 C N •-I M ■ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('OOOs) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Mining 1 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction 1111 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing M Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs MilIMMENIMMININME Education&Health IMMINIMMUMM2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality ® Natural Increase Government ® Net Migration El RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHCJNAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStare,CBRE Econometrics.,Moody's Analytics",ESRI®and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in .__ economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market •onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. • MUL?IFdiPSILY �..�.. -- UI1iVerS'i HOUSING couruc❑. ..._-.-__._..._-._.. fSan Diego° Net in migrations are a modest but growing portion of new renter house- hold growth,relying ahead on renters over 35. Renter incomes are strong - up to$75,000. Economic prospects are solid with steady growth. Rental stock is older with 44%seen in more affordable STAR units. Demand is expected to steadily rise. pre fnit(onc On beck DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 15 211 3.3 44% . ...... Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 80,000 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 70,000 Owner Single - 60,000 �---- -- _. Owner 2-4 units 1 13,892 50,000 40,000 Owner 5+units I 36,426 30,000 c,-7.1 ti Renter Single 113,523 20,000 10,000 -' Renter 2-4 units . 44,853 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 259,265 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 160,000 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 140,000 of since 2010 12,823 ul 120,000 �� 7N ; 2000- 31,093 0 100,000 - =- 2010 1980- 0 80,000 . r;� 2000 72,363 73 60,000 - - - 4 1960- a, 97,694 cc .. .:°,.-x 1980 40,0001,4 .. y x 7: ,..co 1940- O 20,000 " 1960 18,835 before - =" 26,457 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0 15-24 •25-34 M 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 400 -o 10.0 3 350 not adjusted for type of rental 8.0 300 6.0 250 c 4.0 200 g 2.0 150 0.0 7 r 1111 11 11 I r, V sr, ,.0 IN CO a, O WHIHOIlO N N N N N M O O O .-I 1-1 .-1 .-1 . .-I .-1 N N N N N N N N n} 0 0 0 N O O O N N N O N 0 N O 00 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N /\ ano<,.;. 114 s MULTIFAMILY �1 �,„' ' F F!� HOUSING �\ UIllF'C151`7s=.;.,<..u, COUNCIL ..._._..._____.�_ �� -San Diego= 200,000 r Owner 175,000 150,000 125,000 100,000 rn __,__ 75,000 1 01. lO CO tO __- - _ 50,000 m ii IL -. ... ... .:-_.-- ..- ' — 25,000 Its 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 .65-74 75-84 85'- Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 400,000 900,000 •Renter ■Renter 350,000 800,000 8 Owner 3 Owner 300,000 700,000 600,000 250,000 500,000 200,000 400,000 150,000 300,000 IIIIL1LL 100,000 to tn N M 3. 2 3 4 5 6 7* White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -20 0 20 40 60 80 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Mining 2000-2010 --► 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase - ■2017-2030 — Manufacturing mom Net Migration Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs — Net Migration Professional Svcs IMMEMEIMINIIIIIIIN Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality MI= Natural Increase Government iiiiiiiMM Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStar•,CBRE Econometrics.,Moody's Analytics°,ESRIC and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in ��economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market -onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. f Vidor 14- 115 i II11� MULTIFAMILY \' (..'/''�i7 University :. et r 77 HOUSING v�,_` 4San Diego. COUNCIL Net in migrations remain stronger than natural population growth for new -- rental households sourced from all age cohorts. Current rental households are smaller with a wider range of incomes. Economic prospects are strong - led by professional services and education. The indices below portend a - good supply response to a steadily increasing annual multifamily demand. ack DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 24 175 -2.4 30% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 50,000 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 45,000 Owner Single ',-e,,,1' 40,000 35,000 Owner 2-4 units 78,,075546 30,000 25,000 Owner 5+units 11111 20,000 15,000 i 1 n Renter Single 76,522 m u? 10,000 5,000 Renter 2-4 units ■ 35,329 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 111,852 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 90,000 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 80,000It. since to 9,048,048 70,000 �_. ,/�. 60,000 2000. - 2010 18,822 -c °' 50,000 1980- 0 2000 41,065 = 40,00075 •::;. ;':. . 1960- 30,000 � .;` 1. 1980 34,607 N 20,000 ea 1940- 1960 beforeas, cm 6 ,750 10,000 ;, I 1,560 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15-24 ®25-34 3 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 180 7.0 ;° 160 not adjusted for type of rental o 6.0 *L- 140 5.0 120 „ 4.0 I I 100 111111111 80 2.3.00 60 I 1111111111 111 11 1.0 40 .. _ 0.0 ... _ I - -- II 20 -1.0 _ . N ro p+1 O - N N N 1n ,O N N o1 o N W o1 o .-i N en d' v1 LO N OO o1 O ti N m vY In to N co Si 0 N N N N O N .1 -1 c-I N N N N N N N N m 0 0 0 0 . o No N N o No oN o oN o S 8 oN o N N 0 N N 0 0 0 N N No N 0 N N N N 0 N o N N N N N N N NN N N N N N N N N CS N N N N N N N N N N nnlio 1L 116 _. s I MULTIFAMILY r „,,,... „,, IIO HOUSING HAS" Uni eosity Owner 100,000 ,u — 75,000 50,000 m N o r r:vi ti N N Ol e-1 ._ .... 25,00011 ilL ,..v�, 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 180,000 450,000 •Renter •Renter 160,000 400,000 Owner a Owner 140,000 350,000 120,000 300,000 100,000 250,000 80,000 200,000 `" I 60,000 ,r1 150,000 vi 4Q000 ^� il 01100,000 ol co 01t` cri II a M ulC20,000 ,� 50,000 opo Nl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 Mining i 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration • ........._...._....... ...... .... Trade&Transport — 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality ® Natural Increase Government I♦ Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStare,CBRE Econometricse,Moody's Analyticse,ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in — economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission.For more detailed analyses and multifamily market :onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 117 ,-, ,A�1.-, j INMIIIIC MULTIFAMILY �� L SHA ` , ' e A. HOU5ING v\/_` ��, �/��//""11\V Urif4`fISli�' GO1NC1L f ri��� Historic out migrations have halted and new net in migrations slightly exceed mild natural population growth. New rental households will source mostly from 35+age cohorts but with lower incomes. Nearly half of renters pay more than 35%of income for rent. Future economic prospects - '$ are positive,led by trade. Multifamily demand slowly increases. ; DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* A• RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE - 46 180 -6.0 41% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 60,000 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 50,000 Owner Single jIIIIIIIIMMIIIIMIIV 40,000 Owner 2-4 units I 8,363 30,000 Owner 5+units 5,714 20,000 Renter Single 64,873 1 i 1 i a IN 10,000 II c' Renter 2-4 units 58,569 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 63,221 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 90,000 - 5,000 10000 15,000 20,000 25,000 80,000 since 2010 3,859 70,000 "OM, at 2000- - 60,000 - 2010 8,985 0 L v 50,000 - - 1980- 0 2000 19,873 X 40,000 To 30,000 o m 1960- 21,062 to ct 1980 20,000 1940- 1960 4.653 10,000 44. Ct wl. 40 etIAI I 2 rr before 4,789 - 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15-24 ■25-34 2 35-44 45-54 •55-64 ■65+ 90 3.0 5 80 2.5 not adjusted for type of rental o 4 70 2.0 50 1.5 50 1.0 1 40 -. - 2 1-111111111111111111111 1 111 111 i I I III III -0.5 -1.0 _- II , 10 - -1.5 - - ta n 00 0 -i N M d' t(1 lG N W 01 O r• W Q) 010000000011 00 N W Qt O .-! N 00 C Ul <0 r` W Q1 O a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `d g CA o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .+- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Nt.T C 118 ��• s MULTIFAMILY IA,�/A�'%�'� i T r"Il HOUSING II_V�/--\ HAS university co , �'- 'San Diego' — ■Owner 60,000 a Yt `�.,... .,, 40,000 . a0 a m to '� r. e2 20,000 `^ m _ II� I Ill IN® 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 120,000 220,000 ■Renter 200,000 •■Renter 9.1 100,000 3 Owner 180,000 Owner 160,000 80,000 140,000 120,000 60,000 ['* 100,000 H. 40,000 80,000 N Ill N 60,000 m N Lo 20,000 �+ r. m 40,000 - a cri IIIni 20,000 co N ® ■ 0III _ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 Mining , 2000-2010 r\ 2010-2016 Construction I Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing 11 Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs - - Education&HealthIIIIMINI 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government Net Migration ■ RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStarn,CBRE Econometrics.,Moody's Analytics.,ESRI.and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in .economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market insulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 119 a C HOUSING MULTIFAMILY I�1 HAS ,ry x UrllVft51 v. COUNCIL -.-......_.—..._..__.-- _.� �3r�arl Diego. Out migrations have slowed,but will drag on the significant natural popu- p - lotion growth that fuels new rental households. These today are smaller - - across a range of ages and good incomes,though nearly half pay over 35°0 of income on rent. Economic prospects are strong. Rental stock is older and nearly half seen in STAR units. Demand ahead is consistently strong. •- DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* r I, � RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE -. 16 122 6.0 48% - Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 700,000 - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 600,000 - Owner Single .t---' `'I 500,000 500,000 Owner 2-4 units Elli 403,045 400,000 Owner 5+units 478,765 300,000 Renter Single I= 368,020 200,000 100,000 Renter 2-4 units 921,049 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 2,201,850 $15k $25k $35k 550k $75k $100k $150k 5150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 1,600,000 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 1,400,000 since I. 57,775 � 2010 , 1,200,000 2000- 153,873 -c 2010 0 1,000,000 t cu 19sa 248,857 o 800,000 2000 to $ 600,000 0 1960-in 1980 511,784 ' 400,000 m o lb 1 El I ft 1940- 484,539 200,000 al 41. I 1960 before 1940 745,022 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0 15-24 ■25-34 •35-44 -45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 3,000 -a 60.0 5 50.0i i i 1 o 2,500 i-40.0 2,000 - - 30.0 1, c 20.0 1,000500 10.0 0.0 , , �, .� _. _ - 1 11 11.. _ .. 1 1 - .. - .. -10.0 u M , _..'.. , , ■notjus fo pe ental 500 -20.0 - - -30.0 - l0 N W 01 0 N M Cr N 10 N W 0 0 N W 01 O r1 N M O 01 10 N W 0l O rN N M 01 N t0 N W 0l O N N N N N M 888E,' 8888888888 N 888888888 N N N M O O O O 0 O O NO 0 O 0 0 O ON ON O 8 S ~O �O �O �O �O �O ~O O ON NO O NO NO NO O NO O O O �, N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 120 �, MULTIFAMILY J a VA Ili ■ A HOUSING III\.� S Unive251 ' NC.COU 4SanDiegcr ,._... -_.. 900,000 Owner _ .. - 800,000 ,.. > - :.. r ;Q- -- 700,000 600,000 _- 500,000 "t 400,000`�= 300,000o liai o rn200,000 o$ 100,000 ■ ■ ■ -..____ 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 1,400,000 - - 3,000,000 ■Renter ■Renter 1,200,000 1 Owner 2,500,000 Owner 1,000,000 2,000,000 800,000 1,500,000 600,000 1,000,000 ::: li .1. v 500,000 1:® _ ■■ L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Mining 2000-2010 Construction 2010-2016 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing 11111 Trade&Transport NMI Information Svcs 2010-2016 Natural Increase Financial Svcs - Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality iIIIIIIII Natural Increase GovernmentiiIIIMMII Net Migration - RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,Costar.,CBRE Econometrics•,Moody's Analytics®,ESRIc'and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in ,economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission.For more detailed analyses and multifamily market onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 121 " MULTIFAMILY \A * . F HOUSING HAS VIllV1.1511)r COUNCIL 0 San Diego. Net in migrations have exceeded modest natural population growth and w - will subside. New rental households are smaller with good incomes,sourc- -" _, ing from the youngest and oldest cohorts. Economic prospects are good -, and from all sectors except manufacturing. Rental stock is older with 44% in more affordable STAR units. Demand ahead steadily grows to 2030. 'bock "1 DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE •.-- 37 235 -2.5 44% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 40,000 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 35,000 Owner Single ` .! 30,000 25,000 1 Owner 2-4 unRs 1,,440315 20,000 1 Owner 5+units 15,000 Renter Single 86,077 10,000 m N R 5,000 m ■Renter 2-4 units 23,883 ■ under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 67,459 $15k $25k 535k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 70,000 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 60,000 since 2010 4,626 50,000 6 2010 8,870 1 40,000 "T` 1980- ° 2000 26,437 m 30,000 1960- 2 ..4 .. 1980 22,591 20,000 ,y to a to 4 N eV 1940- ill 10,000 1940 1960 3,035 - before ill1,900 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast J 15-24 ■25-34 El 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 120 a 2.5 ro not adjusted for type of rental 1 100 2.0 1.5 I I ! 80 1 111111 11.0I li 111111 1111 ' ' ' 60 40 -0.5 -10 lO r- co m O N rr1 tD N CO m O r` CO IHHHiHNH , N N N N N N rn O O O ,-1 N N O O O O O O O Q O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .�••�, N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N IN N N N N N NA1IONAL 122 ® MULTIFAMILY 11 UTllVF lt; HOUSING HAS Diego.I� "'Owner •._ 60,000 --- 40pO0 ti cri _ m , m ...—N, N 20,000i di 1 I ii. 1111 1 IN ME 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 140,000 300,000 III Renter Renter ■Renter 120,000 • ■Owner 250,000 t 1 Owner 100,000 200,000 a 80,000 :it, 150,000 60,000 i is" r;.4. 100,000 1 ,-,I 40,000 4%3m c. iin in O N coo 20,000 N ti '+01 1150,000 m N oi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('OOOs) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -5 0 5 10 15 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mining I 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase -- ■2017-2030 ...... ....... Manufacturing Net Migration MIMI Trade&Transport Information Svcs ® 2010-2016 1 Natural Increase Financial Svcs MEI Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health MiiiiiiiiiMiiiMMIMIIIII 2016-2030 - Leisure&Hospitality iiiiiMin Natural Increase Government Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStare ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dunn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStare,CBRE Econometrics•,Moody's Analytics°,ESRI°and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission.For more detailed analyses and multifamily market —,onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. h is F Al. 123 MULTITIFAMILY HOUSING - 1JLIWOISeg COt!;9c.,„ _..._......_..._.____-_ HAS .95a71I�lO= Net in migrations fuel renter household growth,soon over 6 times the natural population growth. Renter households have strong incomes and a wide range of ages. Though rental stock is similar in age to other metros, the small 18%share of STAR units portends affordability issues. Strong _ economic prospects and annual increases in multifamily demand ahead. pack DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE -'- _.. 2 149 3.5 18% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 70,000 - 100,000 200,000 300000 400,000 500,000 60,000 - Owner Single a =`3;�. 50,000 Owner 2-4 units ' 6,936 40,000 Owner 5+units ® 14,000 30,000 20,000 m Renter Single 123,959 m O 10,000 , Renter 2-4 units ■ 35,828 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 170,091 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 160,000 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 140,000 N since 14,579 0 2010 120,000 >.:- 2000- 0 1100,000 2010 40,551 L 1980- 0 80,000 2000 83,178 6 -d 60,000 -cr, 1960- 28,363 Si N O 1980 40,000 m o m 1940- , 2517 20,000 1 i - 1 1960 u, before I903 - 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0 15-24 is 25-34 •35-44 45-54 •55-64 165+ 400 o- 18.0 not adjusted for type of rental 0 350 16.0 s 14.0 ' 1--. 300 ' ' 250 - - -010.012.0I IIIIIII 200 8.0 o 6.0 150 111111111111111111111 1 4-0 100 2.0 0.0 -2.0 - tO N CO 01 OM <y to W .-+COOJ O N Ol 0 N to 0 W 0 to IN Oi 0 0i N M V t/1 t0 CO01r 0 N N N O N to 8 O S H O O O N O O O O O O N N N N O N O N N M '-\OOOOOOOOOOOO OO N N N N N ' N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 141 IC NATION..,. 124 -smesmINIMMINE s a MUL71PAMILY @.„ ,... ....„. HOUSING N� HAS Unnetsity ;. COUNCIL 'San Diego' :::04:1 1„,,,.., N 100,000 - I Owner 80,000 a.. 60,000 N N I 0 CO 40,000 00- 0 N V. O M Fri n 20,000 cr, mo 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 200,000 450,000 180,000 ■Renter •Renter 400,000 160,000 ,11 Owner D Owner 350,000 140,000 300,000 120,000 250,000 100,000 80,000 200,000 v 60,000 + 150,000 N O OI 40,000 "' 100,000 0^' ti `iN at m o 20,000rn., =Icil,ll 50,000 co v. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Mining i 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction ® Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing , Net Migration Trade&Transport iiiiiiiiiiii 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs — Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government MINI Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHCJNAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStar.,CBRE Econometrics•,Moody's Analytics.,ESRI•and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in ...........economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market Insulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. N NATIOAL 125 NATIONAL NAA H II7 I HOUSING �\ rSanDi1 .' .,.. COUNCIL ���1VV dS2nDlCQO. Net migrations are slight and negative,rental household growth depends ,.., - upon natural population growth. New rental households will source from ages 35-54 and seniors over 65. Economy is strong with manufacturing the only drag. Rental stock is older and significant supply restrictions may -. hamper new product. Multifamily demand ahead is positive and rising. pack DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* __ - RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE -- -- 31 212 8.2 37% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 180,000 - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 160,000 Owner Single � * t,>t 140,000 120,000 Owner 2-4 units 1 21,371 100,000 80,000 Owner 5+units i 45,315 cr 60,000 Renter Single 273,705 N 40,000 m Renter 2-4 units IM 153,925 20,000 Renter 5+units 298,707 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k 535k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 350,000 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 300,000 since MN 2010 12,282 a 250 000 zooa 26,278 2010 To 200,000 1980- o2000 66,467 To 150,000 c ti 1960- 115,645 N. 100,000 Dl 1980 N t.0 1940- 50,000 a I 1960 39,322 before 1940 38,713 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast D 15-24 ■25-34 •35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 410 a 15.0 ` 400 not adjusted for type of rental - 390 i-- 10.0 380 a 5.0 I 360 g 370 m ';' I I ! ! 350 o r 0.0 La u u 1..., �_, ma r ii 1 =t. 340 1111111111111111111111 330 -5.0 I I I 320 310 -10.0 300 O N CO Cl O N N M Cl u1 tD N CO Oi o N co O o ,-1 N M Cl ti 0 N CO CO 0 .-I N nn a to tD N CO 01 0 N N N N N N N NN H -1 0 0 0 , ,.1 N H N N N N N N rn O O O O O O O O 0 N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O - N N N N N N N NI N N N N N N N N N N N N I N N N N N N r 126 s Nmic Muunennt.r �p�+ • „�!'4 � Hous�NG HAS University _._..._._____.__ sSanDiego' > 350,000 �_ "- 3 Owner _ ,_..__:;-e - ., 300,000 f .t 1 250,000 200,000 _!-- -jitiii; £; ` A 150,000 o /."" @ _ �xiRRii m tf $ 1 Y ti 01 al ID 100,000 n ^� e I N u) �, i /7. € 50,000 i_ Ill I ' iI ;a Y ..-, 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 600,000 - 1,400,000 ■Renter ■Renter 500,000 El Owner 1,200,000 Owner 1,000,000 400,000 800,000 300,000 11 I 600,000 m 200,000 0 . c N .y u1 �` m of 100,000 at Ow400,000 0 I l ^ *i 111 co N N b tD DD 200,000 cr tp PJ IN Eli IIII INN MN xi MR 1: 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Mining I2000-2010 2010-2016 "" Construction iii. Natural Increase ■2017-2030 ' Manufacturing Net Migration ................ .. Trade&Transport MillME Information Svcs 2010-2016 Natural Increase Financial Svcs iiMi Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health Miiiiiiiii 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality ® Natural Increase Government ® Net MigrationII RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dine Focused Marketing and Whrtegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStare,CBRE Econometrics•,Moody's Analytics",ESRI•and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market - .nnsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed In the publication appendix. NATLYIF[ONAMt. � JLY 127 .... . • MU � HAS HOUSING t, 1-1/yV University ,..,,A COUNCIL ,d OIC Rental household growth very dependent on strong in migrations,soon _- over 3 times the natural population growth. New renters will source from all ages with strong incomes, though 40%now pay over 35%of income on rent. Strong economic prospects. Strong multifamily demand increases steadily,though supply restrictions may hamper new supply to match. hack DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE �_0 5 155 4.8 30% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 140,000 - 250,000 500,000 75Q000 1,000000 120,000 Owner Single 100,000 Owner 2-4 units 10,262 80,000 Owner 5+units , 17,167 60,000 0 40,000 Renter Single 272,264 0 N 20,000 Renter 2-4 units ■ 69,616 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter s+units 273,005 $15k $25k $35k $Sok $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 250,000 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 Ut ID since2010 111114,153 200,000 .�� N 2000- in 2010 52,587 s 150,000 vu 1980- o 2000 128,080 = 5100,000 v°- 1960- v 66,882 m 1980 50,000 4 4 art 0 1940- 10 I. ,256 ,CO 1960 40 40 before a 1,047 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast G 15-24 ■25-34 _+35-44 45-54 •55-64 IS 65+ 600 a 20.0 18.0 of adjusted for type of rental '0 500 - 16.0 1111 1111 14.0 400 112.0 iiii i 110.0 300 O 8.0 200 6.0 4.0 111111111111111 100 111111111111111111111 1 2.0 0.0 N N N 01 0 N M a N SQ N m Co 0 N OD Cl 0 . N CO V' U1 to N Do 01 0 v-1 N M Q to SD N co at 0 O0OO N N N N ON N ON M O OOOO OO OO 0 0 p 0 N sN N N N N N - N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N N NNN N NNN NNNNNNNNNNN %'\ NATIONAL 128 y MULTIFAMILY Ne�� b, TM„, ,� HOUSING IIII� ■ IAS University -2 ON NC II _.-..-_.___..__..._. ,f SanDiel?o" =.m 3 Owner 200sr ,000 1. a 150,000 i100,000 ° ry Lo . in 50,000 :•..z:°.2FgIjIj11111,- "' 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 450,000 900,000 400,000 •Renter a 3 MI Renter 800,000 4 3 Owner § Owner 350,000 700,000 v 300,000 600,000 250,000 500,000 200,000 — 400,000 of co o 150,000 ii m 300,000m100,000 2 i oo 200,000 " SO,OOD o p o cr N ui 100,000 'x' M MI III In m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 Mining i 2000-2010 .--. Construction 2010-2016 Natural Increase .....1111111111111111111111111 ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing _ Trade&Transport --- 2010-2016 Information Svcs i Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&HealthiliMMEMENEMENiiiiiiii 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality P� tY Natural Increase Government iliMiiiiiii Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStar®,CBRE Econometrics.,Moody's Analytics",ESRI°and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in ,.....economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission.For more detailed analyses and multifamily market 'suiting,contact NMHC,NM or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. P24TIOPtAi. 129 MULTIFAMILY HAS ■E C University RA flit HOUSING I�1 s S 4San DearCOU NC IS. Net in migrations counter the slide in natural population growth to hold new households fairly constant. New renters will source from ages 35-54 .. �., and seniors over 65 with lower incomes reliant on affordability.Economic growth is modest. Most of multifamily is seen in STAR units,more than most metros. Demand ahead is flat for two years,rising steadily to 2029. DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 47 287 1.8 54% .a _. __ Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 80,000 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 70,000 Owner Single g 7-..41 60,000 50,000 Owner 2-4 units I 9,133 40,000I Owner 5+units 9,806 30,000 ry r st Renter Single 114,536 20,000 N n 10,000 'I . Renter 2-4 units III63,380 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 117,968 $15k 525k $35k $50k $75k 5100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 120,000 - - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 100,000since2010 I 2,191 rv " v 80,000 - - - 2W0-2010 9,112 TD. - ',,, " 1980- 60,000 2000 25,587 = n iu 40,000 a 1960- 41,813 cc LU 1980 oo 0't i I ry 194a 20,000 °,,.,o c' 1960 -- 22,247 m before 1940 17,018 under 15% 15%-20% 2054-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast T 15-24 ■25-34 ¢a 35-44 '45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 140 1 8.0 not adjusted for type of rental 135 0 6.0 i-- 130 4.0 111111111111i 125 -2.0 120 0.0 L__I t_: u hiE 115 -2.0 110 11111111111111111 1 111 - - -4.0 II , i i 1111111- 105 -6.0 100 -, N W LU O N N N N N l0 N W al O N W Ql O N N M N on la N W a1 O N N M on lit la N W Ol O N M 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 000000000000000000000000 �� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 130 Nmic MULTIFAMILY NAA ■ , p 6 5,w NOUS!NG !V A HAS UIII\'e1tity p. _ -_V V-.l • �/--1 ,f San Diego. 1 160,000 - --- Owner ,. _. .. :__ ....- ...-.. _ _ 140,000 . .,. 120,000 4 100,000 4 w< ,,,» 80,000 —.. 60,000 N W U7 40,000 H N °.. oi m _ .__. 20,000 ri. I ■ ■ u 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 300,000 700,000 ■Renter •Renter 250,000 Owner 600,000 Owner 500,000 200,000 ,....., 400,000 150,000 300,000 100,000 200,000 N ry 11 N n a 50,000 00 m 100,000 N o IIII MI ui UD III at CO ch Nr MI II .11101110 all =mom/41/00 - '"' o rn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 Mining I 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Mil Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing g MEMO Trade&Transport — Information Svcs 2010-2016 i Natural Increase Financial Svcs li Net Migration Professional Svcs IMIIIMOMMEMOMMi Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality ® Natural Increase Government ® Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHCJNAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,Costar®,CBRE Econometrics.,Moody's Analytics°,ESRIC and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market insulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. MULTIFAM .. NATIONAL 131 J1 HOUSING 3LY ■ "lV • 1JffirCISi Fit ° COLINCI. -._........—._.._--_ San ego Substantial net in migrations fueled a surge in rental households and con- tinue to drive demand. Rental households bring strong incomes and a mix _ of ages. Economic trends are superlative. With relatively younger rental stock and 37%seen in STAR units,the overall supply is balanced today. Ahead is steady and consistent multifamily demand through 2030. DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 21 125 3.2 _ 37% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 70,000 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 60,000 Owner Single 500,659 50,000 Owner 2-4 units ' 6,297 40,000 Owner 5+units 14,056 30,000 Renter Single 109,921 20,000 rr'1'1)2'1 i 10,000 ' Renter 2-4 units - 59,101 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 174,831 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 160,000 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 140,000 since 2010 9,199 120,000 'it s 2000- 27,700 M 0 100,000 "'I 2010 a, a 80,000 1980- _ 2000 64,077 Tfs c 60,000 co 1960- r5 c 1980 49 94 40,000 n-, 1940- 20,000 1960 I before 14,19310,068 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15-24 ■25-34 .?35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 300 -o 10.0 not adjusted for type of rental 0 250 8.0 ~ 200 6.011 I a c 150 � 4.D I I 1111111 0 2.0 0.0 • I i i i i I i 1 g 0 4 ~ 100 0 n co 01 O ,-1 N M V Ill l0 N CO m O N CO 01 O .-1 N M a Ill to n co m O N N M Gh Ill ll0 N W Gl O N N N N N N IN N N N MN N N N N N N O N O N N O N O O N 8 O 8 N NN N 8 N N N N N N N N N N N M NNNNNN NI N N AN NN NN NN NATIONAL 132 MULTIFAMILY HAS 1 HOUSING AS University • F COUNCIL -.�.....-.�.._ ...,_ 4San Diego. e 120,000 Owner F. ^- _ 100,000 t 80,000 60,000 — n 40,000 vrn o so N N N t0 — 20,000 '~ <'' NM I III III I 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 250,000 - 500,000 ■Renter 450,000 II Renter Owner 1 Owner 200,000 400,000 350,000 150,000 300,000 250,000 100,000 II 1 200,000 N m 150,000 50,000 liii .. tipN ?o so,000 `� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 5 10 15 20 25 Mining 2000-2010 �1 2010-2016 Natural Increase Construction 11111111.11111, i III 2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing N. Trade&Transport 1.111.1.1111 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial SvcsMOM Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health IMMINI2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality IMIIIIIMMINatural Increase Government MIIIIIIIIII Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to–6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-S for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,Costar',CBRE Econometrics.,Moody's Analytics.,ESRI*and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in -..economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and muhifamily market nsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 1330101101.11111 HAS . A 4:4,-, MULTIFAMILY A _ H/�CUnivP. ‘ HOUSING , V'1V COUNCIL ..._......-.—..._._._._— 'San Diegw Strong net in migrations are double the natural population growth and should increase 2.5 times more,fueling rental household growth across all , _.. ages.Renter household sizes are smaller and incomes notable. The econo- my is strong,led by professional services and trade.Rental stock is younger with fewer STAR units,in balance for strong increases in demand ahead. fick -_ DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* _ .- --- RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE .4 8 183 4.8 19% �- Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 35,000 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 30,000 Owner Single 25,000 Owner 2-4 units 1 1,024 20,000 Owner 5+units ] 4,111 15,000 I '^ Renter Single 58,085 10,000I ti ui 5,000 I - Renter 2-4 units ■ 19,009 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 78,948 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 60,000 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 since 50,000ixi., 2010 9,711 ......... a 2000- a 40,000 2010 19,740 0 -c cu 0- E 30,000 20 = 2000 34,378 To c 1960- 20,000 1980 11,775 1940- 10,000 1960 112,111 before , 1940 1,233 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15-24 in 25-34 0 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 200 10.0 m 180 9.0 .. not adjusted for type of rental o F- 160 8.0 140 - - .0 iIlIIIlIIIII1 120 a 6.0 I c 100 0 5.0 4.0 3.0 60 2.0 40 I 1111111111111111I 111 1.0 20 11111 0.0 lO h CO O1 0 NI N M O N lO h CO 01 O h CO 01 0 ti N m C' 01 cO h 00 Ol 0 c-1 N M C tr, tO h 00 01 0 NN N0N N N N N N0N N N 3 O 0 00 - ,0 N N0N N0N0N N N N0N N N rn0 O O 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .�. NNNNNNINNNNNNNNN N N N N N N N N N IN N N N N N N N N N N N N N Nbrl-x.a. 134 . _ MULTIFAMILY e.!N-1 �© I 1.4.., HOUSING ■ AAS =egg,.g COUNCIL ..._......_.--.Y.�.__.. _ ,.. n`S371DieQo• ,, Owner 60,000 .�. 3 •, 40,000 ' 41' AA n vt .. 20,000 ,- Nry 1 o u •--•-• _ 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 120,000 250,000 •Renter ■Renter 100,000 13 OwnerI Owner 200,000 80,000 150,000 60,000 m 100,000 40,00011 v n 0o n N N N ul O 20,000 m co 50,000 - oo 0 11111ill N mill mew Ii ■?,... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 Mining 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration Trade&Transport iliiiiiiMMEMEMi Information Svcs i 2010-2016 Natural Increase Financial Svcs Mill Migration Professional Svcs , 1111111111....1.111111111111111111 Education&Health .111 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality111111111 Natural Increase GovernmentIMI Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStare,CBRE Econometrics°,Moody's Analytics°,ESRD'and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market 'suiting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. • NATIONAL 135 �' MULTIFAMILY //� , ° � �` ; HOUSING �� HAS UrliVPISILy .,, COUNCIL. yr DieQ;c7 Continued net in migrations exceed natural population growth,fueling . r. - new rental households. Renters have good incomes across a range of ages with growth ahead increasingly coming from ages 35-44 and seniors over 65. The economy is solid,yet with declines in trade and financial services. Renter stock is older but balanced. Multifamily demand rises steadily. ,-'70k DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 33 188 -2.3 37% _ 4' Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 40,000 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 35,000 Owner Single 30,000 :... Owner 2-4 units 1 1,809 25,000 20,000 Owner 5+units 1 4,419 15,000 i i pO Renter Single 73,466 10,000 5,000 I Renter 2-4 units ■ 22,178 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 75,323 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 70,000 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 OS 60,000 since 3,700 2010 50,000 „^""n' 2000- 'a 04 2010 10,764 o 40,000 =* 1980- ot 2000 23,507 Ta 30,000 .y ,_ 1960 " 1980 23,553 w 20,000 Cy, 1940- 5,773 10,000i i i sN f ;w 1960 Wore 8,026 - 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast u 15-24 ■25-34 03 35-44 - 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 140 3.0 m not adjusted for type of rental 0 120 I ill 2.52.01.5 1080 ,� - ' v c 11111111111111111111111 g 1.0 a 600 I-- 0.5 40 - 631 la 11 . 11 : 1 I i 20 -1.0 tD 1\ CO 07, O ri N CO cr cc, co n co m O r co al O .-V N rn V t/1 1.0 N CO 01 O ti N M C I, tD r- 00 Dt O N N O N ret O O N.-1 N N N N N M N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o...\ N IN N IN N N 0,1 N N N N N N N N r, N N 0.1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NAi i 136 ellminmed MULTIFAMILY �� ■ w i I ,r74. HOUSING ,!-,�/L-\� Univers' , COU C11- 52T1�C , a Owner 60,000 40,000 rn o ' 20,000 N i i N it I V e-I t0 inf " 15-24 25-34 35.44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 140,000 250,000 ■Renter ■Renter 120,000 •Owner Owner 200,000 100,000 80,000 150,000 60,000 1 li ,,, 100,000 ... so 0 . , 40,000 irsial ao v 50,000 -20,000 . A ® �� MU 111111116" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mining 2000-2010 Construction 2010-2016 Natural Increase ® ■2017-2030 Manufacturing ® Net Migration Trade&Transport MUM Information Svcs 2010-2016 Natural Increase Financial Svcs IIIIIIIIIIII Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health EMENIONEMENEIMMi 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStar•,CBRE Econometrics•,Moody's Analytics°,ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market suiting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 137 M.111111111111 , MULTIFAMILY ;. ;n""4�. 5HAS U71VDFx. a couNC1L _. ---. --_— �.. — . 4San ie Though natural growth is constant,significant net in migrations have re- • - ceded. New renters will source from most ages but will rely on those 35-54 -. ahead. Economy is good with gains in most sectors,but trade will retreat. Rental stock is older with nearly half in more affordable STAR units amid "`"' heavy supply restrictions. Multifamily demand ahead is positive,steady. DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* j-r ' ' RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE ® --_ 26 113 5.1 48% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 100,000 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 90,000 80,000 Owner Single ;.-` 70,000 �- Owner 2-4 units 1 6,820 60,000 50,000 Owner 5+units 6,946 40,000 m 30,000 v Renter Single 260,071 n 20,000 " 1 Renter 2-4 units IN 64,028 10,000 under $15- $25- 535- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 172,985 $15k $25k 535k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 250,000 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 since 9,643 200,000 2010 2000- -0 2010 32,713 Z 150,000 - - - v 1980- o 2000 73,148 43 100,000 m 1960- o O N " 1980 47,806 0o0o v 50,000 -e 1940- 111111 8 712 I I efor before - 1940 963 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast C 15-24 •25-34 0 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 350 o- 10.0 6 not adjusted for type of rental $ 300 8.0 iIiii 250 c 6.0 4.0 150100200 F 2.0 ' inti 111111111111111111111111 0 o '-iLj L..i u "' M : III ' I I I I 50 -4.0 - l0 N Wm O - N R1 C In l0 I, 00 01 0 .-i N en V U1 l0 N W 01 0 O O O O O O O 8 O O N O O O O 8888888888888 -868 " " - " ' 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N IN N N N N N N N N N N N rg N INMHC N,?TIONAL '138 ® MULTIFAMILY �F Al 4,1A ■■ a ' HOUSING HAS I1 oii `+!s 6 COUNCIL ..._.-..-- .�-.�_ --- "1�1I1D[egO° Owner 160,000 140,000 ...... 120,000 100,000 :r. _- 80,000u ir. 60,000 -N so rri on 40,000 ., - 2--- _ "^'.�. 20,000 Is I ■ MA - - ' -- 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 300,000 600,000 •Renter ■Renter 250,000 El Owner 500,000 1 Owner 200,000 400,000 150,000 co 300,000 100,000 — 200,000 dii com m T N 50,000 N N 100,000 u N i II III II 0 _ •IM i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -20 0 20 40 60 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Mining I 2000-2010 2010-2016 -- Construction MIMI Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration low Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs ■ Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government Net Migration . RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStare ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStare,CBRE Econometrics•,Moody's Analytics",ESRI•and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. for more detailed analyses and multifamily market insulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL . 139 MULTIFAMILY ■ oSan Diego. ' HOUSINGML \ s COUNCIL -- .— —= Net in migrations and natural population growth fuel new rental house- holds. These will source mainly from 25-44 year olds and seniors over 65. - Economic prospects are solid,led by education and government. Rental -• stock is older than most metros with 42%in more affordable STAR units. Multifamily demand ahead is steadily increasing. ,nefinf*^^s cc bock DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* "...., RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 4- 27 137 4.1 42% 2.1,- Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 70,000 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 60,000 Owner Single ' ``' 50,000 Owner 2-4 units 1 3,804 40,000 Owner 5+units ] 4,630 30,000 0 20,000 '^ Renter Single 152,287 m 10,000 '. Renter 2-4 units in 49,358 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- Renter 5+units 127,150 $100- over $15k $25k 535k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 160,000 - - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 140,000 N s ■ N 2010ince 3,314 N 120,000 m ,••••'....4 ,••••'....: 2000- v 19,664 100,000 , 2010 -6 p 80,000 cu 1980- _ ;n 2000 46,936 +' 60,000 - _m 1960- 1980 45,036 40,000 ,.,, m �.` rsi : 1940- _ III_ 1960 20,000 9,174 before 1940 MI 3,026 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0 15-24 1 25-34 0 35-44 -_45-54 •55-64 ■65+ 250 7.0 6.0 not adjusted foe type of rental o 0 200 5.0 Ilili 4.0 :5:0:vi 3.0 ilia 111111111111111111111111 0 2.0 1.0 0.0 LI U U u I. MI ® II I 1 , • -1.0 -2.0 _ . h W O+ O .-, N M C N as n W M O n W m O . N M V N W r W at O , N M d' N W r W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N 8 0 0 N 9, N 2 2 2 0 N0 0 2 2 N 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 NATIONAL 140 ��� IIYMHC MULTIFAMILYNAA y`d HOUSING HAS U�1111�'l'I51 l %for z'`'.a . coup.: V _ fSanDieacr .- 100,000 Owner s - ._ -c 80,000 _" ' 60,000 -:� N 1j1 40,000 -3_ '-- 20,000 ; V1 "''� .(j --- 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 200,000 400,000 180,000 ■Renter ■Renter 350,000 Owner M Owner 160,000 300,000 140,000 120,000 250,000 100,000 200,000 80,000 150,000 60,000 " a <. 100,000co rD to DO'40,000 D o? to 20,000 iii.-61. 11:_lim 0,000 s . . . I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 Mining I 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction .11111111.1 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Ell et Migration Trade&Transport MIMI 2010-2016 Information Svcs I Natural Increase Financial Svcs 11111111.1111111 Net Migration Professional Svcs 11111111.1.1.1.11111111110 Education&HealthMIIMIIIIIIIMIN 2016-2030 Leisure&HospitalityMIME Natural Increase Government Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStar°,CBRE Econometricse,Moody's Analyticsr,ESRI®and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in ...conomic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market ulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. 011110 HOUSING �1�� ' ` 141 1 1/'1V ;. ��f E.. MULPiFAMILY r("S�'�`_ Cr HOUSING Urlll'2rS1(y COUNCIL _._._..._._�._.__..._.. �dSan Die}r0" With only modest net in migrations,natural population growth is the driv- - er for new rental households. Today's renters are smaller,younger and with strong incomes up to$75,000. Economy is strong,led by professional services and education. Rental stock has less STAR units than other met ros. Demand for multifamily steadily increases through 2030. ., .7..c' -Monson back DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 25 153 2.4 29% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 30,000 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 25,000 Owner Single *' ;,. i,, 4 a ?=a' j 20,000 Owner 2-4 units '90 15,000 4,i_ Owner 5+units ,701 10,000 O Renter Single 38,108 1 1 N- a 5,000 III, Renter 2-4 units 21,369 underRenters+units 66,196 $15- $25- $35- 550- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $15ok $1506 Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 50,000 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 45,000 since 40,000 2010 5,377 ..........� 35,000 2000- a 10,930 s 30,000 2010 0 25,000 1980- = 2000 26,665 20,000 O 1960- o `-1 1980 16,541 15,000 o .5 10,000 1940- 2,261 5,000 ":.:.•, ,., 1960 before - 1940 4,415 under 15% 15%-20% 2096-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0 15-24 ■25-34 M 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ -o 100 3.0 N 90 not adjusted for type of rental o 2.5 ~ 80 2.0 1111111111111 701.5 60 m 10 50 0 s 4 ~ 0.5 30 0 11111111111111111111111 0.0 u " " �+ 20 - -0.5 10 -1.0 n N 01 0 -1 N m ct v) Na N CO 01 0 ,-1 N m Cr ll) is N CO 01 0 O 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O g O N O O N O O eOy N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O 0 0 O O 0 O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N HOUSI nhius Nt 142 AS „+A X0. HOUSING ��•��1Q'a university Cot t 50,000 ■Owner 40,000 30,000 of ^ a_ 20,000 00 NO N I10,000 - rN 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ ii- Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 80,000 250,000 •Renter ■Renter 70,000 Owner J Owner 200,000 60,000 50,000 it 150,000 N. 40,000 30,000 100,000 20,000 vi N .1 m �, 50,000CV US. IN lo,000 , �' __. MO 0 _ , Ryan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('OOOs) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Mining I 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase — ■2017-2030 Net Migration . Manufacturing I♦ Trade&Transport 111.111111111111111.111 2010-2016 Information Svcs I Natural Increase Financial Svcs IMMIIIIIII Net Migration Professional Svcs 11111111101....111.111111111111111.11.11110 Education&Health .111111110.1. 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality1.11111111111110.1 Natural Increase Government /1111111.11.11111 Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHc/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStare,CBRE Econometrics.,Moody's Analytics' ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market 'suiting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. A /I/���j� 143 H/`�i'y J HOUSING II'1�/ bI _ r _S eTig HOUSING _.___.-.�._._._.. LiSan Die Cv'IF,C:i "i SanDiefo Net in migrations are 65%ahead of natural population growth,a strong driver for new rental households that will source from all ages. Renter ages and sizes are more diverse,likely tied to strong Hispanic share. Gains in all job sectors portend a strong economy. Rental stock is newer with a smaller share of STAR units. Multifamily demand is strong and increasing. ack DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 14 166 -1.3 24% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 70,000 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 60,000 Owner Single ». 50,000 Owner 2-4 units 2,671 40,000 Owner 5+units 3,G62 30,000 - a Renter Single 115,835 20,00011 ti M 10,000 m Renter 2-4 units ■ 36,808 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- Renter 5+units 144,616 $100. over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $10ok $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 120,000 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 100,000since' 2010 17,031 2000- 80,000 33,963 xrt. 1^° 1980- $o 60,000 . 2000 56,912 1960- e, 40,000 1980 27,936 } a 1940- ,a,. I. 20,0001 . ; 1960 6,206 b1940efore II 2,568 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast -15-24 111 25-34 15 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 1 65+ 300 7.0 .0 = 250 6 5.0 I ' 200 4.0 v 1 3.0 150 o k 2'D 100 1.0111111111111111111111111 0.0 50 not adjusted for type of rental 1.0 l0 N of 01 O N M O' N 0 N 00 01 O N M 01 O --i N M V U1 10 N of 01 O .-i N 01 C' On 0 N D] 01 O O O O O N N O O N O O O O 2'0'1 O S o o ti sy N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O /� HOUSIFAMILY IN 144 HAS + . HOUSING LJnive.15QO COU .,. _.__...--..-...._._-_...... 'San Dl ' "r"" 100,000 ____ _ ®Owner --- `�' 90,000 `: ..-. 80,000 70,000 60,000 �- 50,000 , . 40,000 m I 30,000 20,000 t J ..:-. 10,000 _ .. 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 180,000 - 450,000 ■Renter ■Renter 160,000 400,000 t,''.i a Owner i` ttt Owner 140,000 350,000 120,000 300,000 100,000 250,000 I, 80,000 200,000 60,000 150,000 ii 40,0001 11 11 0 L m20.000 inW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Mining 1 2000-2010 -- 2010-2016 Construction ammili Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration in Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs — Net Migration Professional Svcs milmmimmin Education&Health miniummiiiiimmi 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality mommilimmi Natural Increase Government — Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to SO(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,Costar®,CBRE Econometrics,Moody's Analytics°,5SRIs and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in ,.acpnomic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market ulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. MULTIFAMILY 1 145 vHAS s �� ia..0 _; MULTIFAMILY Urnvetsrtj I II�`1I�1 COUNCIL --__ HOUSING <�rSan)]IeQO` Net in migrations are back,but a modest component of new rental house- holds after natural population growth. Economy is fairly strong ahead. Rental stock is older than most metros and 59%are STAR units,second only to L.A. Supply restrictions may hamper meeting strong multifamily demand ahead,steadily increasing through 2030. pack DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE .r' ; 18 76 5.5 58% , __-- Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 120,000 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 100,000 Owner Single a< 80,000 Owner 2-4 units ' 11,671 60,000 Owner 5+units ® 41,115 40,000 Renter Single 180,111 20,000 Renter 2-4 units 68,536 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 275,187 $15k $25k $35k 550k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 250,000 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 since 200,000 2010 III 8,794 2000- 2010 32,304 - 150,000o 1980- 0 2000 106,967 f5100,000 ' - 1960- `t `� 104,871 va 1980 ,-1 N p' ,., to 50,000 w g1940. 16,107 - � 1960 4.. ttt Ul before Iin6,144 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15-24 ®25-34 2 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 165+ 500 12.0 450 not adjusted for type of rental 10.0 -2 400 8.0 IllIlli 350 6.0 _ 300 - 1p 1111111111 4.0 J 250 r 200 150 0.0 Li U u �., = 1.1 - .... 1 , . 100 - -2.0 50 _ -4.0 _ ,O N w O1 O .-f N m C v] ,U N W a1 O N w 01 O .-1 N M d" In 0 h OJ 01 O .-I N M C Ln to N CO 01 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 `-' N 8 0 0 0 0 0 NN N N N N N O O O N O NO O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NAT 0NAL 146 MULTIFAMILY - -. S .HOUSING AS lig,nrDO ....cot. -.__..._ r__ 3 Owner 140,000 _. 120,000 100,000 80,000 M N' ,> 60,000 - - rn rr c m 40,000 m m c4 '#, :. *-: ei II I;1 20,000 �.. y - 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 250,000 500,000 ■Renter ■Renter 450,000 ,q#,'< OwnerOwner 200,000 400,000 350,000 150,000 300,000 250,000 100,000 200,000 iIili. a. . . 150, N5000 100, ON0 50,000 ■ .M h 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('OOOs) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Mining 2000-2010 -:2010-2016 Construction MIMI Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration Trade&Transport 111111 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs 111.1111111111111111 Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&HospitalityIMIIIIMINIMIIMME Natural Increase Government IOIIIIIIIMIIMIIIIIMI Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStar.,CBRE Econometrics•,Moody's Analyticsv,ESRI•and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market j,Rsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 147 ,,„,..., MULTIFAMILY HAS University HOUSING COUP.C!i. ...-_...-..r._-"" s — "/San Diego' Net in migrations continue to match consistent natural population growth, fueling new rental households. Strong renter incomes and diverse ages. Economic prospects are strong. Housing affordability is low amid steep supply restrictions. Rental stock is older with 54%seen in more affordable STAR units. Demand ahead is strong and steadily increasing through 2030. "' back .. DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* _ RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 19 72 7.6 54% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 140,000 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 120,000 Owner Single �� s 100,000 Min _ Owner 2-4 units II 41,568 80,000 Owner 5+units a 60,044 60,000 40,000 - Renter Single 222,346 20,000 Renter 2-4 units 141,991 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renters+units 417,704 $156 $256 $35k 550k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 350,000 - - 50,000 100,000 150,000 300,000 since gm2010 11,999 250,0002000- ° 2010 37,913 0 v 200,000 1980- = 2000 95,358 m 150,000 1960- mm 1980 137,433 100,000 1940- 50,000 c ' 1960 50,377 before 1940 84,624 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15-24 11 25-34 -35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 500 0 20.0 ry 450 not adjusted far type of rental 400 15.0 v ' ; ; 1 300 1111 00 r` W Dl O ,-� N m d' t11 t0 r W O1 O N N m Q lA LD n W Ol O O O O O O O O O 0 O N O O O O S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O H O O O O O O O r® N N N N N N N N NNNNNNNN NN N NNNNNNNNNNNN 148 ��II MULTIFAMILY COUNCIL HAS V2 ` a az 1 - + 200,000 M Owner (` - — ._�,.._ 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 m m ---� - - — 80,000 re) S 60,000 1v_ 1Ii _ • .. 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 350,000 600,000 •Renter ■Renter 300,000 2 Owner 500,000 ®Owner 250,000 400,000 200,000 300,000 ' 150,000 200,000 m100,000 '" '" al N co m 50,000 * d 0 100,000 �io :® 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 -10 0 10 20 30 40 Mining I 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase — ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs I Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs IMIIIIINOMMIIIIIIIIMIIIIMMII Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality 1. Natural Increase Government Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar6 ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStarn,CBRE Econometrics°,Moody's Analytics°,ESRI°and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market Insulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NAnaN r 149 , 1 MULTIFAMILY ��11 HAS Unlverslq :R . - HOUSING 1�\y ,y San Diego. COti NClL Net in migrations recede against consistent natural population growth. Renters have strong incomes,a range of ages and will source from all ages ahead. Economy is strong,led by professional services and education. Rental stock is older,but with fewer affordable STAR units as nearby SF. Multifamily demand ahead is strong and steadily increasing through 2030. bock ..w DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 22 69 3.8 43% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 70,000 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 60,000 Owner Single L:;'::;:,,'7,1 50,000 Owner 2-4 units I 5,877 40,000 Owner 5+units 111 17,767 30,000 20,000 Renter Single 90,800 10,000 i II i i 1 1 1 1 Renter 2-4 units - 41,049 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 150,260 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $10Ok $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 120,000 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 100,000 since 2010 12,055 41 - 80,000 2010 18,748 o _ 1980- p 50,000 = +-, 2000 46,550 E' - r€-=. 1960- 0 40,000 - 1980 56,659 se 1940- 20,000 .M" ce 0 , `ti, 1960 11,909 1940 before 4,339 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast ci 15-24 ■25-34 2 35-44 45-54 •55-64 ■65+ 250 -Cl 7.0 not adjusted for type of rental . o 6.0200 5.0 111111111111111 F- 4.0 150 c 30 0 m 2.0 100 1.0 0.0 u u = m on IllIlli II ' . 50 -La RI -2.0 _ t0 N c0 G'1 O .-i N m C' vl l0 N W C1 O NGD 01 O - N m i 1.0 a N CO 01 O . N M N- Lo (0 N CO 01 OOO O pO OOO O O O O p O O p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O NO O O NO 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N IN NNNNNNNNNNN N N N NNNNNNNNNN , . ]] NATIONAL 150 MULTIFAMILY I�11!rR� �__\ HAS /� ' A T. .. HOUSING H it C Unna itytti COUNCIL ■ orSanlhew. ■Owner 80,000 60,000 • —. - 40,000 G 20,000 '" `y op CI 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 120,000 250,000 •Renter ■Renter 100,000 M Owner 200,000 ��� 3 Owner 80,000 150,000 60,000 100,000 :::: II lidMN 1-i 50,000 m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('0005) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Mining 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing mom Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase . -.. _._.... __.-._..... Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality ® Natural Increase Government ® Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar°ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dine Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStarn,CBRE Econometrics*,Moody's Analytics",ESRD and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission.For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed la the publication appendix. NAT30NAL 151 HOUSING :--�i AV MULTIFAMILY ' U '_. Cniversty_.-........— .,_ n1 San Dew,- OUPICI;. Net in migrations continue to outpace natural population growth as source of new renters from younger,affluent and smaller households. Strong economy will see gains in professional services,education and trade. The rental stock is older,but less than a third in more affordable STAR units. Multifamily demand ahead is strong and increasing each year to 2030. ck DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 11 124 8.0 32% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 120,000 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 100,000 Owner Single 80,000 - - Owner 2-4 units 12,141 60,0001 Owner 5+units M 53,856 40,000 Renter Single 164,450 20,000 Renter 2-4 units 71,922 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renters+units 327,307 $15k $256 $35k 6506 $75k 51006 $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 250,000 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 since 200,000 2010 25,034 2000- 2010 55,165 - 150,000 1980- = 2000 116,991 C 100,000 s 1980 86,981 N.. m 50,000 ' c'! m 1940- 1960- 01.- + ` n 1960 19,825 + yg before 1940 23,311 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0 15-24 I 25-34 M 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 600 18.0 6 16,0 not adjusted for type of rental 0 500 14.0 ~ 12.0 400 111111111 10.0 111111111 1 ' 11 11 @ 8.0 300 o b.0 4.0 200 _ _ .. 2.0 -2.00.0 �` • 1.1 . II • " 100 -4.0 tDN 00 N to N 00 0 N 0 0 0 N N N N 0 N o a S o 0 0 N W N N N N O --N ryIKIVHCINIAA 152 ®_ HAS HOUSING COUN(:li. t.inl�'PI51 :. �5an Dieo .,„ LUU,UW 180,000 Owner Ny 160,000 4. 140,000 tt 120,000 100,000 �. 80,000 0 ti O O 60,000 u, ,40,00miL 20,00 al w i I . 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 350,000 700,000•Renter •Renter 300,000 600,000 0 Owner 3 Owner 250,000 500,000 200,000 400,000 150,000 300,000 00 100,000 M 200,000 N n u1 m Qt Ol u1 r a v 50,000 so ni ti 03 100,000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('OOOs) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Mining I 2000-2010 Construction 2010-2016 Natural Increase IS 2017-2030 Manufacturing ® Net Migration Trade&Transport WiiiiiiiiiiMM 2010-2016 Information Svcs -- Natural Increase Financial Svcs MEM Net Migration Professional Svcs .111.11.11.11.111.111.1.11.11111.11 Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government1111111.11111111 Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dunn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStar°,CBRE Econometrics*,Moody's Analytics°,ESRI°and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in ...... economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed In the publication appendix. NATIONAL 153 NM�IC HOUSINGMILY I� HAS Univers `.dflll COUNCIL - !"! orSan Diego. Mild growth is a combination of net in migrations and natural population growth. New renters will source from 35+age cohort,particularly seniors over 65. Today's renters have good incomes up to$75,000,smaller house- holds and a range of ages. Economic prospects are good. Rental stock is older,yet with fewer STAR units. Multifamily demand steadily increases. DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 32 213 -3.1 23% _ _ Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 7,000 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 6,000 i El Owner Single 5,000 Owner 2-4 units ' 653 gair 4,000 Owner 5+units ' 823 3,000 2,000 ''''..3-1. r Renter Single MI8,163 1,000Renter 2-4 units 4,514 ■ under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 18,747 $15k 525k $35k $50k $75k $100k 5150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 10,000 - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 9,000 since 8,000 2010 1,642 .�® 7,000 2000- 2,705 2010 s 6,000 C, E 5,000 2W0 6,527 c 4,000 1960 C) l' 3,000 i 1980 6,337 2,000 1940 1,007 1960 1,000 b11:12!68:0-000e efore - 1940 529 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15-24 1 25-34 a 35-44 45-54 1 55-64 1 65+ 25 -a 1.0 not adjusted for type of rental o F 20 0.8 v 0.6 15 c 0.4 s° 10 111111111111111111111 1 r 0.2 - no ! ! ill • 111 I. 111 I N Ea -0.2 i0 N 00 CD O N N M O 0 00 N CO 0 0 N W a1 0 O N M N V1 00 N W a1 O N N M C to t0 N CO m 0 N N NN N N DI p O O .-I N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ,,---••N N N N N N N N N N N N 'N N N N N N N N N N N IN NicMULTIFAMILY 154 , `'1 �r LO41,USING HAsLJnl\'ITft)'S -�.�'l� <., . 'San Diego i 14,000 ;;- ■Owner 12,000 -. 10,000 8,000 -+ :-. 6,000 N to 4,000 a m to N iII 2,000 ni 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ i Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 30,000 70,000 ■Renter IS Renter 25,000 0 Owner 60,000 ", Owner 61, 50,000 h . 20,000 40,000 _ 15,000 ��"z 30,000 10,000 20,000 i 79 m w ;. 5,000 N g ';'C' 'V f, 10,000 o0 co cO c- . 1 111 ,v._ �� m r, N m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 Mining I 2000-2010 �— Construction 2010-2016IMME Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs -- Natural Increase Financial Svcs — MOMME— Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health IIIIIIIIMNIIIMMMMMMMMMMII 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase GovernmentiiniiiiMi Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,Costar®,CBRE Econometrics°,Moody's Analytics",ESRI®and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. for more detailed analyses and multifamily market .r onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. i NALE iLI rJJ III MULTIFAMILY H UrliVer 1 _ r HOUSING I-1 HAS :f San Diego* ='c..�. COUNCIL Net out migrations have countered natural population growth. Slight in migrations expected as overall growth slows. New rental households will source from 35-44 year olds and seniors over 65. Economic prospects are improving and good. Rental stock is older,yet with few supply restrictions. Multifamily demand will be flat for three years,then improve though 2029. DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 45 252 -4.7 39% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 90,000 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 80,000 Owner Single 70,000 60,000 - - Owner 2-4 units12;33 50,000 Owner 5+units I 13,685 40,000 m 30,000 rn _ Renter Single 133,276 20,000 ~ m ' ^ Renter 2-4 units 11111 80,668 10,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+un is 125,785 515k $25k $35k $50k $756 $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 140,000 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 120,000 since 3,914 2010 III rr 100,000 2000- 0 2010 14,512 a) 80,000 1980- x 2000 38,378 O 60,000 1960- 1980 41,599 • 40,000 T a I *� 1940- 20,000 1960 1940 11,799 before 15,5x? under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast ❑15-24 11 25-34 a 35-44 45-54 •55-64 ■65+ 170 6.0 8 not adjusted for type of rental o 165 5.0 s 4.0 160 3.0 IllIllIllIl 155150• 2.0 lA • 0.0 u LI '--J V Lr 145 -1.0-2.0 I l 140 -3.0 135 -4.0 130 111111111111111111111111 tO N CO 0 0 ti N N Os N 50 N w 01 N O O W O O - N T so N- w m O H N m V v1 tD `,-Z OJ O 0 0 N N N 0 N N 0 0 0 N N N 0 o g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N NASA N N N N N N N N N N N N rake io^:.: 156 ■■■ 1AR® MUL?IFAMILY � HOUSING Un1pe151 e. ■Owner -- 160,000 140,000 4' 120,000 100,000 80,000 r . x, r o „„ i - .r: y 60,000 w _ - t .: oi co N 40,000 N N oli a 20,000 -+' 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 300,000 700,000 ■Renter ■Renter 250,000 3 Owner 600,000 7 Owner 500,000 200,000 400,000 150,000 iri 300100,000000 03100,000 N r' cn zoo,000 LnN 50,000 N ,-1a G ^ vNi i 43 V] ,'^ c N N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 0 10 20 30 40 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mining I 2000-2010 2010-2016 — Construction Natural Increase IIIMM ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing mum Trade&Transport MIIIMIIII 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs iMin Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health1111111111101111 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government Net Migration , RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to-6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStare,CBRE Econometrics*,Moody's Analytics°,ESRI®and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market "`'-onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. If��IP r .r FNAs 157 , , MULTIFAMILY . FA ,-.1--'.. HOUSING FIAS7,}Cl1VfL51t)r ies'='_, co c l �dSaTl Diego' Slight natural population growth will go negative,relying on the surge in net in migrations to fuel new rental households. Renters today enjoy strong incomes,a range of ages and household sizes. Economic prospects are great,with growth in most sectors. Rental stock is old,yet less than a third in STAR units. Demand ahead is strong and steadily increasing. Definitions on bock DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE • 12 174 0.0 32% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 90,000 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 80,000 Owner Single 70,000 ' . 60,000 Owner 2-4 units , 12,561 50,000 40,000 Owner 5+units ® 52,801 30,000 - Renter Single 154,272 20,000 111 00 10,000 , Renter 2-4 units 57,401 ill under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renters+units 190,956 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $1005 $15ok $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 180,000 - - - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 160,000 since 2010 11,472 140,000 120,000 30� - 36,158 100,000 1980- = 2000 78,492 80,000 O 1960- 6Q000 v 1980 53,674 40,000 m 1944 20,000 1960 Eli 8,574 before 1940 , 2,586 under 15% 1576-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15-24 ■25-34 D 35-44 45-54 11 55-64 11165+ _8 400 12.0 - not adjusted for type of rental 350 10.0 300 8.0 250 6.0 200 4.0 150 2.0 100 0.0 -2.0 0 0 0 0 0 N C 02 tv a C� o WIWIJIIWJHI000 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 N N N N N N N N N 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N ' N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NpFic - hUrral. 158 �I11JI MULTIFAMILY A ,_..A , ,w�1 1 HOUSING - ES IZei umn.r et col - 160,000 - O Owner - 140,000 p_4 120,000 ' 100,000 ... 80,000 T.' _ . :n .,...._ o 60,000 'al, m O w, ,.y.. ... 07 I m 0040,000 ,.i v o 4 j, ....._. ..... ..,.._. .�. 20,000 , ■til J ._ 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 7S-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 350,000 - - 700,000 •Renter ■Renter 777 300,000600,000 Owner Owner 250,000 500,000 200,000 400,000 eit 150,000 300,000 m N 100,000 03rn 200,000 N 0 n r V2 ko O al cn m cri N n 50,000 ''I II 03 03 N tLID100,000 CO mMI o LO 00 r•I mil Tr ll ill 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('OOOs) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 10 30 50 70 90 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mining I 2000-2010 Construction 2010-2016.1.1.11111.1 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration E Trade&Transport 110111.1111 Information Svcs 2010-2016 Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Education&Health .11111111111111 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government -- Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to—6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dine Focused Marketing and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,Costar°,CBRE Econometrics,Moody's Analytics*,ESRI*and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market -'^consulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 159 - ���� MULTIFAMILY - " Fit .� it HOUSING HAS U DI go' COUNCIL -..-....--.--.__ Consistent natural population growth is augmented by fewer net in migra- -- tions for new renter households. Renters have strong incomes and smaller households across a range of ages. Economic outlook is strong,led by - professional services. Rental stock age is typically older,yet the small . share of STAR units mimics younger metros. Demand is strong and rising. .-- Oe Deft';Tic)ns on I)ack DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 13 159 2.7 19% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 180,000 - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 160,000 Owner Single 1,210 310 140,000 -..- 120,000 Owner 2-4 units 1 14,078 100,000 80,000 Owner5+units IN 117,768 60,000 Renter Single 228,007 40,000 20,000 Renter 2-4 unitsill 57,111 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 530,024 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 350,000 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200000 300,000 since ° 2010 33,032 a 250,000 2000- v 0 2010 v 200,000 f. 1980- ° 2000 145,029 o 150,000 1960- 01175,009 100,000 - i 1980 Tr 1940- 50,000 i. .-s - .to 1960 72,687 us - before - 1940 29,603 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast ❑15-24 ■25-34 .35-44 45-54 •55-64 ■65+ 900 c, 20.0 m 800 not adjusted for type of rental o }= 700 15.0 600 v10.0 1111111 500 3 0 5.0 k ,,, i ""? 0 :t TA D.D �_. - . 1111 I , .,., 1000 3040 11 -5.0 _ 11111111111111111111111 ,O h. CO Q, 0 0 N 00 00 N lO N 00 0 0 Up- CO Cr, 0 00 N on CO In l0 N 00 01 0 0 N LU CO N t0 N 00 01 0 N 00 O O O O O O O O N O N IN O O O O 0 0 08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0.1 N N N �.... n 160 _® HOUSING ILY ■ ■ �S s ,H,/['11 University counc;r y Sart Diego- 350,000a Owner _- 300,000 . "^- 250,000 200,000 „ �.»: ' 150,000 100,000 : d 1 ILL.in tis ._.-._ 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 500,000 900,000 •Renter ■Renter 450,000 800,000 3 Owner 3 Owner 400,000 700,000 350,000 600,000 300,000 500,000 ti 250,000 200,000 400,000 r+ 300,000 em 150,000 - N c111111 � N q N 00 01 50,000 N N 100,000 - al : rn lis o 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mining 1 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction um Natural Increase •2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing ' Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcsism Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government immium. Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households,ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth)to 50(Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today,then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index(e.g.,an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7(Cleveland)with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5(Honolulu)to-6.0(New Orleans)with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as*Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non-institutional sites of typically lower unit count,lower quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar®ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more,STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61%(Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,Costar°,CBRE Econometricse,Moody's Analytics°,ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment,capital markets,property markets and national or local policies and laws.All licenses,data,logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market Insulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. MULTIFAMILY NHT,w.,4 161 mesnommomonian Unive' �?' `' rA COUNCIL I�` S d5al'1 I]le' .. COLi�CIl V— Appendix 5: Methodology age cohort. Renter households were derived by dividing the population growth by age cohort by the Metro Market Demand Methodology headship rate by age cohort. For forecast renter households,for each age cohort,the incremental The metro market demand models begin with the annual population growth was divided by an forecast number of households from Moody's estimate of population per household (headship Economy.com base-case forecast. Because the rate)for that age cohort to get incremental national model was based on an HAS derived households for that year. Households were then household forecast,the metro market household split into international in migration households and forecasts are adjusted by the difference in the HAS domestic growth households by multiplying the and Moody's Economy.com forecast each year. The incremental household by the average percent of HAS national forecast is similar to the Moody's growth from 2010 to 2015 created by international forecast through 2018 then grows slightly slower, in-migration. International rental households were representing the impact of expected slower then estimated by multiplying the rentership rate for household formations during recessions which are international in migrants for that age cohort. modeled to occur towards the end of each decade Similarly, new domestic rental households were through 2030. The resulting HAS national household estimated by multiplying the rentership rate for each forecast is 2.8%lower than the Moody's national age cohort by the new domestic households for that forecast by 2030. Thus, metro markets are adjusted age cohort.Total renter households for each year for the difference between the two national equal the previous year total renter households plus forecasts each year(e.g.-2.8%for 2030). the incremental total international in-migrating Like the national model,the metro area model renter households by age cohort plus the defines the renter households by adjusting the incremental total domestic households by age number of households by one minus the home cohort for that year. ownership rate for each year and subtracts out the The forecast home ownership rate for each year is homeless rate. The metro market home ownership estimated by dividing the rental households by the rate is specified by the equivalent metropolitan area total households for that year. Home ownership home ownership rate as provided by the U.S.Census rates from the metro model were slightly higher Bureau. The model uses the statewide homeless when aggregated than trends suggested by the rate as similar data was not available at the national model. Thus,annual home ownership rates metropolitan area level. While homeless rates were adjusted downwards by 0.09%per year so that surely vary by metropolitan area,this homeless the metro area home ownership rate trends in adjustment is quite small,with a median rate of 0.12%of population. Actual data were collected for aggregate were more like the national trend. Actual 2009 and 2011 to 2015. The forecast did not assume home ownership rates were used from 2005 to 2016. The 2017 home ownership rate was estimated a change in the homeless rate from the 2015 figure. by multiplying the 2016 actual rate by the modeled The U.S.Census Bureau provides a quarterly change from 2016 to 2017, and so on. estimate of home ownership rates for select Forecast rental households were then adjusted for metropolitan areas. The survey's methodology can three factors to forecast demand for the institutional result in wide swings in estimates of home rental market, or those properties with 5 or more ownership rates from quarter to quarter. Thus,an units. First,an estimate of the amount of total annual average of quarterly home ownership rates rental stock attributed to properties with 5 or more was used to observe the historic trend in home units(5+)was estimated by reviewing several ownership for each metro area. Forecast metro sources of data,including the U.S.Census,CoStar® market home ownership rates were estimated based and CBRE® Econometrics. This factor ranged from on demographic trends. 33%to 65%with a median of 46%. Second,some To estimate historical renter households,the markets have significantly older multifamily stock rentership rate for each age cohort for each metro than other markets, indicating that those markets market was multiplied by the households for that will need more new stock to offset obsolete aging 162 stock. However, it is difficult to tell how much of the Metro Market Overviews Methodology stock has already been updated in each market. Thus,we made only a slight adjustment upward for 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast is developed markets with older stock. The amount of stock built by the Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS)team and after 1980 was calculated for each market and represents the number of rental apartment units in ranged from 21%to 81%with a median of 56%. An buildings with five or more units(defined as aging factor was developed by dividing the U.S. multifamily units throughout)and those multifamily average percent of the market built after 1980(49%) units that will be needed to meet demand going by the metro area average built after 1980. The forward. national model assumed 0.5%of stock would need Historical figures for the years 2007 to 2016 are to be replaced each year due to obsolescence. For based on estimates of existing multifamily 5+total each metro market,this 0.5%was multiplied by the inventory as developed by the HAS team from aging factor;i.e. markets with stock that is older several sources including the U.S.Census,CoStar® than the U.S.are assumed to need slightly more and CBRE® Econometrics®. stock per year to replace obsolete buildings. The model also assumes that enough demand will be Forecasts are based on demographic,economic and needed in each market to keep vacancy at a similar capital market trends and consider aging and rate as the long-term average for that market. As domestic and international immigration trends the total market inventory increases in size,the specific to that metropolitan area as well as housing current vacant units will become a smaller amount affordability and ownership trends,among other of the total and thus vacancy would decline, factors. Actual units could be lower than this level in excluding the impact of actual new supply. Thus, areas with geographic and political restrictions. In demand was also adjusted for a long-term vacancy this case,upward pressure could develop on rental factor. Because of unusual fluctuations occurring in rates. Actual units could also be larger than forecast the housing market from 2000-2016 due to the demand in markets where construction exceeds Great Financial Crisis,the average vacancy from demand. 1990-1999 was used as the long-term vacancy 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built tracks the number factor. This figure was more representative of long of units in buildings with five or more units by year term trends for most markets. The model assumes built. Note that this graph is specific to only the 5+ that enough units will need to be produced each unit sector of the rental market and thus will have year to maintain vacancy rates at a similar level and lower numbers than other graphs such as the thus the demand for each year is increased by this adjacent"Rent as a Percent of Household Income" vacancy factor. graph which includes all sizes of rental units. The 5+ Actual occupied units were used for 2007 to 2016 Unit share of the total rental stock can be seen in the based on HAS estimates derived from multiple graph above it titled "Housing Stock by Tenure and sources. The forecast applied the 2016-2017 growth Type". rate from the modeled figures from 2017 to 2016 to Affordability is the Housing Affordability Index as the 2016 actual estimate to get the 2017 estimate reported by Moody's Economy.com for the fourth and so on. quarter of 2016. It provides a general indication of State Demand Methodology affordability of single-family owned housing in a metropolitan area. Higher ratios indicate that The methodology to forecast multifamily demand for housing is more affordable and vice-versa. The index the states followed a similar methodology as the is the ratio of median family income to the minimum metropolitan areas. Demand for the states was income to qualify for purchase of a single-family further adjusted so that the state forecasts add up to home at the median existing home resale price the national forecast both historically and on a under standard mortgage underwriting as of the forecast basis. This was done by prorating the time of the index,then multiplied by 100 to convert proportion of demand for each state as compared to to a 100-point index e. p ( g.,an index of 100 indicates the total forecast for all the states to the U.S. that the median family income equals the qualifying forecast demand. 163 income). Of the metropolitan areas in this report, Orleans)with an average of 2.0. Higher indices this index ranges from 69.4(San Jose)to 290.7 represent markets with more stringent regulatory (Cleveland)with an average of 178.0. environments in regards to new housing supply. Demand Ranking is the relative rank among the 50 The Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index multifamily metro markets in this study of the HAS is based on data and a nationwide survey of local forecasted multifamily housing demand for rental land use regulations including process and stock with 5 or more units based two growth factors: approvals, rules, and outcomes. The index includes 1)the average percentage growth in demand from eleven sub-indices measuring the stringency of the 2017 to 2030 and 2)the absolute growth in demand local regulatory environment, including local political from 2017 to 2030. The rankings range from 1 pressure, local project approval, local assembly, (Dallas-Ft.Worth)to 50(Cleveland). Note that supply restrictions,density restrictions,open space, percentage growth rankings tend to favor smaller exactions,and approval delay. The Lacroix index was metropolitan markets while absolute growth developed by Sumner La Croix, Ph.D.at the rankings tend to favor larger metropolitan markets. Economic Research Organization at the University of Thus,the index ranks based on a blend of both Hawaii and measures the developable area within a percentage growth and absolute number of new 50-kilometer radii from a central city. Factors such renters. See the tables in Appendix 5 for separate as oceans,wetlands, lakes, rivers and other bodies of rankings by percentage growth and total growth. water as well as areas with a slope above 15%are defined as undevelopable. The Multifamily Supply Employment Growth by Sector graphs are based on Restrictions Index is the sum of each sub index for employment projections for metropolitan statistical the metro market divided by the average for that areas as provided by Moody's Analytics®for major sub index for all the metro markets in this study. North American Industry Classification codes (NAICS). For example,the category"Information" STAR Share is that share of metro rental housing includes a broad array of services including stock with five or more units HAS qualified as newspapers,software publishers, motion pictures, Second-Tier Affordable Rentals or those non- radio,TV, data processing, internet publishing and institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower similar services. A description of NAICS codes can be quality and greater age,a critical and ongoing found here: https://www.census.gov/cgi- multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?chart=2012.The term ratings of 1 to 5 for sites of five units or more,STAR "Education"as mentioned in the text boxes of the units are those with lower CoStar® ratings of 1 to 2. metropolitan overviews in this report refers to the Costar® ratings are based on several criteria Education &Health Services NAICS category and including building structure and systems,amenities, could be more health oriented than education site and landscaping,and certifications such as LEED oriented depending on the metro area. and Green Globes. Properties rated 2 have functional architectural design and systems, below MF Supply Restrictions(Multifamily Supply average finishes and one to no additional amenities. Restrictions Index)is an HAS composite of They have minimal to no landscaping and exterior methodology using the Wharton Residential Land spaces,and are unlikely to hold green or energy Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix developable efficient certifications. Properties rated 1 may land index. This index represents the difficulty of require significant renovation and are possibly creating new supply which may vary from the functionally obsolete. STAR facilities are likely to amount of new supply delivered as high growth serve lower income populations which are a metro markets may also experience higher supply significant part of the population base in some growth despite the difficulty of approving new metro areas, and may represent, in some areas, projects. The result of higher supply restrictions may potential investment targets for u be longer approval and development time-lines g pgrading to higher quality properties. The STAR share ranges from 61% adding to the development risks and higher (Los Angeles)to 17%(Austin)with a metro market construction costs which lead to less affordable average of 36%for markets included in this study. rental markets. Of the markets in this study,this index ranges from 19.5 Honolulu to-6.0(New 164 Sources Demographic data was drawn from several U.S. Census Bureau surveys, including the 2015 American Community Survey(ACS)which was the most recent ACS survey at the time of this report. Economic and demographic trend and forecast data was drawn from Moody's Analytics®supplemented by other sources including U.S.Census Bureau, Federal Reserve and other forecast surveys such as the Wall Street Journal Economic Forecasting Survey and the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Survey of Professional Forecasters. Property market data was derived from several sources including the U.S. Census Bureau,CoStar®Realty Information, CBRE® Econometrics and ESRI®. 165 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This report was prepared for the National Multifamily Housing Council and the National Apartment Association by Hoyt Advisory Services, Dinn Focused Marketing, Inc.and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors, LLC. Hoyt Advisory Services(HAS) is subsidiary of the Homer Hoyt Institute(HHI),an independent, non-profit research and educational foundation established in 1967 to improve the quality of public and private real estate decisions by expanding and disseminating the real estate body of knowledge,stimulating innovation in the discipline of real estate and land economics, building bridges among academia, industry,and government, and developing innovative approaches to the solution of real estate problems. Research supported by HHI must meet the highest standards of scholarship,and it must further the improvement of decision making in the real estate industry.That is, it must combine rigor with relevance. HAS is able to engage PhDs from leading universities along with practitioners with proven,appropriate real estate expertise for the project, in this case partnering with Dinn Focused Marketing, Inc. and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. Dinn Focused Marketing,Inc.provides clients a detailed and directional picture of the underlying market place trends now and going forward for any national housing or mix-use real estate development challenge. Clientele are a select cadre of land developers, homebuilders, lending institutions, portfolio managers, municipal leadership and national housing organizations. Whitegate Real Estate Advisors, LLC provides real estate consulting services in the areas of investment analysis, portfolio structuring,capital formation strategies, market analysis,econometric modeling and forecasting, reporting and asset management. Authors for this paper each have more than 25 years of experience in the real estate industry, and are frequent speakers and publishers in both academic and practitioner journals and meetings: Dr. Miller is the Ernest Hahn Chair and Professor of Real Estate Finance at the University of San Diego. He was V.P.of Analytics for CoStar®2009-2010 and consulted for many years on forecasting. He has worked on forecasting single-family housing for many years with Collateral Analytics,see www.collateralanalytics.com and he co-wrote a study for Fannie Mae on rating multifamily housing quality with Xudong An in 2013. He has worked extensively with various trade associations including NAIOP,CCIM,the Urban Land tF, Institute,and has been a frequent speaker to groups such as the USGBC, ICSC, BOMA,Al, CORENET,CREW, MBA,SIOR,and NAHB and is a member of the national research Dr. Norm Miller committees for ICSC, PREA,and the ULI. As a Board and faculty member of the Homer Hoyt Land Use Institute Faculty, based in North Palm Beach Florida he is involved with some premier thought leaders among academics and industry professionals. He has received numerous industry awards and is a frequent speaker and publisher. His contact is nmiller@sandiego.edu. 166 Oyu Dr. Fisher is a Professor Emeritus at Indiana University,Visiting Professor at John ;; Hopkins University, Partner at Pavonis Group LLC, Director at RealNex, LLC, President and Chair of the Board, Homer Hoyt Institute and Consultant to the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries. He is a frequent speaker and publisher. He has served as a consultant to many real estate companies, including Real Capital Analytics and ARGUS,and served in leadership positions in many industry organizations including PREA, NCREIF, RERI and others. He is a frequent industry speaker and has tik published numerous textbooks and articles. Dr. Jeffrey D. Fisher Michael Dinn leads Dinn Focused Marketing,Inc. (DFM)Throughout his career, Michael has taken a market-centric stance in land acquisition, land brokerage, residential development, residential design and marketing campaigns. For over 16 years leading DFM, he has combined these experiences into a skill set that provides clients a detailed and directional picture of the underlying market place trends now and going forward for any national housing or mix-use real estate development Ilk challenge. His Clientele are a select cadre of land developers, homebuilders, lending t institutions, portfolio managers, municipal leadership and national housing organizations, each with a unique market position,access or capacity to affect their Michael J. Dinn, CRE® residential market.The mix is public and private, lender and sponsor, landowner and sales management. His work provides scaled assessments of metro housing markets amid great change,targeting a mix of housing assets from failing master planned communities to select multifamily apartment portfolios. Paige Mueller is the CEO of Whitegate Real Estate Advisors, LLC a consulting firm — focusing on econometric modeling, market analysis, investment and capital , strategies, portfolio structuring,asset management and risk analysis. She has more than 25 years of experience analyzing real estate in multiple countries and property 44, . types. She previously was a Managing Director at RCLCO, leading the pension consulting practice group which provided portfolio strategy, manager selection, / investment analysis and reporting services in multiple property types including residential sectors such as apartment,student housing,single-family land,and senior Paige Mueller, CRE_® housing. At GIC Real Estate,she provided portfolio analysis,forecasting and investment analysis for a multi-billion dollar global real estate portfolio, including public and private, debt and equity instruments.There she frequently provided demand and market forecasts for multiple markets and property types for investment underwriting as well as market and portfolio analyses.She previously worked at LaSalle Investment Management,where she developed economic and demand models for multiple property types in the U.S. She graduated with an MBA in Finance from Indiana University, has served in leadership positions in many industry organizations, including ULI, PREA and the Real Estate Research Institute and is a frequent industry publisher and speaker. 167 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the data contained in this study reflect accurate and reliable information and are based on information that to our knowledge was current as of the date of this report. This study is based on estimates, assumptions,and other information developed from independent research efforts,models and general industry knowledge.No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by any data source used in preparing or presenting this study. This report represents a view of reasonable expectations as of the time the report was written,but such information,estimates,or opinions are not offered as predictions or assurances that particular results or events will occur. Actual results may vary from those described in this report,and the variations may be material.Therefore,no warranty or representation is made that any of the data,projected forecasts or results contained in this study will be achieved. 168 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on December 6, 2018 commencing at 9:00 A.M. In the Board of County Commissioners Chamber. Third Floor, County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Naptes,FL. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND MAP SERIES TO ADD THE LIVINGSTON ROAD(VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT TO THE URBAN MIXED-USE DISTRICT, TO ALLOW UP TO 420 MULTI FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF VETERANS- MEMORIAL BOULEVARD,JUST EAST OF LIVINGSTON ROAD,IN SECTION 13,TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 35.57±ACRES. WI-201700044191 VEpfans Me-no 131 BLVD C _ LI PROJECT LOCATION _- A.1 irterested parties are invitea to appear and he heard. Copies of the propose(' RESOLUTION will be made available for inspection at tne GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Furthermore,the materials will be made available for inspection at tITe CoAtir County Clerk's Office, Fourth Floor, Coilier County Government Center,3299 Tarribki-Trail East,Suite 401,Naples,one week prior 'o the scheduled hearing.Any questionspertaining to the documents should be directeo to tie GMD Zoning Division, Comprabrxive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's OfFce prior to December 6, 2018, will be read and cons.cered at the public hearing. Any person wno decides to appear any decision of the Collier County Planning Commission will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore,may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made,which record includes the testmony and evidence upon which the appea.is based. If you are a person-with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate In this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located a 3335 Tarniarni Trail East,Suite ,01. Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meetiog. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Mark P.Strain.Chairman Collier County Plannieg Commission November 16,2018 24A I FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 16,7018 I NAPLES DAILY NEWS 12/06/2018 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.4 Item Summary: PL20180002552: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Potable Water Sub-element of the Public Facilities Element to amend Policy 1.7 to reference the updated Ten Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, and furthermore directing transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 12/06/2018 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior – Zoning Name: Marcia R Kendall 11/19/2018 10:04 AM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 11/19/2018 10:04 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department David Weeks Additional Reviewer Completed 11/19/2018 12:29 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 11/20/2018 10:13 AM Public Utilities Planning and Project Management Eric Fey Additional Reviewer Completed 11/20/2018 1:18 PM Public Utilities Planning and Project Management Tom Chmelik Additional Reviewer Completed 11/20/2018 4:28 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 11/20/2018 5:28 PM Zoning Michael Bosi Review Item Completed 11/21/2018 9:25 AM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 12/06/2018 9:00 AM 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 876 COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS POTABLE WATER SUB-ELEMENT OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) Petitions: PL20180002552-CPSP-2018-6 CCPC: DECEMBER 6, 2018 BCC: JANUARY 8, 2019 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: CCPC/BCC Petition COVER (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) TABLE OF CONTENTS CCPC GMP TRANSMITTAL AMENDMENT PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 DECEMBER 6, 2018 1) TAB: Transmittal Staff Report DOCUMENT: CCPC Staff Report: PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 2) TAB: Resolution DOCUMENT: Transmittal Resolution with Exhibit “A” text PL20180002552/ CPSP-2018-6 3) TAB: DRAFT Workplan DOCUMENT: Ten Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update 4) TAB: Legal Advertisements DOCUMENT: CCPC Advertisement 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: CCPC Table of Contents (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Agenda Item #9.A.4 PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 1 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) FROM: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION, GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: December 6, 2018 RE: Petition PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6, Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, Growth Management Plan Amendment. (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) NOTE: This petition also requires a recommendation by the CCPC sitting as the Environmental Advisory Council. AGENT/APPLICANT: Public Utilities Department Engineering and Project Management Division Collier County Government 3339 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment is not specific to a certain location. REQUESTED ACTION: The proposed text change seeks to amend the Potable Water Sub -Element of the Public Facilities Element to update the reference to our next Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, as required of Collier County government by Section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes. Policy 1.7 is proposed to be amended as follows: [Note: Current Potable Water Sub-Element language appears below in plain text, the proposed amendment is shown in strike-through/underline format. Objective 1 of the Sub-Element is included for background/clarity purposes] 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report_CPSP-18-6_FNL (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Agenda Item #9.A.4 PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 2 Proposed Potable Water Sub-Element Text Amendment: [page 2] OBJECTIVE 1: Locate and develop potable water supply sources to meet the future needs of the County owned and operated systems, said supply sources meeting the minimum Level of Service Standards established by this Plan. The development and utilization of new potable water supply sources and the acquisition of land necessary for such development shall be based upon the information, guidelines and procedures identified within the County’s Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (as updated) and the Lower West Coast W ater Supply Plan prepared by the South Florida Water Management District. [Note: No revisions to Policies 1.1 through 1.6 are proposed.] Policy 1.7: The County has developed the Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, dated October 2013 November 2018, in accordance with the water supply guidelines of the most current version of the South Florida Water Management District’s Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan. The County’s Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan is incorporated herein by reference. STAFF ANALYSIS: As indicated in Policy 1.7 of the Public Facilities Element, Potable Water Sub-Element, the County has developed the Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (Appendix A). The proposed text amendment seeks to adopt the updated version of the County’s plan, which has been prepared in accordance with the most current version of the South Florida Water Management District’s Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan. The updated version of the Ten- Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan is proposed for incorporation into the County’s GMP by reference. Regional Planning: In December 2017, the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) approved the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan (LWCWSP) Update. Under Florida law (section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes) Collier County must adopt amendments to its comprehensive plan within 18 months of the SFWMD approval of the update. These amendments include the development of an updated 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan and amendments to the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The LWCWSP amendment required the five water management districts to initiate regional water supply planning in all areas of the State. The purpose of regional water supply planning is to develop strategies to meet future water demands of urban and agricultural uses, while meeting the needs of the environment. This process identifies historical uses of water and water source options to meet potential shortfall. Each regional water supply plan is based on at least a 10-year future planning horizon, and a complete update of each plan is required every five years. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report_CPSP-18-6_FNL (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Agenda Item #9.A.4 PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 3 The Lower West Coast Water Supply Planning Area includes Lee County and portions of Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry and Monroe counties. The 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update (LWC Update) was approved by the SFWMD Governing Board in December 2017. The LWC Update assesses projected water demands and potential sources of water for the period through 2040. Source: 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report_CPSP-18-6_FNL (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Agenda Item #9.A.4 PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 4 Local Planning: On February 25, 2003 the Board of County Commissioners adopted an update to the County’s 2001 Water Master Plan, to provide an integrated approach for meeting the projected water system demands up to the year 2022. The “2002 Water Master Plan Update” provided for comprehensive overview of the entire water system, including emergency systems, water demand projections and demands and proposed conservation and reclaimed water projects , and provided a plan for future water supply and infrastructure needs to meet t he requirements of growth, infrastructure renewal, replacement and enhancement over a course of five years . Water demands were provided at five-year increments to be consistent with the 2000 Lower West Coast Regional Water Supply Plan. During the State of Florida’s 2005 legislative session, lawmakers revised state water law to include a new statutory provision. Local governments within the Lower West Coast Planning Area are required to prepare a Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan that identifies water supply projects and adopt revisions to comprehensive plans within 18 months following the approval of the most current version of the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update. On January 25, 2007, as part of the 2004 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) based amendments, and in preparation of the anticipated Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, Collier County adopted language to coordinate water supply planning with SFWMD. Modifications of various Goals, Objectives and Policies (GOPs), as required by these legislative actions, were addressed through the GMP amendment to the Potable Water Sub -Element, the Conservation and Coastal Management Element and the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. The amendments referenced the 2002 Water Master Plan Update and any updates as the County’s water supply planning document. During the County’s 2011 EAR-based amendments, references to the County’s 2002 Water Master Plan document were further revised to note the adopted Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (dated October 2008) as the County’s appropriate document for water supply planning. On February 24, 2009, the County adopted its first Ten -Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, by Ordinance No. 09-04. It was based on the guidelines of the 2005-2006 Lower West Coast Plan Update, subsequently adopted. In December 2017, the SFWMD’s Governing Board approved the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update. Therefore, Collier County must adopt the proposed GMP text amendment that references the proposed Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan by May 15, 2019 (or 18 months after the District Governing Board approved each regional water supply plan) [s. 163.3177(6)(c), F.S.]. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report_CPSP-18-6_FNL (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Agenda Item #9.A.4 PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 5 Proposed 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan update: As noted in the attached 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, the updated document addresses the following objectives: Identifies population and water demands of the County and each utility for the planning period, 2019 to 2028. Presents existing and planned potable and reclaimed water facilities that will be utilized to meet demand projections. Identifies sources of raw water needed for potable water and irrigation wa ter supply to meet demands through the year 2028. Identifies the steps necessary to develop additional potable and reclaimed water supplies and specifies when they must occur and how they will be funded. Demonstrates that the water supply plans for each utility within the County are feasible with respect to facility capacity to be developed and consumptive use permit allocations required. Describes the conservation practices and regulations utilized by each utility to meet water supply demand. The population methodology used for the 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan is based on the County’s latest adopted Annual Update Inventory Report and Capital Improvement Element (AUIR-CIE) available at the time the plan was created (2018 AUIR-CIE). Please note that because of updates to data, the proposed Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan will differ from the 2017 Lower West Coast Plan Update, as well as the most recent AUIR-CIE documents. These variances have been vetted with SFWMD staff, who agrees that the population methodology is appropriate. This 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan was prepared by the County’s consultant, CDM Smith, in coordination with Public Utilities Department and Growth Management Department staff, as well as representatives from various private utilities, and includes the areas of the County served by the Collier County Water and Sewer District , the Ave Maria Utility Company (AMUC), and the Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD). Also referenced in the plan are the Lee Cypress Water and Sewer Co-Op, Inc, and the Port of The Islands Community Improvement District, as well as a number of small capacity water systems regulated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP ) (see pages 2-6 and 2-7 of the attached plan). These did not meet the minimum size requirements to be included. In substance, the CCWSD portions of the Plan update provide detail behind the following broad subject areas: (a) Existing Facilities (Section 4): The CCWSD is served by three water treatment plants, the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant, the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant, and the Orange Tree Water Treatment Plant, with maximum finished water production capacities of 20 MGD, 32 MGD, and 0.75 MGD respectively. Four wellfields provide raw water for the plants, drawing from both brackish and non-brackish 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report_CPSP-18-6_FNL (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Agenda Item #9.A.4 PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 6 sources. Collier County has been a leader in the use of brackish water source production. Along with these production and wellf ield facilities, the CCWSD contains over 1,000 miles of transmission and distribution pipelines, water storage tanks, pumping facilities, an aquifer storage and recover (ASR) system and approximately 56,000 individual service connections. In addition, the CCWSD operates one of the largest irrigation quality (IQ) water systems in south Florida. With contractual commitments of over 23 MGD to golf courses communities, parks and roadway medians, there is additional potential demand of over 28.5 MGD represented by communities that have been dual-piped. (b) Planned Water Supply Facilities (Section 5): Based on the 2018 AUIR population and Level of Service (LOS) standard, the Plan update indicates 2027 as the optimal first production year for the new Northeast Regional Water Treatment Plant Wellfield Phase 1. Components of this regional improvement include the Phase 1 Water Treatment Plant, the Phase 1 wellfield, and all associated transmission pipelines, pumps and water storage tanks. The District’s IQ water system will be enhanced by the development of 5 ASR wells that will allow storage of IQ water in the wet season for use in the dry season. Additional sources of IQ supply will be addressed, through permit allocations of groundwater and capture and storage of surface water. (c) Facilities Capacity Analysis (Chapter 6): Plans to bring online a new potable water treatment facility and associated wellfield during the 10-year period will allow CCWSD to stay ahead of the demand curve during the 10-year planning period. (d) Conservation (Section 7): Conservation measures have been an important element in CCWSD planning for many years. Local regulations on domestic irrigation, low flow devices, Florida Friendly landscape principles, Fridays are Dry Days, and a block rate structure have been employed and will be continually improved. A meter replacement program is now underway, and efficiency gains at the Regional Plants and throughout the Distribution system are being realized. (e) Capital Improvement Projects (Section 8): Subsections present the capital improvement projects planned by each utility, including the funding source, project number, project name, and cost estimate for each project. A depiction of the District boundaries for each of the covered utilities follows. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report_CPSP-18-6_FNL (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Agenda Item #9.A.4 PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 7 Source: Collier County 10 Year Water Supply Plan Update (Draft), October 2018 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report_CPSP-18-6_FNL (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Agenda Item #9.A.4 PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 8 Statutory Requirements: The Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) has published “A guide to Preparation of the Water Supply Facilities Work Plan”. Local governments must comply with the following statutory requirements for water supply and facility planning (Each requirement followed by staff comment in bold and italics): 1. Coordinate appropriate aspects of their comprehensive plan with the appropriate water management district's regional water supply plan . [Section 163.3177(4)(a), F.S.]. The current GMP contains Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOP s) that had been adopted with the purpose of maintaining coordination with the SFWMD’s water supply plan. 2. Revise the Potable Water Sub-Element to adopt a water supply facilities work plan covering at least a 10-year planning period to meet existing and projected demand. The work plan should address those water supply facilities for which the local government has responsibility and include the facilities needed to develop alternative water supplies. The work plan should also identify conservation and reuse measures to meet future needs. [Section 163.3177(6)(c), F.S.] Policy 1.7 of the Potable Water Sub-Element was amended by Ordinance 09-04 to incorporate by reference the County’s 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan. This proposed GMP amendment seeks to adopt the revised update to the plan, which identifies: the County’s traditional and alternative water supply sources to meet existing and projected needs for the a 10 - year period; the capital improvements that will be needed to develop, treat, and deliver those alternative supplies; and the conservation measures and reuse supplies utilized to offset demand for new water. The County also updates its Capital Improvement Element on a yearly basis through the AUIR-CIE to include the capital improvements needed in the first five years of the 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan. 3. Revise the Conservation Element to assess current and projected water needs and sources for at least a 10-year planning period. The analysis must consider the existing levels of water conservation, use, and protection and the applicable policies of the water management district, and the district’s approved regional water supply plan. In the absence of an approved regional water supply plan, the analysis must consider the district’s approved water management plan. [Section 163.3177(6)(d)3, F.S.] The current Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP contains Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPs) that consider the SFWMD’s levels of water conservation, use, and protection. 4. Revise the Capital Improvements Element to identify capital improvements projects to be implemented in the first 5 years of the work plan for which the local government is responsible, including both publicly and privately funded water supply projects necessary to achieve and maintain adopted level of service standards; and adopt a 5 -year schedule of capital improvements to include those projects as either funded or unfunded, and if unfunded, given a level of priority for funding. [163.3177(3)(a)4, F.S.] The County 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report_CPSP-18-6_FNL (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Agenda Item #9.A.4 PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 9 updates its Capital Improvement Element on a yearly basis through the AUIR -CIE to include the capital improvements needed in the first five years of the 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan. 5. Revise the Intergovernmental Coordination Element to adopt principles and guidelines to be used to coordinate the comprehensive plan with the regional water supply authority (if applicable) and with the applicable regional water supply plan. [163.3177(6)(h )1, F.S.] The current Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the GMP contains Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPs) that provide principles and guidance for coordination with the SFWMD and other public and private utilities in regard to water supply planning. 6. During the Evaluation and Appraisal review, determine if comprehensive plan amendments are necessary to reflect statutory changes related to water supply and facilities planning since the last update to the comprehensive plan. If necessary, transmit the amendments to incorporate the statutory changes as appropriate. [Section 163.3191(1) and (2), F.S.] The recently adopted County’s EAR-based amendments included revisions to several of its Elements (not related to statutory changes) to revise references to the County’s 2014 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Update document and include the adopted Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan and the Water Master Plan as the County’s appropriate documents for water supply planning. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS The Collier County Land Development Code Chapter 10.03.00: Notice Requirements, establishes the required methods of providing public notice procedures and refers to Chapter 8 of the Collier County Administrative Code for Land Development (2018), which addresses information relating to public notice requirements for land use petitions (including when a Neighborhood Information Meeting is required.) The Administrative Code states, “The NIM is only for site-specific amendments.” This project is not a site-specific amendment, therefore no NIM was held. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This staff report has been reviewed and approved by the Office of the County Attorney. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Planning Commission, sitting as the Environmental Advisory Council under Ordinances 2013-50 and 2013-51, and in its capacity as the local planning agency under Ch. 163.3174, F.S., forward Petition PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve for Transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report_CPSP-18-6_FNL (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Agenda Item #9.A.4 PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan – Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element 10 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report_CPSP-18-6_FNL (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: Resolution - 110118(4) (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: Resolution - 110118(4) (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: Resolution - 110118(4) (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) DRAFT WORK PLAN Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update November 2018 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) i PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................. ES-1 Section 1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Plan Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Plan Objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Information Sources ...................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Plan Contents .................................................................................................................................................... 1-2 Section 2 Water Service Areas .................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Overview of Collier County ........................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Individual Utilities and Systems ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Collier County ..................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) ...................................................... 2-1 2.2.1.2 Goodland Water Sub-District ......................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.2 City of Naples ...................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.3 Everglades City ................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.4 City of Marco Island Water and Sewer Service Areas........................................................ 2-6 2.2.5 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) ...................................................................... 2-6 2.2.6 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) ............................................................................. 2-6 2.2.7 Independent Districts...................................................................................................................... 2-7 2.2.7.1 Lee Cypress Water and Sewer Co-op, Inc .................................................................. 2-7 2.2.7.2 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District ........................................ 2-7 2.2.8 Water Systems Regulated by FL Department of Environmental Protection ........... 2-7 Section 3 Population and Demand Projections .......................................................... 3-1 3.1 Countywide Projections ............................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Individual Utilities .......................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) .................................................................... 3-1 3.2.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) ...................................................................... 3-2 3.2.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) ............................................................................. 3-3 Section 4 Existing Water Supply Facilities .................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) ................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.1 Water Supply Permits .................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Potable Water Facilities ................................................................................................................. 4-2 4.1.2.1 Wellfields ............................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.2.2 Water Treatment Facilities ............................................................................................ 4-2 4.1.2.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission ........................................................................ 4-9 4.1.3 Reclaimed Water Facilities ........................................................................................................ 4-11 4.1.3.1 Water Reclamation Facilities ..................................................................................... 4-11 4.1.3.2 Reclaimed Water Pumping, Storage, and Transmission ................................ 4-14 4.1.3.3 Supplemental Wellfields .............................................................................................. 4-14 4.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) ................................................................................ 4-16 4.2.1 Water Supply Permits .................................................................................................................. 4-16 4.2.2 Potable Water Facilities .............................................................................................................. 4-16 4.2.2.1 Wellfields ............................................................................................................................ 4-16 4.2.2.2 Water Treatment Facilities ......................................................................................... 4-18 4.2.2.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission ..................................................................... 4-19 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Table of Contents · ii PW/6295/231366/03/01 4.2.3 Reclaimed Water Facilities .................................................................................................... 4-19 4.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) ................................................................................... 4-20 4.3.1 Water Supply Permits .............................................................................................................. 4-20 4.3.2 Potable Water Facilities .......................................................................................................... 4-20 4.3.2.1 Wellfields ........................................................................................................................ 4-20 4.3.2.2 Water Treatment Facilities...................................................................................... 4-21 4.3.2.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission ................................................................. 4-21 4.3.3 Reclaimed Water Facilities .................................................................................................... 4-21 Section 5 Planned Water Supply Facilities ................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) ..................................................................................5-1 5.1.1 Potable Water Facilities ................................................................................................................5-3 5.1.1.1 Wellfields ................................................................................................................................5-3 5.1.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities .............................................................................................5-5 5.1.1.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission .........................................................................5-7 5.1.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities ......................................................................................................... 5-11 5.1.2.1 Water Reclamation Facilities ...................................................................................... 5-11 5.1.2.2 Reclaimed Water Pumping, Storage, and Transmission ................................. 5-13 5.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD)................................................................................. 5-13 5.2.1 Potable Water Facilities ............................................................................................................... 5-13 5.2.1.1 Wellfields ............................................................................................................................. 5-13 5.2.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities .......................................................................................... 5-14 5.2.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities ......................................................................................................... 5-16 5.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) ........................................................................................ 5-16 5.3.1 Potable Water Facilities ............................................................................................................... 5-16 5.3.1.1 Wellfields ............................................................................................................................. 5-16 5.3.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities .......................................................................................... 5-16 5.3.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities ......................................................................................................... 5-17 Section 6 Facilities Capacity Analysis ......................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) ..................................................................................6-1 6.1.1 Concurrency Analysis ......................................................................................................................6-2 6.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) ....................................................................................6-2 6.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) ...........................................................................................6-3 Section 7 Conservation Regulations and Practices ..................................................... 7-1 7.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) ..................................................................................7-1 7.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) ....................................................................................7-4 7.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) ...........................................................................................7-5 Section 8 Capital Improvement Projects .................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) ..................................................................................8-1 8.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) ....................................................................................8-1 8.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) ...........................................................................................8-1 Appendices Appendix A Interlocal Agreement between CCWSD and the City of Naples Appendix B Ordinance Integrating Goodland Water District into CCWSD Appendix C Agreement for Potable Water Service Calusa Island Village (Goodland Area) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) · Table of Contents iii PW/6295/231366/03/01 Appendix D Potable Water Bulk Services Agreement between CCWSD and the City of Marco Island Notice of Termination List of Figures Figure 2-1 Water District Boundaries of Collier County ....................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-2 CCWSD Potable/Reclaimed Water Composite Map .......................................................... 2-5 Figure 4-1 Existing CCWSD Wellfields and Raw Water Transmission Mains .............................. 4-3 Figure 4-2 Existing CCWSD Potable Water Treatment Facilities ...................................................... 4-4 Figure 4-3 Existing CCWSD Potable Water Storage Facilities .......................................................... 4-10 Figure 4-4 Existing CCWSD Potable Water Transmission Mains ................................................... 4-12 Figure 4-5 Existing CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities ................................................................ 4-13 Figure 4-6 Existing CCWSD Reclaimed Water Distribution System .............................................. 4-15 Figure 4-7 Existing IWSD Water Supply Facilities ................................................................................ 4-17 Figure 5-1 Existing and Planned CCWSD Wellfields and Raw Water Transmission Mains ... 5-4 Figure 5-2 Existing and Planned CCWSD Potable Water Treatment Facilities ........................... 5-6 Figure 5-3 Existing and Planned CCWSD Potable Water Storage Facilities .................................. 5-8 Figure 5-4 Existing and Planned CCWSD Potable Water Transmission Mains ........................ 5-10 Figure 5-5 Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities ..................................... 5-12 Figure 5-6 Existing and Planned IWSD Potable Water Facilities.................................................... 5-15 Figure 7-1 CCWSD Unaccounted-for Water Loss from FY2002 to FY 2012 ................................. 7-2 List of Tables Table ES-1 Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Treatment and Water Reclamation Facilities ........................................................................................................................................ ES-2 Table ES-2 Capacity Analysis for CCWSD ................................................................................................... ES-3 Table ES-3 Summary of Existing and Planned IWSD Water Treatment and Water Reclamation Facilities ....................................................................................................................................... ES-4 Table ES-4 Capacity Analysis for IWSD ...................................................................................................... ES-4 Table ES-5 Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Water Treatment and Water Reclamation Facilities ........................................................................................................................................ ES-5 Table ES-6 Capacity Analysis for AMUC ..................................................................................................... ES-5 Table 2-1 Summary of Small Capacity Private Sector Water Systems Operating within Collier County ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2-7 Table 3-1 Collier County Peak Season Population Estimates and Projections ............................ 3-1 Table 3-2 Population Projections for CCWSD Service Area ................................................................. 3-1 Table 3-3 Projected Population and Demand for Areas Served by CCWSD .................................. 3-2 Table 3-4 Population Projections for Areas Served by IWSD ............................................................. 3-2 Table 3-5 Project Population and Demand for Areas Served by IWSD ........................................... 3-2 Table 3-6 Population Projections for Areas Served by AMUC ............................................................ 3-3 Table 3-7 Project Population and Demand for Areas Served by AMUC .......................................... 3-3 Table 4-1 Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to CCWSD ................................................. 4-1 Table 4-2 Existing CCWSD Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield ................................................................ 4-5 Table 4-3 Existing North Hawthorn RO Wellfield Summary ............................................................... 4-6 Table 4-4 Existing South Hawthorn RO Wellfield Summary ............................................................... 4-7 Table 4-5 Existing Orange Tree Wellfield Summary ............................................................................... 4-8 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Table of Contents · iv PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4-6 Summary of Existing CCWSD Water Treatment Facilities ...............................................4-9 Table 4-7 Summary of Existing CCWSD Water Storage Facilities ................................................... 4-11 Table 4-8 Summary of Existing Water Reclamation Facilities ......................................................... 4-11 Table 4-9 Summary of Existing CCWSD Supplemental Wells ........................................................... 4-16 Table 4-10 Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to the Immokalee Water and Sewer District ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4-16 Table 4-11 Summary of Existing IWSD Potable Water Wells ........................................................... 4-18 Table 4-12 Summary of Existing IWSD Water Treatment Facilities .............................................. 4-19 Table 4-13 Summary of Existing IWSD Storage Facilities .................................................................. 4-19 Table 4-14 Summary of Existing IWSD Water Reclamation Facilities .......................................... 4-20 Table 4-15 Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to AMUC ............................................... 4-20 Table 4-16 Summary of Wells Operated by AMUC ................................................................................ 4-20 Table 4-17 Summary of Existing AMUC Water Treatment Facility ................................................ 4-21 Table 4-18 Summary of Existing AMUC Storage Facility .................................................................... 4-21 Table 4-19 Summary of Existing AMUC Water Reclamation Facility ............................................ 4-22 Table 5-1 Planned NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1 Summary ....................................................................5-3 Table 5-2 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD NERWTP Phase 1 Wellfield .........5-5 Table 5-3 Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Treatment Facilities.....................5-7 Table 5-4 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD NERWTP Phase 1 .............................5-7 Table 5-5 Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Storage Facilities ...........................5-9 Table 5-6 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Water Storage Facilities ................5-9 Table 5-7 Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities .............. 5-11 Table 5-8 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities... 5-11 Table 5-9 Summary of Existing and Planned Reclaimed Water Storage Facilities .................. 5-13 Table 5-10 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Reclaimed Water Storage Facilities ................................................................................................................................................................... 5-13 Table 5-11 Summary of Planned IWSD Wells ......................................................................................... 5-14 Table 5-12 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned IWSD Wells .................................................... 5-14 Table 5-13 Summary of Existing and Planned IWSD Water Treatment Facilities ................... 5-16 Table 5-14 Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Potable Water Treatment Facilities 5-17 Table 5-15 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned AMUC Potable Water Treatment Facilities ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 5-17 Table 5-16 Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Water Reclamation Facilities .............. 5-17 Table 6-1 Capacity Analysis for CCWSD ........................................................................................................6-1 Table 6-2 Capacity Analysis for IWSD............................................................................................................6-2 Table 6-3 Capacity Analysis for AMUC ..........................................................................................................6-3 Table 8-1 CCWSD Capital Improvement Projects .....................................................................................8-2 Table 8-2 IWSD Capital Improvement Projects .........................................................................................8-7 Table 8-3 AMUC Capital Improvement Projects ........................................................................................8-8 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) · Table of Contents v PW/6295/231366/03/01 List of Acronyms AADD Annual Average Daily Demand AADF Annual Average Daily Flow ADD Average Daily Demand AMUC Ave Maria Utility Company (AMUC) ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery AUIR Annual Update and Inventory Report AWS Alternative Water Supply BCC Board of County Commissioners BEBR Bureau of Economic and Business Research Bls Below Land Surface CCCPD Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department CCWSD Collier County Water-Sewer District CDES Community Development and Environmental Services CIP Capital Improvement Plan CR County Road CUP Consumption Use Permits DIW Deep Injection Well EAR Evaluation and Appraisal Report ERC Equivalent Residential Connection FAC Florida Administrative Code FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FGUA Florida Government Utility Authority FY Fiscal Year GMP Growth Management Plan gpcd Gallons per Capita per Day gpd Gallons per Day HPRO High-Pressure Reverse Osmosis HZ1 Hawthorn Zone 1 Aquifer IE Ion Exchange IWSD Immokalee Water and Sewer District IQ Irrigation Quality LDC Land Development Code LH Lower Hawthorn Aquifer LOSS Level of Service Standard LPRO Low-Pressure Reverse Osmosis LS Lime Softening LT/LTA Lower Tamiami Aquifer LWCWSP Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan MF Membrane Filtration MG Million Gallons 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Table of Contents · vi PW/6295/231366/03/01 MGD Million Gallons Per Day MS Membrane Softening MMDD Maximum Month Daily Demand N/A Not Available NCRWTP North County Regional Water Treatment Plant NCWRF North County Water Reclamation Facility NERWTP Northeast Regional Water Treatment Plant NEWRF Northeast Water Reclamation Facility OTUC Orange Tree Utility Company OTWTP Orange Tree Water Treatment Plant PBWRF Pelican Bay Water Reclamation Facility PUD Public Utilities Division PSC Public Service Commission RIB Rapid Infiltration Basin RO Reverse Osmosis RWA Rural Water Association SA Sandstone Aquifer SCRWTP South County Regional Water Treatment Plant SCWRF South County Water Reclamation Facility SERWTP Southeast Regional Water Treatment Plant SEWRF Southeast Water Reclamation Facility SFWMD South Florida Water Management District UFA Upper Floridan Aquifer ULDC Unified Land Development Code WRF Water Reclamation Facility WT Water-Table Aquifer WTP Water Treatment Plant 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 898 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) · Table of Contents vii PW/6295/231366/03/01 This page intentionally left blank. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) ES-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Executive Summary In December 2017, the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) approved the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan (LWCWSP) Update. Under Florida law (section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes) Collier County must adopt amendments to its comprehensive plan within 18 months of the SFWMD approval of the update. These amendments include the development of a 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan and amendments to the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Under the requirement of the Florida Statutes, the 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan for Collier County must include analysis of all water utilities in the County not serving a specific local government. These utilities include: Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Utilities not included in this Plan are the City of Naples Utility Department, Marco Island Utilities, and Everglades City, each of which is responsible to develop a 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan to be included in its city’s comprehensive plan. This 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update for Collier County has the following objectives: Identify population and water demands of the County and each utility for the planning period of 2019 to 2028. Present existing and planned potable and reclaimed water facilities that will be utilized to meet demand projections. Identify sources of raw water needed for potable water and irrigation water supply to meet demands through the year 2028. Identify the steps necessary to develop additional potable and reclaimed water supplies and specify when they must occur and how they will be funded. Demonstrate that the water supply plans for each utility within the County are feasible with respect to facility capacity to be developed and consumptive use permit allocations required. Describe the conservation practices and regulations utilized by each utility to meet water supply demand. The Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update was prepared by CDM Smith Inc. (CDM Smith) for the Collier County Growth Management Division. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Executive Summary · ES-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Information for the Plan Update was solicited from each of the utilities included. All three utilities provided some level of information for inclusion in the Plan. Where information gaps existed, information on the existing and planned facilities was gathered from various sources including the SFWMD LWCWSP update, SFWMD consumptive use permits, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) public water supply and wastewater treatment facility permits, and the previous Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, adopted in February 2014. After completion of the draft version of the Plan Update, copies were distributed to each of the utilities for review and comment. Comments provided by each of the utilities were incorporated into their sections of the Plan Update. The findings of the Plan Update are summarized below for each of the utilities. Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) During the 10-year planning period CCWSD has plans to develop a new potable water treatment facility to meet growing water demands. Table ES-1 summarizes the treatment capacity of the existing and planned potable water and water reclamation facilities for CCWSD. Table ES-1. Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Treatment and Water Reclamation Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Treatment Capacity (MGD) Project Identified In LWCWSP Water Treatment Facilities NCRWTP MF Online 12.00 N/A NCRWTP LPRO Online 8.00 N/A SCRWTP LS Online 12.00 N/A SCRWTP LPRO Online 20.00 N/A OTUC WTP Online 0.75 N/A NERWTP Phase 1 LPRO3 2027 1.25 Yes2 NERWTP Phase 1 Ion Exchange3 2027 3.75 Yes2 Total - 57.75 - Water Reclamation Facilities NCWRF Online 24.10 N/A SCWRF Online 16.00 N/A NCWRF Expansion 2034 6.50 N/A NEWRF Phase 1 2023 4.00 Yes Total - 50.60 - 1 Information taken from the Collier County 2014 Master Plan Update and the 2018 AUIR. 2 Per the LWCWSP, the completion date for the NERWTP is 2033. 3 Contingent on SFWMD Permitting of Raw Water Supply. In addition to the construction of the planned facilities indicated above, CCWSD intends to construct new wellfields, finished water storage, and distribution lines, which are presented in detail in the Plan Update. The information on CCWSD is reflective of the 2014 Water and 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Executive Summary · ES-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Wastewater Master Plan Updates, the Collier County 2018 Draft Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) on public utilities, and the Collier County Water-Sewer District Fiscal Year 2017- 2027 Capital Improvement Plan. Based on population projections available for the CCWSD service area, a capacity analysis was performed looking at projected demand versus plant capacity and permitted allocation. The results of the capacity analysis are summarized below in Table ES-2. A discussion of the capacity analysis can be found in Section 6.1. As the capacity analysis illustrates, CCWSD has sufficient plant capacity existing or planned throughout the 2028 planning horizon. Table ES-2. Water Capacity Analysis for CCWSD 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population 195,207 241,422 271,671 300,839 Demand Per Capita (gpcd) 150 150 150 150 Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd (MGD) 29.28 36.21 40.75 45.13 Available Facility Capacity (MGD) 52.00 52.75 52.75 57.75 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment1 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 Facility Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)2 22.72 16.54 12.00 12.62 Raw Water Requirement (MGD)3 35.72 44.18 49.72 55.05 Permitted Amount (MGD Annual Average)4,5 55.53 56.18 56.18 56.18 Permitted Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)6 19.81 12.00 6.47 1.13 1 The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 2 Calculated by subtracting Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd from Available Facility Capacity. 3 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. 4 CCWSD has two potable water supply consumptive use permits. CUP 11-00249-W allocation is 55.53 MGD annual average and expires on September 22, 2036. CUP allocation 11-00419-W is 0.65 MGD and expires on March 7, 2023. 5 CCWSD is proactive in renewing its CUPs in advance of expiration and intends to maintain the necessary CUPs to meet the raw water requirement. 6 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) Table ES-3 summarizes the treatment capacity of the existing and planned potable water facilities for IWSD. Based on population projections available for the IWSD service area, a capacity analysis was performed looking at projected demand versus plant capacity versus permitted allocation. The results of the capacity analysis are summarized below in Table ES-4. A discussion of the capacity analysis can be found in Section 6.2. Based on the capacity analysis, the improvements planned by the IWSD for the 10-year planning period are sufficient to meet the demands of the service area and the allocation of the underlying Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) (11-00013-W) is sufficient to cover the withdrawals required to make the finished water demand. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Executive Summary · ES-4 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table ES-3 Summary of Existing and Planned IWSD Water Treatment Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Treatment Capacity (MGD) Project Identified in LWCWSP Water Treatment Facilities Jerry V. Warden WTP Online 2.25 N/A Airport WTP Online 1.35 N/A Carson Road WTP Online 2.35 N/A RO WTP 2020 2.58 Yes Total - 8.71 - Water Reclamation Facilities IWSD WRF Online 2.50 Yes IWSD WRF Expansion 2040 3.00 Yes Total - 5.50 - 1 Information on the existing and planned water treatment facilities was taken from the 2017 Immokalee Water and Sewer District Public Facilities Report and the 2017 LWCWSP. Table ES-4. Water Capacity Analysis for IWSD 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population 22,747 25,717 27,616 29,948 Demand Per Capita (gpcd) 75 75 75 75 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD) 1.71 1.93 2.07 2.25 Available Facility Capacity (MGD)1 5.60 5.60 5.60 8.10 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment2 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 Facility Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)3 3.89 3.67 3.53 5.85 Raw Water Requirement (MGD)4 2.08 2.35 2.53 2.74 Permitted Amount (MGD Annual Average)5 4.15 4.15 4.15 4.15 Permitted Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)6 2.07 1.80 1.62 1.41 1 Per the Lower West Coast Water Supply update, the IWSD available facility capacity is projected to go up to 8.10 by 2030. 2 The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 3 Calculated by subtracting Annual Average Daily Demand from Available Facility Capacity. 4 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. 5 CUP (11-00013-W) allocation is 4.15 MGD annual average and expires on May 23, 2031. 6 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Table ES-5 summarizes the treatment capacity of the existing and planned potable water and water reclamation facilities for AMUC. Based on population projections available for the AMUC 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Executive Summary · ES-5 PW/6295/231366/03/01 service area, a capacity analysis was performed looking at project demand versus plant capacity versus permitted allocation. The results of the capacity analysis are summarized below in Table ES-6. Table ES-5. Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Water Treatment and Water Reclamation Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Capacity (MGD) Project Identified In LWCWSP Water Treatment Facilities AMUC WTP (Phase 1) Online 1.0 N/A ROWTP 2025 2.5 Yes Total - 3.5 - Water Reclamation Facilities AMUC WRF (Phase 1) Online 0.9 Yes AMUC WRF (Phased expansion of Reclamation Plant) 2024 2.5 Yes Total - 3.4 - 1 Information on existing and planned water treatment facilities taken from the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update. Table ES-6. Water Capacity Analysis for AMUC 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population 2,924 5,803 9,065 12,713 Demand Per Capita (gpcd) 91 91 91 91 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD) 0.27 0.53 0.82 1.16 Available Facility Capacity (MGD) 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.50 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment1 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 Facility Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)2 0.73 0.47 0.18 2.34 Raw Water Requirement (MGD)3 0.31 0.62 0.97 1.37 Permitted Amount (MGD Annual Average)4 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 Permitted Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)5 0.85 0.54 0.19 (0.21) 1 The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 2 Calculated by subtracting Annual Average Daily Demand from Available Facility Capacity. 3 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. 4 CUP (11-02298-W) allocation is 1.16 MGD annual average and expires on October 19, 2020. 5 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. Based on the capacity analysis, AMUC does not have sufficient permitted capacity to meet the demands of its service area for the 10-year planning period. The CUP allocation (11-02298-W) only covers the withdrawals required to make the finished water demand until 2025. After 2025, the Permitted Surplus (Deficit) becomes negative. AMUC will need to increase their permitted consumptive use by 2025. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 1-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Plan Background In December 2017, the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) approved the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update (LWCWSP). Under Florida law (section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes) Collier County must adopt amendments to its comprehensive plan within 18 months of the SFWMD approval of the update. These amendments include the development of a 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan and amendments to the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Under the requirement of the Florida Statutes, the 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan for Collier County must include analysis of all water utilities in the County not serving a specific local government. These utilities include: Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Utilities not included in this Plan are the City of Naples Utility Department, Marco Island Utilities, and Everglades City, each of which is responsible to develop a 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan to be included in its city’s comprehensive plan. 1.2 Plan Objectives This 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update (Plan Update) for Collier County has the following objectives: Identify population and water demands of the County and each utility for the planning period of 2019 to 2028. Present existing and planned potable and reclaimed water facilities that will be utilized to meet demand projections. Identify sources of raw water needed for potable water supply to meet demands through the year 2028. Identify the steps necessary to develop additional potable and reclaimed water supplies and specify when they must occur and how they will be funded. Demonstrate that the water supply plans for each utility within the County are feasible with respect to facility capacity to be developed and consumptive use permit allocations required. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 1 · Introduction 1-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Describe the conservation practices and regulations utilized by each utility to meet water supply demand. 1.3 Information Sources The following information sources were utilized in the development of the Plan Update: 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update approved by the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District in December 2017. The document is referred to as the 2017 LWCWSP Update in the Plan Update. Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on public utilities adopted by Ordinance 12-42 by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners in December 2017. The document is referred to as the 2018 AUIR in the Plan Update. Collier County 2014 Water Master Plan Update adopted by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on June 10, 2014. The document is referred to as the Collier County 2014 Water Master Plan Update in the Plan Update. Fiscal Year 2017-2027 Collier County Water-Sewer District Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Update. The document is referred to as the CCWSD FY 2017-2027 CIP Update. SFWMD Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) numbers: · CCWSD - 11-00249-W, 11-00052-W, and 11-00419-W · IWSD - 11-00013-W · AMUC – 11-02298-W FDEP Drinking Water Database accessed on September 17, 2018. https://floridadep.gov/water/source-drinking-water/content/basic-facility-reports Responses to data requests sent to CCWSD, IWSD and AMUC. It is important to note that other planning documents such as Water, Wastewater and Irrigation Master Plans as well as User and Impact Fee Rate Studies are ongoing. Likewise, concurrency tools such as the 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report were not adopted by the Board of County Commissioners until after supporting data for this Plan was provided. Accordingly, planned facilities (see Chapter 5) may move up or back within the 10-year timeframe depending on these plans and studies, as adopted. The information supporting this 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan reflects the most recent data available as of July 1, 2018. 1.4 Plan Contents Section 2 introduces the individual utilities and systems that serve Collier County and identifies their service areas. Section 3 presents population and water demand projections for the County and individual utilities for the planning period out to 2028. Section 4 summarizes the existing potable water supply system including fresh and brackish water wellfields, raw water transmission systems, water treatment plants (WTPs) and reclaimed water systems (where 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 1 · Introduction 1-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 applicable) for each utility. Section 5 summarizes the planned potable and reclaimed water systems for each of the utilities out to 2028. Section 6 presents an analysis of the ability of each utility to meet projected demands during the planning period. Section 7 summarizes current and planned conservation practices and regulations that will be utilized to meet demands. Section 8 summarizes the capital improvement plan for each of the utilities. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 2-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 2 Water Service Areas 2.1 Overview of Collier County Collier County is served by four Public Sector Water Systems, including the County, the City of Naples, Everglades City, and the City of Marco Island. The County is served by the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) and domestic self-supply outside of the CCWSD service area. The boundaries of the CCWSD, City of Naples, Everglades City and the City of Marco Island are shown in Figure 2-1. In addition to the Public Sector Water Systems, Collier County is served by two Non- Public Sector Water Systems including the Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) and the Ave Maria Utility Company (AMUC). The boundaries of these systems are also presented in Figure 2-1. There are also two Private Sector Water Systems which include the Lee Cypress Water and Sewer Co- Op, Inc. and the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District, along with numerous small capacity water systems that are regulated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2.2 Individual Utilities and Systems 2.2.1 Collier County 2.2.1.1. Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) The CCWSD’s water service area currently encompasses approximately 199.93 square miles while its current wastewater service area encompasses 206.89 square miles. This area is bounded on the North by Lee County, on the south by the City of Marco Island service area, on the west by the City of Naples service area and the Gulf of Mexico, and on the east by the Urban Planning Boundary. The CCWSD was approved by referendum in 1969 and validated by the State Legislature in 1978 by Special Act, Chapter 78-489, Laws of Florida. In 1988, the legislature approved a supplement to the Special Act, which included revisions to the District boundaries. This action significantly increased the size of the District to approximately 210 square miles. It also specifically excluded areas of the City of Naples, Marco Shores, Marco Island, and the Florida Governmental Utility Authority (FGUA). The CCWSD acquired the Golden Gate City potable water and wastewater utility systems from the FGUA on March 1, 2018. The Orange Tree Utility Company (OTUC) was taken over by the CCWSD in 2014. There is one portion of the CCWSD service area that is not served by CCWSD, that being approximately 17 square miles of unincorporated area contiguous to the City of Naples, shown with the red hatch on Figure 2-1. As this area is a substantially developed part of the County, with minimal growth expected during the 10-year planning period, no plans for supplying additional water to this area are included in this Plan. The original interlocal agreement by which the City of Naples serves this area was enacted on October 16, 1977. A copy of the most recent version of the interlocal agreement is provided in Appendix A. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 2 · Water Service Areas 2-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 A composite map, provided as Figure 2-2, showing the existing CCWSD potable and reclaimed water distribution systems, illustrates the actual extent of the water-sewer district currently being served. In addition to interconnections with Marco Shores by which CCWSD supplies water on a bulk basis, CCWSD also maintains emergency interconnects with the City of Naples, the City of Marco Island and Bonita Springs Utilities. As the interconnects are for emergency purposes only and are not intended for bulk transfer, CCWSD does not dedicate any portion of its water supply capacity to serving these interconnections. Should CCWSD, at a future date, enter into an agreement with any additional entity to provide finished water, it will incorporate the amount of water provided to said entity into its planning documents. 2.2.1.2 Goodland Water Sub-District Until recently, the Goodland District was a separate water district serving an island community, roughly one quarter of a square mile in area. It is located about two miles east of Marco Island. The District was established by referendum in 1975. In 2012, the County abolished the District as a separate entity, thereby making it part of the CCWSD (Ord. 2012-43) Appendix B. Service to Goodland is supplied by CCWSD in all respects; bulk water is purchased for distribution from the Marco Island Utility. Accordingly, it is often referred to as a “sub-district,” although it is entirely within the CCWSD boundary. A copy of the Interlocal Agreement for the provision of water from the City of Marco Island is found in Appendix C. CCWSD maintains pumping, distribution and storage facilities in the Goodland sub-district; CCWSD serves the community of Key Marco as well as Goodland on the same basis. 2.2.2. City of Naples The City of Naples is another public sector provider of water service in Collier County. In addition to its corporate area, the City also serves approximately 17 square miles of unincorporated area contiguous to the City limits per an interlocal agreement with Collier County. There are approximately 6,178 service connections in the unincorporated area with an average daily demand of 4.17 MGD. The City allocates 33 percent of its system capacity to serve this unincorporated area. As the unincorporated area is built-out, no additional demand on the City’s system is projected for the future. The enabling legislation, under which the City established its water service area boundary, is Chapter 180, F.S., Municipal Public Works Law. The City's existing water supply facilities are not addressed in this 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, since they will be discussed in the City's Plan. The service area for the utility is shown in Figure 2-1. 2.2.3 Everglades City Everglades City is also a public sector provider of water service in the County. Like Naples, Everglades City is an incorporated community that provides water service both within and beyond its corporate limits. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) UV29 §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 ")858 ")951 UV93 UV29 UV93 UV90 UV45 UV951 UV84 UV82UV739 ")865 05 040106020304050601030205 11 06 01 04 11 08 02 07 02 12 0601 36 03 13 06 09 35 03 07 11 04 11 01 07 32 10 31 05 01 34 08 12 03 05 14 06 10 36 06 02 11 08 1517 10 21 09 12 33 31 11 24 19 11 33 18 11 05 31 36 05 08 04 3432 25 11 11 06 11 11 04 25 11 10 07 30 01 11 14 19 11 11 10 31 18 35 30 13 08 32 33 22 15 09 11 23 22 03 11 36 05 07 11 14 09 15 12 13 27 34 27 34 04 09 34 36 08 11 08 13 11 04 11 04 04 16 03 20 26 11 25 33 05 30 26 12 32 31 16 30 22 11 04 04 33 24 09 17 31 33 19 0103 31 08 15 35 07 05 35 36 09 16 04 19 27 34 28 20 25 06 10 01 30 26 31 32 27 24 34 10 18 36 09 20 21 19 30 08 16 28 06 36 04 13 05 16 11 14 10 23 28 24 33 33 06 35 09 02 31 20 29 12 18 32 28 26 08 18 03 18 03 06 16 28 34 19 17 29 10 02 29 15 2528 06 17 12 11 09 03 35 02 26 19 32 32 14 13 21 0907 07 33 36 07 26 13 17 34 05 22 17 12 33 08 12 28 36 30 32 13 20 1614 21 33 12 13 09 14 25 21 18 06 25 07 33 34 18 15 04 31 36 01 25 09 30 20 21 31 17 07 35 25 21 18 31 31 14 09 19 33 29 32 23 09 23 17 27 15 30 36 05 04 33 32 23 25 26 24 02 18 02 16 02 35 25 18 35 1514 33 22 08 01 13 20 03 14 10 06 29 07 20 25 06 18 32 25 25 02 08 12 24 19 34 32 33 26 31 34 29 01 20 31 27 17 14 16 1416 08 35 08 13 27 15 26 33 35 05 15 19 02 18 28 23 26 13 14 14 23 12 07 02 33 25 15 30 27 06 36 02 07 18 02 17 29 05 01 22 08 29 20 09 30 08 21 22 28 29 27 04 17 21 01 03 07 35 19 08 33 23 16 24 05 10 29 28 35 10 07 25 13 30 35 08 10 02 12 20 13 18 12 04 29 12 13 13 07 16 10 14 28 20 30 16 12 15 24 30 16 01 24 16 21 07 34 32 08 34 12 13 30 20 27 34 26 17 28 13 17 19 04 36 20 14 24 32 08 01 07 36 05 17 08 21 02 14 30 28 24 16 27 23 32 19 34 05 19 16 14 32 30 07 29 14 10 14 05 32 21 12 23 15 12 24 16 21 15 06 25 24 16 22 01 24 26 10 03 01 02 19 12 23 06 26 24 33 25 13 25 12 09 04 01 31 31 02 27 17 29 10 15 29 34 21 26 26 22 32 20 29 1516 29 15 13 24 21 17 06 19 0402 11 18 18 33 09 15 07 29 27 33 30 27 34 23 32 26 13 03 25 22 20 17 29 05 08 23 09 14 20 31 15 27 25 20 20 19 25 12 13 05 32 10 13 30 19 20 01 05 19 23 17 10 01 32 18 09 19 24 23 27 06 22 28 28 19 20 21 16 36 18 03 10 08 29 17 33 19 17 26 23 05 15 12 35 05 14 33 20 18 24 24 17 32 26 21 32 29 22 07 13 28 36 2423 04 04 21 26 16 21 10 04 21 16 34 35 23 08 09 05 26 13 08 28 21 24 22 33 08 32 19 03 35 31 17 28 05 2321 18 06 01 36 24 32 18 28 21 01 25 22 19 22 33 30 04 16 32 20 26 14 35 29 35 14 16 07 12 06 2024 13 22 28 30 09 06 31 28 23 21 05 26 07 23 27 05 31 20 28 34 02 23 22 21 29 24 19 09 06 18 16 04 21 22 07 12 36 10 17 21 09 29 03 12 35 22 20 28 08 10 04 09 35 04 16 21 03 16 06 35 06 03 02 31 19 27 20 36 01 30 36 18 20 28 21 27 06 08 30 21 16 05 22 24 31 28 06 04 18 29 31 10 36 29 17 01 30 08 12 06 34 31 07 07 31 16 07 23 15 02 21 02 28 09 28 09 34 07 26 32 09 15 22 18 04 25 08 24 09 09 09 03 17 22 24 27 28 07 16 27 36 36 16 31 17 27 17 13 03 28 10 14 33 29 31 33 09 15 30 30 08 06 32 22 29 23 25 04 01 05 1919 20 18 18 28 29 17 36 24 20 05 07 30 07 05 10 35 23 23 22 17 19 06 15 04 09 26 27 04 13 23 03 10 18 11 25 12 20 26 08 14 27 03 26 30 29 14 34 22 28 21 17 09 15 09 1618 1921 15 01 03 10 28 03 29 28 35 36 14 15 16 34 27 27 22 08 34 05 03 12 03 10 15 30 33 02 01 27 20 22 03 27 03 10 15 34 33 33 17 22 28 07 27 25 04 17 35 22 01 29 34 34 34 18 09 33 26 15 35 10 08 10 15 16 09 22 27 32 28 34 33 02 25 17 19 Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 10/9/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 2-1COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANWATER SEWER DISTRICT BOUNDARIES OF COLLIER COUNTY Legend City o f Marco Island City o f Naples Collier C ountyWater/Sewer District IWSD Service Area AMUC Service Area Everglades City 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) ")951 BONITA BEACH R D I M M O K A L E E R D GOODLETTE FRANK RDTAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV9320"12" 24"18"16"30"36"16"16" 20" 24"12"12"12"12"12"16"24" 12" 12"18"12"16" 1 2 "1 2"12"18"24"16"12"12"16" 16"16"12"20''3 6 '' 12''16''3 0 '' 1 8 '' 42'' 1 4 '' 24'' 16'' 12''16''20''12' ' 16'' 16''12' '12''16''24 '' 1 2 '' 12''30''12''24''12''12''16''1 2 ''24''36''16''12''12''24''12''16''12''20''12'' 16''12''36''12'' 12'' 16'' 20''24''12''12''12''12''12''12''16''16' ' 16'' 12''12''Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/27/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 2-2COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANCCWSD POTABLE/RECLAIM ED WATER SYSTEM COMPOSITE M AP Legend Po tab le Wate r Main (>= 12") IQ Water Ma in (>= 12") 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 2 · Water Service Areas 2-5 PW/6295/231366/03/01 The outlying unincorporated communities served by the City include Plantation Island and Seaboard Village in Copeland. Unlike the unincorporated area served by the City of Naples, Plantation Island and Seaboard Village are not part of the Collier County Water Sewer District. For this reason, Collier County is not responsible to provide planning efforts to supply water to these communities. These areas are analogous to the Golden Gate Estates portion of Collier County, which is served entirely by self-supply, for which the County is not responsible for providing service. Everglades City's water supply facilities are not addressed in this 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, since they will be discussed in the City's Plan. The service area for the utility is shown in Figure 2-1. 2.2.4 City of Marco Island Water and Sewer Service Areas The City of Marco Island historically had been provided service from the private sector utility company, the Florida Water Services Corporation. A small portion of Marco Island’s water and sewer infrastructure had historically been maintained by Collier County as the Marco Island Water and Sewer District. The City of Marco Island purchased the system from the Florida Water Services Corporation. The City operates the approximately 10 square mile system as a public sector utility. On February 24, 2004, the Marco Island Water and Sewer District was dissolved/abolished by Ordinance No. 2004-09. The infrastructure in that area was turned over from the CCWSD to the City. The City now owns and operates the only centralized utility services on Marco Island. The City’s existing water supply to the Marco Shores area was replaced with a bulk water supply from the CCWSD to service the area. The daily water demand (metered water) for the Potable Water Bulk Services to Marco Island is approximately 165,000 gallons per day and is accounted for in CCWSD’s population and water supply demand projections. As the Marco Shores area is built-out, no additional demand on the CCWSD system is projected for the future. Though outside of the scope date for this update, it should be noted that on September 26, 2018 the City of Marco Island provided a letter of intent to terminate the Potable Water Bulk Services Agreement on September 26, 2019 found in Appendix D. The City of Marco Island’s existing water supply facilities are not addressed in this 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, since they will be discussed in the City's Plan. The service area for the utility is shown in Figure 2-1. 2.2.5 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) The Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD), located in the northeast part of Collier County, was created by Special Act of the State Legislature following a 1978 referendum. Creation of an independent district provided the means for this unincorporated community to develop its own water/sewer system, which was necessary due to the distance from the developed coastal area of the County. The boundaries of the District were expanded following a voter referendum in 2004 and a change to the enabling act was signed by the Governor in June 2005 (Chapter 2005-298). This district has a governing board whose members are appointed by the Governor of Florida. The boundaries of this independent district are shown on Figure 2-1. 2.2.6 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Ave Maria Utility Company (AMUC), established in 2005, provides potable and reclaimed water service to the Town of Ave Maria. The town is located approximately 20 miles east of Interstate 75. The AMUC service area boundary is shown in Figure 2-1. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 2 · Water Service Areas 2-6 PW/6295/231366/03/01 2.2.7 Independent Districts 2.2.7.1 Lee Cypress Water and Sewer Co-op, Inc. The private sector utility providing water service to Copeland is the Lee Cypress Water and Sewer Co-op, Inc. The unincorporated community of Copeland is located on SR-29 about 3 miles north of US-41. According to the SFWMD consumptive use permit for the Co-op, the population of the service area is projected to be 445 in 2024. Based on FDEP records, the utility currently has a capacity of 80,000 gpd. Between 2004 and 2025 the population of the community is projected to grow to 445 residents, according to the consumptive use permit. Using a straight-line interpolation of the growth rate in the consumptive use permit, the population would be projected to grow to 479 residents by 2028. Assuming a per capita water demand of 150 gpcd, the required utility capacity needed in 2028 would be 71,850 gpd. Based on the projected population and assumed per capita demand, the utility should continue to meet the needs of its residents without expansion through the 10-year planning period. Therefore, no additional consideration is given to this utility in the Plan. 2.2.7.2 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Another independent district in the County is the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District. This district encompasses approximately 1 square mile of land contiguous to and north and south of US-41, approximately 20 miles south of Naples. This district was created in 1986 by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners in response to a petition from the District’s developers and was created as a mechanism to provide water and other services to this isolated area. The District is governed by an elected board of directors. The population of the District was 588 according to the 2017 LWCWSP. Based on FDEP records, the utility currently has a capacity of 440,000 gpd. Based on the projections in the 2017 LWCWSP, between 2010 and 2040 the population of the District is projected to grow to 641 residents. Assuming a per capita water demand of 142 gpcd, the required utility capacity needed in 2028 would be 91,022 gpd. Based on the projected population and assumed per capita demand, the utility should continue to meet the needs of its residents without expansion through the 10-year planning period. Therefore, no additional consideration is given to this utility in the Plan. 2.2.8 Water Systems Regulated by Florida Department of Environmental Protection Table 2-1 is a summary of private sector water systems operating within Collier County, but regulated by the FDEP due to very small capacities. These systems primarily serve individual establishments, such as schools, stores, or golfing communities. The list was developed from the FDEP drinking water database and is accurate as of April 11, 2018. Table 2-1. Summary of Small Capacity Private Sector Water Systems Operating within Collier County1 PWS ID System Name 5110058 LEE CYPRESS CO-OP 5110061 CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY 5110089 EVERGLADES CITY 5110117 FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORITY 5110118 GOODLAND WATER COMPANY 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 2 · Water Service Areas 2-7 PW/6295/231366/03/01 PWS ID System Name 5110121 HAKAN SERVICES INC. 5110142 IMMOKALEE WATER 5110182 MARCO SHORES UTILITIES 5110183 MARCO ISLAND UTILITIES (CITY OF) 5110195 NAPLES BINGO PALACE GG PKWY 5110198 NAPLES WATER DEPT 5110230 PORT OF THE ISLANDS 5110288 TRAIL LAKES CAMPGROUND 5110348 SANDY RIDGE LABOR CAMP 5114069 COLLIER COUNTY REGIONAL WTP 5114074 CENTER POINT COMMUNITY CHURCH 5114077 TEMPLE BETHEL 5114083 FCA US LLC 5114085 ORANGE TREE UTILITY CO. INC. 5114111 RANDALL CENTER 5114113 S.W. FLORIDA RESEARCH ED. CTR. 5114119 SUNNILAND COUNTRY STORE 5114126 UNITY FAITH MISSIONARY BAPTIST 5114129 I-75 RESTSTOP 5114130 GOLDEN GATE LIBRARY 5114131 BONITA BAY EASTGOLF CLUB - MAINTENANCE 5114132 BONITA BAY EAST GOLF CLUB - CLUBHOUSE 5114133 AMI KIDS BIG CYPRESS WILDERNESS INSITUTE 5114136 BONITA BAY EAST GOLF CLUB REST SHELTER 1 5114137 BONITA BAY GOLF CLUB REST SHELTER 2 5114139 HIDEOUT GOLF CLUB SYSTEM 5114140 TREES CAMP WTP 5114141 GOLDEN GATE ASSEMBLY OF GOD 5114144 CALUSA PINES GOLF CLUB - MAINTENANCE 5114147 SABAL PALM ELEMEN / CYPRESS PALM MIDDLE 5114149 LA HISPANA #2 5114151 FITNESS QUEST 5114152 ESTATES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 5114154 AVE MARIA UTILITY COMPANY LLLP 5114158 PALMETTO J ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 5114159 WILSON BLVD. RETAIL CENTER 5114160 NAPLES EQUESTRIAN CHALLENGE INC. 5114161 LIVING WORD FAMILY CHURCH WTP 5114162 GOLDEN GATE WALGREENS (STORE #10742) 5114163 CENTER POINT COMMUNITY CHURCH YOUTH SANC 5114164 PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF NAPLES 5114165 PEPPER RANCH 1. The list was developed from the FDEP drinking water database and is accurate as of April 11, 2018. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 3-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 3 Population and Demand Projections Sources of information utilized to develop the included population and demand projections are historical population growth, Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department (CCCPD) forecasts, information from water use permits, and information provided by the individual water supply utilities, such as Master Plans. Population projections through 2028 are included in the following sub-sections. 3.1 Countywide Projections Table 3-1 shows the projected population for Collier County for the 10-year planning period of this plan. The population projections are for peak season, which is one key basis for planning and sizing of facilities. Table 3-1. Collier County Peak Season Population Estimates and Projections Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Countywide1,2,3 399,096 439,656 482,088 519,120 1 The countywide population projection includes the unincorporated areas of the county covered in this 10- Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, as well as the incorporated cities of Naples, Marco Island and Everglades City. 2 Peak season population for CCWSD is provided by the Collier County Growth Management Department; it is based on the medium BEBR population times 1.2. 3 Peak season population for the unincorporated areas of the county as well as the incorporated cities of Naples, Marco Island and Everglades City is per the information found on the Bureau of Economic and Business Research document (BEBR) published January 2018. The population and demand projections for each of the three utilities serving unincorporated Collier County are presented in Section 3.2. 3.2 Individual Utilities 3.2.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) Table 3-2 shows the projected populations for the existing CCWSD service area. The populations are shown in 5-year increments, through 2028. The total population projections include the populations in the Rural Fringe areas, which were incorporated into the CCWSD in 2003 as described in Section 2.2.1.1, and the Orange Tree area which was taken over by CCWSD in 2014. Table 3-2. Population Projections for CCWSD Service Area Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Peak Served Area Population (Seasonal)1,2,3 195,207 241,422 271,671 300,839 1 Estimates and projections are taken from the 2018 AUIR. 2 Peak season population is provided by the Collier County Growth Management Department; it is based on the medium BEBR population times 1.2. 3 Starting in 2014, peak season population includes the OTUC population. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 3 · Population and Demand Projections 3-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 The adopted Level of Service Standard (LOSS) for the CCWSD is 150 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Based on the LOSS of 150 gpcd and the population projections presented in Table 3-2, the demand projections for the CCWSD were developed. Table 3-3 presents the projected population and demand for the area served by CCWSD, in 5-year increments, through 2028. Demand is provided as Required Treatment Capacity at 150 gpcd in MGD. Required Treatment Capacity at 150 gpcd is a metric used by Collier County in its Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR) and is used to evaluate the ability of CCWSD facilities to meet peak season demand. It is calculated as the peak season population multiplied by the LOSS of 150 gpcd. Table 3-3. Projected Population and Demand for Areas Served by CCWSD Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Peak Service Area Population (Seasonal)1,2 195,207 241,422 271,671 300,839 Demand Per Capita (gpcd) 150 150 150 150 Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd (MGD) 29.28 36.21 40.75 45.13 1 Estimates and projections are taken from the 2018 AUIR. 2 Peak season population is provided by the Collier County Growth Management Department; it is based on the medium BEBR population times 1.2. 3.2.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) Table 3-4 shows the projected populations for the areas served and to be served within the existing IWSD service area. The population is shown in 5-year increments, through 2028. Table 3-4. Population Projections for IWSD Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Served Area Population1 22,747 25,717 27,616 29,948 1 Population projections are based on the population estimates provided by the county. Where necessary, the population was calculated by interpolating between years identified in the Plan Update. The IWSD LOSS includes operational standards and a per capita water demand standard of 75 gpcd. Based on the LOSS of 75 gpcd and the population projections presented in Table 3-4, the demand projections for the IWSD were developed. Table 3-5 presents the projected served population and demand for the IWSD, in 5-year increments, through 2028. Table 3-5. Population and Demand Projections for IWSD Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population1 22,747 25,717 27,616 29,948 Demand Per Capita (MGD) 75 75 75 75 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD) 1.71 1.93 2.07 2.25 Maximum Month Daily Demand (MGD) 2.05 2.31 2.49 2.70 1 Population projections are based on the population estimates provided by the county. Where necessary, the population was calculated by interpolating between years identified in the Plan Update. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 3 · Population and Demand Projections 3-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Demand is provided as both Annual Average Daily Demand (AADD) in MGD and Maximum Month Daily Demand (MMDD) also in MGD. MMDD is determined by multiplying the AADD by a peaking factor, which in this case is 1.2. 3.2.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Table 3-6 shows the projected populations for the areas served and to be served within the existing AMUC service area. The population is shown in 5-year increments, through 2028. Table 3-6. Population Projections for Areas Served by AMUC Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Served Area Population1 2,924 5,803 9,065 12,713 1 Population projections are based on the population estimates and projections presented in the AMUC - Flow Revisions 2018. Where necessary, the population was calculated by interpolating between years identified in the Plan Update. The AMUC LOSS includes operational standards and a per capita water demand standard of 91 gpcd. Based on the LOSS of 91 gpcd and the population projections presented in Table 3-10, the demand projections for the AMUC were developed. Table 3-7 presents the projected served population and demand for the AMUC, in 5-year increments, through 2028. Demand is provided as both AADD in MGD and MMDD also in MGD. MMDD is determined by multiplying the AADD by a peaking factor, which in this case is 1.2. Table 3-7. Project Population and Demand Projections for AMUC Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population 2,924 5,803 9,065 12,713 Demand Per Capita (MGD)1 91 91 91 91 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD) 0.27 0.53 0.82 1.16 Maximum Month Daily Demand (MGD) 0.32 0.63 0.99 1.39 1 Population projections are based on the population estimates and projections presented in the AMUC - Flow Revisions 2018. Where necessary, the population was calculated by interpolating between years identified in the Plan Update. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 4-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 4 Existing Water Supply Facilities 4.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) 4.1.1 Water Supply Permits The SFWMD allocates withdrawals from groundwater sources in Collier County. CCWSD currently maintains three consumptive use permits (CUPs); two for potable water supply and one for supplemental supply of the reclaimed water system. Table 4-1 provides details on the CUPs CCWSD currently maintains. The CCWSD also has a permit for a 2 MGD potable water aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) well near the Manatee Pumping Station site and a 1 MGD irrigation quality water ASR system on Livingston Road. Table 4-1. Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to CCWSD Consumptive Use Permit Aquifer Utilized Number of Permitted Wells Expiration Date Annual Allocation (MG) Average Day Allocation (MGD) Maximum Monthly Allocation (MG) 11-00249-W LT1 37 9/22/2019 9,673 26.50 805.6 9/22/2036 6,853 18.93 691.3 HZ1 46 9/22/2036 5,840 16.00 486.4 LH2 42 9/22/2036 7,125 19.50 684.3 Total 125 - 20,270 55.53 1,976.3 11-00419-W3 LT 10 3/7/2023 236 0.65 23.6 Total 10 - 236 0.65 23.6 11-00052-W4 LT 14 4/14/2034 2,091 5.73 172 WT 9 4/14/2034 1,278 3.50 105 Total 23 - 3,369 9.23 277 LT = Lower Tamiami, HZ1 = Hawthorn Zone 1, LH = Lower Hawthorn, WT = Water Table 1 CUP (11-00249-W) for 55.53 MGD annual average expires September 22, 2036. Annual allocation from the Lower Tamiami Aquifer shall not exceed 9,673 million gallons from September 30, 2014 through September 30, 2019 and shall not exceed 6,852.66 million gallons from October 1, 2019 through September 22, 2036 (duration of the permit). Annual allocation shall not exceed 3,650 million gallons at the NERWTP. 2 Number of permitted Lower Hawthorn Aquifer wells includes 14 proposed wells for the proposed Northeast Regional Water Treatment Plant. 3 Permit under “Orange Tree Utility Company” but is now referred to as the Collier County Northeast Service Area. 4 Consumptive use permit for supplemental reclaimed water wellfield. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 4.1.2 Potable Water Facilities 4.1.2.1 Wellfields Currently, the CCWSD operates four wellfields: The Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield, the North Hawthorn Reverse Osmosis (RO) Wellfield, the South Hawthorn RO Wellfield, and the Northeast Service Area Wellfield (formerly the OTUC Wellfield). The location of each of these wellfields is illustrated in Figure 4-1. The North Hawthorn RO and South Hawthorn RO wellfields contain wells that tap the Hawthorn Zone 1 (HZ1) and the Lower Hawthorn (LH) aquifers, both of which are brackish in those areas of Collier County. The wellfields provide raw water for the low- pressure reverse osmosis (LPRO) treatment trains at the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant (NCRWTP) and the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant (SCRWTP), respectively. The Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield contains wells that tap the LT Aquifer, which contains freshwater. This wellfield provides raw water for the membrane filtration (MF) equipment at the NCRWTP and the lime softening (LS) equipment at the SCRWTP. The Orange Tree Water Treatment Plant (OTWTP) is located east of SR-846 and north of CR-858. The OTWTP was integrated into the Collier County Water-Sewer District in March of 2017 and has a constructed treatment capacity of 0.75 MGD using membrane softening (MS) and its wells also tap the fresh LT Aquifer. Tables 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5 and summarize the existing wells in the Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield, the Orange Tree Wellfield, the North Hawthorn RO Wellfield, and the South Hawthorn RO Wellfield, respectively. 4.1.2.2. Water Treatment Facilities The CCWSD is served by three water treatment plants (WTPs), the NCRWTP, the SCRWTP, and the OTWTP which are shown in Figure 4-2. The NCRWTP is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension east of CR-951 in the northeastern quadrant of the service area. The plant utilizes groundwater withdrawn from the LT, HZ1 and LH aquifers. Water from the LT Aquifer is treated using MF, while water from the HZ1 and LH aquifers is treated by LPRO. Currently, the plant is capable of producing 20 MGD of finished water; 12 MGD from the MF process and 8 MGD from the LPRO process. The SCRWTP is located near the intersection of CR-951 and I-75 about 5.5 miles south of the NCRWTP. The plant utilizes groundwater withdrawn from the LT, HZ1 and LH aquifers. Water from the LT Aquifer is treated using LS, while water from the HZ1 and LH aquifers is treated by LPRO. Currently, the plant is capable of producing 32 MGD of finished water; 12 MGD from the LS process and 20 MGD from the LPRO process. The OTWTP is located east of SR-846 and north of CR-858. The wells maintained by OTUC tap the LT Aquifer, which is a traditional freshwater source. The WTP has a finished water capacity of 0.75 MGD using membrane softening (MS). A summary of the existing water treatment facilities is provided in Table 4-6. In addition to identifying the design capacity of each treatment train, the amount of raw water required to achieve the design capacity is also provided. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) GOLDEN GATE BLVD I M M O K A L E E R D COLLIER BLVDLOGAN BLVD")864 ")846 ")951 PINE RIDGE RD ")862 NORTH HAWTHORNRO WELLFIELD GOLDEN GATETAMIAMI WELLFIELD SOUTH HAWTHORNRO WELLFIELD ")858 §¨¦75 UV84 UV93 OTWTP SCRWTP NCRWTP Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/26/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 4-1COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING CCWSD WELLFIELD S AN D RAW WATER TRANSMISSION M AINS Legend !(Supply Well 3Q Water Treatm ent Plant Raw Water M ain 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 3Q 3Q 3Q ")951 I M M O K A L E E R D TAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 GOODLETTE FRANK RD§¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 OTWTP SCRWTP NCRWTP Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/26/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 4-2COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING CCWSD POTABLE WATER TREATM EN T FACILITIES Legend 3Q Water Treatm ent Plant 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-5 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4-2. Existing CCWSD Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) 1 LT 96 50 16 700 2 LT 100 50 16 700 3 LT 100 51 16 700 4 LT 102 52 16 700 5 LT 108 50 16 700 6 LT 101 65 12 700 7 LT 106 65 12 700 9 LT 114 65 12 700 10 LT 112 71 12 700 11 LT 137 90 12 700 12 LT 133 90 12 700 13 LT 130 84 12 700 14 LT 131 85 12 700 15 LT 130 84 12 700 16 LT 150 92 12 700 17 LT 125 78 12 1,000 18 LT 126 80 12 1,000 19 LT 128 83 12 1,000 20 LT 131 83 12 1,000 21 LT 110 62 12 1,000 22 LT 101 62 12 1,000 23 LT 111 59 12 1,000 24 LT 109 58 12 1,000 25 LT 110 65 12 1,000 26 LT 106 65 12 1,000 27 LT 105 61 12 1,000 28 LT 120 66 12 1,000 29 LT 125 72 12 1,000 30 LT 120 58 12 1,000 31 LT 120 65 12 1,000 32 LT 120 65 12 1,000 33 LT 120 70 12 1,000 34 LT 120 80 12 1,000 35 LT 145 102 12 1,000 36 LT 125 92 12 1,000 37 LT 120 80 12 1,000 382 LT N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11-00249-W. 2 Collier County is currently out to bid for a new well (Well 38) for the Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield. Well 38 is scheduled for completion in 2019. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-6 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4-3. Existing North Hawthorn RO Wellfield Summary1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) RO-1N LH 801 705 16/122 1,000 RO-2N LH 780 734 16/122 1,000 RO-3N LH 800 720 16/122 1,000 RO-4N LH 891 744 16/122 1,000 RO-5N LH 1070 790 16/122 1,000 RO-6N LH 975 740 16/122 1,000 RO-7N LH 977 775 16/122 1,000 RO-9N LH 952 780 16/122 1,000 RO-10N LH 1011 750 16/122 1,000 RO-11N LH 951 735 16/122 1,000 RO-12N LH 891 730 16/123 1,000 RO-13N LH 925 731 16/123 1,000 RO-14N LH 950 713 16/124 1,000 RO-15N LH 957 737 16/123 1,000 RO-16N LH 989 751 16/123 1,000 RO-17N LH 996 780 16/123 1,000 RO-18N LH 1,000 700 16 1,000 RO-19N LH 1,000 700 16 1,000 RO-20N LH 1,000 700 16 1,000 RO-101N HZ1 512 397 16 350 RO-102N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO-109N HZ1 475 404 16 350 RO-114N HZ1 514 412 16 350 RO-115N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO-116N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO-117N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO-118N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO-119N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO-120N HZ1 500 400 16 350 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11-00249-W. 2 16-inch casing to 100 feet, then 12-inch casing to production casing depth. 3 16-inch casing to 150 feet, then 12-inch casing to production casing depth. 4 16-inch casing to 160 feet, then 12-inch casing to production casing depth. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-7 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4-4. Existing South Hawthorn RO Wellfield Summary1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) RO-1S HZ1 420 312 16/122 1,000 RO-2S HZ1 400 292 16/122 1,000 RO-3S HZ1 403 293 16/122 1,000 RO-4S HZ1 402 331 16/122 1,000 RO-5S HZ1 402 297 16/122 1,000 RO-6S HZ1 421 317 16/122 1,000 RO-7S HZ1 442 328 16/122 1,000 RO-8S LH 982 660 16/122 1,000 RO-9S LH 682 630 16/122 1,000 RO-10S LH 842 630 16/122 1,000 RO-11S LH 963 653 16/122 1,000 RO-12S HZ1 422 299 16/122 1,000 RO-13S HZ1 400 295 16/122 1,000 RO-14S HZ1 422 298 16/122 1,000 RO-15S HZ1 402 295 16/122 1,000 RO-39S HZ1 400 300 16 1,000 RO-40S LH 1,000 700 16 1,000 RO-41S HZ1 400 300 16 1,000 RO-42S LH 1,000 700 16 1,000 RO-16S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-17S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-18S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-19S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-20S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-21S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-22S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-23S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-24S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-25S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-26S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-27S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-28S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-29S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-30S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-31S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-32S3 HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-33S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-34S HZ1 420 300 16 750 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-8 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4-4. Existing South Hawthorn RO Wellfield Summary1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) RO-35S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-36S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-37S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-38S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-39S HZ1 400 300 16 700 RO-40S LH 1,000 700 16 700 RO-41S HZ1 400 300 16 700 RO-42S LH 1,000 700 16 700 RO-43S3 LH 1,000 700 16 700 RO-44S3 LH 1,000 700 16 700 RO-45S3 LH 1,000 700 16 700 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11-00249-W. 2 16-inch casing to 120 feet, then 12-inch casing to production casing depth. 3 Permitted but not in use. Table 4-5. Existing Orange Tree Wellfield Summary1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) Well A LT 180 70 12 300 Well B LT 180 70 12 300 Well C LT 154 72 12 300 Well D LT 172 70 16 400 Well E LT 172 74 12 300 Well F LT 180 70 16 400 Well G LT 180 70 16 400 Well H LT 180 70 16 400 Well I LT 180 70 16 400 Well J LT 180 70 16 400 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11-00419-W. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-9 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4-6. Summary of Existing CCWSD Water Treatment Facilities1 Facility Name Design Capacity (MGD) Raw Water Requirement2 (MGD) Raw Water Source Traditional/ Alternative Water Supply NCRWTP MF 12.00 14.64 LT Traditional (Fresh) NCRWTP LPRO 8.00 9.76 LH/HZ1 Alternative (Brackish) SCRWTP LS 12.00 14.64 LT Traditional (Fresh) SCRWTP LPRO 20.00 24.40 LH/HZ1 Alternative (Brackish) OTUC WTP 0.75 0.92 LT Traditional (Fresh) Total 52.75 64.36 - - 1 Information taken from the Collier County 2014 Water Master Plan Update. 2 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. 4.1.2.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission The existing transmission facilities consist of transmission pipelines, water storage tanks, an ASR system, and pumping facilities. The storage and pumping facilities utilized by CCWSD are shown in Figure 4-3. The pumping facilities are comprised of high service pumps located at both water treatment plants, four water booster pumping stations and an in-line booster pump station. Ground storage tanks at the treatment facilities and at the booster pumping stations provide system storage and reserve capacity to help meet the peak hourly demands of the system. The booster pumping stations and storage tanks are located at the Isle of Capri, Manatee Road, and Carica Road. The CCWSD also maintains and operates the Goodland Water Booster Pumping Station, which is part of the Goodland Water Sub-District. An in-line booster station is located in the northwest portion of the system near Vanderbilt Drive. In addition to the traditional storage and pumping facilities mentioned above, CCWSD maintains a 1 MGD potable water ASR system at the Manatee Road Pumping Station. The water storage tank at the OTWTP has a capacity of 0.75 MG and the transmission pipelines range in size from 3-inch to 12-inch and total approximately 9 miles in length. As previously mentioned, the CCWSD acquired the Golden Gate City potable water and wastewater utility systems from FGUA on March 1, 2018 acquiring their storage and booster pump station tanks. Potable water is stored at various strategic points in the CCWSD distribution system to help meet diurnal peak system and fire flow demands. A summary of the existing storage facilities is provided in Table 4-7. Potable water is pumped from the plants into the distribution system. The distribution system includes water mains designated as either transmission or distribution mains. The CCWSD pipelines 16 inches in diameter and larger are generally termed transmission mains. These are typically located along arterial and collector roadways and convey water to major demand areas. Pipelines that are smaller than 16 inches in diameter are generally called distribution mains, branching off to the transmission system to supply individual users. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) + ++ + + + + + + + ")951 BONITA BEACH R D I M M O K A L E E R D GOODLETTE FRANK RDTAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 Golden Gate WTP Tank Green Blvd Booster Pump Station Tank OTWTP §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 NCRWTP SCRWTP MANATEE ROAD ASR CARICA BOOSTER STATION MANATEE BOOSTER STATION GOOD LAN D BOOSTER STATION ISLE OF CAPRI BOOSTER STATION Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/26/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 4-3COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING CCWSD POTABLE WATER STOR AGE FAC ILITIES Legend +Existing P otable Water Storage Facility Potable Water Main (>= 12") 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-11 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4-7. Summary of Existing CCWSD Water Storage Facilities 1 Facility Name Tank Volume (MG) Usable Storage Volume (MG) NCRWTP 12.00 11.10 SCRWTP 14.00 12.40 OTWTP 0.75 0.73 Isle of Capri 0.25 0.20 Manatee Road Pumping Station 2.00 1.80 Carica Road Pumping Station 10.00 9.30 Manatee Road ASR2 N/A N/A Golden Gate WTP Tank 0.52 0.52 Green Blvd. Booster Pump Station Tank 1.00 1.00 Total 40.52 37.05 1 Information on the Collier County 2014 Water Master Plan Update. 2 Manatee Road ASR storage is not currently in use. Storage volume was not included in total. The transmission mains and major distribution mains that serve the CCWSD are illustrated in Figure 4-4. Overall, the CCWSD owns and maintains over 1,000 miles of water transmission and distribution pipelines, up to 48 inches in diameter, with over 56,000 individual service connections. 4.1.3 Reclaimed Water Facilities CCWSD operates one of the largest reclaimed water systems in the South Florida Water Management District. Currently, the system serves customers with contractual commitments of 23 MGD. The majority of the existing customer base is golf courses, residential communities, environmental mitigation areas, county parks, and roadway medians. There is an additional 28.5 MGD of demand in the service area from entities that have installed dual distribution piping. 4.1.3.1 Water Reclamation Facilities CCWSD currently operates two water reclamation facilities (WRFs). The North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) and the South County Water Reclamation Facility (SCWRF), which are shown in Figure 4-5. Table 4-8 summaries the capacities of the existing reclaimed water facilities. Table 4-8. Summary of Existing Water Reclamation Facilities1 Facility Name Design Treatment Capacity (MGD)2 NCWRF 24.1 SCWRF 16.0 Total 40.1 1 Information taken from the Collier County 2014 Wastewater Master Plan Update. 2 The design capacities do not reflect the amount of reclaimed water available from the facilities. The amount of reclaimed water available is based on influent flow and treatment efficiency. For planning purposes, CCWSD considers reclaimed water availability based on 95 percent of the lowest influent day, which is currently around 11 MGD. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) ")951 BONITA BEACH R D I M M O K A L E E R D GOODLETTE FRANK RDTAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 20''3 6 '' 12'' 16'' 30''48''1 8 '' 42'' 1 4 '' 24''12''12''24 ''12''12'' 12''12''12''24''36''16''12'' 36''12''12'' 16'' 12'' 1 2''12''16''12''12''12''24''20''12''16''16''12''30''12''16''20'' 24''16''12''30''12''12''12'' 16'' 16''16''16' '12''12''16''24''12''16''1 2'' 1 2 ''12''12''12''12' ' 16''12'' 20'' 12''16''12''Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/26/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 4-4COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING CCWSD POTABLE WATER TRANSMISSION MAINS Legend Potable Water Main (>= 12") 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 37FRW 37FRW ")951 I M M O K A L E E R D TAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 GOODLETTE FRANK RD§¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 SCWRF NCWRF Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/26/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 4-5COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING CCWSD WATER RECLAMATION FACILITIES Legend 37FRW Existing Water Reclamation Facility 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-14 PW/6295/231366/03/01 4.1.3.2 Reclaimed Water Pumping, Storage, and Transmission The reclaimed water distribution system, which consists of approximately 124 miles of transmission and distribution pipeline, is currently divided into two services areas; one in the north and one in the south, that are supplied by the respective water reclamation facilities (WRFs). There are a few small interconnects between the two service areas, but the system is hydraulically limited from passing large volumes of water from one service area to the other. A design has been completed for pump station improvements that will enhance the County’s ability to transfer flows between the north and south service areas. Reclaimed water produced at the two WRFs can be temporarily stored in on-site ponds. Storage of up to 1 million gallons (MG) is also available at the former Pelican Bay WRF, which was decommissioned in 2006 and converted to a reclaimed water storage and pumping facility. Additional storage is achieved in the distribution system which provides 130 MG of wet weather storage. Excess water is pumped into deep injection wells (DIWs) for disposal. Figure 4-6 presents the reclaimed water distribution system. The County owns and maintains a hydraulic model of its IQ water distribution system that enables it to plan for orderly expansion and development of its system. One of the significant challenges that the reclaimed water system faces is wet weather storage. During the wet season, demand for reclaimed water drops off sharply and CCWSD is forced to discharge the reclaimed water into its deep injection wells (DIW) disposal. The County has identified this scenario as a waste of a valuable resource and is making efforts to reduce the amount of reclaimed water that is discharged into DIWs during the wet season. To this end, a reclaimed water/supplemental groundwater aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) system has been developed. The system currently includes two constructed ASR wells, the latter of which was completed in 2015 and is currently undergoing cycle testing. Following the cycle testing, the ASR well will be put into regular service, where it is expected to provide between 0.5 and 1 MGD of IQ water to meet peak season demands. With both wells operational, they are expected to provide between 1 and 2 MGD of storage and recovery capacity to assist with meeting peak season demands. The plan for ultimate buildout at this ASR site in the north part of the County is to have five ASR wells with a total withdrawal capacity of up to 5 MGD. The County has also explored the feasibility of an additional ASR site in the southern portion of its IQ water distribution system. 4.1.3.3 Supplemental Wellfields In addition to the two existing WRFs pumping and storage facilities, CCWSD utilizes two supplemental wellfields to meet its contractual requirements. The locations of the two wellfields, known as the Pelican Bay (Livingston Road) Wellfield and the Immokalee (Mule Pen Quarry) Wellfield, are shown in Figure 4-6. The wellfields are permitted under CUP 11-00052-W, described in Section 4.1.1, which allows CCWSD to withdraw water from the LT Aquifer in the Pelican Bay Wellfield and the WT Aquifer at the Immokalee Wellfield, to meet peak demands within the reclaimed water distribution system. A summary of the wells that make up these wellfields is provided in Table 4-9. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 37FRW 37FRW ") ") ")951 I M M O K A L E E R D TAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 GOODLETTE FRANK RD§¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 SCWRF NCWRF 20"1 2 " 24"18"16"3 0 "36"16"16" 20" 24"12"12"12"12"12"16"24" 12" 12"18"12"16" 1 2 "1 2"12"18"36"24"12"12"16"16" 16"16"12" Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/27/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 4-6COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING CCWSD RECLAIMED WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Legend 37FRW Existing Water Reclamation Facility ")Supplem ental Wellfield IQ Water Main (>= 12") 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-16 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4-9. Summary of Existing CCWSD Supplemental Wells1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) 1 LT 100 50 10 300 2 LT 100 50 10 300 3 LT 100 50 10 300 4 LT 100 50 10 300 5 LT 100 50 10 300 6 LT 100 50 10 300 7 LT 100 50 10 300 8 WT 35 20 10 500 9 WT 35 20 10 500 10 WT 35 20 10 500 11 WT 35 20 10 500 12 WT 35 20 10 500 13 WT 35 20 10 500 LT = Lower Tamiami Aquifer WT = Water Table Aquifer 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11-00052-W 4.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) 4.2.1 Water Supply Permits The IWSD maintains one CUP for potable water supply. The details of the CUP are presented in Table 4-10. Table 4-10. Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to the Immokalee Water and Sewer District Consumptive Use Permit Aquifer Utilized Number of Permitted Wells Expiration Date Annual Allocation (MG) Maximum Monthly Allocation (MGD) 11-00013-W Lower Tamiami 21 5/23/2031 1,261 147.2 Upper Floridan2 4 - - Totals: 1,515 148.9 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11-00013-W. 2 Annual allocation and Monthly allocation volume for the Upper Florida Aquifer not specified in the permit. 4.2.2 Potable Water Facilities 4.2.2.1 Wellfields Currently, the IWSD operates three wellfields; one adjacent to each of its WTPs. The locations of each of these wellfields and WTPs are illustrated in Figure 4-7. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9/4/2018 ¯FIGURE 4-7COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES W OR K PLANEXISTING IWSD WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-18 PW/6295/231366/03/01 The wells maintained by the IWSD tap the LT Aquifer, which is a traditional freshwater source. Table 4-11 summarizes the existing wells operated by the IWSD. Table 4-11. Summary of Existing IWSD Potable Water Wells1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) 7 LT 275 236 4 110 8 LT 225 140 6 400 9 LT 315 230 8 200 10B LT 275 250 8 225 11 LT 275 236 8 225 12 LT 175 95 8 250 13 LT 278 234 8 250 14 LT 200 140 8 350 102 LT 200 140 8 350 103 LT 200 125 8 350 104 LT 200 154 6 250 105 LT 210 140 8 200 106 LT 210 128 8 350 107 LT 200 140 8 350 201 LT 180 100 8 350 202 LT 180 100 8 350 204 LT 187 107 6 350 FA-1 UFA n/a 788 16 695 FA-2 UFA n/a 788 16 695 FA-3 UFA n/a 788 16 695 FA-4 UFA n/a 788 16 695 LT = Lower Tamiami Aquifer UFA = Upper Floridan Aquifer 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11-00013-W. 4.2.2.2 Water Treatment Facilities The IWSD is served by three interconnected water treatment facilities; the Jerry V. Warden WTP, the Airport WTP and the Carson Road WTP, which are shown in Figure 4-7. The Jerry V. Warden WTP is located on the west side of Sanitation Road, south of CR-29. Freshwater from the LT Aquifer is treated at the plant using lime softening (LS). The plant has a finished water capacity of 2.25 MGD. The Airport WTP is located east of New Market Road East, north of CR-846. LS is utilized at the plant to treat freshwater from the LT Aquifer. The finished water capacity of the plant is 1.35 MGD. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-19 PW/6295/231366/03/01 The Carson Road WTP is located on the west side of Carson Road, north of Lake Trafford Road. The plant utilizes LS to treat the freshwater from the LT Aquifer and has a finished water capacity of 2.35 MGD. A summary of the existing water treatment facilities is provided in Table 4-12. In addition to identifying the design capacity of each treatment train, the amount of raw water required to make the design capacity is also provided. Table 4-12. Summary of Existing IWSD Water Treatment Facilities1 Facility Name Design Capacity (MGD) Raw Water Requirement2 (MGD) Raw Water Source Traditional/ Alternative Water Supply Jerry V. Warden WTP 2.25 2.75 LT Traditional (Fresh) Airport WTP 1.35 1.65 LT Traditional (Fresh) Carson Road WTP 2.35 2.87 LT Traditional (Fresh) Total 5.95 7.26 - - 1 Information on existing water treatment facilities taken from the 2017 IWSD Public Facilities Report and the 2017 LWC Water Supply Plan Update. 2 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by dividing the annual Average Daily Demand by the efficiency of the treatment process. 4.2.2.3 Pumping, Storage and Transmission The existing transmission facilities consist of transmission pipelines, water storage tanks, and pumping facilities. The transmission facilities utilized by IWSD are shown in Figure 4-7. Water from the Jerry V. Warden WTP is pumped to one ground storage tanks, with a total capacity of 1.80 MG, located on the plant site. Water from the Carson Road WTP is pumped to two 1.0 MG ground storage tank with a total storage capacity of 1.5 MG. Water from the Airport WTP is pumped to an on-site 0.75 MG ground storage tank. From the storage tanks water enters the distribution system which consists of mains ranging in size from 2-inch to 12-inch. The distribution system contains approximately 100 miles of mains. Table 4-13 summarizes the existing water storage facilities utilized by IWSD. Table 4-13. Summary of Existing IWSD Water Storage Facilities1 Facility Name Tank Volume (MG) Usable Storage Volume (MG) Jerry V. Warden WTP 1.80 1.80 Carson Road WTP 1.50 0.50 Airport WTP 0.75 0.75 Total 4.05 3.05 1 Information on existing water reclamation facilities taken from the 2017 IWSD Public Facilities Report. 4.2.3 Reclaimed Water Facilities Currently, IWSD disposes of all effluent wastewater via an on-site spray irrigation field, percolation ponds, or deep well injection. IWSD is served by one WRF, which is located on White 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-20 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Way. The IWSD WWTP is rated at 4.0 MGD out of which the WRF can produce 2.36 MGD of reclaimed water. Table 4-14 summarizes the capacity of the existing reclaimed water facility. Table 4-14. Summary of Existing IWSD Water Reclamation Facility1 Facility Name Design Treatment Capacity (MGD) IWSD WRF 2.36 Total 2.36 1 Information on existing water reclamation facilities taken from the 2017 IWSD Public Facilities Report. 4.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) 4.3.1 Water Supply Permits AMUC maintains one CUP for potable water supply. The details of the CUP are presented in Table 4-15. Table 4-15. Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to AMUC Consumptive Use Permit Aquifer Utilized Number of Permitted Wells Expiration Date Annual Allocation (MG) Average Day Allocation (MGD) Maximum Monthly Allocation (MG) 11-02298-W LT 3 10/19/2020 296.21 0.81 31.57 SA 1 10/19/2020 296.21 0.81 31.57 Total 423.16 1.16 45.11 LT = Lower Tamiami SA = Sandstone Aquifer 1 CUP (11-02298-W) allocation is 1.16 MGD annual average and expires on October 19, 2020. 4.3.2 Potable Water Facilities 4.3.2.1 Wellfields Currently, AMUC operates one wellfield in the vicinity of its WTP. The wells maintained by AMUC tap the LT Aquifer, which is a traditional freshwater source. Table 4-16 summarizes the existing wells operated by the utility. Table 4-16. Summary of Wells Operated by AMUC Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) PWS-1 LT 83 61 12 700 PWS-2 LT 80 59 12 700 PWS-3 LT 71 50 12 700 PWS-4 SA 325 250 12 750 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP #11-02298-W. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-21 PW/6295/231366/03/01 4.3.2.2 Water Treatment Facilities AMUC operates one WTP, which is located west of Camp Keais Road, north of CR-858. The WTP has a finished water capacity of 1.0 MGD using MS. A summary of the existing water treatment facility is provided in Table 4-17. In addition to identifying the design capacity of each treatment train, the amount of raw water required to make the design capacity is also provided. Table 4-17. Summary of Existing AMUC Water Treatment Facility1 Facility Name Design Capacity (MGD) Raw Water Requirement2 (MGD) Raw Water Source Traditional/ Alternative Water Supply AMUC WTP (Phase 1) 1.00 1.18 LT Traditional (Fresh) Total 1.00 1.18 - - 1 Information on the water treatment facilities was taken from the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update (LWCWSP). 2 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity with the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 4.3.2.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission The existing transmission facilities consist of a water storage tank at the WTP and transmission pipelines. The water storage tank at the WTP has a capacity of 1.5 MG. Table 4-18 summarizes the water storage available in the Ave Maria Utility Company’s System. Table 4-18. Summary of Existing AMUC Storage Facility1 Facility Name Tank Volume (MG) Usable Storage Volume (MG) AMUC WTP 1.5 1.5 Total 1.5 1.5 1 Information on existing and planned water treatment facilities was taken from the Preliminary Design Report for Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP and Florida Department of Environmental Protection as prepared by CH2M Hill, Inc., June 2004 and supplemented with comments received from AMUC in a letter dated September 20, 2007. 4.3.3. Reclaimed Water Facilities AMUC is served by one WRF, which is located within the development. The WRF is capable of producing 0.90 MGD of reclaimed water. Reclaimed water is pumped from the WRF to three reclaimed water storage ponds, which serve as the source for the Town and University’s irrigation system and have a combined capacity of 23.0 MG. Reclaimed water is the most important element of the AMUC Conservation Plan, presented in detail in Section 7, and will be utilized to the fullest extent possible for irrigation of the Town and University. AMUC utilizes 100 percent of the reclaimed water generated. Table 4-19 summarizes the capacity of the existing reclaimed water facility. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 4 · Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-22 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 4-19. Summary of Existing AMUC Water Reclamation Facility1 Facility Name Design Treatment Capacity (MGD) AMUC WRF (Phase 1) 0.9 Total 0.9 1 Information on existing water reclamation facilities taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 5-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 5 Planned Water Supply Facilities 5.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) CCWSD has been and continues to be a leader in the development of alternative water supplies and integrated water resource management in Florida. Starting in the mid-1980s CCWSD realized that it could not meet the future demands of its customers solely with traditional water supplies. CCWSD committed to a program of alternative water supplies that included the use of brackish groundwater and ASR for potable supply, and reclaimed water, supplemental water wellfields and ASR for storage and increased use of irrigation quality water for irrigation purposes. Given the success that CCWSD has had in meeting its demands with alternative water supplies, CCWSD embarked to identify better ways to meet future water supply demands within its service area. The result of this effort is a paradigm shift, from thinking of potable water and irrigation water demand as two separate needs to seeing the demands as inextricably intertwined. To better serve the needs of both potable water and irrigation water demand at the best value cost for the customer, CCWSD has begun development of a new business model which will shift the focus from development of additional potable water supplies to meeting a large portion of the overall water demand with irrigation quality water supplies. CCWSD currently has an annual average daily potable demand of 28.69 MGD and an annual average daily irrigation quality demand of 23.0 MGD. The ratio of irrigation quality demand to potable demand is approximately 45:55. As stated in Section 4.1.3 there is an additional 28.5 MGD of irrigation quality demand in the service area from entities that have installed dual distribution piping. The vision for CCWSD is optimizing water resource usage by substituting IQ water for non-potable uses such as irrigation, which will provide both economic and environmental benefits. Through implementation of the vision, it is anticipated that within the next 20 years the source of water can shift from 45 percent IQ water and 55 percent potable water to 60 percent IQ water and 40 percent potable water. Since the 2014 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update, the CCWSD has shifted the ratio from 40:60 to 45:55. This shift will occur as supplemental water supplies, and ASR storage components are added to the IQ water system and utilized to supply IQ water to customers, reserving higher quality water supplies for true potable use. It is anticipated that a portion of future potable water demand will be offset by substituting IQ water for potable water currently being used for irrigation. As a result of meeting irrigation demands with IQ water, 90 percent instead of 70 percent of potable water delivered to customers will be returned to the water reclamation facilities to be reused. In addition to meeting irrigation demands, the focus on additional IQ water supplies instead of only potable water supplies provides significant benefits to the environment. By supplying IQ water to more customers, the use of potable water for irrigation and private irrigation systems will decrease. Further, the CCWSD IQ water distribution system often provides for a better temporal distribution of water to the natural system in that IQ water is provided at low rates over longer periods than typical rainfall events and is supplied during low rain periods when the 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 aquifer system is most able to accommodate recharge thereby reducing runoff. Additionally, CCWSD’s IQ water distribution system provides a net addition of freshwater to the surficial aquifer system through irrigation with treated water from the brackish Hawthorn aquifer system, which is otherwise trapped in very long-term and deep hydrologic cycles, bringing it into the daily water cycle. In order to supply additional irrigation water more efficiently, CCWSD will pursue additional allocations of fresh water. This strategy is supported by recently identified groundwater trends. Through its rigorous groundwater monitoring program, CCWSD identified trends in water level data from both the Lower Tamiami (LT) Aquifer and the Water Table (WT) Aquifer (connected to surface water flows, i.e., wetlands) in and around the CCWSD’s Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield. The data indicate that despite extended drought conditions and increased pumping from the LT Aquifer, water levels in key indicator wells are remaining steady and in some cases increasing. These trends provide evidence that the total water management approach taken by the CCWSD is yielding environmental benefits and suggest that additional pumping of the LT Aquifer is possible without impacting the WT Aquifer or wetlands, which is the main concern that directed CCWSD away from traditional sources more than twenty years ago. CCWSD’s intent to pursue additional freshwater withdrawals from the LT Aquifer within the integrated total water management approach is consistent with the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update (LWCWSP) published by the SFWMD, which states on page 89, “While the development of fresh groundwater in many areas of the LWC Planning Area has been maximized, it may be available in some places. As urban growth occurs, some agricultural land is expected to transition to urban community uses. Many existing agricultural areas have water use permits to use fresh groundwater for crop irrigation. While water use permits cannot be directly transferred from one land use type to another, conversion of agricultural lands to another use may result in available fresh ground water” Likewise, on page 90, “Additional limited supplies may be developed and permitted from the SAS and IAS depending on local resource conditions, changing land use, and the viability of other supply options.” In addition to the water level trends observed in its monitoring wells, CCWSD has performed and is performing multiple studies to determine the viability of the LT Aquifer for additional allocations. To date, CCWSD has developed a calibrated groundwater model and utilized the MIKESHE model developed by the Army Corp of Engineers for the Picayune Strand Restoration Project to determine the potential impact of additional freshwater withdrawals on wetlands. The modeling efforts performed to date indicate that there would be no measurable impact on wetlands from moderate additional withdrawals. CCWSD has also constructed freshwater monitoring well clusters around the County that will provide longer term water level data for areas of the County away from its wellfields and developed four wetland monitoring sites within the Golden Gate Estates to verify that no wetland impacts are being caused by withdrawals from the Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield. CCWSD is confident that the modeling efforts performed to date, and its on-going water level monitoring program, will provide the required assurances to allow the SFWMD to increase its permitted allocation of freshwater from the LT Aquifer. CCWSD will develop documentation demonstrating how existing and planned IQ water supplies give rise to additional potable water supplies. This analysis will consider the potential availability of impact offsets and substitution credits in accordance with new Florida Department of Environmental Protection and SFWMD 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 rules. CCWSD anticipates that its planned IQ water infrastructure development will garner significant impact offsets and/or substitution credits in further support of its request to the SFWMD for additional allocations of freshwater to meet projected customer demand. These water resource benefits and associated availability of withdrawals will be in addition to the benefits already provided by CCWSD’s existing IQ water system. For these reasons, CCWSD has initiated the shift in its business model based on an ability to obtain a reasonable amount of freshwater to maximize the efficiency of existing infrastructure and planned AWS projects. 5.1.1 Potable Water Facilities 5.1.1.1 Wellfields As part of the CCWSD plan to meet future water supply needs it intends to build the NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1. The NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1 will be made up of wells tapping the LT Aquifer, the HZ1 Aquifer and the LH Aquifer. The wells will serve the NERWTP Phase 1, which will treat the water using ion exchange (IE) for fresh water and LPRO for brackish water. The wellfield is scheduled to come online in 2027 to serve the first phase of the NERWTP. Table 5-1 summarizes the planned wells in the NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1. Table 5-1. Planned NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1 Summary1,2 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) LH-1 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-2 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-3 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-4 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-5 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-8 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-9 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-10 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-11 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-12 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-13 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-14 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-15 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-16 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 1 Information on planned wells taken from CUP #11-00249-W. 2 The number of wells, design, location, and source water for the planned wellfield will be determined through the design and permitting process. Some well sites may likely be located in the Big Cypress Stewardship District to take advantage of existing permitted water for agricultural use. 3 16-inch casing to 100 feet, then 12-inch casing to production casing depth. The location of the NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1 is illustrated in Figure 5-1. CCWSD also intends to construct additional LTA reliability wells. The potential location of these wells is illustrated in Figure 5-1 as well. As mentioned in footnote 2 above, the final location of the NERWTP wells will be determined through the design and permitting process. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 3Q 3Q 3Q 3Q !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( ")951 BONITA BEACH R D I M M O K A L E E R D GOODLETTE FRANK RDTAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 OTWTP SCRWTP NCRWTP NERWTP Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/27/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 5-1COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING AND PLANNED CCW SD WELLFIELDSAND RAW WATER TRANSMISSION LINES Legend !(Existing Well !(Planned Well 3Q Existing Water Treatment Plant 3Q Planned Water Treatment Plant Existing Ra w Water Transmission Main Planned Ra w Water Transmission Main 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-5 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 5-2 identifies the major tasks required to build the wellfield, along with the funding source that will be utilized and scheduled dates for studies, property acquisition, design, permitting, and construction. Table 5-2. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD NERWTP Phase 1 Wellfield Year(s) of Execution Facility Name Funding Source Feasibility Study Property Acquisition Design1 Permitting Construction NERWTP Phase 1 Wellfield Impact Fees Complete Complete 2019 2023-2025 2025-2027 1 Design is complete. Portions to be re-designed in 2019. 5.1.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities The CCWSD is currently served by three WTPs; the NCRWTP, the SCRWTP, and the OTWTP. As mentioned in the previous subsection, the CCWSD intends to construct an additional treatment facility, the NERWTP to meet future demands. The locations of the existing and planned facilities are shown in Figure 5-2. The location of the planned NERWTP is approximately one mile north of CR-858 (Oil Well Road) and one mile east of SR-846 (Immokalee Road) in the northeastern quadrant of the service area. The plant will utilize IE to treat fresh groundwater withdrawn from the LT and HZ1 aquifers. Water from the LH Aquifer will be treated using LPRO. The first phase of the plant is currently scheduled to come online in 2027 and will have a capacity of 5 MGD. The plant will be capable of expansion to an ultimate capacity of 15 MGD. As stated in Section 4.1.2.2, the NCRWTP is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension east of CR-951 in the northeastern quadrant of the service area and the SCRWTP is located near the intersection of CR-951 and I-75 about 5.5 miles south of the NCRWTP. A summary of the existing and planned water treatment facilities is provided in Table 5-3. In addition to identifying the design capacity of each treatment train, the amount raw water required to make the design capacity is also provided. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 3Q 3Q 3Q3Q ")951 BONITA BEACH R D I M M O K A L E E R D GOODLETTE FRANK RDTAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 OTW TP SC RWTP NCRW TP NERWTP Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/26/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 5-2COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING AND PLANNED CCWSD POTABLE WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES Legend 3Q Existing Water Treatment Plant 3Q Planned Water Treatment Plant 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-7 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 5-3. Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Treatment Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Capacity (MGD) Raw Water Requirement2 (MGD) Raw Water Source Traditional/ Alternative Water Supply Project Identified In LWCWSP NCRWTP MF Online 12 14.64 LH Traditional (Fresh) N/A NCRWTP LPRO Online 8 9.76 LH/HZ1 Alternative (Brackish) N/A SCRWTP LS Online 12 14.64 LTA Traditional (Fresh) N/A SCRWTP LPRO Online 20 24.40 LH/HZ1 Alternative (Brackish) N/A OTUC Online 0.75 0.92 LT Traditional (Fresh) N/A NERWTP Phase 1 LPRO 2027 1.25 4.58 LH Alternative (Brackish) Yes NERWTP Phase 1 Ion Exchange 2027 3.75 1.53 LTA/HZ1 Traditional (Fresh) Yes Total - 57.75 70.46 - - - 1 Information taken from the Collier County 2014 Water Master Plan Update. 2 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water need to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the design capacity by the Raw-to- Finished-Water Adjustment. Table 5-4 identifies the major tasks required to build each of the planned water treatment facilities, along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies, property acquisition, design, permitting, and construction. Table 5-4. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD NERWTP Phase 1 Facility Name Funding Source Feasibility Study Property Acquisition Design Permitting Construction Year(s) of Execution NERWTP Phase 1 Impact Fees Complete Complete Complete 2023-2025 2025-2027 5.1.1.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission The planned transmission facilities consist of transmission pipelines, water storage tanks, aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) systems, and pumping facilities. The pumping and storage facilities utilized by CCWSD are shown in Figure 5-3. The planned pumping facilities will include high service pumps at the new NERWTP. Additional booster pumping stations and an in-line booster pump station may be required to meet demands but are not planned for construction during the planning period out to 2028. Ground storage tanks at the proposed treatment facility will provide system storage and reserve capacity to help meet peak hourly demands of the system. Additionally, potable water will be stored at various strategic points in the CCWSD distribution system to help meet diurnal peak system and fire flow demands. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) + + ++ + + + + + + + ")951 BONITA BEACH R D I M M O K A L E E R D GOODLETTE FRANK RDTAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 Golden Gate WTP Tank Green Blvd Booster Pump Station Tank OTWTP NERWTP §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 NCRWTP SCRWTP MANATEE ROAD ASR CARICA BOOSTER STATION MANATEE BOOSTER STATION GOOD LAN D BOOSTER STATION ISLE OF CAPRI BOOSTER STATION Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/26/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 5-3COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING AND PLANNED CCW SD POTABL E WAT ER STORAGE FACILITIES Legend +Existing P otable Water Storage Facility +Planned Potable Water Storage Facility Potable Water Main (>= 12") 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-9 PW/6295/231366/03/01 A summary of the existing and planned storage facilities is provided in Table 5-5. Table 5-5. Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Storage Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Tank Volume (MG) Usable Storage Volume (MG) NCRWTP online 12 11.1 SCRWTP online 14 12.4 Isle of Capri online 0.25 0.2 Manatee Road Pumping Station online 2 1.8 Carica Road Pumping Station online 10 9.3 NERWTP Phase 1 2027 15 13.5 Manatee Road ASR Phase 12 online N/A N/A Total - 53.25 48.3 1 Information taken from the Collier County FY 2017 CIP Update. 2 Storage volume for Manatee Road ASR not included in total, not currently in operation. Table 5-6 identifies the major tasks required to build each of the planned pumping and storage improvements, along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies, property acquisition, design, permitting, and construction. Table 5-6. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Water Storage Facilities Facility Name Funding Source Feasibility Study Property Acquisition Design Permitting Construction Year(s) of Execution NERWTP Phase 1 Storage Tanks Impact Fees Complete Complete Complete 2023-2025 2025-2027 Potable water is pumped from the plants into the distribution system. The distribution system includes water mains designated as either transmission or distribution mains. The CCWSD pipelines 16 inches in diameter and larger are generally termed transmission mains. These are typically located along arterial and collector roadways and convey water to major demand areas. Pipelines smaller than 16 inches in diameter are generally called distribution mains, branching off the transmission system to supply individual users. Overall, the CCWSD owns and maintains over 1,000 miles of water transmission and distribution pipelines, up to 48 inches in diameter, with over 56,000 individual service connections. With the construction of 5 MGD of additional finished water capacity, CCWSD will be installing a substantial number of transmission mains and major distribution mains over the next 10 years. The existing and planned transmission mains and major distribution mains that will serve CCWSD in 2028 are illustrated in Figure 5-4. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) ")951 BONITA BEACH R D I M M O K A L E E R D GOODLETTE FRANK RDTAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 36''20''3 6 '' 12'' 16'' 30''48''1 8 '' 42'' 1 4 '' 24''12''12''24 ''12''12'' 12''12''12''24''36''16''12'' 36''12''12'' 16'' 12'' 1 2''12''16''12''12''12''24''20''12''16''16''12''30''12''16''20'' 24''16''12''30''12''12''12'' 16'' 16''16''16' '12''12''16''24''12''16''1 2'' 1 2 ''12''12''12''12' ' 16''12'' 20'' 12''16''12''Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/27/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 5-4COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING AND PLANNED CCW SD POTABL E WAT ER TRAN SM ISSION MAINS Legend Transmission Main Potable Water Main (>= 12") 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-11 PW/6295/231366/03/01 5.1.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities CCWSD currently operates one of the largest reclaimed water systems in South Florida, which serves customers with contractual commitments of 23.0 MGD. The majority of the existing customer base includes golf courses, residential communities, environmental mitigation areas, county parks, and roadway medians. There is an additional demand of 28.5 MGD in the service area from entities that have installed dual distribution piping. The following subsections describe the measures CCWSD is taking to meet future wastewater demands and supply reclaimed water to its customers. 5.1.2.1 Water Reclamation Facilities The locations of the existing NCWRF and SCWRF are shown in Figure 5-5. There are plans to proceed with NEWRF Phase 1. Table 5-7 summarizes the capacities of the existing and planned WRFs. Table 5-7. Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Capacity (MGD)2 Project Identified In LWCWSP NCWRF Online 24.1 N/A SCWRF Online 16.0 N/A NEWRF Phase 1 2026 4.0 Yes Total - 44.1 - 1 Information taken from the Collier County 2014 Master Plan Update. 2 The design capacities do not reflect the amount of reclaimed water available from the facilities. The amount of reclaimed water available is based on influent flow and treatment efficiency. For planning purposes, CCWSD considers reclaimed water availability based on 95 percent of the minimum monthly effluent flow. As stated in the footnotes to Table 5-7, the amount of reclaimed water distributed is not directly related to the design capacity of each water reclamation facility. In addition to the limitations identified, the ability of CCWSD to utilize available reclaimed water for distribution is impacted by seasonal fluctuations in demand, with very high demands during the dry season and low demands during the wet season. Table 5-8 identifies the major tasks required to build the NEWRF, along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies, property acquisition, design, permitting, and construction. Table 5-8. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities Facility Name Funding Source Feasibility Study Property Acquisition Design Permitting Construction Year(s) of Execution NEWRF Wastewater Impact Fees Complete Complete 2021- 2022 2021-2022 2023-2026 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 37FRW 37FRW 37FRW ")951 I M M O K A L E E R D TAMIAMI TRAIL ")858 GOODLETTE FRANK RD§¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 UV45 ")92 £¤41 £¤41 ")846 UV84 ")951 UV93 NEWRF SCWRF NCWRF Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - 9/27/2018 ¯0 1 2 3 4 Miles FIGURE 5-5COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLANEXISTING AND PLANNED CCW SD WATER RECLA MATION FA CILITIES Legend 37FRW Planned Water Reclamation Facility 37FRW Existing Water Reclamation Facility 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-13 PW/6295/231366/03/01 5.1.2.2 Reclaimed Water Pumping, Storage, and Transmission The current reclaimed water distribution system consists of over 130 miles of transmission and distribution pipeline and is currently divided into two services areas, one in the north and one in the south, each supplied by the respective WRF. There are a few small interconnects between the two service areas, but the system is hydraulically limited from passing large volumes of water from one service area to the other. As additional reclaimed water becomes available through population growth and increased wastewater flows, and once existing demand is met, CCWSD will need to expand the reclaimed water distribution system to serve more customers. At this time, specific distribution and transmission main projects have not been determined. Temporary reclaimed water storage is available on-site at the WRFs. Additional storage will be provided through the expansion of the existing reclaimed water ASR from a capacity of 2 MGD to 5 MGD. A summary of the reclaimed water storage that will be available with the expansion of the reclaimed water ASR is provided in Table 5-9. Table 5-9. Summary of Existing and Planned Reclaimed Water Storage Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Usable Storage Volume (MG) NCWRF online 18.95 SCWRF online 3.00 NEWRF 2026 2.00 Total - 23.95 Reclaimed Water ASR 2015 ~2.00 MGD Reclaimed Water ASR Expansion TBD ~3.00 MGD Total - ~5.00 MGD 1 Information taken from the Collier County 2008 Wastewater Master Plan Update. Table 5-10 identifies the major tasks required to build each of the planned reclaimed water storage facilities, along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies, property acquisition, design, permitting, and construction. Table 5-10. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Reclaimed Water Storage Facilities Facility Name Funding Source Feasibility Study Property Acquisition Design Permitting Construction Year(s) of Execution NEWRF Storage Tanks Wastewater Impact Fees Complete Complete 2021-2022 2021-2022 2023-2026 Reclaimed Water ASR Wells 3-5 User Fees Complete Complete TBD TBD TBD Upsize Transmission Piping from ASR Site User Fees TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 5.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) 5.2.1 Potable Water Facilities 5.2.1.1. Wellfields Currently, the IWSD operates three wellfields; one adjacent to each of its WTPs. The locations of each of these wellfields and WTPs are illustrated in Figure 5-6. The 16 wells maintained by the 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-14 PW/6295/231366/03/01 IWSD tap the LT Aquifer, which is a traditional freshwater source. IWSD plans to bring four additional wells online by 2020 to address future demands. The wells will tap the Floridan Aquifer, which is a brackish water source. Table 5-11 summarizes the wells IWSD plans to construct. Table 5-11. Summary of Planned IWSD Wells1 Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth2 (ft bls) Depth of Casing (ft bls) Diameter (in) Capacity (gpm) FA-1 Floridan NA 788 16 695 FA-2 Floridan NA 788 16 695 FA-3 Floridan NA 788 16 695 FA-4 Floridan NA 788 16 695 1 Information on planned wells taken from CUP #11-00013-W. 2 NA – information not available on CUP #11-00013-W. Table 5-12 identifies the major tasks required to build the four wells, along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies, property acquisition, design, permitting, and construction. Table 5-12. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned IWSD Wells Year(s) of Execution Facility Name Funding Source Feasibility Study Property Acquisition Design Permitting Construction FA-1 to FA-4 USDA 2015 2018 2019 2019 2020 5.2.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities The IWSD is currently served by three interconnected water treatment facilities; the Jerry V. Warden WTP, the Airport WTP and the Carson Road WTP. During the 10- year planning period IWSD plans to construct a RO WTP. The proposed plant will have a design capacity of 2.5 MGD. Table 5-13 summarizes the treatment capacity of the existing and planned potable water facilities for IWSD. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 953 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9/27/2018 ¯FIGURE 5-6COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES W OR K PLANIWSD WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-16 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 5-13 Summary of Existing and Planned IWSD Water Treatment Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Capacity (MGD) Raw Water Requirement2 (MGD) Raw Water Source Traditional/ Alternative Water Supply Project Identified In LWCWSP Jerry V. Warden WTP Online 2.25 2.75 LT Traditional (Fresh) N/A Airport WTP Online 1.35 1.65 LT Traditional (Fresh) N/A Carson Road WTP Online 2.35 2.87 LT Traditional (Fresh) N/A RO WTP 2022 2.50 3.05 FA Alternative (Brackish) Yes Total - 8.45 10.31 - - - 1 Information on the existing and planned IWSD water treatment facilities was taken from the CUP #11- 00013-W and the 2017 IWSD Public Facilities Report. 2 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the capacity by the Raw-To-Finished -Water Adjustment. 5.2.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities Currently, IWSD disposes of all effluent wastewater via an on-site spray irrigation field or deep well injection. The IWSD currently has a WRF with a capacity of 2.36 MGD. Two planned future expansions of the facility will increase the capacity to 5.5 MGD. 5.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLP (AMUC) 5.3.1 Potable Water Facilities 5.3.1.1 Wellfields AMUC currently operates three wells located in close proximity to the WTP. Per the AMUC CUP and information in the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update, AMUC plans on a new Sandstone Aquifer well by 2025. 5.3.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities Ave Maria Utilities operates one WTP, which is located west of Camp Keais Road, north of CR-858. The current capacity of the AMUC WTP is 1.0 MGD using MS. Per the AMUC CUP and information in the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update, AMUC plans on a 2.5 MGD Sandstone Aquifer RO WTP expansion scheduled for completion by 2025. A summary of the existing and planned water treatment facilities is provided in Table 5-14. In addition to identifying the design capacity of each treatment train, the amount raw water required to achieve the design capacity is also provided. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-17 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table 5-14. Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Potable Water Treatment Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Capacity (MGD) Raw Water Requirement2 (MGD) Raw Water Source Traditional/ Alternative Water Supply Project Identified In LWCWSP AMUC WTP Online 1.0 1.18 LT Traditional (Fresh) Yes AMUC RO WTP Expansion 2025 2.5 2.95 SA Alternative (Fresh) Yes Total - 3.5 4.13 - - - 1 Information on existing and planned water treatment facilities taken from the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update. 2 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. Table 5-15 identifies the major tasks required to build each of the planned expansion phases, along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies, property acquisition, design, permitting, and construction. Table 5-15. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned AMUC Potable Water Treatment Facilities Year(s) of Execution Facility Name Funding Source Feasibility Study Property Acquisition Design Permitting Construction AMUC RO WTP Expansion TBD Complete Complete TBD TBD TBD 5.3.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities AMUC is served by one WRF, which is located within the development. The WRF is capable of producing 0.9 MGD of reclaimed water. AMUC plans to expand the WRF to a total capacity of 3.4 MGD. Table 5-16 summarizes the capacities of the existing and planned phases of the WRF. Table 5-16. Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Water Reclamation Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Capacity (MGD) Project Identified In LWCWSP AMUC WRF (Phase 1) Online 0.9 N/A AMUC WRF (Phased expansion) 2024 2.5 Yes Total - 3.4 - 1 Information on existing water treatment facilities taken from the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update. Reclaimed water is pumped from the WRF to three reclaimed water storage ponds, which serve as the source for the Town and University’s irrigation system. AMUC plans to add an additional reclaimed water storage ponds within the development in the future. Expansion of the facility’s capacity is planned in several phases. The utility plans to add reclaimed water storage ponds and a deep injection well system for disposal during wet weather. The new ponds will increase the 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 956 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 5 · Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-18 PW/6295/231366/03/01 storage capacity from 23.0 MG to 44.0 MG. Additionally, AMUC is currently permitting a 289 MG wetlands storage system which will be used for wet weather storage. Reclaimed water is the most important element of the AMUC Conservation Plan, presented in detail in Section 7, and will be utilized to the fullest extent possible for irrigation of the Town and University. AMUC believes it will be able to utilize 100 percent of the reclaim water generated. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 957 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 6-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 6 Facilities Capacity Analysis Sections 3, 4, and 5 of this plan presented the population and associated water demand of the service area served and to be served by each utility, the existing water supply facilities in place to meet current demands, and the facilities planned to meet future water supply needs, respectively. The purpose of this section of the plan is to conveniently present a comparison of the population, water demand, facilities capacity, and permit limitations that identifies surpluses and deficits in facility and permit capacities. 6.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) As described in Section 5.1, CCWSD plans to bring online a new potable water treatment facility and associated wellfield during the 10-year planning period ending in 2028. Table 6-1 illustrates how these additions to the existing system will allow CCWSD to stay ahead of the demand curve during the 10-year planning period. Table 6-1. Water Capacity Analysis for CCWSD 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population 195,207 241,422 271,671 300,839 Demand Per Capita (gpcd) 150 150 150 150 Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd (MGD) 29.28 36.21 40.75 45.13 Available Facility Capacity (MGD) 52.00 52.75 52.75 57.75 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment1 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 Facility Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)2 22.72 16.54 12.00 12.62 Raw Water Requirement (MGD)3 35.72 44.18 49.72 55.05 Permitted Amount (MGD Annual Average)4, 5 55.53 56.18 56.18 56.18 Permitted Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)6 19.81 12.00 6.47 1.13 1 The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 2 Calculated by subtracting Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd from Available Facility Capacity. 3 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. 4 CCWSD has two potable water supply consumptive use permits. CUP 11-00249-W allocation is for 55.53 MGD annual average and expires on September 22, 2036. CUP allocation 11-00419-W is for 0.65 MGD and expires on March 7, 2023. 5 CCWSD is proactive in renewing its CUPs in advance of expiration and intends to maintain the necessary CUPs to meet the raw water requirement. 6 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 6 · Facilities Capacity Analysis 6-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 As will be noted from Table 6-1, the allocation under CCWSD’s current CUP (11-00249-W) is sufficient to meet the raw water requirement needed to make the Required Treatment Capacity at 150 gpcd through 2028. 6.1.1 Concurrency Analysis Each year, the Public Utilities Division completes a concurrency review of its “Category A” facilities, including potable water. The analysis becomes a part of the Countywide Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). Although concurrency is mandated through state and local law for a two year period, the AUIR analysis goes well beyond 10 years. Like the AUIR, the CCWSD uses an additional tool to assure concurrency. Known as “Checkbook Concurrency,” the tool is used quarterly to update capacity projections. While the AUIR relies on BEBR population estimates for future growth, the Checkbook tracks approved development (Planned Unit Developments and Developments of Regional Impact) as an additional measure of future capacity. It also measures 3-day peak demand rather than seasonal demand. The CCWSD Water and Wastewater Master Plans are the primary planning tools for capital planning. Nevertheless, the AUIR and Checkbook concurrency measurements serve as additional safeguards to assure future capacity. 6.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) Table 6-2 shows the capacity analysis for IWSD for the 10-year planning period. The improvements planned by the IWSD for the 10-year planning period are sufficient to meet the demands of the service area and the allocation of the underlying CUP (11-00013-W) is sufficient to cover the withdrawals required to make the finished water demand. Table 6-2. Water Capacity Analysis for IWSD 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population 22,747 25,717 27,616 29,948 Demand Per Capita (gpcd) 75 75 75 75 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD) 1.71 1.93 2.07 2.25 Available Facility Capacity (MGD)1 5.60 5.60 5.60 8.10 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment2 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 Facility Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)3 3.89 3.67 3.53 5.85 Raw Water Requirement (MGD)4 2.08 2.35 2.53 2.74 Permitted Amount (MGD Annual Average)5 4.15 4.15 4.15 4.15 Permitted Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)6 2.07 1.80 1.62 1.41 1 Per the Lower West Coast Water Supply update, the IWSD available facility capacity is projected to go up to 8.10 by 2030. 2 The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 3 Calculated by subtracting Annual Average Daily Demand from Available Facility Capacity. 4 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Annual Average Daily Demand by the Raw-To-Finished -Water Adjustment. 5 CUP (11-00013-W) allocation is 4.15 MGD annual average and expires on May 23, 2031. 6 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 6 · Facilities Capacity Analysis 6-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 6.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Table 6-3 shows the capacity analysis for AMUC for the 10-year planning period. Based on the capacity analysis, AMUC does not have sufficient permitted capacity to meet the demands of its service area for the 10-year planning period. The allocation of the underlying CUP (11-02298-W) only convers the withdrawals required to make the finished water demand until 2025. After 2025, the Permitted Surplus (Deficit) becomes negative. AMUC will need to increase their permitted consumptive use by 2025. Table 6-3. Water Capacity Analysis for AMUC 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population 2,924 5,803 9,065 12,713 Demand Per Capita (gpcd) 91 91 91 91 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD) 0.27 0.53 0.82 1.16 Available Facility Capacity (MGD) 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.50 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment1 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 Facility Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)2 0.73 0.47 0.18 2.34 Raw Water Requirement (MGD)3 0.31 0.62 0.97 1.37 Permitted Amount (MGD Annual Average)4 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 Permitted Surplus (Deficit) (MGD)5 0.85 0.54 0.19 (0.21) 1 The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 2 Calculated by subtracting Annual Average Daily Demand from Available Facility Capacity. 3 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the annual Average Daily Demand by the Raw-To-Finished -Water Adjustment. 4 CUP (11-02298-W) allocation is 1.16 MGD annual average and expires on October 19, 2020. 5 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 960 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 7-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 7 Conservation Regulations and Practices As the water supply in Florida becomes more taxed over time, the need to more efficiently utilize water resources will increase. The following subsections outline the conservation regulations and practices utilized by each of the utilities covered under this plan. The information provided has been taken directly from the water conservation plans approved by the SFWMD and included in each utility’s consumptive use permit. 7.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) The conservation plan implemented by CCWSD is described in the utility’s consumptive use permit as follows: The Collier County Board of Commissioners enacted Ordinance 2002-17, which reduced watering to three days per week (three times each for odd and even numbered addresses), in an effort to reduce water consumption. This ordinance also requires that rain sensor devices be installed on automatic irrigation systems. The Board initiated an ASR program to allow for the storage of excess water that can later be withdrawn to offset peak usage. Other water conservation measures designated by the SFWMD, which Collier County has enacted include: Requiring low flow plumbing fixtures as part of the Land Development Code (LDC); Encouraging the use of Florida Friendly landscapes and other drought-tolerant vegetation in portions of the LDC; Implementing water conservation rates that increase per-thousand gallon charges as usage increases; Monthly reading of all customers’ meters to minimize losses from unaccounted-for water; An active reuse program, which delivers over 4.5 billion gallons a year of reclaimed wastewater, to reduce irrigation withdrawals; Filter backwashing at the SCRWTP to eliminate water lost in cleaning filters; and Enacted in 2003 to further promote water conservation, the Board approved a mandatory water high-consumption surcharge, which is applied when the SFWMD implements water restrictions and impacts on only high-use consumers. In addition to these water conservation measures, the CCWSD and other County agencies endeavor to educate the public regarding water conservation through educational and outreach programs. Staff members routinely conduct presentations for schools, civic groups, homeowner associations, and other receptive groups. Division staff participates in events, such as “Senior 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 7 · Conservation Regulations and Practices 7-2 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Expo” and “Government Days,” to take the water conservation campaign to the public. Utility bill inserts and advertising have further helped to spread the message. The County has actively been promoting the “Fridays are Dry Days” campaign, which has become the tag line on commercials airing on radio stations throughout Collier County. These stations were selected to target a large number of consumers, including those who do not speak English. The tag line has also been utilized in several productions airing on the Collier County Government Channel. Public service announcements and specially produced videos promoting water conservation also air on the County’s government access television station, Channel 11/16. CCWSD has made significant strides towards improving and enhancing the efficiency of the Water Distribution System and aims to continue to do so over the next 10 years. Maintaining an efficient system with upgraded and preventive maintenance efforts keeps unplanned water losses to a minimum. CCWSD’s average unaccounted-for water is currently below 10 percent, according to the unaccounted water loss report submitted to the SFWMD. Traditionally, water loss in Collier County Water District has remained low due to aggressive water loss management practices. Figure 7-1 shows the unaccounted-for water loss over the past 15 fiscal years. As indicated in Figure 7-1, the CCWSD unaccounted-for water loss has lowered during the recent 10 years (period between 2008 to 2017) when compared to its preceding period. Figure 7-1 CCWSD Unaccounted-for Water Loss from FY2002 to FY20171 1 The CCWSD Unaccounted-for Water Loss from FY2002 to FY2013 was taken from the previous 2013 10-Year Water Supply Plan Update. Specific projects the CCWSD has or will undertake to further water conservation include: Ongoing effort to replace valves that are reaching the end of their useful life and to install and additional (20) valves per year to assist with increase responsiveness to system events. Mapping new areas incorporated into the district, including Golden Gate City, and North East Service Area (i.e. Orange Tree Utility). 9.7% 8.4%8.5% 11.5% 10.0% 12.2% 4.5% 3.3%4.0% 4.9% 3.1% 4.6% 3.8%4.0% 5.4% 9.3% 0.0% 2.5% 5.0% 7.5% 10.0% 12.5% 15.0%2002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017Percentage of Unaccounted-for Water LossFiscal Year 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 7 · Conservation and Practices 7-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 On-going effort to replace lead service lines that are traditionally a major portion of the water loss for the CCWSD. Considering the age of the service lines, CCWSD’s goal is to replace up to 75 service lines per year. Continue with the meter change-out program for the replacement of all ¾” to 2” potable meters. Of the over 56,000 meters originally identified by CCWSD, approximately 7,500 meters are left to replace. The meter change-out program is scheduled for completion by September 30, 2019. On-going activity of replacing water mains utilizing a “just in time” method methodology of replacement. Mains are replaced after several failures versus waiting until they become an operational issue. This improves service reliability and fire protection capacity and reduces the potential for water loss. Changes to the Utility Standards Ordinance now require developers of new areas to provide flushing stations for areas that may have concerns with maintaining sufficient residual. This results in the reduction of overall water loss due to required flushing to maintain disinfectant residuals. Collier County is actively completing water looping projects. Looping is promoted by imposing and tracking PUD commitments and through enforcement of design criteria which require all new potable water distribution systems to be looped. Looping conserves water by eliminating dead ends, which must be flushed to maintain minimum chloramine residuals. · Collier County’s projects that have been completed over the past five years are: o Wilshire Lakes, o Treefarm Road, o Twin Eagles, o Heritage Bay, o Waterways Boulevard, and o Orange Tree Boulevard. · The water looping projects planned over the next five years include: o Wildflower Way, o Warren Street, o Quarry/Esplanade, o Saturnia Lakes, and o Bergamot Lane. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 7 · Conservation Regulations and Practices 7-4 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Collier County Water District is proactively acquiring older utilities, such as Golden Gate City. This allows for sharing of water resources among a larger number of customers and enhanced maintenance, which will decrease unaccounted for water levels in these areas. Employing other contractual resources to perform leak detection for older areas of the Water District. 7.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) The conservation plan implemented by IWSD is described in the utility’s consumptive use permit as follows: Pursuant to the SFWMD Applicants Handbook for Water Use Permit Applications (September 2015), Section 2.3.2 F. 1. Water Conservation Requirements, all public water supply utilities are required to develop and implement a water conservation plan. Each of the mandatory water conservation elements must exist or have a proposed time frame for implementation. As mentioned earlier, the IWSD was established under Florida law and has specific duties and quasi- governmental rights. However, the authority to enact ordinances does not reside with that District. The applicant has stated they will request that Immokalee enact any required ordinances within a year of permit issuance. The applicant has provided the following water conservation plan elements: A. Permanent Irrigation Ordinance: An ordinance which restricts landscape irrigation to the hours of 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days per week, is currently not in effect for the service area. The utility will request that Immokalee adopt an ordinance for the service area within 1 year of permit issuance. B. Xeriscape Ordinance: An ordinance which requires the use of xeriscape landscape principles is currently not in effect. The utility will request that Immokalee adopt an ordinance for the service area within 1 year of permit issuance. C. Ultra-Low Volume Plumbing Fixture Ordinance: An ordinance which requires ultra- low volume plumbing fixtures on all new construction is in effect for the service area. D. Water Conservation Rate Structure: The applicant has a conservation-based rate structure, which includes increasing block rates as a means of reducing demands. E. Leak Detection Program: The applicant does not have an unaccounted-for water and leak detection program because the unaccounted-for water losses are less than 10 percent. F. Rain Sensor Device Ordinance: An ordinance which requires any person who purchases and installs an automatic lawn sprinkler system to install, operate, and maintain a rain sensor device or automatic switch which will override the irrigation system with the occurrence of adequate rainfall is currently not in effect for the service area. The utility will request that Immokalee adopt an ordinance within 1 year of the permit issuance. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 7 · Conservation and Practices 7-5 PW/6295/231366/03/01 G. Water Conservation Education Program: The applicant distributes pamphlets, makes school visits, and provides information booths for employees and customers. Information signs, press releases, and messages about water conservation on the bills are also utilized. H. Reclaimed Water: Currently, all wastewater effluent is disposed of via a spray irrigation field and percolation ponds. 7.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) The conservation plan implemented by AMUC is described in the utility’s consumptive use permit as follows: Per Section 2.3.2 F of the SFWMD Applicants Handbook for Water Use Permit Applications, public water supply in excess of 500,000 gpd requires a water conservation plan addressing the following conservation elements: Permanent Irrigation Ordinance, Xeriscape Ordinance, Ultra- Low Volume Plumbing Fixture Ordinance, Water Conservation Rate Structure, Leak Detection Program, Rain Sensor Device Ordinance, Water Conservation Education Program, and Reclaimed Water Use. The following information is provided. A. Permanent Irrigation Ordinance: One of the water conservation efforts the Ave Maria University and Town will pursue is adoption of an irrigation ordinance to limit irrigation water usage during the dry season. The planned ordinance would follow watering restrictions adopted by Collier County, including limiting daytime watering times and limiting the number of days that lawns could be watered. The irrigation ordinance would also likely follow an even/odd address watering system. B. Xeriscape Landscape Ordinance: The University and Town of Ave Maria will pursue adoption of an ordinance which recommends the use of xeriscape principles in landscape planning for all new construction. The ordinance would encourage implementation of xeriscape landscaping practices including use of mulches, native and drought tolerant plants, and limited turf areas. C. Ultra-Low Volume Plumbing Standards: The university and town of Ave Maria will pursue adopting an ordinance requiring ultra-low volume plumbing fixtures in all new construction. The standards proposed in the planned Ave Maria Plumbing Code would, in most cases, be as stringent as the ultra-low plumbing standards stipulated in the SFWMD Water Conservation Plan Development Guidelines. D. Water Conservation Rate Structure: The Town of Ave Maria plans to utilize an inclining block rate structure in order to promote water conservation. Residential and commercial water rates will consist of a monthly capacity cost charge (base rate) and a monthly commodity costs charge (volume charge). The commodity costs charges will increase with increased volume use. For example, residential costs increase from $1.75 per thousand gallons for under 5,000 gallons, to $4.00 per thousand gallons for quantities over 30,000 gallons. The details and the planned water rate schedule have not been specifically determined yet. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 965 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Section 7 · Conservation Regulations and Practices 7-6 PW/6295/231366/03/01 E. Leak Detection & Distribution System Losses Program: A leak detection program will be implemented by the AMUC if system losses exceed 10 percent. The leak detection program will likely utilize the Rural Water Association (RWA) sonic type leak detection equipment. System losses may be attributable to known line breaks. The Ave Maria Utilities Department will repair water main and service line breaks as soon as possible to minimize and prevent distribution system losses. F. Sprinkler System Rain Sensor: The Town of Ave Maria will recommend installation of rain sensor devices on automatic lawn sprinkler systems for all new construction. G. Public Education Programs: The AMUC will pursue public education programs on water conservation and community responsibility. The programs could include presentations by Utility staff, such as water conservation topics discussed during tours conducted at its facilities. H. Water Treatment Plant and Waste Water Reclamation Facility. Educational brochures on water conservation, landscaping and xeriscape can be distributed by the Utility offices. The AMUC could also include water conservation information to all customers along with monthly billing statements. I. Reclaimed Water: The most important element of Ave Maria’s Water Conservation Plan is utilization of a reclaimed water system for irrigation. The Town and University will pursue the use of as much reclaimed water as possible and will likely be able to utilize 100 percent of the reclaimed water generated. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 966 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 8-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 8 Capital Improvement Projects Section 5 of this plan focused on the projects that each of the utilities have planned for the 10- year planning period. Attention was paid to the amount of water made available and when it would be made available. The following subsections present the capital improvement projects planned by each utility, including the funding source, project number, project name, and cost estimate for each project. 8.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) The most recent lists of CCWSD water and wastewater capital improvement projects were developed as part of the Fiscal Year 2017 Water and Wastewater User Rate Study. The capital improvement projects pertinent to future water supply are summarized in Table 8-1. CCWSD funds its water and wastewater projects from four funds: 411 – Water Impact Fees, 412 – Water User Fees, 413 – Wastewater Impact Fees, and 414-Wastewater User Fees. Impact fees are utilized to pay for expanded supply projects, while user fees are used to fund operations, maintenance, and replacement of existing facilities. 8.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) The most recent lists of IWSD water and wastewater capital improvement projects were developed as part of the Fiscal Year 2018 Water and Wastewater Utility Rate Study. The capital improvement projects pertinent to future water supply are summarized in Table 8-2. IWSD funds its water and wastewater projects from Seven funds: USDA Water Grant Funds, USDA Water Loan Funds, USDA Wastewater Grant to be obtained, USDA Wastewater Loan to be obtained, Rate Revenue – Sewer (RRS), Rate Revenue – Water (RRW), and funds to be determined at a later date (TBD). 8.3 Ave Maria Utility Company (AMUC) AMUC is currently in the process of updating their CIP and is unable to provide reliable information at the time of writing this report (October 2018). The capital improvement projects for AMUC future water supply that were provided in the 2018 LWCWSP are summarized in Table 8-3. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 967 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Funding Source Project NumberProjectFY2013 - FY20182FY2018 - FY20222 411 - Water31411 Operating Project-Impact Fee Refunds WTBDI411 - WaterWTBDI Potable Water Storage Tank online 2028$6,020,000411 - WaterWTBD2 Water Treatment Expansion online 2033$1,000,000412 - Water50105 Integrated Asset Management Program$3,388,000 $8,512,000412 - Water70010 Water Meter Renewal and Replacement Program $3,500,000 $5,000,000412 - Water70014 Real Property Infrastructure Audit$250,000 $500,000412 - Water70019 Cross Connections Program$2,175,000 $5,675,000412 - Water70023 Fire Hydrants Replacement $1,800,000 $3,300,000412 - Water70031 Utility Master Plan$265,000 $290,000412 - Water70034 Water Plant Concrete Structure Rehabilitation$1,275,000 $2,525,000412 - Water70045 FDOT Utility Construction Projects$2,100,000 $4,200,000412 - Water70071 Countywide Utility Projects-Water$750,000 $1,500,000412 - Water70084 Wellfield SCADA Support Operating$1,100,000 $2,600,000412 - Water70085 Wellfield/Raw Water Booster Station Op TSP$5,500,000 $10,500,000412 - Water70087 Vanderbuilt Drive WM Rehab412 - Water70088 SCRWTP Deep Injection Well $200,000 $200,000412 - Water70102 SCWTP SCADA Support Operating$1,100,000 $2,650,000412 - Water70109 Lime Treatment $3,800,000 $4,800,000412 - Water70113 Fac Infrastructure Main Water $2,065,000 $3,965,000412 - Water70114 Infrastructure TSP Field Ops-Water$1,110,000 $2,190,000412 - Water70118 Infrastructure TSP-Water Plants 2490000$2,490,000 $4,630,000412 - Water70121 Utility Billing Customer Serv System $1,500,000 $1,500,000412 - Water70123 Naples Park Water Main Replacement$20,000,000 $20,000,000412 - Water70125 Barron Collier HS Water Main Replacement 412 - Water70126 Airport Rd Water Main Replacement 412 - Water70129 Vanderbilt Bch Rd WM Rpl-Airport to 41412 - Water70130 Quarry/Heritage Bay Water Main Replacement 412 - Water70131 Large Meters Renewal and Replacement$1,000,000 $2,000,000412 - Water70132 SCRWTP Power Systems Reliability 412 - Water70133 Well/Water Booster Station TSP412 - Water70134 Imperial GC Blvd Water Main Replacement412 - Water70135 SCRWTP Reactor #4$2,500,000 $2,500,000Table 8-1. CCWSD Capital Improvement Projects1PW/6295/231366/03/018-29.A.4.ePacket Pg. 968Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Funding Source Project NumberProjectFY2013 - FY20182FY2018 - FY20222 Table 8-1. CCWSD Capital Improvement Projects1412 - Water70136 SCRWTP Capital TSP 412 - Water70137 NCRWTP SCADA TSP 412 - Water70138 SCRWTP SCADA TSP 412 - Water70172 Gulfshore Dr AC WM Abandon Ph 2 (cap)412 - Water70202 Collier County Utility Standards$100,000 $200,000412 - Water71009 Security Upgrades$2,300,000 $4,800,000412 - Water71010 Distribution System TSP$4,460,000 $9,460,000412 - Water71047 10 Year Water Supply Plan$100,000 $100,000412 - Water71055 NCRWTP SCADA Support Operating$1,265,000 $2,840,000412 - Water71056 SCADA Compliance Assurance Program-Water $410,000 $930,000412 - Water71057 Membrane Treatment $1,100,000 $1,100,000412 - Water71058 General Legal Services$150,000 $400,000412 - Water71063 NCRWTP Variable Frequency Drives Replace $1,400,000 $2,900,000412 - Water71065 SCRWTP Operating TSP$2,850,000 $5,350,000412 - Water71066 NCRWTP Operating TSP$2,800,000 $5,300,000412 - Water71067 Distribution Repump Station TSP$1,900,000 $4,400,000412 - Water74310 State Revolving Loan Funding $30,000 $80,000412 - Water75005 Wellfield Program $700,000 $1,450,000412 - Water75017 PUD Hydraulic Modeling $400,000 $900,000412 - Water75018 Financial Services $150,000 $300,000412 - Water75019 GM Comprehensive Planning Technical Support $75,000 $200,000412 - WaterWNEW1 Naples Park US41CI Pipe Replacement 412 - WaterWNEW2 Bay Colony Appurtenances Replacement412 - WaterWNEW3 Glades AC Pipe Removal $1,250,000 $1,250,000412 - WaterWNEW4 High TDS Treatment Bridge the Gap$3,000,000412 - WaterWNEW5 Old Lely AC Pipe Replacement $8,000,000 $8,000,000412 - WaterWNEW6 Tamiami Wellfield-Two Wells $1,500,000 $1,500,000412 - WaterWNEW7 Cyber Security SCADA$100,000 $100,000412 - WaterWNEW8 Future Distribution Projects $12,000,000 $29,580,000412 - WaterWNEW9 Naples Manor AC Pipe Replacement $10,400,000412 - WaterWNEW10 Palm River AC Pipe Replacement$15,100,000412 - WaterWNEW11 YMCA AC Pipe Replacement $110,000 $110,000PW/6295/231366/03/018-39.A.4.ePacket Pg. 969Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Funding Source Project NumberProjectFY2013 - FY20182FY2018 - FY20222 Table 8-1. CCWSD Capital Improvement Projects1412 - WaterWNEW12 SCRWTP Odor Control $15,000,000412 - WaterWNEW13 Equip NRO Well 118412 - WaterWNEW14 Equip NRO Well 120 $750,000 $750,000412 - WaterWNEW15 Rehabilitate Two Tamiami Wells $750,000412 - WaterWNEW16 NCRWTP Generators 1 & 4$1,500,000412 - WaterWNEW17 PUD Operations Center$2,000,000 $2,000,000413 - Wastewater WWTBD1None - Operating Project - Impact Fee Refunds413 - Wastewater WWTBD2Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion online 2032$2,000,000413 - Wastewater WWTBD3None - Operating Project - Impact Fee Refunds413 - Wastewater WWTBD4IQ Expansion/Business Plan$15,000,000414 - Wastewater 50105Integrated Asset Management$25,500,000 $5,200,000414 - Wastewater 50110Biosolids Reuse Facility$200,000$200,000414 - Wastewater 70014Real Property/Infrastructure Audit$200,000$450,000414 - Wastewater 70031Utilities Master Plan$460,000$770,000414 - Wastewater 70043Gravity Sewers TSP CAP $21,500,000414 - Wastewater 70044Force Main Improvements Cap$5,500,000$1,800,000414 - Wastewater 70046Wastewater Pump Station$19,500,000$50,000,000414 - Wastewater 70050Master Pump Stations TSP Cap $7,500,000$23,500,000414 - Wastewater 70051Wastewater Collection Power System Cap$500,000 $3,840,000414 - Wastewater 70053NCWRF Power System TSP $800,000 $3,550,000414 - Wastewater 70055SCWRF Power System Cap$700,000 $2,900,000414 - Wastewater 70060NCWRF SCADA Support Operating$1,500,000 $3,520,000414 - Wastewater 70061SCWRF SCADA Support Operating $1,000,000 $2,300,000414 - Wastewater 70117WW Remote Sites MSP$1,250,000 $2,450,000414 - Wastewater70119 WW Treatment Plant MSP$2,250,000 $4,360,000414 - Wastewater 70121Utility Billing Customer Serv System$1,500,000 $1,500,000414 - Wastewater 70139Basin 101 Program Capital 414 - Wastewater 70139Creekside Phase 2 Force Main414 - Wastewater 70139MPS 101.12$4,500,000$4,500,000414 - Wastewater 701398th Street Interceptor Sewer$2,000,000 $2,000,000414 - Wastewater 70141Basin 305 Program Capital414 - Wastewater 70141MPS 305 Group 1 Pump Stations$1,640,000 $1,640,000414 - Wastewater 70141CPS 309.09$1,000,000 $1,000,000414 - Wastewater 70141MPS 308$3,000,000 $3,000,000414 - Wastewater 70141MPS 309$1,000,000 $1,000,000PW/6295/231366/03/018-49.A.4.ePacket Pg. 970Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Funding Source Project NumberProjectFY2013 - FY20182FY2018 - FY20222 Table 8-1. CCWSD Capital Improvement Projects1414 - Wastewater 70142Basin 306 Program Capital 414 - Wastewater 70143Gravity Transmission Systems TSP$100,000 $600,000414 - Wastewater 70144Force Main Transmissions TSP$2,000,000 $6,000,000414 - Wastewater 70145WW Pump Station TSP $4,100,000 $4,600,000414 - Wastewater 70146Master PS TSP Op$3,000,000 $8,000,000414 - Wastewater 70147Collections Power System TSP$100,000 $600,000414 - Wastewater 70148Water Reclamation Facilities TSP $25,000,000 $56,500,000414 - Wastewater 70149NCWRF Headwork and IQ Pump Station $14,000,000 $17,000,000414 - Wastewater 70159NCWRF SCADA TSP $100,000 $600,000414 - Wastewater 70162SCWRF SCADA TSP$100,000 $600,000414 - Wastewater 70164WW Collections SCADA Telemetry$100,000 $600,000414 - Wastewater 70167PUD Operations/Collection Facility$2,000,000 $2,000,000414 - Wastewater 70202County Utility Standards$125,000 $250,000414 - Wastewater 71058General Legal Services$500,000 $1,010,000414 - Wastewater 72013Facility Infrastructure Maint Wastewater$1,750,000 $3,510,000414 - Wastewater 72505WW Security Systems $2,500,000 $5,000,000414 - Wastewater 72541SCADA Compliance Assurance Program-Wastewater $375,000 $920,000414 - Wastewater 73045FDOT Utility Construction Projects - WW$1,200,000 $3,700,000414 - Wastewater 73065CW Util Proj-WW$1,000,000 $2,000,000414 - Wastewater 73922WW Collection SCADA Telemetry $1,480,000 $3,780,000414 - Wastewater 73968NCWRF Technical Support Program$2,100,000 $2,100,000414 - Wastewater73969 SCWRF Technical Support Program$2,100,000 $2,100,000414 - Wastewater 74310State Revolving Loan Funding$30,000 $80,000414 - Wastewater 75017PUD Hydraulic Modeling$125,000 $250,000414 - Wastewater 75018Financial Services$150,000 $300,000414 - Wastewater 75019GM Comprehensive Planning Technical Support 414 - Wastewater 72009Western Interconnect414 - Wastewater 72009Livingston Rd FM Phases 2&6$2,800,000 $2,800,000414 - Wastewater 72009Livingston Rd FM Phase 7$3,000,000 $3,000,000414 - Wastewater 72009Livingston Rd FM Phase 8$3,000,000 $3,000,000414 - Wastewater 72009Livingston Rd FM Phase 9$2,000,000 $2,000,000414 - Wastewater WWNEWa Immokalee Rd FM (951 to Logan Blvd Phase) $1,800,000 $1,800,000414 - Wastewater WWNEWbLogan Blvd FM (Immokalee Rd to VBR)$3,000,000 $3,000,000414 - Wastewater WWNEWcMPS 104 Reconfiguration and Rehabilitation$2,500,000 $2,500,000414 - Wastewater WWNEWdMPS 310 Reconfiguration and Rehabilitation $2,000,000 $2,000,000PW/6295/231366/03/018-59.A.4.ePacket Pg. 971Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Funding Source Project NumberProjectFY2013 - FY20182FY2018 - FY20222 Table 8-1. CCWSD Capital Improvement Projects1414 - Wastewater WWNEWeOld Lely Gravity Sewer Replacement$6,900,000 $6,900,000414 - Wastewater WWNEWfPalm River Gravity Sewer Replacement$500,000 $1,500,000414 - Wastewater WWNEW1MPS 302 Reconfiguration$3,000,000 $3,000,000414 - Wastewater WWNEW2Naples Park Gravity Sewer Replacement $22,500,000 $31,500,000414 - Wastewater WWNEW3Cyber Security SCADA$100,000 $100,000414 - Wastewater 70056IQ Power Systems $240,000414 - Wastewater 70062IQ SCADA Support Operating $1,000,000 $2,000,000414 - Wastewater 70166IQ Water System TSP $2,000,000 $4,100,000414 - Wastewater 70163IQ SCADA TSP$100,000 $600,000414 - Wastewater 74030IQ Aquifer Storage and Recovery$1,050,000 $2,450,000414 - Wastewater 74030Design ASR Wells #'s 3, 4, & 5 (cap)$300,000 $300,000414 - Wastewater 74030Construct ASR Well #3 (Cap)$2,000,000414 - Wastewater 74030Construct ASR Well #4 (Cap)$2,000,000414 - Wastewater 74030Construct ASR Well #5 (Cap)1 Cost estimates taken from the Collier County 2014 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates adopted by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on June 10, 2014.2 All costs presented in 2014 dollars.PW/6295/231366/03/018-69.A.4.ePacket Pg. 972Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Funding Source Project NumberProjectFY2018 - FY2023 FY2023 - FY2028USDA Wastewater Grant/Loan to be obtainedWW-01Rehab Three Existing Clarifiers$1,802,945Rate Revenue - SewerWW-02Line 18" Clay Pipe Sewers from N.18th & Roberts to WWTP$697,000Rate Revenue - SewerWW-03Line 8" Clay Pipe Sewers in "I" Section$697,000Rate Revenue - SewerWW-04Line 8" Clay Pipe Sewers in Farm Worker's Village "A" Section$697,000Rate Revenue - SewerWW-05Line 56 Manholes Throughout System$140,000$70,000Rate Revenue - SewerWW-06Rehab Lift Station X8 & Abandon Lift Station X1$565,000Rate Revenue - SewerWW-07Rehab Lift Stations X6, O2 & S; Replace 6" Plug Valve at N. 9th Street & Lake Trafford Road $850,000Rate Revenue - SewerWW-08Lift Station X4 Generator$180,000TBDWW-09New 3.0 MGD Public Access Re-Use Water System$2,185,000TBDWW-10Deep Injection Well #2$6,200,000USDA Wastewater Grant/Loan/RRWW-01Replacement of AC Water Mains and Undersized Water Mains throughout the System$21,210,900Rate Revenue - WaterW-02Fuel Storage Tank at Airport WTP$100,000Rate Revenue - WaterW-03Madison & Heritage Water Main Loop$70,000TBDW-04New 2.5 MGD Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Plant$400,000$11,000,000RRS/RRWGP-01New Maintenance Building$680,000RRS/RRWGP-02Fuel Storage Tanks at JVW WTP & WWTP$220,000TBDGP-03District Wide Water and Sewer Expansion$100,000$6,500,000Table 8-2. IWSD Capital Improvement Projects11 IWSD CIP 2018-2023. PW/6295/231366/03/018-79.A.4.ePacket Pg. 973Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Funding Source Project NumberProjectFY2018 - FY2023 FY2023 - FY2028n/a n/a Sandstone Aquifer 2.5 mgd RO treatment plant $6,300,000n/a n/a Phased Expansion of Reclamation Plant $2,040,000Table 8-3. AMUC Capital Improvement Projects1, 21 Per an email update from the County on October 24, 2018, AMUC is currently in the process of updating their CIP and could not provide current information at the time of writing this report (October 2018). 2 Planned projects and cost estimates for AMUC were taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. PW/6295/231366/03/018-89.A.4.ePacket Pg. 974Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Interlocal Agreement between CCWSD and the City of Naples Appendix A 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 975 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 976 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 977 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 978 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 979 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 980 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 981 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 982 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 983 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 984 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 985 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 986 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 987 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 988 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 989 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 990 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Ordinance Integrating Goodland Water District into CCWSD Appendix B 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 991 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Agreement for Potable Water Service Calusa Island Village (Goodland Area) Appendix C 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 995 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 996 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 997 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 998 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 999 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1000 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1001 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1002 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1003 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1004 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1005 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1006 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1007 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1008 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1009 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1010 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1011 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1012 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1013 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1014 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1015 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1016 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1017 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1018 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1019 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1020 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1021 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Potable Water Bulk Services Agreement between CCWSD and the City of Marco Island Notice of Termination Appendix D 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1022 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1023 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1024 Attachment: [Linked] 9.A.4. Drft 10 Year Water Supply Plan_PL20180002552 (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) 9.A.4.f Packet Pg. 1025 Attachment: NDN-2160700_CCPC_Ad (7224 : 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT S 00 %�e POTABLE WATER SUB-ELEMENT OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) Petitions: PL20180002552-CPSP-2018-6 CCPC: DECEMBER 6, 2018 BCC: JANUARY 8, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS CCPC GMP TRANSMITTAL AMENDMENT DECEMBER 6, 2018 1) TAB: Transmittal Staff Report DOCUMENT: CCPC Staff Report: PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 2) TAB: Resolution DOCUMENT: Transmittal Resolution with Exhibit "A"text (and/or maps): PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 3) TAB: Project PL20180002551/ DOCUMENT: Ten Year Water Supply Plan Petition CPSP-2018-6 4) TAB: Legal Advertisements DOCUMENT: CCPC Advertisement Agenda Item #9.A.4 Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) FROM: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION, GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: December 6, 2018 RE: Petition PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6, Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, Growth Management Plan Amendment. (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) NOTE: This petition also requires a recommendation by the CCPC sitting as the Environmental Advisory Council. AGENT/APPLICANT: Public Utilities Department Engineering and Project Management Division Collier County Government 3339 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment is not specific to a certain location. REQUESTED ACTION: The proposed text change seeks to amend the Potable Water Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element to update the reference to our next Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, as required of Collier County government by Section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes. Policy 1.7 is proposed to be amended as follows: [Note: Current Potable Water Sub-Element language appears below in plain text, the proposed amendment is shown in strike-through/underline format. Objective 1 of the Sub-Element is included for background/clarity purposes] PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 1 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan — Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element Agenda Item #9.A.4 Proposed Potable Water Sub-Element Text Amendment: [page 2] OBJECTIVE 1: Locate and develop potable water supply sources to meet the future needs of the County owned and operated systems, said supply sources meeting the minimum Level of Service Standards established by this Plan. The development and utilization of new potable water supply sources and the acquisition of land necessary for such development shall be based upon the information, guidelines and procedures identified within the County's Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (as updated) and the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan prepared by the South Florida Water Management District. [Note: No revisions to Policies 1.1 through 1.6 are proposed.] Policy 1.7: The County has developed the Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, dated October 2013 November 2018, in accordance with the water supply guidelines of the most current version of the South Florida Water Management District's Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan. The County's Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan is incorporated herein by reference. STAFF ANALYSIS: As indicated in Policy 1.7 of the Public Facilities Element, Potable Water Sub-Element, the County has developed the Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (Appendix A). The proposed text amendment seeks to adopt the updated version of the County's plan, which has been prepared in accordance with the most current version of the South Florida Water Management District's Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan. The updated version of the Ten- Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan is proposed for incorporation into the County's GMP by reference. Regional Planning: In December 2017, the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) approved the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan (LWCWSP) Update. Under Florida law (section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes) Collier County must adopt amendments to its comprehensive plan within 18 months of the SFWMD approval of the update. These amendments include the development of an updated 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan and amendments to the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The LWCWSP amendment required the five water management districts to initiate regional water supply planning in all areas of the State. The purpose of regional water supply planning is to develop strategies to meet future water demands of urban and agricultural uses, while meeting the needs of the environment. This process identifies historical uses of water and water source options to meet potential shortfall. Each regional water supply plan is based on at least a 10-year future planning horizon, and a complete update of each plan is required every five years. PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 2 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan—Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element Agenda Item #9.A.4 The Lower West Coast Water Supply Planning Area includes Lee County and portions of Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry and Monroe counties. The 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update (LWC Update)was approved by the SFWMD Governing Board in December 2017. The LWC Update assesses projected water demands and potential sources of water for the period through 2040. i _—.— PORT .. —-_�• i CHARLOTTE SF W MO ' �� CHARLOTTE � ---"'"1-...-T SWFWMO ,,i t 4.""—\ 1 GLADES �� S �;.. SFWMD x i 578 A LABELLE arbor iii\ ' Ill k, ::::. , L. l Okaloacoochec _T—tx.Ew157CN .�� �P •, 4 r. CORAL p....,.. „ .... I �_ FORT I ACRES ktasti...4,,,,,esi k A. r� LEE R'4rJ �—I ,t i_.—._�.Y - i HENDRY I Corkscrew 1 i \.- P r.rr'" drsist ' 1, COLLIER -'^"" i t, .Ic,Strand ; ,'t"_.;. � ,State Forest 6 1 I.F OF �'V " \ i IIFAICO 1 „ Big l Cypress '- ', National ;- `\MARCO +" I Preserve :' \\ISLAND RoakarY 8ry .` ✓: I Napo.'Eshlrnne. r I ;.Research RrAerva NWF WMDTe./ ,• - SRWMD MONROE SJRWMD \.•. _... i, SWFWMD GI LI in k ' BrunS , y SFWMD ", ,i.'/7 0 5 10 20 i LOCATION MAP a- ., ' 1 1 Miles rds,vd4ad*ooCOSIOS es'SLnt7J.ITaadF1f7LVC W Qn1_FgImA Source:2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 3 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan— Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element Agenda Item #9.A.4 Local Planning: On February 25, 2003 the Board of County Commissioners adopted an update to the County's 2001 Water Master Plan, to provide an integrated approach for meeting the projected water system demands up to the year 2022. The "2002 Water Master Plan Update" provided for comprehensive overview of the entire water system, including emergency systems, water demand projections and demands and proposed conservation and reclaimed water projects, and provided a plan for future water supply and infrastructure needs to meet the requirements of growth, infrastructure renewal, replacement and enhancement over a course of five years. Water demands were provided at five-year increments to be consistent with the 2000 Lower West Coast Regional Water Supply Plan. During the State of Florida's 2005 legislative session, lawmakers revised state water law to include a new statutory provision. Local governments within the Lower West Coast Planning Area are required to prepare a Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan that identifies water supply projects and adopt revisions to comprehensive plans within 18 months following the approval of the most current version of the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update. On January 25, 2007, as part of the 2004 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) based amendments, and in preparation of the anticipated Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, Collier County adopted language to coordinate water supply planning with SFWMD. Modifications of various Goals, Objectives and Policies (GOPs), as required by these legislative actions, were addressed through the GMP amendment to the Potable Water Sub-Element, the Conservation and Coastal Management Element and the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. The amendments referenced the 2002 Water Master Plan Update and any updates as the County's water supply planning document. During the County's 2011 EAR-based amendments, references to the County's 2002 Water Master Plan document were further revised to note the adopted Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (dated October 2008) as the County's appropriate document for water supply planning. On February 24, 2009, the County adopted its first Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, by Ordinance No. 09-04. It was based on the guidelines of the 2005-2006 Lower West Coast Plan Update, subsequently adopted. In December 2017, the SFWMD's Governing Board approved the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update. Therefore, Collier County must adopt the proposed GMP text amendment that references the proposed Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan by May 15, 2019 (or 18 months after the District Governing Board approved each regional water supply plan) [s. 163.3177(6)(c), F.S.]. PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 4 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan— Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element Agenda Item #9.A.4 Proposed 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan update: As noted in the attached 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, the updated document addresses the following objectives: • Identifies population and water demands of the County and each utility for the planning period, 2019 to 2028. • Presents existing and planned potable and reclaimed water facilities that will be utilized to meet demand projections. • Identifies sources of raw water needed for potable water and irrigation water supply to meet demands through the year 2028. • Identifies the steps necessary to develop additional potable and reclaimed water supplies and specifies when they must occur and how they will be funded. • Demonstrates that the water supply plans for each utility within the County are feasible with respect to facility capacity to be developed and consumptive use permit allocations required. • Describes the conservation practices and regulations utilized by each utility to meet water supply demand. The population methodology used for the 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan is based on the County's latest adopted Annual Update Inventory Report and Capital Improvement Element (AUIR-CIE) available at the time the plan was created (2018 AUIR-CIE). Please note that because of updates to data, the proposed Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan will differ from the 2017 Lower West Coast Plan Update, as well as the most recent AUIR-CIE documents. These variances have been vetted with SFWMD staff, who agrees that the population methodology is appropriate. This 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan was prepared by the County's consultant, CDM Smith, in coordination with Public Utilities Department and Growth Management Department staff, as well as representatives from various private utilities, and includes the areas of the County served by the Collier County Water and Sewer District, the Ave Maria Utility Company (AMUC), and the Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD). Also referenced in the plan are the Lee Cypress Water and Sewer Co-Op, Inc, and the Port of The Islands Community Improvement District, as well as a number of small capacity water systems regulated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (see pages 2-6 and 2-7 of the attached plan). These did not meet the minimum size requirements to be included. In substance, the CCWSD portions of the Plan update provide detail behind the following broad subject areas: (a) Existing Facilities (Section 4): The CCWSD is served by three water treatment plants, the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant, the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant, and the Orange Tree Water Treatment Plant, with maximum finished water production capacities of 20 MGD, 32 MGD, and 0.75 MGD respectively. Four wellfields provide raw water for the plants, drawing from both brackish and non-brackish PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 5 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element Agenda Item #9.A.4 sources. Collier County has been a leader in the use of brackish water source production. Along with these production and wellfield facilities, the CCWSD contains over 1,000 miles of transmission and distribution pipelines, water storage tanks, pumping facilities, an aquifer storage and recover (ASR) system and approximately 56,000 individual service connections. In addition, the CCWSD operates one of the largest irrigation quality (IQ) water systems in south Florida. With contractual commitments of over 23 MGD to golf courses communities, parks and roadway medians, there is additional potential demand of over 28.5 MGD represented by communities that have been dual-piped. (b) Planned Water Supply Facilities (Section 5): Based on the 2018 AUIR population and Level of Service (LOS) standard, the Plan update indicates 2027 as the optimal first production year for the new Northeast Regional Water Treatment Plant Wellfield Phase 1. Components of this regional improvement include the Phase 1 Water Treatment Plant, the Phase 1 wellfield, and all associated transmission pipelines, pumps and water storage tanks. The District's IQ water system will be enhanced by the development of 5 ASR wells that will allow storage of IQ water in the wet season for use in the dry season. Additional sources of IQ supply will be addressed, through permit allocations of groundwater and capture and storage of surface water. (c) Facilities Capacity Analysis (Chapter 6): Plans to bring online a new potable water treatment facility and associated wellfield during the 10-year period will allow CCWSD to stay ahead of the demand curve during the 10-year planning period. (d) Conservation (Section 7): Conservation measures have been an important element in CCWSD planning for many years. Local regulations on domestic irrigation, low flow devices, Florida Friendly landscape principles, Fridays are Dry Days, and a block rate structure have been employed and will be continually improved. A meter replacement program is now underway, and efficiency gains at the Regional Plants and throughout the Distribution system are being realized. (e) Capital Improvement Projects (Section 8): Subsections present the capital improvement projects planned by each utility, including the funding source, project number, project name, and cost estimate for each project. A depiction of the District boundaries for each of the covered utilities follows. PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 6 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan— Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element Agenda Item #9.A.4 Collier County Water-Sewer District Current and Future Potable Water Service Areas (2018 AUIR) I R25S I R26S I R27S I R28S I R29S I R30S I e eo ~ Immokalee Water&Sewer District y�11 11® lilcuilill I - . I t �, ilia I 0■011 -v ; 01111®® mermai is mil 111=11111 51 t Ave MariaIII IV co IL t ; it -i-, 111111111111111111111 ,........... 0 ,,,...4,111,,,,a., ,-,,,PI.,:--,,,, ....RR 111111. ,, , - II ,.. 1111PIPPI t. ill , --- .."- E.211111111 . , .UD 551 gym= t ® 1LL ::IIIMIIIIIIII ■ , ,5 io i g ' l ,., , cnCity of Naples '' 111/1111110111111111 i 2 L. ®g a. _ :' ®1 L Legend Regional Water Service Area ( illil eft Northeast Water Service Area ®? 1 Served by Others D—• ! I 1ED Excluded From CCWSD by Special Act 11111111 IIpjI J Stewardship District � i s Jurisdictional Boundary City of Marco Island 1 "'.r co 111P 0 �' 5 N 0 1 10 I � 41 A .. . . --,. Miles _ if* dill ■ Figure PW-1 I -.__, g Source:Collier County 10 Year Water Supply Plan Update(Draft),October 2018 PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 7 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan—Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element Agenda Item #9.A.4 Statutory Requirements: The Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) has published "A guide to Preparation of the Water Supply Facilities Work Plan". Local governments must comply with the following statutory requirements for water supply and facility planning (Each requirement followed by staff comment in bold and italics): 1. Coordinate appropriate aspects of their comprehensive plan with the appropriate water management district's regional water supply plan. [Section 163.3177(4)(a), F.S.]. The current GMP contains Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPs) that had been adopted with the purpose of maintaining coordination with the SFWMD's water supply plan. 2. Revise the Potable Water Sub-Element to adopt a water supply facilities work plan covering at least a 10-year planning period to meet existing and projected demand. The work plan should address those water supply facilities for which the local government has responsibility and include the facilities needed to develop alternative water supplies. The work plan should also identify conservation and reuse measures to meet future needs. [Section 163.3177(6)(c), F.S.] Policy 1.7 of the Potable Water Sub-Element was amended by Ordinance 09-04 to incorporate by reference the County's 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan. This proposed GMP amendment seeks to adopt the revised update to the plan, which identifies: the County's traditional and alternative water supply sources to meet existing and projected needs for the a 10- year period; the capital improvements that will be needed to develop, treat, and deliver those alternative supplies; and the conservation measures and reuse supplies utilized to offset demand for new water. The County also updates its Capital Improvement Element on a yearly basis through the AUIR-CIE to include the capital improvements needed in the first five years of the 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan. 3. Revise the Conservation Element to assess current and projected water needs and sources for at least a 10-year planning period. The analysis must consider the existing levels of water conservation, use, and protection and the applicable policies of the water management district, and the district's approved regional water supply plan. In the absence of an approved regional water supply plan, the analysis must consider the district's approved water management plan. [Section 163.3177(6)(d)3, F.S.] The current Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP contains Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPs) that consider the SFWMD's levels of water conservation, use, and protection. 4. Revise the Capital Improvements Element to identify capital improvements projects to be implemented in the first 5 years of the work plan for which the local government is responsible, including both publicly and privately funded water supply projects necessary to achieve and maintain adopted level of service standards; and adopt a 5-year schedule of capital improvements to include those projects as either funded or unfunded, and if unfunded, given a level of priority for funding. [163.3177(3)(a)4, F.S.] The County PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 8 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan—Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element Agenda Item #9.A.4 updates its Capital Improvement Element on a yearly basis through the AUIR-CIE to include the capital improvements needed in the first five years of the 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan. 5. Revise the Intergovernmental Coordination Element to adopt principles and guidelines to be used to coordinate the comprehensive plan with the regional water supply authority (if applicable) and with the applicable regional water supply plan. [163.3177(6)(h)1, F.S.] The current Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the GMP contains Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPs) that provide principles and guidance for coordination with the SFWMD and other public and private utilities in regard to water supply planning. 6. During the Evaluation and Appraisal review, determine if comprehensive plan amendments are necessary to reflect statutory changes related to water supply and facilities planning since the last update to the comprehensive plan. if necessary, transmit the amendments to incorporate the statutory changes as appropriate. [Section 163.3191(1) and (2), F.S.] The recently adopted County's EAR-based amendments included revisions to several of its Elements (not related to statutory changes) to revise references to the County's 2014 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Update document and include the adopted Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan and the Water Master Plan as the County's appropriate documents for water supply planning. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS The Collier County Land Development Code Chapter 10.03.00: Notice Requirements, establishes the required methods of providing public notice procedures and refers to Chapter 8 of the Collier County Administrative Code for Land Development (2018), which addresses information relating to public notice requirements for land use petitions (including when a Neighborhood Information Meeting is required.) The Administrative Code states, "The NIM is only for site-specific amendments." This project is not a site-specific amendment, therefore no NIM was held. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This staff report has been reviewed and approved by the Office of the County Attorney. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Planning Commission, sitting as the Environmental Advisory Council under Ordinances 2013-50 and 2013-51, and in its capacity as the local planning agency under Ch. 163.3174, F.S., forward Petition PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve for Transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. PL20180002552/CPSP-2018-6 9 Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan—Potable Water Sub element of the Public Facilities Element PREPARED BY: � -- _Qg �L DATE: I/ / —1 SUE FAULKNER, PRINCIPAL PLANNER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: ('2P LLILL DATE: DAVID WEEKS,AICP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION DATE: f(-- IS.' r9 MICHAEL BOSI,AICP, DIRECTOR ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: DATE: //- /G /39 JAMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION PETITION NO.: PL20180002552 CPSP-2018-6, Staff Report for the December 6, 2018, CCPC Meeting. NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the January 8, 2019, BCC Meeting. G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\COMP PLANNING GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments12018 GMPAs Outside of Cycle\CPSP-2018-6 Ten Yr.Water Supply Plan ICCPC STAFF REPORT 11 RESOLUTION NO. 19- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE POTABLE WATER SUBELEMENT OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT TO AMEND POLICY 1.7 TO REFERENCE THE UPDATED TEN YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN, AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. [PL20180002552] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Collier County staff has initiated this amendment to the Future Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2018, the Collier County Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section 163.3174, F.S., and has recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2019, the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing approved the transmittal of the proposed amendment to the state land planning agency in accordance with Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of Collier County's proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, various State agencies and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) have thirty (30) days to review the proposed amendment and DEO must transmit, in writing, to Collier County its comments within said thirty (30) days pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and [18-CMP-01043/144346611}41 Page 1 of 2 11/1/18 Words underlined are additions; Words struck-through struck-throughare deletions. *** *** *** ***are a break in text WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from DEO must adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment within one hundred and eighty (180) days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, the DEO, within five (5) days of receipt of Collier County's adopted Growth Management Plan Amendment, must notify the County of any deficiencies of the Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), F.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and other reviewing agencies thereby initiating the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan Amendment prior to final adoption. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote this day of , 2019. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk , Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone „A 1r to V Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit "A" [18-CMP-01043/1443466/1j41 Page 2 of 2 --� t 1/1/18 Words underlined are additions; Words struck through are deletions. *** *** *** *** are a break in text Exhibit A COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT Potable Water Sub-Element ******** ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ****** OBJECTIVE 1: [Page 2] Locate and develop potable water supply sources to meet the future needs of the County owned and operated systems, said supply sources meeting the minimum Level of Service Standards established by this Plan. The development and utilization of new potable water supply sources and the acquisition of land necessary for such development shall be based upon the information, guidelines and procedures identified within the County's Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (as updated), and the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan prepared by the South Florida Water Management District. ******** ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ****** Policy 1.7: The County has developed the Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan,dated October 2013 November 2018, in accordance with the water supply guidelines of the most current version of the South Florida Water Management District's Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan. The County's Ten-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan is attached hereto incorporated herein by reference. Words underlined are additions;Words struck through are deletions. *** *** *** *** are a break in text CCI‘C DRAFT WORK PLAN Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update November 2018 CDM smith Table of Contents r. Executive Summary ES-1 Section 1 Introduction 1-1 1.1 Plan Background 1-1 1.2 Plan Objectives 1-1 1.3 Information Sources 1-2 1.4 Plan Contents 1-2 Section 2 Water Service Areas 2-1 2.1 Overview of Collier County 2-1 2.2 Individual Utilities and Systems 2-1 2.2.1 Collier County 2-1 2.2.1.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District(CCWSD) 2-1 2.2.1.2 Goodland Water Sub-District 2-2 2.2.2 City of Naples 2-2 2.2.3 Everglades City 2-2 2.2.4 City of Marco Island Water and Sewer Service Areas 2-6 2.2.5 Immokalee Water and Sewer District(IWSD) 2-6 2.2.6 Ave Maria Utility Company,LLLP(AMUC) 2-6 2.2.7 Independent Districts 2-7 2.2.7.1 Lee Cypress Water and Sewer Co-op,Inc 2-7 2.2.7.2 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District 2-7 2.2.8 Water Systems Regulated by FL Department of Environmental Protection 2-7 Section 3 Population and Demand Projections 3-1 3.1 Countywide Projections 3-1 3.2 Individual Utilities 3-1 3.2.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District(CCWSD) 3-1 3.2.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District(IWSD) 3-2 3.2.3 Ave Maria Utility Company,LLLP(AMUC) 3-3 Section 4 Existing Water Supply Facilities 4-1 4.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District(CCWSD) 4-1 4.1.1 Water Supply Permits 4-1 4.1.2 Potable Water Facilities 4-2 4.1.2.1 Wellfields 4-2 4.1.2.2 Water Treatment Facilities 4-2 4.1.2.3 Pumping,Storage,and Transmission 4-9 4.1.3 Reclaimed Water Facilities 4-11 4.1.3.1 Water Reclamation Facilities 4-11 4.1.3.2 Reclaimed Water Pumping,Storage,and Transmission 4-14 4.1.3.3 Supplemental Wellfields 4-14 4.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District(IWSD) 4-16 4.2.1 Water Supply Permits 4-16 4.2.2 Potable Water Facilities 4-16 4.2.2.1 Wellfields 4-16 4.2.2.2 Water Treatment Facilities 4-18 --- 4.2.2.3 Pumping,Storage,and Transmission 4-19 smith PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table of Contents • 4.2.3 Reclaimed Water Facilities 4-19 4.3 Ave Maria Utility Company,LLLP(AMUC) 4-20 4.3.1 Water Supply Permits 4-20 4.3.2 Potable Water Facilities 4-20 4.3.2.1 Wellfields 4-20 4.3.2.2 Water Treatment Facilities 4-21 4.3.2.3 Pumping,Storage,and Transmission 4-21 4.3.3 Reclaimed Water Facilities 4-21 Section 5 Planned Water Supply Facilities 5-1 5.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District(CCWSD) 5-1 5.1.1 Potable Water Facilities 5-3 5.1.1.1 Wellfields 5-3 5.1.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities 5-5 5.1.1.3 Pumping,Storage,and Transmission 5-7 5.1.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities 5-11 5.1.2.1 Water Reclamation Facilities 5-11 5.1.2.2 Reclaimed Water Pumping,Storage,and Transmission 5-13 5.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District(IWSD) 5-13 5.2.1 Potable Water Facilities 5-13 5.2.1.1 Wellfields 5-13 5.2.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities 5-14 5.2.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities 5-16 5.3 Ave Maria Utility Company,LLLP(AMUC) 5-16 5.3.1 Potable Water Facilities 5-16 5.3.1.1 Wellfields 5-16 5.3.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities 5-16 5.3.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities 5-17 Section 6 Facilities Capacity Analysis 6-1 6.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District(CCWSD) 6-1 6.1.1 Concurrency Analysis 6-2 6.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District(IWSD) 6-2 6.3 Ave Maria Utility Company,LLLP(AMUC) 6-3 Section 7 Conservation Regulations and Practices 7-1 7.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District(CCWSD) 7-1 7.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District(IWSD) 7-4 7.3 Ave Maria Utility Company,LLLP(AMUC) 7-5 Section 8 Capital Improvement Projects 8-1 8.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District(CCWSD) 8-1 8.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District(IWSD) 8-1 8.3 Ave Maria Utility Company,LLLP(AMUC) 8-1 Appendices Appendix A Interlocal Agreement between CCWSD and the City of Naples Appendix B Ordinance Integrating Goodland Water District into CCWSD Appendix C Agreement for Potable Water Service Calusa Island Village(Goodland Area) csmith PW/6295/231366/03/01 • Table of Contents Appendix D Potable Water Bulk Services Agreement between CCWSD and the City of Marco Island Notice of Termination List of Figures Figure 2-1 Water District Boundaries of Collier County 2-4 Figure 2-2 CCWSD Potable/Reclaimed Water Composite Map 2-5 Figure 4-1 Existing CCWSD Wellfields and Raw Water Transmission Mains 4-3 Figure 4-2 Existing CCWSD Potable Water Treatment Facilities 4-4 Figure 4-3 Existing CCWSD Potable Water Storage Facilities 4-10 Figure 4-4 Existing CCWSD Potable Water Transmission Mains 4-12 Figure 4-5 Existing CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities 4-13 Figure 4-6 Existing CCWSD Reclaimed Water Distribution System 4-15 Figure 4-7 Existing IWSD Water Supply Facilities 4-17 Figure 5-1 Existing and Planned CCWSD Wellfields and Raw Water Transmission Mains...5-4 Figure 5-2 Existing and Planned CCWSD Potable Water Treatment Facilities 5-6 Figure 5-3 Existing and Planned CCWSD Potable Water Storage Facilities 5-8 Figure 5-4 Existing and Planned CCWSD Potable Water Transmission Mains 5-10 Figure 5-5 Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities 5-12 Figure 5-6 Existing and Planned IWSD Potable Water Facilities 5-15 Figure 7-1 CCWSD Unaccounted-for Water Loss from FY2002 to FY 2012 7-2 List of Tables Table ES-1 Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Treatment and Water Reclamation Facilities ES-2 Table ES-2 Capacity Analysis for CCWSD ES-3 Table ES-3 Summary of Existing and Planned IWSD Water Treatment and Water Reclamation Facilities ES-4 Table ES-4 Capacity Analysis for IWSD ES-4 Table ES-5 Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Water Treatment and Water Reclamation Facilities ES-5 Table ES-6 Capacity Analysis for AMUC ES-5 Table 2-1 Summary of Small Capacity Private Sector Water Systems Operating within Collier County 2-7 Table 3-1 Collier County Peak Season Population Estimates and Projections 3-1 Table 3-2 Population Projections for CCWSD Service Area 3-1 Table 3-3 Projected Population and Demand for Areas Served by CCWSD 3-2 Table 3-4 Population Projections for Areas Served by IWSD 3-2 Table 3-5 Project Population and Demand for Areas Served by IWSD 3-2 Table 3-6 Population Projections for Areas Served by AMUC 3-3 Table 3-7 Project Population and Demand for Areas Served by AMUC 3-3 Table 4-1 Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to CCWSD 4-1 Table 4-2 Existing CCWSD Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield 4-5 Table 4-3 Existing North Hawthorn RO Wellfield Summary 4-6 Table 4-4 Existing South Hawthorn RO Wellfield Summary 4-7 Table 4-5 Existing Orange Tree Wellfield Summary 4-8 CDM Smith ;ll PW/6295/231366/03/O1 Table of Contents Table 4-6 Summary of Existing CCWSD Water Treatment Facilities 4-9 Table 4-7 Summary of Existing CCWSD Water Storage Facilities 4-11 Table 4-8 Summary of Existing Water Reclamation Facilities 4-11 Table 4-9 Summary of Existing CCWSD Supplemental Wells 4-16 Table 4-10 Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to the Immokalee Water and Sewer District 4-16 Table 4-11 Summary of Existing IWSD Potable Water Wells 4-18 Table 4-12 Summary of Existing IWSD Water Treatment Facilities 4-19 Table 4-13 Summary of Existing IWSD Storage Facilities 4-19 Table 4-14 Summary of Existing IWSD Water Reclamation Facilities 4-20 Table 4-15 Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to AMUC 4-20 Table 4-16 Summary of Wells Operated by AMUC 4-20 Table 4-17 Summary of Existing AMUC Water Treatment Facility 4-21 Table 4-18 Summary of Existing AMUC Storage Facility 4-21 Table 4-19 Summary of Existing AMUC Water Reclamation Facility 4-22 Table 5-1 Planned NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1 Summary 5-3 Table 5-2 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD NERWTP Phase 1 Wellfield 5-5 Table 5-3 Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Treatment Facilities 5-7 Table 5-4 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD NERWTP Phase 1 5-7 Table 5-5 Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Storage Facilities 5-9 Table 5-6 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Water Storage Facilities 5-9 Table 5-7 Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities 5-11 Table 5-8 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities5-11 Table 5-9 Summary of Existing and Planned Reclaimed Water Storage Facilities 5-13 Table 5-10 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Reclaimed Water Storage Facilities 5-13 Table 5-11 Summary of Planned IWSD Wells 5-14 Table 5-12 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned IWSD Wells 5-14 Table 5-13 Summary of Existing and Planned IWSD Water Treatment Facilities 5-16 Table 5-14 Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Potable Water Treatment Facilities 5-17 Table 5-15 Major Tasks Required to Build Planned AMUC Potable Water Treatment Facilities 5-17 Table 5-16 Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Water Reclamation Facilities 5-17 Table 6-1 Capacity Analysis for CCWSD 6-1 Table 6-2 Capacity Analysis for IWSD 6-2 Table 6-3 Capacity Analysis for AMUC 6-3 Table 8-1 CCWSD Capital Improvement Projects 8-2 Table 8-2 IWSD Capital Improvement Projects 8-7 Table 8-3 AMUC Capital Improvement Projects 8-8 iv CSmith PW/6295/231366/03/01 • Table of Contents List of Acronyms AADD Annual Average Daily Demand AADF Annual Average Daily Flow ADD Average Daily Demand AMUC Ave Maria Utility Company(AMUC) ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery AUIR Annual Update and Inventory Report AWS Alternative Water Supply BCC Board of County Commissioners BEBR Bureau of Economic and Business Research Bls Below Land Surface CCCPD Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department CCWSD Collier County Water-Sewer District CDES Community Development and Environmental Services CIP Capital Improvement Plan CR County Road CUP Consumption Use Permits DIW Deep Injection Well EAR Evaluation and Appraisal Report ERC Equivalent Residential Connection FAC Florida Administrative Code FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FGUA Florida Government Utility Authority FY Fiscal Year GMP Growth Management Plan gpcd Gallons per Capita per Day gpd Gallons per Day HPRO High-Pressure Reverse Osmosis HZ1 Hawthorn Zone 1 Aquifer IE Ion Exchange IWSD Immokalee Water and Sewer District IQ Irrigation Quality LDC Land Development Code LH Lower Hawthorn Aquifer LOSS Level of Service Standard LPRO Low-Pressure Reverse Osmosis LS Lime Softening LT/LTA Lower Tamiami Aquifer LWCWSP Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan MF Membrane Filtration MG Million Gallons cSmith v PW/6295/231366/03/01 Table of Contents MGD Million Gallons Per Day MS Membrane Softening MMDD Maximum Month Daily Demand N/A Not Available NCRWTP North County Regional Water Treatment Plant NCWRF North County Water Reclamation Facility NERWTP Northeast Regional Water Treatment Plant NEWRF Northeast Water Reclamation Facility OTUC Orange Tree Utility Company OTWTP Orange Tree Water Treatment Plant PBWRF Pelican Bay Water Reclamation Facility PUD Public Utilities Division PSC Public Service Commission RIB Rapid Infiltration Basin RO Reverse Osmosis RWA Rural Water Association SA Sandstone Aquifer SCRWTP South County Regional Water Treatment Plant SCWRF South County Water Reclamation Facility SERWTP Southeast Regional Water Treatment Plant SEWRF Southeast Water Reclamation Facility SFWMD South Florida Water Management District UFA Upper Floridan Aquifer ULDC Unified Land Development Code WRF Water Reclamation Facility WT Water-Table Aquifer WTP Water Treatment Plant v; Smith PW/6295/231366/03/01 • Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank. CDM Smith vll PW/6295/231366/03/01 Executive Summary In December 2017,the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) approved the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan (LWCWSP) Update. Under Florida law(section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes) Collier County must adopt amendments to its comprehensive plan within 18 months of the SFWMD approval of the update. These amendments include the development of a 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan and amendments to the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Under the requirement of the Florida Statutes,the 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan for Collier County must include analysis of all water utilities in the County not serving a specific local government.These utilities include: • Collier County Water-Sewer District(CCWSD) • Immokalee Water and Sewer District(IWSD) • Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Utilities not included in this Plan are the City of Naples Utility Department, Marco Island Utilities, and Everglades City,each of which is responsible to develop a 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan to be included in its city's comprehensive plan. This 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update for Collier County has the following objectives: • Identify population and water demands of the County and each utility for the planning period of 2019 to 2028. • Present existing and planned potable and reclaimed water facilities that will be utilized to meet demand projections. • Identify sources of raw water needed for potable water and irrigation water supply to meet demands through the year 2028. • Identify the steps necessary to develop additional potable and reclaimed water supplies and specify when they must occur and how they will be funded. • Demonstrate that the water supply plans for each utility within the County are feasible with respect to facility capacity to be developed and consumptive use permit allocations required. • Describe the conservation practices and regulations utilized by each utility to meet water supply demand. The Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update was prepared by CDM Smith Inc. (CDM Smith) for the Collier County Growth Management Division. CSmith ES-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Executive Summary• Information for the Plan Update was solicited from each of the utilities included. All three utilities provided some level of information for inclusion in the Plan. Where information gaps existed, information on the existing and planned facilities was gathered from various sources including the SFWMD LWCWSP update, SFWMD consumptive use permits, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) public water supply and wastewater treatment facility permits, and the previous Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan,adopted in February 2014. After completion of the draft version of the Plan Update, copies were distributed to each of the utilities for review and comment. Comments provided by each of the utilities were incorporated into their sections of the Plan Update. The findings of the Plan Update are summarized below for each of the utilities. Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) During the 10-year planning period CCWSD has plans to develop a new potable water treatment facility to meet growing water demands.Table ES-1 summarizes the treatment capacity of the existing and planned potable water and water reclamation facilities for CCWSD. Table ES-1.Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Treatment and Water Reclamation Facilities' Facility Name Year Online Design Treatment Project Identified In Capacity(MGD) LWCWSP NCRWTP MF Online 12.00 N/A NCRWTP LPRO Online 8.00 N/A SCRWTP LS Online 12.00 N/A SCRWTP LPRO Online 20.00 N/A OTUC WTP Online 0.75 N/A NERWTP Phase 1 LPRO3 2027 1.25 Yes' NERWTP Phase 1 Ion Exchange' 2027 3.75 Yes' Total - 57.75 - NCWRF Online 24.10 N/A SCWRF Online 16.00 N/A NCWRF Expansion 2034 6.50 N/A NEWRF Phase 1 2023 4.00 Yes Total - 50.60 - 1 Information taken from the Collier County 2014 Master Plan Update and the 2018 AUIR. 2 Per the LWCWSP,the completion date for the NERWTP is 2033. 'Contingent on SFWMD Permitting of Raw Water Supply. In addition to the construction of the planned facilities indicated above, CCWSD intends to construct new wellfields, finished water storage,and distribution lines,which are presented in detail in the Plan Update. The information on CCWSD is reflective of the 2014 Water and ES-2 Csmith PW/6295/231366/03/01 Executive Summary• Wastewater Master Plan Updates,the Collier County 2018 Draft Annual Update and Inventory Report(AUIR) on public utilities,and the Collier County Water-Sewer District Fiscal Year 2017- 2027 Capital Improvement Plan. Based on population projections available for the CCWSD service area,a capacity analysis was performed looking at projected demand versus plant capacity and permitted allocation. The results of the capacity analysis are summarized below in Table ES-2. A discussion of the capacity analysis can be found in Section 6.1. As the capacity analysis illustrates, CCWSD has sufficient plant capacity existing or planned throughout the 2028 planning horizon. Table ES-2.Water Capacity Analysis for CCWSD 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population 195,207 241,422 271,671 300,839 Demand Per Capita(gpcd) 150 150 150 150 Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd 29.28 36.21 40.75 45.13 (MGD) Available Facility Capacity(MGD) 52.00 52.75 52.75 57.75 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment' 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 Facility Capacity Surplus(Deficit)(MGD)2 22.72 16.54 12.00 12.62 Raw Water Requirement(MGD)3 35.72 44.18 49.72 55.05 Permitted Amount(MGD Annual Average)4-5 55.53 56.18 56.18 56.18 Permitted Surplus(Deficit)(MGD)6 19.81 12.00 6.47 1.13 'The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 2 Calculated by subtracting Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd from Available Facility Capacity. 3 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. 4 CCWSD has two potable water supply consumptive use permits.CUP 11-00249-W allocation is 55.53 MGD annual average and expires on September 22,2036.CUP allocation 11-00419-W is 0.65 MGD and expires on March 7,2023. 5 CCWSD is proactive in renewing its CUPs in advance of expiration and intends to maintain the necessary CUPs to meet the raw water requirement. 6 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) Table ES-3 summarizes the treatment capacity of the existing and planned potable water facilities for IWSD. Based on population projections available for the IWSD service area,a capacity analysis was performed looking at projected demand versus plant capacity versus permitted allocation. The results of the capacity analysis are summarized below in Table ES-4. A discussion of the capacity analysis can be found in Section 6.2. Based on the capacity analysis,the improvements planned by the IWSD for the 10-year planning period are sufficient to meet the demands of the service area and the allocation of the underlying Consumptive Use Permit(CUP) (11-00013-W) is sufficient to cover the withdrawals required to make the finished water demand. Smith ES-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Executive Summary• Table ES-3 Summary of Existing and Planned IWSD Water Treatment Facilities'. Facility Name Year Design Treatment Project Identified Online Capacity(MGD) in LWCWSP Jerry V.Warden WTP Online 2.25 N/A Airport WTP Online 1.35 N/A Carson Road WTP Online 2.35 N/A RO WTP 2020 2.58 Yes Total - 8.71 - IWSD WRF Online 2.50 Yes IWSD WRF Expansion 2040 3.00 Yes Total - 5.50 - 'Information on the existing and planned water treatment facilities was taken from the 2017 Immokalee Water and Sewer District Public Facilities Report and the 2017 LWCWSP. Table ES-4.Water Capacity Analysis for IWSD 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population 22,747 25,717 27,616 29,948 Demand Per Capita(gpcd) 75 75 75 75 ..,.. Annual Average Daily Demand(MGD) 1.71 1.93 2.07 2.25 Available Facility Capacity(MGD)' 5.60 5.60 5.60 8.10 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment2 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 Facility Capacity Surplus(Deficit)(MGD)3 3.89 3.67 3.53 5.85 Raw Water Requirement(MGD)4 2.08 2.35 2.53 2.74 Permitted Amount(MGD Annual Average)5 4.15 4.15 4.15 4.15 Permitted Surplus(Deficit)(MGD)6 2.07 1.80 1.62 1.41 'Per the Lower West Coast Water Supply update,the IWSD available facility capacity is projected to go up to 8.10 by 2030. 'The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 3 Calculated by subtracting Annual Average Daily Demand from Available Facility Capacity. 4 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. 5 CUP(11-00013-W)allocation is 4.15 MGD annual average and expires on May 23,2031. 6 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Table ES-5 summarizes the treatment capacity of the existing and planned potable water and water reclamation facilities for AMUC. Based on population projections available for the AMUC ES-4 Csmlth PW/6295/231366/03/01 Executive Summary service area,a capacity analysis was performed looking at project demand versus plant capacity versus permitted allocation. The results of the capacity analysis are summarized below in Table ES-6. Table ES-5.Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Water Treatment and Water Reclamation Facilities1 Facility Name Year Online Design Capacity Project Identified (MGD) In LWCWSP AMUC WTP(Phase 1) Online 1.0 N/A ROWTP 2025 2.5 Yes Total - 3.5 - AMUC WRF(Phase 1) Online 0.9 Yes AMUC WRF(Phased expansion of 2024 2.5 Yes Reclamation Plant) Total - 3.4 - 'Information on existing and planned water treatment facilities taken from the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update. Table ES-6. Water Capacity Analysis for AMUC 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population 2,924 5,803 9,065 12,713 Demand Per Capita (gpcd) 91 91 91 91 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD) 0.27 0.53 0.82 1.16 Available Facility Capacity(MGD) 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.50 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment) 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 Facility Capacity Surplus(Deficit)(MGD)2 0.73 0.47 0.18 2.34 Raw Water Requirement(MGD)3 0.31 0.62 0.97 1.37 Permitted Amount(MGD Annual Average)° 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 Permitted Surplus(Deficit)(MGD)' 0.85 0.54 0.19 (0.21) 'The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 2 Calculated by subtracting Annual Average Daily Demand from Available Facility Capacity. 3 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water.It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. °CUP(11-02298-W)allocation is 1.16 MGD annual average and expires on October 19,2020. 5 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. Based on the capacity analysis,AMUC does not have sufficient permitted capacity to meet the demands of its service area for the 10-year planning period.The CUP allocation (11-02298-W) only covers the withdrawals required to make the finished water demand until 2025.After 2025, the Permitted Surplus (Deficit) becomes negative.AMUC will need to increase their permitted consumptive use by 2025. CCimith ES-5 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 1 -- Introduction 1.1 Plan Background In December 2017,the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) approved the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update (LWCWSP). Under Florida law(section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes) Collier County must adopt amendments to its comprehensive plan within 18 months of the SFWMD approval of the update. These amendments include the development of a 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan and amendments to the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Under the requirement of the Florida Statutes,the 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan for Collier County must include analysis of all water utilities in the County not serving a specific local government.These utilities include: • Collier County Water-Sewer District(CCWSD) • Immokalee Water and Sewer District(IWSD) • Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Utilities not included in this Plan are the City of Naples Utility Department, Marco Island Utilities, and Everglades City, each of which is responsible to develop a 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan to be included in its city's comprehensive plan. 1.2 Plan Objectives This 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update (Plan Update) for Collier County has the following objectives: • Identify population and water demands of the County and each utility for the planning period of 2019 to 2028. • Present existing and planned potable and reclaimed water facilities that will be utilized to meet demand projections. • Identify sources of raw water needed for potable water supply to meet demands through the year 2028. • Identify the steps necessary to develop additional potable and reclaimed water supplies and specify when they must occur and how they will be funded. • Demonstrate that the water supply plans for each utility within the County are feasible with respect to facility capacity to be developed and consumptive use permit allocations required. Call th 1-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 1• Introduction • Describe the conservation practices and regulations utilized by each utility to meet water supply demand. 1.3 Information Sources The following information sources were utilized in the development of the Plan Update: • 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update approved by the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District in December 2017. The document is referred to as the 2017 LWCWSP Update in the Plan Update. • Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on public utilities adopted by Ordinance 12-42 by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners in December 2017. The document is referred to as the 2018 AUIR in the Plan Update. • Collier County 2014 Water Master Plan Update adopted by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on June 10, 2014. The document is referred to as the Collier County 2014 Water Master Plan Update in the Plan Update. • Fiscal Year 2017-2027 Collier County Water-Sewer District Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Update.The document is referred to as the CCWSD FY 2017-2027 CIP Update. • SFWMD Consumptive Use Permit(CUP) numbers: • CCWSD- 11-00249-W, 11-00052-W,and 11-00419-W • IWSD - 11-00013-W • AMUC - 11-02298-W • FDEP Drinking Water Database accessed on September 17, 2018. https://floridadep.gov/water/source-drinking-water/content/basic-facility-reports • Responses to data requests sent to CCWSD, IWSD and AMUC. It is important to note that other planning documents such as Water,Wastewater and Irrigation Master Plans as well as User and Impact Fee Rate Studies are ongoing. Likewise,concurrency tools such as the 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report were not adopted by the Board of County Commissioners until after supporting data for this Plan was provided.Accordingly, planned facilities (see Chapter 5) may move up or back within the 10-year timeframe depending on these plans and studies,as adopted.The information supporting this 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan reflects the most recent data available as of July 1, 2018. 1.4 Plan Contents Section 2 introduces the individual utilities and systems that serve Collier County and identifies their service areas. Section 3 presents population and water demand projections for the County and individual utilities for the planning period out to 2028.Section 4 summarizes the existing -- potable water supply system including fresh and brackish water wellfields,raw water transmission systems,water treatment plants (WTPs) and reclaimed water systems (where 1.2 Call th PW/6295/231366/03/O1 Section 1• Introduction applicable) for each utility. Section 5 summarizes the planned potable and reclaimed water systems for each of the utilities out to 2028. Section 6 presents an analysis of the ability of each utility to meet projected demands during the planning period. Section 7 summarizes current and planned conservation practices and regulations that will be utilized to meet demands. Section 8 summarizes the capital improvement plan for each of the utilities. CSmith 1-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 2 Water Service Areas 2.1 Overview of Collier County Collier County is served by four Public Sector Water Systems,including the County,the City of Naples,Everglades City,and the City of Marco Island.The County is served by the Collier County Water-Sewer District(CCWSD) and domestic self-supply outside of the CCWSD service area.The boundaries of the CCWSD,City of Naples, Everglades City and the City of Marco Island are shown in Figure 2-1. In addition to the Public Sector Water Systems,Collier County is served by two Non- Public Sector Water Systems including the Immokalee Water and Sewer District(IWSD) and the Ave Maria Utility Company(AMUC).The boundaries of these systems are also presented in Figure 2-1.There are also two Private Sector Water Systems which include the Lee Cypress Water and Sewer Co- Op, Inc.and the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District,along with numerous small capacity water systems that are regulated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2.2 Individual Utilities and Systems 2.2.1 Collier County 2.2.1.1. Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) The CCWSD's water service area currently encompasses approximately 199.93 square miles while its current wastewater service area encompasses 206.89 square miles.This area is bounded on the North by Lee County,on the south by the City of Marco Island service area,on the west by the City of Naples service area and the Gulf of Mexico,and on the east by the Urban Planning Boundary.The CCWSD was approved by referendum in 1969 and validated by the State Legislature in 1978 by Special Act, Chapter 78-489,Laws of Florida. In 1988,the legislature approved a supplement to the Special Act,which included revisions to the District boundaries. This action significantly increased the size of the District to approximately 210 square miles. It also specifically excluded areas of the City of Naples,Marco Shores, Marco Island,and the Florida Governmental Utility Authority(FGUA).The CCWSD acquired the Golden Gate City potable water and wastewater utility systems from the FGUA on March 1, 2018. The Orange Tree Utility Company(OTUC)was taken over by the CCWSD in 2014.There is one portion of the CCWSD service area that is not served by CCWSD,that being approximately 17 square miles of unincorporated area contiguous to the City of Naples,shown with the red hatch on Figure 2-1. As this area is a substantially developed part of the County,with minimal growth expected during the 10-year planning period,no plans for supplying additional water to this area are included in this Plan. The original interlocal agreement by which the City of Naples serves this area was enacted on October 16, 1977. A copy of the most recent version of the interlocal agreement is provided in Appendix A. mlth 2-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 2• Water Service Areas A composite map,provided as Figure 2-2,showing the existing CCWSD potable and reclaimed water distribution systems,illustrates the actual extent of the water-sewer district currently being served. In addition to interconnections with Marco Shores by which CCWSD supplies water on a bulk basis, CCWSD also maintains emergency interconnects with the City of Naples,the City of Marco Island and Bonita Springs Utilities. As the interconnects are for emergency purposes only and are not intended for bulk transfer, CCWSD does not dedicate any portion of its water supply capacity to serving these interconnections. Should CCWSD,at a future date, enter into an agreement with any additional entity to provide finished water,it will incorporate the amount of water provided to said entity into its planning documents. 2.2.1.2 Goodland Water Sub-District Until recently,the Goodland District was a separate water district serving an island community, roughly one quarter of a square mile in area. It is located about two miles east of Marco Island. The District was established by referendum in 1975. In 2012,the County abolished the District as a separate entity,thereby making it part of the CCWSD (Ord. 2012-43)Appendix B. Service to Goodland is supplied by CCWSD in all respects; bulk water is purchased for distribution from the Marco Island Utility.Accordingly, it is often referred to as a"sub-district,"although it is entirely within the CCWSD boundary.A copy of the Interlocal Agreement for the provision of water from the City of Marco Island is found in Appendix C. CCWSD maintains pumping, distribution and storage facilities in the Goodland sub-district; CCWSD serves the community of Key Marco as well as Goodland on the same basis. 2.2.2. City of Naples The City of Naples is another public sector provider of water service in Collier County. In addition to its corporate area,the City also serves approximately 17 square miles of unincorporated area contiguous to the City limits per an interlocal agreement with Collier County. There are approximately 6,178 service connections in the unincorporated area with an average daily demand of 4.17 MGD. The City allocates 33 percent of its system capacity to serve this unincorporated area. As the unincorporated area is built-out,no additional demand on the City's system is projected for the future. The enabling legislation,under which the City established its water service area boundary, is Chapter 180, F.S., Municipal Public Works Law.The City's existing water supply facilities are not addressed in this 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan,since they will be discussed in the City's Plan.The service area for the utility is shown in Figure 2-1. 2.2.3 Everglades City Everglades City is also a public sector provider of water service in the County. Like Naples, Everglades City is an incorporated community that provides water service both within and beyond its corporate limits. 2-2 %smith PW/6295/231366/03/O1 Neff% OB 02 01 06 05 04 03 02 ' " 05 04 03 WA, 09 10 11 '..0 • 08 09 10 11 12 07 08 09 10 07 12 8 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 ' 17 16 15 —� 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 021 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 35 .,8 .,• 9 31 32 33 3d 9f34 35 36 31 32 33 34 03 OB OS 0.1 03 02 01 O6 OS 04 p3 01 06 05 1'9' B2 00.1 – ..co. 07 08 09 10 11 12 07 06 09 10 11 12 07 08 09 10 12 07 08 09 10 75 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 'c 18 17 16 15 I 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 21 22 23 24 20 21 22 30 29 28 27 i"26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 - 29 28 27 26 25 30 •9 28 27.. 865 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 % 31 34 35 ! 38... 31 33 34 06 {I 03 02 01 06 05 98 03 02 01 03 02 01 06 1•... 04 03 OS .... i �: 09 10 08 09 it 12 0 08 09 10 11 12 07 08 09 10 11 12 07 08 09 10 11 12 07 10 11 12 07 1 15 14 13 1. 17 16 15 14 13 88 I 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 i6. 88 2021 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 21 22 23 24 19 -4 21 22 22 23 24 1' I_..20 21 22 23 24 19 20 / 20 845J 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 28 27 28 27 26 25 1 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 32 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32.... 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 i 34 35 36 31 • ,.34 04 03 02 01 06 05 04 03 02 01 06 05 04 03 02 01 36 05 : 04 03 02 01 06 05 04 • 03 02 1 01 it 06 15 04 03 ,. ' 09 10 11 12 07 08 09 10 951 11 12 07 08 09 10_.. 11 12 07 08 09 10 11 12 07 08 09 10 11 12 1. 07 08 09 10 '., 13 18 1] 16 15 16 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 16 1] 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 fi23 I 24 19 20 21 22 23 1 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 I 19 20 21 22 Op,fL__ I _ ...... 4 i�i 25 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 2 Orit 0° 38 31 32 33 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 j., ®��/ 93 eT '4 01 06 06 04 03 02 ...01 06 05 04 03 02 01 06 05 04 03 02 01 06 05 04 03 02 01 06 05 04 ` f1• �/ 12 07 li 09 10 11 12 07 08 09 10 11 12 07 08 09 10 11 12 07 08 09 10 11 '.._12 07 08 09 #011$ 14 3 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 ( 16 fl 23 24 • 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 124 19 20 i 21 tl p, 26 25 30 • 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 34 35 36 31 32 3 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 02 01 06 05 04 5 02 01 06 05 04 03 02 01 ', 06 05 ....06.... 03 02 01 I 06 I 05 04 03 02 01 0605 04 _ 07 08 23 10 11 12 07 08 I 09 10 11 12 07 08 09 10 1 11 12 07 06 1 09 I 10 11 12 07 08 09 17 16,..m'1522 14 13 17 18 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 20 21 =.22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 7. 2'' 27 26 25 30 29 28 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 35 36 e 7 31 33 34... 35 CI 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 ►, f 02 1 01 Og o5 04 03 02 01 I. 05 04 03 f {. 02 01 06 05 04 03 02 01 i 05 04 7:V i ��11,12 0] OB 09 17 10 11 12 07 08 10 11 12 07 OB 09 10 11 12 07 08 03 � ji`1 17' 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 1 16 1 17 18 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19�20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 19 ..... / 29 28 26 25 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 50 29 26 /� 34 34 35 36 35 31 32 33 3431 Y 33 L...MIEICI 01 05 33 04 03 02 01 06 05 04 7_77.7/7.I City of Marco Island 08 09 07 08 09 10 11 ,-12 07 oe w Z2 City of Naples 15 . 13 18 17 I 16 Collier County - Water/Sewer District 19 20 21 IWSD Service Area 530 AMUC Service Area 4111 Everglades City FIGURE 2-1 N COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN A WATER SEWER DISTRICT BOUNDARIES OF COLLIER COUNTY 0 1 2 3 4VDIVII Smith Miles 16" BONITABEACHRD 12" i . 1 m _ 3846 18 `'�24858 Mi 16" 2" 12" "_ 24" �� � J INFir:; _ _ IMMOKALEE RD N-�, . 'IN ro 24„ ,2" 514 'IA- 12N /0- 0 is N • ' Njn ,• 951_ 0 tr 0 0 , a _ CI • 1.%.'m i Ni 45 jj '4 D- 3 41 f 12"30' 1110 o 84 1!Di , oT • cv:• : CO . 12„2,,, M �� NNe '0,, d?: 1. , j ilk 1111 Mir 1,141' .— N 76,,,7 N 72,• Illijiii); .116 7?,,T 951 1'biq4 A"--\. 'tvz 41 92 Legend /\/ Potable Water Main (>= 12") "/ IQ Water Main (>= 12") N FIGURE 2-2 ,.-•. COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN ACCWSD POTABLE/RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM COMPOSITE MAP 0 1 2 3 % th Service Layer Credits:Esri,HERE,Garmin,©OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community-9/27/2018 Section 2•Water Service Areas The outlying unincorporated communities served by the City include Plantation Island and Seaboard Village in Copeland. Unlike the unincorporated area served by the City of Naples, Plantation Island and Seaboard Village are not part of the Collier County Water Sewer District. For this reason, Collier County is not responsible to provide planning efforts to supply water to these communities.These areas are analogous to the Golden Gate Estates portion of Collier County,which is served entirely by self-supply,for which the County is not responsible for providing service. Everglades City's water supply facilities are not addressed in this 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan,since they will be discussed in the City's Plan.The service area for the utility is shown in Figure 2-1. 2.2.4 City of Marco Island Water and Sewer Service Areas The City of Marco Island historically had been provided service from the private sector utility company,the Florida Water Services Corporation. A small portion of Marco Island's water and sewer infrastructure had historically been maintained by Collier County as the Marco Island Water and Sewer District. The City of Marco Island purchased the system from the Florida Water Services Corporation. The City operates the approximately 10 square mile system as a public sector utility. On February 24,2004,the Marco Island Water and Sewer District was dissolved/abolished by Ordinance No. 2004-09. The infrastructure in that area was turned over from the CCWSD to the City. The City now owns and operates the only centralized utility services on Marco Island. The City's existing water supply to the Marco Shores area was replaced with a bulk water supply from the CCWSD to service the area.The daily water demand (metered water) for the Potable Water Bulk Services to Marco Island is approximately 165,000 gallons per day and is accounted for in CCWSD's population and water supply demand projections. As the Marco Shores area is built-out,no additional demand on the CCWSD system is projected for the future. Though outside of the scope date for this update,it should be noted that on September 26,2018 the City of Marco Island provided a letter of intent to terminate the Potable Water Bulk Services Agreement on September 26, 2019 found in Appendix D.The City of Marco Island's existing water supply facilities are not addressed in this 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan,since they will be discussed in the City's Plan.The service area for the utility is shown in Figure 2-1. 2.2.5 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) The Immokalee Water and Sewer District(IWSD),located in the northeast part of Collier County, was created by Special Act of the State Legislature following a 1978 referendum. Creation of an independent district provided the means for this unincorporated community to develop its own water/sewer system,which was necessary due to the distance from the developed coastal area of the County. The boundaries of the District were expanded following a voter referendum in 2004 and a change to the enabling act was signed by the Governor in June 2005 (Chapter 2005-298). This district has a governing board whose members are appointed by the Governor of Florida. The boundaries of this independent district are shown on Figure 2-1. 2.2.6 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Ave Maria Utility Company(AMUC), established in 2005,provides potable and reclaimed water service to the Town of Ave Maria.The town is located approximately 20 miles east of Interstate 75.The AMUC service area boundary is shown in Figure 2-1. mi th 2-5 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 2• Water Service Areas 2.2.7 Independent Districts 2.2.7.1 Lee Cypress Water and Sewer Co-op, Inc. The private sector utility providing water service to Copeland is the Lee Cypress Water and Sewer Co-op,Inc. The unincorporated community of Copeland is located on SR-29 about 3 miles north of US-41.According to the SFWMD consumptive use permit for the Co-op,the population of the service area is projected to be 445 in 2024. Based on FDEP records,the utility currently has a capacity of 80,000 gpd. Between 2004 and 2025 the population of the community is projected to grow to 445 residents,according to the consumptive use permit. Using a straight-line interpolation of the growth rate in the consumptive use permit,the population would be projected to grow to 479 residents by 2028.Assuming a per capita water demand of 150 gpcd, the required utility capacity needed in 2028 would be 71,850 gpd. Based on the projected population and assumed per capita demand,the utility should continue to meet the needs of its residents without expansion through the 10-year planning period.Therefore,no additional consideration is given to this utility in the Plan. 2.2.7.2 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Another independent district in the County is the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District. This district encompasses approximately 1 square mile of land contiguous to and north and south of US-41,approximately 20 miles south of Naples. This district was created in 1986 by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners in response to a petition from the District's developers and was created as a mechanism to provide water and other services to this isolated area. The District is governed by an elected board of directors. The population of the District was 588 according to the 2017 LWCWSP. Based on FDEP records,the utility currently has a capacity of 440,000 gpd. Based on the projections in the 2017 LWCWSP,between 2010 and 2040 the population of the District is projected to grow to 641 residents. Assuming a per capita water demand of 142 gpcd,the required utility capacity needed in 2028 would be 91,022 gpd. Based on the projected population and assumed per capita demand,the utility should continue to meet the needs of its residents without expansion through the 10-year planning period. Therefore,no additional consideration is given to this utility in the Plan. 2.2.8 Water Systems Regulated by Florida Department of Environmental Protection Table 2-1 is a summary of private sector water systems operating within Collier County,but regulated by the FDEP due to very small capacities.These systems primarily serve individual establishments,such as schools,stores, or golfing communities. The list was developed from the FDEP drinking water database and is accurate as of April 11, 2018. Table 2-1.Summary of Small Capacity Private Sector Water Systems Operating within Collier Countyl PWS ID System Name 5110058 LEE CYPRESS CO-OP 5110061 CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY 5110089 EVERGLADES CITY 5110117 FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORITY 5110118 GOODLAND WATER COMPANY 2-6 Csmlth PW/6295/231366/03/O1 Section 2•Water Service Areas PWS ID System Name 5110121 HAKAN SERVICES INC. 5110142 IMMOKALEE WATER 5110182 MARCO SHORES UTILITIES 5110183 MARCO ISLAND UTILITIES(CITY OF) 5110195 NAPLES BINGO PALACE GG PKWY 5110198 NAPLES WATER DEPT 5110230 PORT OF THE ISLANDS 5110288 TRAIL LAKES CAMPGROUND 5110348 SANDY RIDGE LABOR CAMP 5114069 COLLIER COUNTY REGIONAL WTP 5114074 CENTER POINT COMMUNITY CHURCH 5114077 TEMPLE BETHEL 5114083 FCA US LLC 5114085 ORANGE TREE UTILITY CO. INC. 5114111 RANDALL CENTER 5114113 S.W. FLORIDA RESEARCH ED.CTR. 5114119 SUNNILAND COUNTRY STORE 5114126 UNITY FAITH MISSIONARY BAPTIST 5114129 1-75 RESTSTOP 5114130 GOLDEN GATE LIBRARY 5114131 BONITA BAY EASTGOLF CLUB-MAINTENANCE _ 5114132 BONITA BAY EAST GOLF CLUB-CLUBHOUSE 5114133 AMI KIDS BIG CYPRESS WILDERNESS INSITUTE 5114136 BONITA BAY EAST GOLF CLUB REST SHELTER 1 5114137 BONITA BAY GOLF CLUB REST SHELTER 2 5114139 HIDEOUT GOLF CLUB SYSTEM 5114140 TREES CAMP WTP 5114141 GOLDEN GATE ASSEMBLY OF GOD 5114144 CALUSA PINES GOLF CLUB-MAINTENANCE 5114147 SABAL PALM ELEMEN/CYPRESS PALM MIDDLE 5114149 LA HISPANA#2 5114151 FITNESS QUEST 5114152 ESTATES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 5114154 AVE MARIA UTILITY COMPANY LLLP 5114158 PALMETTO J ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 5114159 WILSON BLVD. RETAIL CENTER 5114160 NAPLES EQUESTRIAN CHALLENGE INC. 5114161 LIVING WORD FAMILY CHURCH WTP 5114162 GOLDEN GATE WALGREENS(STORE#10742) 5114163 CENTER POINT COMMUNITY CHURCH YOUTH SANC 5114164 PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF NAPLES 5114165 PEPPER RANCH 1.The list was developed from the FDEP drinking water database and is accurate as of April 11,2018. CSmith 2-7 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 3 Population and Demand Projections Sources of information utilized to develop the included population and demand projections are historical population growth,Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department(CCCPD) forecasts,information from water use permits,and information provided by the individual water supply utilities,such as Master Plans. Population projections through 2028 are included in the following sub-sections. 3.1 Countywide Projections Table 3-1 shows the projected population for Collier County for the 10-year planning period of this plan. The population projections are for peak season,which is one key basis for planning and sizing of facilities. Table 3-1.Collier County Peak Season Population Estimates and Projections Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Countywide12,3 399,096 439,656 482,088 519,120 'The countywide population projection includes the unincorporated areas of the county covered in this 10- Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan,as well as the incorporated cities of Naples, Marco Island and Everglades City. 2 Peak season population for CCWSD is provided by the Collier County Growth Management Department;it is based on the medium BEBR population times 1.2. 3 Peak season population for the unincorporated areas of the county as well as the incorporated cities of Naples, Marco Island and Everglades City is per the information found on the Bureau of Economic and Business Research document(BEBR)published January 2018. The population and demand projections for each of the three utilities serving unincorporated Collier County are presented in Section 3.2. 3.2 Individual Utilities 3.2.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) Table 3-2 shows the projected populations for the existing CCWSD service area. The populations are shown in 5-year increments,through 2028.The total population projections include the populations in the Rural Fringe areas,which were incorporated into the CCWSD in 2003 as described in Section 2.2.1.1,and the Orange Tree area which was taken over by CCWSD in 2014. Table 3-2. Population Projections for CCWSD Service Area Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Peak Served Area Population (Seasonal)',23 195,207 241,422 271,671 300,839 'Estimates and projections are taken from the 2018 AUIR. 2 Peak season population is provided by the Collier County Growth Management Department; it is based on the medium BEBR population times 1.2. 3Starting in 2014, peak season population includes the OTUC population. CSmith 3-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 3• Population and Demand Projections The adopted Level of Service Standard (LOSS) for the CCWSD is 150 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Based on the LOSS of 150 gpcd and the population projections presented in Table 3-2, the demand projections for the CCWSD were developed.Table 3-3 presents the projected population and demand for the area served by CCWSD,in 5-year increments,through 2028. Demand is provided as Required Treatment Capacity at 150 gpcd in MGD. Required Treatment Capacity at 150 gpcd is a metric used by Collier County in its Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR) and is used to evaluate the ability of CCWSD facilities to meet peak season demand. It is calculated as the peak season population multiplied by the LOSS of 150 gpcd. Table 3-3. Projected Population and Demand for Areas Served by CCWSD Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Peak Service Area Population (Seasonal)1,2 195,207 241,422 271,671 300,839 Demand Per Capita (gpcd) 150 150 150 150 Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd (MGD) 29.28 36.21 40.75 45.13 'Estimates and projections are taken from the 2018 AUIR. 2 Peak season population is provided by the Collier County Growth Management Department; it is based on the medium BEBR population times 1.2. 3.2.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) Table 3-4 shows the projected populations for the areas served and to be served within the existing IWSD service area. The population is shown in 5-year increments,through 2028. Table 3-4. Population Projections for IWSD Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Served Area Population' 22,747 25,717 27,616 29,948 'Population projections are based on the population estimates provided by the county.Where necessary,the population was calculated by interpolating between years identified in the Plan Update. The IWSD LOSS includes operational standards and a per capita water demand standard of 75 gpcd. Based on the LOSS of 75 gpcd and the population projections presented in Table 3-4,the demand projections for the IWSD were developed. Table 3-5 presents the projected served population and demand for the IWSD,in 5-year increments,through 2028. Table 3-5. Population and Demand Projections for IWSD Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population' 22,747 25,717 27,616 29,948 Demand Per Capita(MGD) 75 75 75 75 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD) 1.71 1.93 2.07 2.25 Maximum Month Daily Demand (MGD) 2.05 2.31 2.49 2.70 'Population projections are based on the population estimates provided by the county.Where necessary,the population was calculated by interpolating between years identified in the Plan Update. 3-2 CsPmith PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 3•Population and Demand Projections Demand is provided as both Annual Average Daily Demand (AADD) in MGD and Maximum Month Daily Demand (MMDD) also in MGD. MMDD is determined by multiplying the AADD by a peaking factor,which in this case is 1.2. 3.2.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Table 3-6 shows the projected populations for the areas served and to be served within the existing AMUC service area. The population is shown in 5-year increments,through 2028. Table 3-6. Population Projections for Areas Served by AMUC Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Served Area Population) 2,924 5,803 9,065 12,713 1 Population projections are based on the population estimates and projections presented in the AMUC- Flow Revisions 2018. Where necessary,the population was calculated by interpolating between years identified in the Plan Update. The AMUC LOSS includes operational standards and a per capita water demand standard of 91 gpcd. Based on the LOSS of 91 gpcd and the population projections presented in Table 3-10, the demand projections for the AMUC were developed. Table 3-7 presents the projected served population and demand for the AMUC,in 5-year increments,through 2028. Demand is provided as both AADD in MGD and MMDD also in MGD. MMDD is determined by multiplying the AADD by a peaking factor,which in this case is 1.2. Table 3-7. Project Population and Demand Projections for AMUC Year 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population 2,924 5,803 9,065 12,713 Demand Per Capita (MGD)1 91 91 91 91 Annual Average Daily Demand(MGD) 0.27 0.53 0.82 1.16 Maximum Month Daily Demand(MGD) 0.32 0.63 0.99 1.39 1Population projections are based on the population estimates and projections presented in the AMUC-Flow Revisions 2018. Where necessary,the population was calculated by interpolating between years identified in the Plan Update. CSmlth 3-3 PW/6295/231366/03/O1 Section 4 Existing Water Supply Facilities 4.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) 4.1.1 Water Supply Permits The SFWMD allocates withdrawals from groundwater sources in Collier County. CCWSD currently maintains three consumptive use permits (CUPs);two for potable water supply and one for supplemental supply of the reclaimed water system. Table 4-1 provides details on the CUPs CCWSD currently maintains. The CCWSD also has a permit for a 2 MGD potable water aquifer storage and recovery(ASR) well near the Manatee Pumping Station site and a 1 MGD irrigation quality water ASR system on Livingston Road. Table 4-1. Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to CCWSD Number of Annual Average Maximum Consumptive Use Aquifer Expiration Day Monthly Permitted Allocation Permit Utilized Wells Date Allocation Allocation (MG) ) (MGD) (MG) 9/22/2019 9,673 26.50 805.6 LT1 37 9/22/2036 6,853 18.93 691.3 11-00249-W HZ1 46 9/22/2036 5,840 16.00 486.4 LH' 42 9/22/2036 7,125 19.50 684.3 Total 125 - 20,270 55.53 1,976.3 LT 10 3/7/2023 236 0.65 23.6 11-00419-W3 Total 10 - 236 0.65 23.6 LT 14 4/14/2034 2,091 5.73 172 11-00052-W4 WT 9 4/14/2034 1,278 3.50 105 Total 23 - 3,369 9.23 277 LT=Lower Tamiami,HZ1=Hawthorn Zone 1,LH=Lower Hawthorn,WT=Water Table "CUP(11-00249-W)for 55.53 MGD annual average expires September 22,2036.Annual allocation from the Lower Tamiami Aquifer shall not exceed 9,673 million gallons from September 30,2014 through September 30, 2019 and shall not exceed 6,852.66 million gallons from October 1,2019 through September 22,2036(duration of the permit).Annual allocation shall not exceed 3,650 million gallons at the NERWTP. 2 Number of permitted Lower Hawthorn Aquifer wells includes 14 proposed wells for the proposed Northeast Regional Water Treatment Plant. 3 Permit under"Orange Tree Utility Company"but is now referred to as the Collier County Northeast Service Area. 4 Consumptive use permit for supplemental reclaimed water wellfield. Smith 4-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 4• Existing Water Supply Facilities 4.1.2 Potable Water Facilities 4.1.2.1 Wellfields Currently,the CCWSD operates four wellfields:The Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield,the North Hawthorn Reverse Osmosis (RO) Wellfield,the South Hawthorn RO Wellfield,and the Northeast Service Area Wellfield (formerly the OTUC Wellfield).The location of each of these wellfields is illustrated in Figure 4-1.The North Hawthorn RO and South Hawthorn RO wellfields contain wells that tap the Hawthorn Zone 1 (HZ1) and the Lower Hawthorn (LH) aquifers,both of which are brackish in those areas of Collier County.The wellfields provide raw water for the low- pressure reverse osmosis (LPRO) treatment trains at the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant(NCRWTP) and the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant(SCRWTP), respectively.The Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield contains wells that tap the LT Aquifer,which contains freshwater.This wellfield provides raw water for the membrane filtration (MF) equipment at the NCRWTP and the lime softening(LS) equipment at the SCRWTP.The Orange Tree Water Treatment Plant(OTWTP) is located east of SR-846 and north of CR-858.The OTWTP was integrated into the Collier County Water-Sewer District in March of 2017 and has a constructed treatment capacity of 0.75 MGD using membrane softening (MS) and its wells also tap the fresh LT Aquifer. Tables 4-2,4-3,4-4,and 4-5 and summarize the existing wells in the Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield,the Orange Tree Wellfield,the North Hawthorn RO Wellfield,and the South Hawthorn RO Wellfield,respectively. 4.1.2.2. Water Treatment Facilities The CCWSD is served by three water treatment plants (WTPs),the NCRWTP,the SCRWTP,and the OTWTP which are shown in Figure 4-2. The NCRWTP is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension east of CR-951 in the northeastern quadrant of the service area.The plant utilizes groundwater withdrawn from the LT, HZ1 and LH aquifers.Water from the LT Aquifer is treated using MF,while water from the HZ1 and LH aquifers is treated by LPRO. Currently,the plant is capable of producing 20 MGD of finished water; 12 MGD from the MF process and 8 MGD from the LPRO process. The SCRWTP is located near the intersection of CR-951 and I-75 about 5.5 miles south of the NCRWTP.The plant utilizes groundwater withdrawn from the LT, HZ1 and LH aquifers.Water from the LT Aquifer is treated using LS,while water from the HZ1 and LH aquifers is treated by LPRO. Currently,the plant is capable of producing 32 MGD of finished water; 12 MGD from the LS process and 20 MGD from the LPRO process. The OTWTP is located east of SR-846 and north of CR-858.The wells maintained by OTUC tap the LT Aquifer,which is a traditional freshwater source.The WTP has a finished water capacity of 0.75 MGD using membrane softening(MS). A summary of the existing water treatment facilities is provided in Table 4-6. In addition to identifying the design capacity of each treatment train,the amount of raw water required to achieve the design capacity is also provided. 4-2 °smlth PW/6295/231366/03/01 OTWTP 858 IMMOKALEE RD 846 951 NORTH HAWTHORN NCRWTP RO WELLFIELD 862 O J m GOLDEN GATE BLVD 1 o w J m O GOLDEN GATE TAMIAMI WELLFIELD O J PINE RIDGE RD SCRWTP -. SOUTH HAWTHORN RO WELLFIELD 93 Legend • Supply Well 864 IWI Water Treatment Plant ."/ Raw Water Main FIGURE 4-1 N COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN EXISTING CCWSD WELLFIELDS AND RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAINS 0 1 2 3 4 CD1111 Miles SM'th Service Layer Credits:Esri,HERE,Garmin,©OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community-9/26/2018 B on i 1I Springs 846 a1 OTWTP 858 t'3 t f lc' Far IMMOKALEE RD NCRWTP - wan Bay t=trrth Nape 951 0 g (1drn :tr rTrIl 93 SCRWTP 45 J 41110 ° 84 Napier t,Nl� Napi Manor — 951 .9492// T,Q9 41 92 t.tnrrE-Hand Legend, Water Treatment Plant N FIGURE 4-2 COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN EXISTING CCWSD POTABLE WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES 0 1 2 3 4 % lth Miles Service Layer Credits:Esni,HERE,Garmin,©OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community-9/26/2018 Section 4• Existing Water Supply Facilities Table 4-2. Existing CCWSD Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield' Well No. Aquifer Total Well Depth of Diameter(in) Capacity(gpm) Utilized Depth (ft bls) Casing(ft bls) 1 LT 96 50 16 700 2 LT 100 50 16 700 3 LT 100 51 16 700 4 LT 102 52 16 700 5 LT 108 50 16 700 6 LT 101 65 12 700 7 LT 106 65 12 700 9 LT 114 65 12 700 10 LT 112 71 12 700 11 LT 137 90 12 700 12 LT 133 90 12 700 13 LT 130 84 12 700 14 LT 131 85 12 700 15 LT 130 84 12 700 16 LT 150 92 12 700 17 LT 125 78 12 1,000 18 LT 126 80 12 1,000 19 LT 128 83 12 1,000 — 20 LT 131 83 12 1,000 21 LT 110 62 12 1,000 22 LT 101 62 12 1,000 23 LT 111 59 12 1,000 24 LT 109 58 12 1,000 25 LT 110 65 12 1,000 26 LT 106 65 12 1,000 27 LT 105 61 12 1,000 28 LT 120 66 12 1,000 29 LT 125 72 12 1,000 30 LT 120 58 12 1,000 31 LT 120 65 12 1,000 32 LT 120 65 12 1,000 33 LT 120 70 12 1,000 34 LT 120 80 12 1,000 35 LT 145 102 12 1,000 36 LT 125 92 12 1,000 37 LT 120 80 12 1,000 382 LT N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP#11-00249-W. _ 2 Collier County is currently out to bid for a new well (Well 38)for the Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield.Well 38 is scheduled for completion in 2019. CSPI'1111 t 4-5 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 4• Existing Water Supply Facilities Table 4-3. Existing North Hawthorn RO Wellfield Summary'. Well No. Aquifer Utilized Total Well Depth of Diameter(in) Capacity Depth (ft bls) Casing(ft bls) (gpm) RO-1N LH 801 705 16/122 1,000 RO-2N LH 780 734 16/122 1,000 RO-3N LH 800 720 16/12' 1,000 RO-4N LH 891 744 16/122 1,000 RO-5N LH 1070 790 16/122 1,000 RO-6N LH 975 740 16/122 1,000 RO-7N LH 977 775 16/122 1,000 RO-9N LH 952 780 16/122 1,000 RO-10N LH 1011 750 16/122 1,000 RO-11N LH 951 735 16/122 1,000 RO-12N LH 891 730 16/123 1,000 RO-13N LH 925 731 16/123 1,000 RO-14N LH 950 713 16/124 1,000 RO-15N LH 957 737 16/123 1,000 RO-16N LH 989 751 16/123 1,000 RO-17N LH 996 780 16/123 1,000 RO-18N LH 1,000 700 16 1,000 RO-19N LH 1,000 700 16 1,000 RO-20N LH 1,000 700 16 1,000 RO-101N HZ1 512 397 16 350 RO-102N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO-109N HZ1 475 404 16 350 RO-114N HZ1 514 412 16 350 RO-115N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO-116N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO-117N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO-118N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO-119N HZ1 500 400 16 350 RO-120N HZ1 500 400 16 350 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP#11-00249-W. 2 16-inch casing to 100 feet,then 12-inch casing to production casing depth. 3 16-inch casing to 150 feet,then 12-inch casing to production casing depth. 4 16-inch casing to 160 feet,then 12-inch casing to production casing depth. 4-6 CC1111th PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 4 Existing Water Supply Facilities Table 4-4. Existing South Hawthorn RO Wellfield Summary' Aquifer Total Well Depth of Well No. Utilized Depth (ft bls) Casing(ft bls) Diameter(in) Capacity(gpm) RO-1S HZ1 420 312 16/122 1,000 RO-2S HZ1 400 292 16/122 1,000 RO-3S HZ1 403 293 16/122 1,000 RO-4S HZ1 402 331 16/122 1,000 RO-5S HZ1 402 297 16/122 1,000 RO-6S HZ1 421 317 16/122 1,000 RO-7S HZ1 442 328 16/122 1,000 RO-8S LH 982 660 16/122 1,000 RO-9S LH 682 630 16/122 1,000 RO-10S LH 842 630 16/122 1,000 RO-11S LH 963 653 16/122 1,000 RO-12S HZ1 422 299 16/122 1,000 RO-13S HZ1 400 295 16/122 1,000 RO-14S HZ1 422 298 16/122 1,000 RO-15S HZ1 402 295 16/122 1,000 RO-39S HZ1 400 300 16 1,000 RO-40S LH 1,000 700 16 1,000 — RO-41S HZ1 400 300 16 1,000 RO-42S LH 1,000 700 16 1,000 RO-16S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-17S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-18S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-19S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-20S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-21S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-22S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-23S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-24S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-25S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-26S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-27S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-28S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-29S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-30S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-31S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-32S3 HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-33S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-34S HZ1 420 300 16 750 CSmlth 4-7 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 4• Existing Water Supply Facilities Table 4-4. Existing South Hawthorn RO Wellfield Summary' Well No. Aquifer Total Well Depth of Diameter(in) Capacity(gpm) Utilized Depth (ft bls) Casing(ft bls) RO-35S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-36S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-37S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-38S HZ1 420 300 16 750 RO-39S HZ1 400 300 16 700 RO-40S LH 1,000 700 16 700 RO-41S HZ1 400 300 16 700 RO-42S LH 1,000 700 16 700 RO-43S3 LH 1,000 700 16 700 RO-44S3 LH 1,000 700 16 700 RO-45S3 LH 1,000 700 16 700 'Information on existing wells taken from CUP#11-00249-W. 2 16-inch casing to 120 feet,then 12-inch casing to production casing depth. 'Permitted but not in use. Table 4-5. Existing Orange Tree Wellfield Summary' Well No. Aquifer Total Well Depth of Diameter(in) Capacity(gpm) Utilized Depth (ft bls) Casing(ft bls) ,,_.,- Well A LT 180 70 12 300 Well B LT 180 70 12 300 Well C LT 154 72 12 300 Well D LT 172 70 16 400 Well E LT 172 74 12 300 Well F LT 180 70 16 400 Well G LT 180 70 16 400 Well H LT 180 70 16 400 Well I LT 180 70 16 400 Well J LT 180 70 16 400 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP#11-00419-W. 4-8 CSmlth PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 4+Existing Water Supply Facilities Table 4-6.Summary of Existing CCWSD Water Treatment Facilities' Raw Water Traditional/ Design2 Raw Water Facility Name Capacity(MGD) Requirement Source Alternative Water (MGD) Supply NCRWTP MF 12.00 14.64 LT Traditional (Fresh) NCRWTP LPRO 8.00 9.76 LH/HZ1 Alternative(Brackish) SCRWTP LS 12.00 14.64 LT Traditional(Fresh) SCRWTP LPRO 20.00 24.40 LH/HZ1 Alternative(Brackish) OTUC WTP 0.75 0.92 LT Traditional(Fresh) Total 52.75 64.36 - - 'Information taken from the Collier County 2014 Water Master Plan Update. 2 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. 4.1.2.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission The existing transmission facilities consist of transmission pipelines,water storage tanks,an ASR system,and pumping facilities.The storage and pumping facilities utilized by CCWSD are shown in Figure 4-3.The pumping facilities are comprised of high service pumps located at both water treatment plants,four water booster pumping stations and an in-line booster pump station. Ground storage tanks at the treatment facilities and at the booster pumping stations provide system storage and reserve capacity to help meet the peak hourly demands of the system.The booster pumping stations and storage tanks are located at the Isle of Capri, Manatee Road,and Carica Road.The CCWSD also maintains and operates the Goodland Water Booster Pumping Station,which is part of the Goodland Water Sub-District.An in-line booster station is located in the northwest portion of the system near Vanderbilt Drive. In addition to the traditional storage and pumping facilities mentioned above, CCWSD maintains a 1 MGD potable water ASR system at the Manatee Road Pumping Station.The water storage tank at the OTWTP has a capacity of 0.75 MG and the transmission pipelines range in size from 3-inch to 12-inch and total approximately 9 miles in length.As previously mentioned,the CCWSD acquired the Golden Gate City potable water and wastewater utility systems from FGUA on March 1, 2018 acquiring their storage and booster pump station tanks. Potable water is stored at various strategic points in the CCWSD distribution system to help meet diurnal peak system and fire flow demands.A summary of the existing storage facilities is provided in Table 4-7. Potable water is pumped from the plants into the distribution system.The distribution system includes water mains designated as either transmission or distribution mains.The CCWSD pipelines 16 inches in diameter and larger are generally termed transmission mains.These are typically located along arterial and collector roadways and convey water to major demand areas. Pipelines that are smaller than 16 inches in diameter are generally called distribution mains, branching off to the transmission system to supply individual users. Smith 4-9 PW/6295/231366/03/01 BONITA.BEACH RD 41 't - ® �"`, 846 858 !Iv, ' .tt ` r' IMMOKALEE RD 411 OTWTP t'' i t .t, .- CARICA BOOSTER STATION 951 0 0 m 93 Green Blvd Booster Pump Station Tank 45 m ._. Golden Gate WTP Tank IP° _ a 84Pkvlesz „/ l r`�f`�. Lett "U ,J s NaJ,pianat;"- MANATEE ROAD ASR MANATEE BOOSTER STATION (All 951 Ty�4q�/T 41 ISLE OF CAPRI BOOSTER STATION rill 92 Legend GOODLAND BOOSTER STATION • Existing Potable Water Storage Facility ✓ Potable Water Main (>= 12") FIGURE 4-3 — N COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN A EXISTING CCWSD POTABLE WATER STORAGE FACILITIES 0 1 2 3 4 % ith Miles Service Layer Credits:Esri,HERE,Garmin,©OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community-9/26/2018 Section 4• Existing Water Supply Facilities Table 4-7.Summary of Existing CCWSD Water Storage Facilities 1 Facility Name Tank Volume(MG) Usable Storage Volume (MG) NCRWTP 12.00 11.10 SCRWTP 14.00 12.40 OTWTP 0.75 0.73 Isle of Capri 0.25 0.20 Manatee Road Pumping Station 2.00 1.80 Carica Road Pumping Station 10.00 9.30 Manatee Road ASR' N/A N/A Golden Gate WTP Tank 0.52 0.52 Green Blvd. Booster Pump Station Tank 1.00 1.00 Total 40.52 37.05 'Information on the Collier County 2014 Water Master Plan Update. 2 Manatee Road ASR storage is not currently in use.Storage volume was not included in total. The transmission mains and major distribution mains that serve the CCWSD are illustrated in Figure 4-4. Overall,the CCWSD owns and maintains over 1,000 miles of water transmission and distribution pipelines,up to 48 inches in diameter,with over 56,000 individual service connections. 4.1.3 Reclaimed Water Facilities CCWSD operates one of the largest reclaimed water systems in the South Florida Water Management District. Currently,the system serves customers with contractual commitments of 23 MGD.The majority of the existing customer base is golf courses,residential communities, environmental mitigation areas,county parks,and roadway medians.There is an additional 28.5 MGD of demand in the service area from entities that have installed dual distribution piping. 4.1.3.1 Water Reclamation Facilities CCWSD currently operates two water reclamation facilities (WRFs).The North County Water Reclamation Facility(NCWRF) and the South County Water Reclamation Facility(SCWRF),which are shown in Figure 4-5. Table 4-8 summaries the capacities of the existing reclaimed water facilities. Table 4-8.Summary of Existing Water Reclamation Facilities' Facility Name Design Treatment Capacity(MGD)2 NCWRF 24.1 SCWRF 16.0 Total 40.1 'Information taken from the Collier County 2014 Wastewater Master Plan Update. 'The design capacities do not reflect the amount of reclaimed water available from the facilities. The amount of reclaimed water available is based on influent flow and treatment efficiency. For planning purposes,CCWSD considers reclaimed water availability based on 95 percent of the lowest influent day, which is currently around 11 MGD. $meth 4-11 PW/6295/231366/03/01 16" BONITA BEACH RD la 12 ® 846 ,-"..., 1 (3{1.... 18 I 858 Iv. 12" 30"12" 24" �� J IMMOKALEE RD X72„ e N '1‘)(3 1 30" 36124" (-, 2" Il N 12'. `l= / , - N CO 41\ 951 0 0 o 93 . -Ln J1 45 m 41 12 v 10 / •. gq Zo M Jam, o 20" N .J fe Ia�� �1 N 1ti 16" '6 jib 72,, ill 16•, 7?,T 951 -1,y7jq4 4 T/-1 41 92 Legend "/ Potable Water Main (>= 12") FIGURE 4-4 "-I N COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN A EXISTING CCWSD POTABLE WATER TRANSMISSION MAINS 0 1 2 3 4GDM Miles Smith Service Layer Credits:Esri,HERE,Garmin,©OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community-9/26/2018 eanIta Springs ® 846 41 858 NCWRF IMMOKALEE RD les P.11 'ran Bay tfrrth Napfr- 951 0 rij 0 o it 93 45 41 1:3 SCWRF �1. i,I® n4-.r 951 •94,/i-942, 9 41 92 Mawr-.It land Legend Existing Water Reclamation Facility FIGURE 4-5 N COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN EXISTING CCWSD WATER RECLAMATION FACILITIES o 1 2 3 4 CD Miles Smith Service Layer Credits:Esri,HERE,Garmin,©OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community-9/26/2018 Section 4• Existing Water Supply Facilities 4.1.3.2 Reclaimed Water Pumping, Storage, and Transmission The reclaimed water distribution system,which consists of approximately 124 miles of transmission and distribution pipeline,is currently divided into two services areas; one in the north and one in the south,that are supplied by the respective water reclamation facilities (WRFs).There are a few small interconnects between the two service areas,but the system is hydraulically limited from passing large volumes of water from one service area to the other.A design has been completed for pump station improvements that will enhance the County's ability to transfer flows between the north and south service areas. Reclaimed water produced at the two WRFs can be temporarily stored in on-site ponds.Storage of up to 1 million gallons (MG) is also available at the former Pelican Bay WRF,which was decommissioned in 2006 and converted to a reclaimed water storage and pumping facility. Additional storage is achieved in the distribution system which provides 130 MG of wet weather storage. Excess water is pumped into deep injection wells (DIWs) for disposal. Figure 4-6 presents the reclaimed water distribution system. The County owns and maintains a hydraulic model of its IQ water distribution system that enables it to plan for orderly expansion and development of its system. One of the significant challenges that the reclaimed water system faces is wet weather storage.During the wet season, demand for reclaimed water drops off sharply and CCWSD is forced to discharge the reclaimed water into its deep injection wells (DIW) disposal.The County has identified this scenario as a waste of a valuable resource and is making efforts to reduce the amount of reclaimed water that is discharged into DIWs during the wet season.To this end,a reclaimed water/supplemental groundwater aquifer storage and recovery(ASR) system has been developed.The system currently includes two constructed ASR wells,the latter of which was completed in 2015 and is currently undergoing cycle testing. Following the cycle testing,the ASR well will be put into regular service,where it is expected to provide between 0.5 and 1 MGD of IQ water to meet peak season demands.With both wells operational,they are expected to provide between 1 and 2 MGD of storage and recovery capacity to assist with meeting peak season demands.The plan for ultimate buildout at this ASR site in the north part of the County is to have five ASR wells with a total withdrawal capacity of up to 5 MGD.The County has also explored the feasibility of an additional ASR site in the southern portion of its IQ water distribution system. 4.1.3.3 Supplemental Wellfields In addition to the two existing WRFs pumping and storage facilities,CCWSD utilizes two supplemental wellfields to meet its contractual requirements. The locations of the two wellfields, known as the Pelican Bay(Livingston Road) Wellfield and the Immokalee (Mule Pen Quarry) Wellfield,are shown in Figure 4-6.The wellfields are permitted under CUP 11-00052-W, described in Section 4.1.1,which allows CCWSD to withdraw water from the LT Aquifer in the Pelican Bay Wellfield and the WT Aquifer at the Immokalee Wellfield,to meet peak demands within the reclaimed water distribution system.A summary of the wells that make up these wellfields is provided in Table 4-9. 4-14 CSmith PW/6295/231366/03/O1 eontt Springs ® 846 CII 72„ may 858 NCWRF N 12” 24" 24" IMMOKALEE RD NpMr ■ Ft 18" y no Naples 951 O O )GrAden Gat O 93 ®33 41 tb6r 16" 100 20" • 12"24" u, Dy SCWRF, " 2 ,.� Nor 951 "t9 41 92 Legend WRF Existing Water Reclamation Facility NI Supplemental Wellfield "\/ IQ Water Main (>= 12") FIGURE 4-6 N COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN EXISTING CCWSD RECLAIMED WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 0 1 2 3 4 CDM Miles Smith Service Layer Credits:Esri,HERE,Garmin,©OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community-9/27/2018 Section 4• Existing Water Supply Facilities Table 4-9. Summary of Existing CCWSD Supplemental Wellsi /"N Aquifer Total Well Depth of Diameter(i * ; Capacity Utilized Depth (ft bls) Casing(ft bls) (gpm) 1 LT 100 50 10 300 2 LT 100 50 10 300 3 LT 100 50 10 300 4 LT 100 50 10 300 5 LT 100 50 10 300 6 LT 100 50 10 300 7 LT 100 50 10 300 8 WT 35 20 10 500 9 WT 35 20 10 500 10 WT 35 20 10 500 11 WT 35 20 10 500 12 WT 35 20 10 500 13 WT 35 20 10 500 LT=Lower Tamiami Aquifer WT=Water Table Aquifer 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP#11-00052-W 4.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) 4.2.1 Water Supply Permits The IWSD maintains one CUP for potable water supply.The details of the CUP are presented in Table 4-10. Table 4-10. Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to the Immokalee Water and Sewer District Number of Annual Maximum Consumptive Use Expiration Monthly Aquifer Utilized Permitted Allocation Permit Wells Date (MG) Allocation (MGD) Lower Tamiami 21 1,261 147.2 11-00013-W 5/23/2031 Upper Floridan' 4 - - Totals: 1,515 148.9 l Information on existing wells taken from CUP#11-00013-W. 'Annual allocation and Monthly allocation volume for the Upper Florida Aquifer not specified in the permit. 4.2.2 Potable Water Facilities 4.2.2.1 Wellfields Currently,the IWSD operates three wellfields; one adjacent to each of its WTPs.The locations of each of these wellfields and WTPs are illustrated in Figure 4-7. 4-16 CPA th PW/6295/231366/03/01 co A N O_ 8 )1110111111°' z X I I i D rM v P3 CO 0 I— — — — —— GC1 , E Ui'v ^ ..5'. \\,,,,,, -, 1 O m I j m G I 7 C) C z —I m -< 1 ,..., 1 1 , , .:< , R ,,,,i N I "; , 0 mD __ i . 4 o a aaddad N CA i r D G) I p 0. u —m o m C x Tl (n iN V o � D M 88 o I— -n r y S sa as sa .a•s r cn ON _c 0 FJ D L_ _ * z �\ o� � / anti� ;8 g� __. rbc' > z4 �o / �1' a ,g Esi I j L — — — — — ! I 3 aili 1 AP Section 4• Existing Water Supply Facilities The wells maintained by the IWSD tap the LT Aquifer,which is a traditional freshwater source. Table 4-11 summarizes the existing wells operated by the IWSD. Table 4-11. Summary of Existing IWSD Potable Water Wellsi Well No. Aquifer Total Well Depth of Diameter(in) Capacity(gpm) Utilized Depth(ft bls) Casing(ft bls) 7 LT 275 236 4 110 8 LT 225 140 6 400 9 LT 315 230 8 200 10B LT 275 250 8 225 11 LT 275 236 8 225 12 LT 175 95 8 250 13 LT 278 234 8 250 14 LT 200 140 8 350 102 LT 200 140 8 350 103 LT 200 125 8 350 104 LT 200 154 6 250 105 LT 210 140 8 200 106 LT 210 128 8 350 107 LT 200 140 8 350 201 LT 180 100 8 350 202 LT 180 100 8 350 ^` 204 LT 187 107 6 350 FA-1 UFA n/a 788 16 695 FA-2 UFA n/a 788 16 695 FA-3 UFA n/a 788 16 695 FA-4 UFA n/a 788 16 695 LT=Lower Tamiami Aquifer UFA=Upper Floridan Aquifer 1 Information on existing wells taken from CUP#11-00013-W. 4.2.2.2 Water Treatment Facilities The IWSD is served by three interconnected water treatment facilities;the Jerry V.Warden WTP, the Airport WTP and the Carson Road WTP,which are shown in Figure 4-7. The Jerry V.Warden WTP is located on the west side of Sanitation Road,south of CR-29. Freshwater from the LT Aquifer is treated at the plant using lime softening(LS).The plant has a finished water capacity of 2.25 MGD. The Airport WTP is located east of New Market Road East,north of CR-846. LS is utilized at the plant to treat freshwater from the LT Aquifer.The finished water capacity of the plant is 1.35 MGD. 4-18 711111th PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 4* Existing Water Supply Facilities The Carson Road WTP is located on the west side of Carson Road,north of Lake Trafford Road. The plant utilizes LS to treat the freshwater from the LT Aquifer and has a finished water capacity of 2.35 MGD. A summary of the existing water treatment facilities is provided in Table 4-12. In addition to identifying the design capacity of each treatment train,the amount of raw water required to make the design capacity is also provided. Table 4-12.Summary of Existing IWSD Water Treatment Facilities1 Raw Water Traditional/ Design Capacity 2 Raw Water Facility Name (MGD) Requirement Source Alternative Water (MGD) Supply Jerry V.Warden WTP 2.25 2.75 LT Traditional(Fresh) Airport WTP 1.35 1.65 LT Traditional (Fresh) Carson Road WTP 2.35 2.87 LT Traditional(Fresh) Total 5.95 7.26 - - 1 Information on existing water treatment facilities taken from the 2017 IWSD Public Facilities Report and the 2017 LWC Water Supply Plan Update. 2 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by dividing the annual Average Daily Demand by the efficiency of the treatment process. 4.2.2.3 Pumping, Storage and Transmission The existing transmission facilities consist of transmission pipelines,water storage tanks,and pumping facilities.The transmission facilities utilized by IWSD are shown in Figure 4-7.Water from the Jerry V.Warden WTP is pumped to one ground storage tanks,with a total capacity of 1.80 MG,located on the plant site.Water from the Carson Road WTP is pumped to two 1.0 MG ground storage tank with a total storage capacity of 1.5 MG.Water from the Airport WTP is pumped to an on-site 0.75 MG ground storage tank. From the storage tanks water enters the distribution system which consists of mains ranging in size from 2-inch to 12-inch.The distribution system contains approximately 100 miles of mains. Table 4-13 summarizes the existing water storage facilities utilized by IWSD. Table 4-13.Summary of Existing IWSD Water Storage Facilities' Facility Name Tank Volume(MG) Usable Storage Volume (MG) Jerry V.Warden WTP 1.80 1.80 Carson Road WTP 1.50 0.50 Airport WTP 0.75 0.75 Total 4.05 3.05 1 Information on existing water reclamation facilities taken from the 2017 IWSD Public Facilities Report. 4.2.3 Reclaimed Water Facilities Currently, IWSD disposes of all effluent wastewater via an on-site spray irrigation field, percolation ponds,or deep well injection. IWSD is served by one WRF,which is located on White Smnith 4-19 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 4• Existing Water Supply Facilities Way.The IWSD WWTP is rated at 4.0 MGD out of which the WRF can produce 2.36 MGD of reclaimed water.Table 4-14 summarizes the capacity of the existing reclaimed water facility. Table 4-14.Summary of Existing IWSD Water Reclamation Facility' Facility Name Design Treatment Capacity(MGD) IWSD WRF 2.36 Total 2.36 1Information on existing water reclamation facilities taken from the 2017 IWSD Public Facilities Report. 4.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) 4.3.1 Water Supply Permits AMUC maintains one CUP for potable water supply.The details of the CUP are presented in Table 4-15. Table 4-15. Consumptive Use Permits Issued by SFWMD to AMUC Number a Annual Average Maximum Aquifer xpiration Day Monthly Consumptive Use Permit Permitte Allocation Utilized We ate ak, (MG) Allocation Allocation (MGD) (MG) LT 3 10/19/2020 296.21 0.81 31.57 11-02298-W SA 1 10/19/2020 296.21 0.81 31.57 Total 423.16 1.16 45.11 LT=Lower Tamiami SA=Sandstone Aquifer 1CUP(11-02298-W)allocation is 1.16 MGD annual average and expires on October 19,2020. 4.3.2 Potable Water Facilities 4.3.2.1 Wellfields Currently,AMUC operates one wellfield in the vicinity of its WTP. The wells maintained by AMUC tap the LT Aquifer,which is a traditional freshwater source.Table 4-16 summarizes the existing wells operated by the utility. Table 4-16. Summary of Wells Operated by AMUC Well No. Aquifer Total Well Depth of Diameter(in) Capacity(gpm) Utilized Depth(ft bls) Casing(ft bls) PWS-1 LT 83 61 12 700 PWS-2 LT 80 59 12 700 PWS-3 LT 71 50 12 700 PWS-4 SA 325 250 12 750 'Information on existing wells taken from CUP#11-02298-W. 4-20 Smith PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 4• Existing Water Supply Facilities 4.3.2.2 Water Treatment Facilities AMUC operates one WTP,which is located west of Camp Keais Road,north of CR-858.The WTP has a finished water capacity of 1.0 MGD using MS. A summary of the existing water treatment facility is provided in Table 4-17. In addition to identifying the design capacity of each treatment train,the amount of raw water required to make the design capacity is also provided. Table 4-17.Summary of Existing AMUC Water Treatment Facility' Design Raw Water Raw Facility Name Capacity Requirement Water Traditional/Alternative (MGD) (MGD) Source Water Supply AMUC WTP(Phase 1) 1.00 1.18 LT Traditional (Fresh) Total 1.00 1.18 - - 1 Information on the water treatment facilities was taken from the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update(LWCWSP). 2 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity with the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 4.3.2.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission The existing transmission facilities consist of a water storage tank at the WTP and transmission pipelines.The water storage tank at the WTP has a capacity of 1.5 MG.Table 4-18 summarizes the water storage available in the Ave Maria Utility Company's System. Table 4-18.Summary of Existing AMUC Storage Facility' Facility Name Tank Volume(MG) Usable Storage Volume(MG) AMUC WTP 1.5 1.5 Total 1.5 1.5 'Information on existing and planned water treatment facilities was taken from the Preliminary Design Report for Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP and Florida Department of Environmental Protection as prepared by CH2M Hill,Inc.,June 2004 and supplemented with comments received from AMUC in a letter dated September 20,2007. 4.3.3. Reclaimed Water Facilities AMUC is served by one WRF,which is located within the development.The WRF is capable of producing 0.90 MGD of reclaimed water. Reclaimed water is pumped from the WRF to three reclaimed water storage ponds,which serve as the source for the Town and University's irrigation system and have a combined capacity of 23.0 MG.Reclaimed water is the most important element of the AMUC Conservation Plan,presented in detail in Section 7,and will be utilized to the fullest extent possible for irrigation of the Town and University. AMUC utilizes 100 percent of the reclaimed water generated. Table 4-19 summarizes the capacity of the existing reclaimed water facility. Sflt t 4-21 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 4• Existing Water Supply Facilities Table 4-19.Summary of Existing AMUC Water Reclamation Facility' Facility Name Design Treatment Capacity(MGD) AMUC WRF(Phase 1) 0.9 Total 0.9 1 Information on existing water reclamation facilities taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. /••••. 4-22 math PW/6295/231366/03/01 r Section 5 Planned Water Supply Facilities 5.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) CCWSD has been and continues to be a leader in the development of alternative water supplies and integrated water resource management in Florida. Starting in the mid-1980s CCWSD realized that it could not meet the future demands of its customers solely with traditional water supplies. CCWSD committed to a program of alternative water supplies that included the use of brackish groundwater and ASR for potable supply,and reclaimed water,supplemental water wellfields and ASR for storage and increased use of irrigation quality water for irrigation purposes. Given the success that CCWSD has had in meeting its demands with alternative water supplies, CCWSD embarked to identify better ways to meet future water supply demands within its service area. The result of this effort is a paradigm shift,from thinking of potable water and irrigation water demand as two separate needs to seeing the demands as inextricably intertwined. To better serve the needs of both potable water and irrigation water demand at the best value cost for the customer, CCWSD has begun development of a new business model which will shift the focus from development of additional potable water supplies to meeting a large portion of the overall water demand with irrigation quality water supplies. CCWSD currently has an annual average daily potable demand of 28.69 MGD and an annual average daily irrigation quality demand of 23.0 MGD. The ratio of irrigation quality demand to potable demand is approximately 45:55.As stated in Section 4.1.3 there is an additional 28.5 MGD of irrigation quality demand in the service area from entities that have installed dual distribution piping.The vision for CCWSD is optimizing water resource usage by substituting IQ water for non-potable uses such as irrigation,which will provide both economic and environmental benefits. Through implementation of the vision,it is anticipated that within the next 20 years the source of water can shift from 45 percent IQ water and 55 percent potable water to 60 percent IQ water and 40 percent potable water. Since the 2014 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update, the CCWSD has shifted the ratio from 40:60 to 45:55.This shift will occur as supplemental water supplies,and ASR storage components are added to the IQ water system and utilized to supply IQ water to customers,reserving higher quality water supplies for true potable use. It is anticipated that a portion of future potable water demand will be offset by substituting IQ water for potable water currently being used for irrigation. As a result of meeting irrigation demands with IQ water,90 percent instead of 70 percent of potable water delivered to customers will be returned to the water reclamation facilities to be reused. In addition to meeting irrigation demands,the focus on additional IQ water supplies instead of only potable water supplies provides significant benefits to the environment. By supplying IQ water to more customers,the use of potable water for irrigation and private irrigation systems will decrease. Further,the CCWSD IQ water distribution system often provides for a better temporal distribution of water to the natural system in that IQ water is provided at low rates over longer periods than typical rainfall events and is supplied during low rain periods when the ,nIth 5-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 5• Planned Water Supply Facilities aquifer system is most able to accommodate recharge thereby reducing runoff. Additionally, CCWSD's IQ water distribution system provides a net addition of freshwater to the surficial aquifer system through irrigation with treated water from the brackish Hawthorn aquifer system, which is otherwise trapped in very long-term and deep hydrologic cycles,bringing it into the daily water cycle. In order to supply additional irrigation water more efficiently, CCWSD will pursue additional allocations of fresh water.This strategy is supported by recently identified groundwater trends. Through its rigorous groundwater monitoring program, CCWSD identified trends in water level data from both the Lower Tamiami (LT)Aquifer and the Water Table (WT)Aquifer(connected to surface water flows,i.e.,wetlands) in and around the CCWSD's Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield. The data indicate that despite extended drought conditions and increased pumping from the LT Aquifer,water levels in key indicator wells are remaining steady and in some cases increasing. These trends provide evidence that the total water management approach taken by the CCWSD is yielding environmental benefits and suggest that additional pumping of the LT Aquifer is possible without impacting the WT Aquifer or wetlands,which is the main concern that directed CCWSD away from traditional sources more than twenty years ago. CCWSD's intent to pursue additional freshwater withdrawals from the LT Aquifer within the integrated total water management approach is consistent with the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update (LWCWSP) published by the SFWMD,which states on page 89,"While the development of fresh groundwater in many areas of the LWC Planning Area has been maximized,it may be available in some places.As urban growth occurs,some agricultural land is expected to transition to urban community uses.Many existing agricultural areas have water use permits to use fresh groundwater for crop irrigation.While water use permits cannot be directly transferred from one land use type to another,conversion of agricultural lands to another use may result in available fresh ground water"Likewise,on page 90,"Additional limited supplies maybe developed and permitted from the SAS and IAS depending on local resource conditions,changing land use,and the viability of other supply options." In addition to the water level trends observed in its monitoring wells, CCWSD has performed and is performing multiple studies to determine the viability of the LT Aquifer for additional allocations.To date,CCWSD has developed a calibrated groundwater model and utilized the MIKESHE model developed by the Army Corp of Engineers for the Picayune Strand Restoration Project to determine the potential impact of additional freshwater withdrawals on wetlands. The modeling efforts performed to date indicate that there would be no measurable impact on wetlands from moderate additional withdrawals. CCWSD has also constructed freshwater monitoring well clusters around the County that will provide longer term water level data for areas of the County away from its wellfields and developed four wetland monitoring sites within the Golden Gate Estates to verify that no wetland impacts are being caused by withdrawals from the Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield. CCWSD is confident that the modeling efforts performed to date,and its on-going water level monitoring program,will provide the required assurances to allow the SFWMD to increase its permitted allocation of freshwater from the LT Aquifer. CCWSD will develop documentation demonstrating how existing and planned IQ water supplies give rise to additional potable water supplies. This analysis will consider the potential availability of impact offsets and substitution credits in accordance with new Florida Department of Environmental Protection and SFWMDp 5-2 Csmith PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 5•Planned Water Supply Facilities rules. CCWSD anticipates that its planned IQ water infrastructure development will garner significant impact offsets and/or substitution credits in further support of its request to the SFWMD for additional allocations of freshwater to meet projected customer demand.These water resource benefits and associated availability of withdrawals will be in addition to the benefits already provided by CCWSD's existing IQ water system. For these reasons,CCWSD has initiated the shift in its business model based on an ability to obtain a reasonable amount of freshwater to maximize the efficiency of existing infrastructure and planned AWS projects. 5.1.1 Potable Water Facilities 5.1.1.1 Wellfields As part of the CCWSD plan to meet future water supply needs it intends to build the NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1.The NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1 will be made up of wells tapping the LT Aquifer,the HZ1 Aquifer and the LH Aquifer.The wells will serve the NERWTP Phase 1,which will treat the water using ion exchange (IE) for fresh water and LPRO for brackish water.The wellfield is scheduled to come online in 2027 to serve the first phase of the NERWTP.Table 5-1 summarizes the planned wells in the NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1. Table 5-1. Planned NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1 Summary1,2 Total Well Depth of Well No. Aquifer Depth(ft Casing(ft Diameter Capacity Utilized bls) bls) (in) 1 (gpm) LH-1 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 �_ LH-2 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-3 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-4 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-5 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-8 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-9 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-10 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-11 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-12 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-13 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-14 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-15 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 LH-16 LH 1,000 700 16/122 1,000 1Information on planned wells taken from CUP#11-00249-W. 2The number of wells,design,location,and source water for the planned wellfield will be determined through the design and permitting process.Some well sites may likely be located in the Big Cypress Stewardship District to take advantage of existing permitted water for agricultural use. 316-inch casing to 100 feet,then 12-inch casing to production casing depth. The location of the NERWTP Wellfield Phase 1 is illustrated in Figure 5-1. CCWSD also intends to construct additional LTA reliability wells.The potential location of these wells is illustrated in Figure 5-1 as well.As mentioned in footnote 2 above,the final location of the NERWTP wells will be determined through the design and permitting process. $111ith 5-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 BONITA BEACH RD 41 846 NERWTP O° 858 OTWTP IMMOKALEE RD 951 NCRWTP • • 0 0 93rTrli SCRVVTPlella 45jol 41 4 84 951 -944,x/ / ,?-1 41 92 Legend • Existing Well Planned Well Existing Water Treatment Plant IWI Planned Water Treatment Plant Existing Raw Water Transmission Main /\/ Planned Raw Water Transmission Main FIGURE 5-1 N COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN EXISTING AND PLANNED CCWSD WELLFIELDS AND RAW WATER TRANSMISSION LINES CDR,' 1 2 3 4 Smith Miles Service Layer Credits:Esri,HERE,Garmin,©OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community-9/27/2018 Section 5• Planned Water Supply Facilities Table 5-2 identifies the major tasks required to build the wellfield,along with the funding source that will be utilized and scheduled dates for studies,property acquisition,design,permitting,and construction. Table 5-2. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD NERWTP Phase 1 Wellfield Year(s)of Execution Feasibility Property Facility Name Funding Source Study Acquisition Design' Permitting Construction NERWTP Phase 1 Wellfield Impact Fees Complete Complete 2019 2023-2025 2025-2027 1 Design is complete.Portions to be re-designed in 2019. 5.1.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities The CCWSD is currently served by three WTPs; the NCRWTP,the SCRWTP,and the OTWTP.As mentioned in the previous subsection,the CCWSD intends to construct an additional treatment facility,the NERWTP to meet future demands.The locations of the existing and planned facilities are shown in Figure 5-2. The location of the planned NERWTP is approximately one mile north of CR-858 (Oil Well Road) and one mile east of SR-846 (Immokalee Road) in the northeastern quadrant of the service area. The plant will utilize IE to treat fresh groundwater withdrawn from the LT and HZ1 aquifers. Water from the LH Aquifer will be treated using LPRO.The first phase of the plant is currently scheduled to come online in 2027 and will have a capacity of 5 MGD. The plant will be capable of expansion to an ultimate capacity of 15 MGD. As stated in Section 4.1.2.2,the NCRWTP is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension east of CR-951 in the northeastern quadrant of the service area and the SCRWTP is located near the intersection of CR-951 and I-75 about 5.5 miles south of the NCRWTP. A summary of the existing and planned water treatment facilities is provided in Table 5-3. In addition to identifying the design capacity of each treatment train,the amount raw water required to make the design capacity is also provided. m�th 5-5 PW/6295/231366/03/01 BONITA BEACH RD 41 NERWTP 846 ww ® 858 IMMOKALEE RD OTWTP NCRWTP 951 G) 0 0 93 SCRWTP 45 A 41 A 84 951 -94,„ 41 92 Legend Existing Water Treatment Plant WTP Planned Water Treatment Plant N FIGURE 5-2 COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN EXISTING AND PLANNED CCWSD POTABLE WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES 0 1 2 3 4 CDIVI Miles SMIth Service Layer Credits:Esri,HERE,Garmin,©OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community-9/26/2018 Section 5• Planned Water Supply Facilities Table 5-3. Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Treatment Facilities1 DesignRaw Water Rawaditional/ Project u 4 _ apacity Requiremen. Wate Alternative Identified xOnlin' In (MGD) (MG Sourc Water Supply LWCWSP NCRWTP MF Online 12 14.64 LH Traditional(Fresh) N/A NCRWTP LPRO Online 8 9.76 LH/HZ1 Alternative N/A (Brackish) SCRWTP LS Online 12 14.64 LTA Traditional(Fresh) N/A SCRWTP LPRO Online 20 24.40 LH/HZ1 Alternative N/A (Brackish) OTUC Online 0.75 0.92 LT Traditional (Fresh) N/A NERWTP Phase 1 Alternative 2027 1.25 4.58 LH Yes LPRO (Brackish) NERWTP Phase 1 2027 3.75 1.53 LTA/HZ1 Traditional(Fresh) Yes Ion Exchange Total - 57.75 70.46 - - - 1Information taken from the Collier County 2014 Water Master Plan Update. 2 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water need to make a certain amount of finished water.It is calculated by multiplying the design capacity by the Raw-to-Finished-Water Adjustment. Table 5-4 identifies the major tasks required to build each of the planned water treatment facilities,along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies, property acquisition, design,permitting,and construction. Table 5-4. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD NERWTP Phase 1 Feasibility Property Design Permitting Construction Facility Name Funding Study Acquisition Source Year(s)of Execution NERWTP Phase 1 Impact Fees Complete Complete Complete 2023-2025 2025-2027 5.1.1.3 Pumping, Storage, and Transmission The planned transmission facilities consist of transmission pipelines,water storage tanks,aquifer storage and recovery(ASR) systems,and pumping facilities.The pumping and storage facilities utilized by CCWSD are shown in Figure 5-3.The planned pumping facilities will include high service pumps at the new NERWTP.Additional booster pumping stations and an in-line booster pump station may be required to meet demands but are not planned for construction during the planning period out to 2028. Ground storage tanks at the proposed treatment facility will provide system storage and reserve capacity to help meet peak hourly demands of the system. Additionally,potable water will be stored at various strategic points in the CCWSD distribution system to help meet diurnal peak system and fire flow demands. ?math 5-7 PW/6295/231366/03/O1 BONITA,BEACH RD I 41 )9. c 11, Allgail I.\ 846 G 858 t Lt13tr-. F,'ifF — IMMOKALEE RD OTWTP t`rtit it , , tr,. , r. t-!: 951 CARICA BOOSTER STATION 0 O Oyt,- 93 Green Blvd Booster Pump Station Tank rill Ot 45 A Golden Gate WTP Tank 41x CO 84 r1.w tr- �_.. r `. Let, -- t ,,, MANATEE ROAD ASR MANATEE BOOSTER STATION ril° 951 1-.94„,'49 / T,?-9 0 ISLE OF CAPRI BOOSTER STATION rill. 92 Legend • Existing Potable Water Storage Facility GOODLAND BOOSTER STATION O Planned Potable Water Storage Facility \/ Potable Water Main (>= 12") N FIGURE 5-3 COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN A EXISTING AND PLANNED CCWSD POTABLE WATER STORAGE FACILITIES 0 1 2 3 4 CDR/ Miles Smith Service Layer Credits:Esri,HERE,Gamin,©OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community-9/26/2018 Section 5• Planned Water Supply Facilities A summary of the existing and planned storage facilities is provided in Table 5-5. Table 5-5.Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Storage Facilities' Facility Name Year Online Tank Volume(MG) Usable Storage Volume(MG) NCRWTP online 12 11.1 SCRWTP online 14 12.4 Isle of Capri online 0.25 0.2 Manatee Road Pumping Station online 2 1.8 Carica Road Pumping Station online 10 9.3 NERWTP Phase 1 2027 15 13.5 Manatee Road ASR Phase 12 online N/A N/A Total - 53.25 48.3 'Information taken from the Collier County FY 2017 CIP Update. 2Storage volume for Manatee Road ASR not included in total,not currently in operation. Table 5-6 identifies the major tasks required to build each of the planned pumping and storage improvements,along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies,property acquisition,design,permitting,and construction. Table 5-6. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Water Storage Facilities Feasibility Property Design Permitting Construction Facility Name Funding Source Study Acquisition Year(s)of Execution NERWTP Phase 1 Impact Fees Complete Complete Complete 2023-2025 2025-2027 Storage Tanks Potable water is pumped from the plants into the distribution system.The distribution system includes water mains designated as either transmission or distribution mains.The CCWSD pipelines 16 inches in diameter and larger are generally termed transmission mains.These are typically located along arterial and collector roadways and convey water to major demand areas. Pipelines smaller than 16 inches in diameter are generally called distribution mains,branching off the transmission system to supply individual users. Overall,the CCWSD owns and maintains over 1,000 miles of water transmission and distribution pipelines,up to 48 inches in diameter,with over 56,000 individual service connections. With the construction of 5 MGD of additional finished water capacity, CCWSD will be installing a substantial number of transmission mains and major distribution mains over the next 10 years. The existing and planned transmission mains and major distribution mains that will serve CCWSD in 2028 are illustrated in Figure 5-4. lath 5-9 PW/6295/231366/03/01 16" BONITA BEACH RD la 12" ® 846 •(N , , j36" - 11.- 18 C. _ io• A858 '''b 12" 30" 12" ,• 24" IAalij IMMOKALEE RD VEli . iv rkv 1 30" 'i6" 24" .2" ,e-.4 N 12', m EN 20' &yr-4 951 0 o • o , 93 . ZA m CDT I 41 TY . v 0 84 w io M ,6, - 20" N Kt 1 ../* tin en 76, N 16" - '6. )111111 72 le 76.. 7,.'„r 951 -94 4 orrN./ 'N 41 92 Legend /\/ Transmission Main /\/ Potable Water Main(>= 12") N FIGURE 5-4 COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN A EXISTING AND PLANNED CCWSD POTABLE WATER TRANSMISSION MAINS 0 1 2 3 4CDM Miles Smith Service Layer Credits:Esri,HERE,Garmin,©OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community-9/27/2018 Section 5•Planned Water Supply Facilities 5.1.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities CCWSD currently operates one of the largest reclaimed water systems in South Florida,which serves customers with contractual commitments of 23.0 MGD.The majority of the existing customer base includes golf courses, residential communities,environmental mitigation areas, county parks,and roadway medians.There is an additional demand of 28.5 MGD in the service area from entities that have installed dual distribution piping. The following subsections describe the measures CCWSD is taking to meet future wastewater demands and supply reclaimed water to its customers. 5.1.2.1 Water Reclamation Facilities The locations of the existing NCWRF and SCWRF are shown in Figure 5-5.There are plans to proceed with NEWRF Phase 1.Table 5-7 summarizes the capacities of the existing and planned WRFs. Table 5-7.Summary of Existing and Planned CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities' Facility Name Year Online Design Capacity Project Identified (MGD)2 In LWCWSP NCWRF Online 24.1 N/A SCWRF Online 16.0 N/A NEWRF Phase 1 2026 4.0 Yes Total - 44.1 - '� 1 Information taken from the Collier County 2014 Master Plan Update. 'The design capacities do not reflect the amount of reclaimed water available from the facilities. The amount of reclaimed water available is based on influent flow and treatment efficiency. For planning purposes,CCWSD considers reclaimed water availability based on 95 percent of the minimum monthly effluent flow. As stated in the footnotes to Table 5-7,the amount of reclaimed water distributed is not directly related to the design capacity of each water reclamation facility. In addition to the limitations identified,the ability of CCWSD to utilize available reclaimed water for distribution is impacted by seasonal fluctuations in demand,with very high demands during the dry season and low demands during the wet season. Table 5-8 identifies the major tasks required to build the NEWRF,along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies,property acquisition,design,permitting, and construction. Table 5-8. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Water Reclamation Facilities Feasibility Property Design PermittingConstruction Fundingg Facility Name Source Study Acquisition Year(s)of Execution NEWRF Wastewater Complete Complete 2021- 2021-2022 2023-2026 Impact Fees 2022 Wirth 5-11 PW/6295/231366/03/O1 )1t Springs 846 NEWRF 41 858 NCWRF a ;N : PaIMMOKALEE RD Pelican ea', North Naples 951 0 0 0 932-ietden G:yte v 45 41 � 84 ?Maples SCWRF vtuFf 951 -4i/,q4 T� 41 92 ?.# r♦ - { Ind Legend Planned Water Reclamation Facility "u' Existing Water Reclamation Facility N FIGURE 5-5 COLLIER COUNTY 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN EXISTING AND PLANNED CCWSD WATER RECLAMATION FACILITIES 0 1 2 3 4 % th DM Icimpo Miles Service Layer Credits:Esri,HERE,Garmin,©OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community-9/27/2018 Section 5*Planned Water Supply Facilities 5.1.2.2 Reclaimed Water Pumping, Storage, and Transmission The current reclaimed water distribution system consists of over 130 miles of transmission and distribution pipeline and is currently divided into two services areas,one in the north and one in the south,each supplied by the respective WRF.There are a few small interconnects between the two service areas,but the system is hydraulically limited from passing large volumes of water from one service area to the other. As additional reclaimed water becomes available through population growth and increased wastewater flows,and once existing demand is met, CCWSD will need to expand the reclaimed water distribution system to serve more customers.At this time,specific distribution and transmission main projects have not been determined. Temporary reclaimed water storage is available on-site at the WRFs.Additional storage will be provided through the expansion of the existing reclaimed water ASR from a capacity of 2 MGD to 5 MGD.A summary of the reclaimed water storage that will be available with the expansion of the reclaimed water ASR is provided in Table 5-9. Table 5-9.Summary of Existing and Planned Reclaimed Water Storage Facilities' Facility Name Year Online Usable Storage Volume(MG) NCWRF online 18.95 SCWRF online 3.00 NEWRF 2026 2.00 Total - 23.95 Reclaimed Water ASR 2015 -2.00 MGD Reclaimed Water ASR Expansion TBD "'3.00 MGD Total - "'5.00 MGD 1 Information taken from the Collier County 2008 Wastewater Master Plan Update. Table 5-10 identifies the major tasks required to build each of the planned reclaimed water storage facilities,along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies,property acquisition, design,permitting,and construction. Table 5-10. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned CCWSD Reclaimed Water Storage Facilities Feasibility Property FundingDesign Permitting Construction Facility Name Study Acquisition Source Year(s)of Execution NEWRF Storage Wastewater Complete Complete 2021-2022 2021-2022 2023-2026 Tanks Impact Fees Reclaimed Water User Fees Complete Complete TBD TBD TBD ASR Wells 3-5 Upsize Transmission User Fees TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Piping from ASR Site 5.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) 5.2.1 Potable Water Facilities 5.2.1.1. Wellfields Currently,the IWSD operates three wellfields; one adjacent to each of its WTPs.The locations of Aof these wellfields and WTPs are illustrated in Figure 5-6.The 16 wells maintained by the 'Wraith 5-13 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 5• Planned Water Supply Facilities IWSD tap the LT Aquifer,which is a traditional freshwater source. IWSD plans to bring four additional wells online by 2020 to address future demands.The wells will tap the Floridan Aquifer,which is a brackish water source.Table 5-11 summarizes the wells IWSD plans to construct. Table 5-11. Summary of Planned IWSD Wellsi Well No. Aquifer Total Well Depth of Utilized Depth'(ft bls) Casing(ft bls) Diameter(in) Capacity(gpm) FA-1 Floridan NA 788 16 695 FA-2 Floridan NA 788 16 695 FA-3 Floridan NA 788 16 695 FA-4 Floridan NA 788 16 695 1 Information on planned wells taken from CUP#11-00013-W. 2 NA—information not available on CUP#11-00013-W. Table 5-12 identifies the major tasks required to build the four wells, along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies,property acquisition,design, permitting,and construction. Table 5-12. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned IWSD Wells Year(s)of Execution Facility Name Funding Feasibility Study Property Design Permitting Construction Source Acquisition FA-1 to FA-4 USDA 2015 2018 2019 2019 2020 5.2.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities The IWSD is currently served by three interconnected water treatment facilities;the Jerry V. Warden WTP,the Airport WTP and the Carson Road WTP. During the 10-year planning period IWSD plans to construct a RO WTP.The proposed plant will have a design capacity of 2.5 MGD. Table 5-13 summarizes the treatment capacity of the existing and planned potable water facilities for IWSD. �m 5-14 smith PW/6295/231366/03/01 N J Ni O_ )0100.- z x 1 1 D 73 CO 0 _____1 z EEE ;dUN'TY CP EC Z s v ! . m r r C.) O C Z No v * m c •a a3dd3d N * moo cmc8 Z:::): � Xm r i;'), J g r1 O r (/) c.n '�` o � � Co:" � M81a8 o 0 -< x— yg S as VS � � —z I� , 0 are a o (J p K 4 'a� �-- o I co> zI al ___,_____ .r3I,ti 8 EQ ----- / aF,1V $j / u, ><5Dom' %v / H 3 Section 5• Planned Water Supply Facilities Table 5-13 Summary of Existing and Planned IWSD Water Treatment Facilities1 Year Design Raw Water Z Raw Water Traditional/ Project Facility Name Online Capacity Requirement Source Alternative Identified In (MGD) (MGD) Water Supply LWCWSP Jerry V.Warden Online 2.25 2.75 LT Traditional N/A WTP (Fresh) Airport WTP Online 1.35 1.65 LT Traditional N/A (Fresh) Carson Road WTP Online 2.35 2.87 LT Traditional N/A (Fresh) RO WTP 2022 2.50 3.05 FA Alternative Yes (Brackish) Total - 8.45 10.31 - - - 1 Information on the existing and planned IWSD water treatment facilities was taken from the CUP#11- 00013-W and the 2017 IWSD Public Facilities Report. 2 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the capacity by the Raw-To-Finished-Water Adjustment. 5.2.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities Currently, IWSD disposes of all effluent wastewater via an on-site spray irrigation field or deep well injection.The IWSD currently has a WRF with a capacity of 2.36 MGD.Two planned future expansions of the facility will increase the capacity to 5.5 MGD. 5.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLP (AMUC) 5.3.1 Potable Water Facilities 5.3.1.1 Wellfields AMUC currently operates three wells located in close proximity to the WTP. Per the AMUC CUP and information in the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update,AMUC plans on a new Sandstone Aquifer well by 2025. 5.3.1.2 Water Treatment Facilities Ave Maria Utilities operates one WTP,which is located west of Camp Keais Road, north of CR-858. The current capacity of the AMUC WTP is 1.0 MGD using MS. Per the AMUC CUP and information in the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update,AMUC plans on a 2.5 MGD Sandstone Aquifer RO WTP expansion scheduled for completion by 2025.A summary of the existing and planned water treatment facilities is provided in Table 5-14. In addition to identifying the design capacity of each treatment train,the amount raw water required to achieve the design capacity is also provided. 5-16 calth PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 5•Planned Water Supply Facilities Table 5-14. Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Potable Water Treatment Facilities' Traditional/ Design Raw Water Raw Project YearAlternative Facility Name Capacity Requirement' Water Identified In Online Water (MGD) (MGD) Source Supply LWCWSP AMUC WTP Online 1.0 1.18 LT Traditional Yes (Fresh) AMUC RO WTP 2025 2.5 2.95 SA Alternative Yes Expansion (Fresh) Total - 3.5 4.13 - - - 1Information on existing and planned water treatment facilities taken from the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update. 2 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. Table 5-15 identifies the major tasks required to build each of the planned expansion phases, along with the funding source that will be utilized and the scheduled dates for studies,property acquisition,design,permitting,and construction. Table 5-15. Major Tasks Required to Build Planned AMUC Potable Water Treatment Facilities Year(s)of Execution Funding Feasibili 'roperty Facility Name Design Permitting Construction Source ,tudy cquisition AMUC RO WTP TBD Complete Complete TBD TBD TBD Expansion 5.3.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities AMUC is served by one WRF,which is located within the development.The WRF is capable of producing 0.9 MGD of reclaimed water.AMUC plans to expand the WRF to a total capacity of 3.4 MGD.Table 5-16 summarizes the capacities of the existing and planned phases of the WRF. Table 5-16.Summary of Existing and Planned AMUC Water Reclamation Facilities' Design Project Identified In Facility Name Year Online Capacity LWCWSP (MGD) AMUC WRF(Phase 1) Online 0.9 N/A AMUC WRF(Phased expansion) 2024 2.5 Yes Total - 3.4 - 1 Information on existing water treatment facilities taken from the 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update. Reclaimed water is pumped from the WRF to three reclaimed water storage ponds,which serve as the source for the Town and University's irrigation system.AMUC plans to add an additional reclaimed water storage ponds within the development in the future. Expansion of the facility's capacity is planned in several phases.The utility plans to add reclaimed water storage ponds and a deep injection well system for disposal during wet weather.The new ponds will increase the Srilth 5-17 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 5• Planned Water Supply Facilities storage capacity from 23.0 MG to 44.0 MG.Additionally,AMUC is currently permitting a 289 MG wetlands storage system which will be used for wet weather storage. Reclaimed water is the most important element of the AMUC Conservation Plan,presented in detail in Section 7,and will be utilized to the fullest extent possible for irrigation of the Town and University.AMUC believes it will be able to utilize 100 percent of the reclaim water generated. 5-18 Smith PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 6 Facilities Capacity Analysis Sections 3,4,and 5 of this plan presented the population and associated water demand of the service area served and to be served by each utility,the existing water supply facilities in place to meet current demands,and the facilities planned to meet future water supply needs,respectively. The purpose of this section of the plan is to conveniently present a comparison of the population, water demand,facilities capacity,and permit limitations that identifies surpluses and deficits in facility and permit capacities. 6.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) As described in Section 5.1, CCWSD plans to bring online a new potable water treatment facility and associated wellfield during the 10-year planning period ending in 2028. Table 6-1 illustrates how these additions to the existing system will allow CCWSD to stay ahead of the demand curve during the 10-year planning period. Table 6-1.Water Capacity Analysis for CCWSD 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population 195,207 241,422 271,671 300,839 Demand Per Capita (gpcd) 150 150 150 150 Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd(MGD) 29.28 36.21 40.75 45.13 Available Facility Capacity(MGD) 52.00 52.75 52.75 57.75 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment) 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 Facility Capacity Surplus(Deficit)(MGD)2 22.72 16.54 12.00 12.62 Raw Water Requirement(MGD)3 35.72 44.18 49.72 55.05 Permitted Amount(MGD Annual Average)4-5 55.53 56.18 56.18 56.18 Permitted Surplus(Deficit)(MGD)6 19.81 12.00 6.47 1.13 1 The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 2 Calculated by subtracting Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd from Available Facility Capacity. 3 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Required Treatment Capacity @ 150 gpcd by the Raw to Finished Water Adjustment. 4 CCWSD has two potable water supply consumptive use permits.CUP 11-00249-W allocation is for 55.53 MGD annual average and expires on September 22,2036.CUP allocation 11-00419-W is for 0.65 MGD and expires on March 7,2023. CCWSD is proactive in renewing its CUPs in advance of expiration and intends to maintain the necessary CUPs to meet the raw water requirement. 6 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. With 6-1 PW/6295/231366/03/O1 Section 6• Facilities Capacity Analysis As will be noted from Table 6-1,the allocation under CCWSD's current CUP (11-00249-W) is ✓- sufficient to meet the raw water requirement needed to make the Required Treatment Capacity at 150 gpcd through 2028. 6.1.1 Concurrency Analysis Each year,the Public Utilities Division completes a concurrency review of its "Category A" facilities,including potable water.The analysis becomes a part of the Countywide Annual Update and Inventory Report(AUIR).Although concurrency is mandated through state and local law for a two year period,the AUIR analysis goes well beyond 10 years. Like the AUIR,the CCWSD uses an additional tool to assure concurrency. Known as "Checkbook Concurrency,"the tool is used quarterly to update capacity projections.While the AUIR relies on BEBR population estimates for future growth,the Checkbook tracks approved development (Planned Unit Developments and Developments of Regional Impact) as an additional measure of future capacity. It also measures 3-day peak demand rather than seasonal demand. The CCWSD Water and Wastewater Master Plans are the primary planning tools for capital planning. Nevertheless,the AUIR and Checkbook concurrency measurements serve as additional safeguards to assure future capacity. 6.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) Table 6-2 shows the capacity analysis for IWSD for the 10-year planning period. The improvements planned by the IWSD for the 10-year planning period are sufficient to meet the demands of the service area and the allocation of the underlying CUP (11-00013-W) is sufficient to cover the withdrawals required to make the finished water demand. Table 6-2.Water Capacity Analysis for IWSD 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population 22,747 25,717 27,616 29,948 Demand Per Capita (gpcd) 75 75 75 75 Annual Average Daily Demand (MGD) 1.71 1.93 2.07 2.25 Available Facility Capacity(MGD)1 5.60 5.60 5.60 8.10 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment' 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 Facility Capacity Surplus(Deficit)(MGD)3 3.89 3.67 3.53 5.85 Raw Water Requirement(MGD)4 2.08 2.35 2.53 2.74 Permitted Amount(MGD Annual Average)5 4.15 4.15 4.15 4.15 Permitted Surplus(Deficit)(MGD)6 2.07 1.80 1.62 1.41 1 Per the Lower West Coast Water Supply update,the IWSD available facility capacity is projected to go up to 8.10 by 2030. 2 The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 3 Calculated by subtracting Annual Average Daily Demand from Available Facility Capacity. 4 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the Annual Average Daily Demand by the Raw-To-Finished-Water Adjustment. 5 CUP(11-00013-W)allocation is 4.15 MGD annual average and expires on May 23,2031. 6 Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. 6-2 Cspmlth PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 6• Facilities Capacity Analysis 6.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) Table 6-3 shows the capacity analysis for AMUC for the 10-year planning period. Based on the capacity analysis,AMUC does not have sufficient permitted capacity to meet the demands of its service area for the 10-year planning period.The allocation of the underlying CUP (11-02298-W) only convers the withdrawals required to make the finished water demand until 2025.After 2025,the Permitted Surplus (Deficit) becomes negative.AMUC will need to increase their permitted consumptive use by 2025. Table 6-3. Water Capacity Analysis for AMUC 2013 2018 2023 2028 Service Area Population 2,924 5,803 9,065 12,713 Demand Per Capita (gpcd) 91 91 91 91 Annual Average Daily Demand(MGD) 0.27 0.53 0.82 1.16 Available Facility Capacity(MGD) 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.50 Raw to Finished Water Adjustment' 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 Facility Capacity Surplus(Deficit)(MGD)2 0.73 0.47 0.18 2.34 Raw Water Requirement(MGD)3 0.31 0.62 0.97 1.37 Permitted Amount(MGD Annual Average)° 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 Permitted Surplus(Deficit)(MGD)' 0.85 0.54 0.19 (0.21) 1 The Raw-To-Finished Water Adjustment was taken from the 2017 LWCWSP. 2 Calculated by subtracting Annual Average Daily Demand from Available Facility Capacity. 3 Raw water requirement is the amount of raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by multiplying the annual Average Daily Demand by the Raw-To-Finished-Water Adjustment. 4 CUP(11-02298-W)allocation is 1.16 MGD annual average and expires on October 19,2020. 'Calculated by subtracting the Raw Water Requirement from the Permitted Amount. Nth 6-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 7 Conservation Regulations and Practices As the water supply in Florida becomes more taxed over time,the need to more efficiently utilize water resources will increase. The following subsections outline the conservation regulations and practices utilized by each of the utilities covered under this plan. The information provided has been taken directly from the water conservation plans approved by the SFWMD and included in each utility's consumptive use permit. 7.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) The conservation plan implemented by CCWSD is described in the utility's consumptive use permit as follows: The Collier County Board of Commissioners enacted Ordinance 2002-17,which reduced watering to three days per week(three times each for odd and even numbered addresses),in an effort to reduce water consumption.This ordinance also requires that rain sensor devices be installed on automatic irrigation systems.The Board initiated an ASR program to allow for the storage of excess water that can later be withdrawn to offset peak usage. Other water conservation measures designated by the SFWMD,which Collier County has enacted include: • Requiring low flow plumbing fixtures as part of the Land Development Code (LDC); • Encouraging the use of Florida Friendly landscapes and other drought-tolerant vegetation in portions of the LDC; • Implementing water conservation rates that increase per-thousand gallon charges as usage increases; • Monthly reading of all customers' meters to minimize losses from unaccounted-for water; • An active reuse program,which delivers over 4.5 billion gallons a year of reclaimed wastewater,to reduce irrigation withdrawals; • Filter backwashing at the SCRWTP to eliminate water lost in cleaning filters; and • Enacted in 2003 to further promote water conservation,the Board approved a mandatory water high-consumption surcharge,which is applied when the SFWMD implements water restrictions and impacts on only high-use consumers. In addition to these water conservation measures,the CCWSD and other County agencies endeavor to educate the public regarding water conservation through educational and outreach programs.Staff members routinely conduct presentations for schools, civic groups,homeowner associations,and other receptive groups. Division staff participates in events,such as"Senior Csmith 7.1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 7• Conservation Regulations and Practices Expo"and"Government Days,"to take the water conservation campaign to the public.Utility bill inserts and advertising have further helped to spread the message.The County has actively been promoting the"Fridays are Dry Days" campaign,which has become the tag line on commercials airing on radio stations throughout Collier County.These stations were selected to target a large number of consumers,including those who do not speak English.The tag line has also been utilized in several productions airing on the Collier County Government Channel.Public service announcements and specially produced videos promoting water conservation also air on the County's government access television station,Channel 11/16. CCWSD has made significant strides towards improving and enhancing the efficiency of the Water Distribution System and aims to continue to do so over the next 10 years. Maintaining an efficient system with upgraded and preventive maintenance efforts keeps unplanned water losses to a minimum. CCWSD's average unaccounted-for water is currently below 10 percent,according to the unaccounted water loss report submitted to the SFWMD.Traditionally,water loss in Collier County Water District has remained low due to aggressive water loss management practices. Figure 7-1 shows the unaccounted-for water loss over the past 15 fiscal years. As indicated in Figure 7-1,the CCWSD unaccounted-for water loss has lowered during the recent 10 years (period between 2008 to 2017)when compared to its preceding period. Figure 7-1 CCWSD Unaccounted-for Water Loss from FY2002 to FY20171 15.0% o 122% •0 12.5% nil 9.7% 4 3°/a p 10.0% millitita11.5% y7.5% 0 0 4.9% 4.6%05.4% .5/oo• 5.0/0 .3%4.0% _ 3.8%4.0% 2.5% a� a 0.0% 1 f N M d u i 1O C` CO Cr, O N--1 N M d" 111 10 l� O O O O O O O O 1--I - c-I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Fiscal Year 1 The CCWSD Unaccounted-for Water Loss from FY2002 to FY2013 was taken from the previous 2013 10-Year Water Supply Plan Update. Specific projects the CCWSD has or will undertake to further water conservation include: • Ongoing effort to replace valves that are reaching the end of their useful life and to install and additional (20) valves per year to assist with increase responsiveness to system events. • Mapping new areas incorporated into the district,including Golden Gate City,and North East Service Area (i.e. Orange Tree Utility). 7-2 Csmith PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 7•Conservation and Practices • On-going effort to replace lead service lines that are traditionally a major portion of the water loss for the CCWSD. Considering the age of the service lines, CCWSD's goal is to replace up to 75 service lines per year. • Continue with the meter change-out program for the replacement of all 3/4"to 2"potable meters. Of the over 56,000 meters originally identified by CCWSD,approximately 7,500 meters are left to replace.The meter change-out program is scheduled for completion by September 30, 2019. • On-going activity of replacing water mains utilizing a"just in time"method methodology of replacement. Mains are replaced after several failures versus waiting until they become an operational issue.This improves service reliability and fire protection capacity and reduces the potential for water loss. • Changes to the Utility Standards Ordinance now require developers of new areas to provide flushing stations for areas that may have concerns with maintaining sufficient residual.This results in the reduction of overall water loss due to required flushing to maintain disinfectant residuals. • Collier County is actively completing water looping projects. Looping is promoted by imposing and tracking PUD commitments and through enforcement of design criteria which require all new potable water distribution systems to be looped. Looping conserves water by eliminating dead ends,which must be flushed to maintain minimum chloramine residuals. • Collier County's projects that have been completed over the past five years are: o Wilshire Lakes, o Treefarm Road, o Twin Eagles, o Heritage Bay, o Waterways Boulevard,and o Orange Tree Boulevard. • The water looping projects planned over the next five years include: o Wildflower Way, o Warren Street, o Quarry/Esplanade, o Saturnia Lakes, and o Bergamot Lane. Csmith 7-3 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 7• Conservation Regulations and Practices • Collier County Water District is proactively acquiring older utilities,such as Golden Gate City. This allows for sharing of water resources among a larger number of customers and enhanced maintenance,which will decrease unaccounted for water levels in these areas. • Employing other contractual resources to perform leak detection for older areas of the Water District. 7.2 Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) The conservation plan implemented by IWSD is described in the utility's consumptive use permit as follows: Pursuant to the SFWMD Applicants Handbook for Water Use Permit Applications (September 2015), Section 2.3.2 F. 1.Water Conservation Requirements,all public water supply utilities are required to develop and implement a water conservation plan. Each of the mandatory water conservation elements must exist or have a proposed time frame for implementation.As mentioned earlier,the IWSD was established under Florida law and has specific duties and quasi- governmental rights.However,the authority to enact ordinances does not reside with that District.The applicant has stated they will request that Immokalee enact any required ordinances within a year of permit issuance.The applicant has provided the following water conservation plan elements: A. Permanent Irrigation Ordinance: An ordinance which restricts landscape irrigation to the hours of 4:00 p.m.to 10:00 a.m., 7 days per week,is currently not in effect for the service area.The utility will request that Immokalee adopt an ordinance for the service area within 1 year of permit issuance. B. Xeriscape Ordinance: An ordinance which requires the use of xeriscape landscape principles is currently not in effect.The utility will request that Immokalee adopt an ordinance for the service area within 1 year of permit issuance. C. Ultra-Low Volume Plumbing Fixture Ordinance: An ordinance which requires ultra- low volume plumbing fixtures on all new construction is in effect for the service area. D. Water Conservation Rate Structure: The applicant has a conservation-based rate structure,which includes increasing block rates as a means of reducing demands. E. Leak Detection Program: The applicant does not have an unaccounted-for water and leak detection program because the unaccounted-for water losses are less than 10 percent. F. Rain Sensor Device Ordinance: An ordinance which requires any person who purchases and installs an automatic lawn sprinkler system to install,operate,and maintain a rain sensor device or automatic switch which will override the irrigation system with the occurrence of adequate rainfall is currently not in effect for the service area.The utility will request that Immokalee adopt an ordinance within 1 year of the permit issuance. 7-4 Csmith PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 7•Conservation and Practices G. Water Conservation Education Program: The applicant distributes pamphlets,makes school visits,and provides information booths for employees and customers. Information signs,press releases,and messages about water conservation on the bills are also utilized. H. Reclaimed Water: Currently,all wastewater effluent is disposed of via a spray irrigation field and percolation ponds. 7.3 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) The conservation plan implemented by AMUC is described in the utility's consumptive use permit as follows: Per Section 2.3.2 F of the SFWMD Applicants Handbook for Water Use Permit Applications,public water supply in excess of 500,000 gpd requires a water conservation plan addressing the following conservation elements: Permanent Irrigation Ordinance,Xeriscape Ordinance, Ultra- Low Volume Plumbing Fixture Ordinance,Water Conservation Rate Structure, Leak Detection Program, Rain Sensor Device Ordinance,Water Conservation Education Program,and Reclaimed Water Use.The following information is provided. A. Permanent Irrigation Ordinance: One of the water conservation efforts the Ave Maria University and Town will pursue is adoption of an irrigation ordinance to limit irrigation water usage during the dry season.The planned ordinance would follow watering restrictions adopted by Collier County, including limiting daytime watering times and limiting the number of days that lawns could be watered.The irrigation ordinance would also likely follow an even/odd address watering system. B. Xeriscape Landscape Ordinance: The University and Town of Ave Maria will pursue adoption of an ordinance which recommends the use of xeriscape principles in landscape planning for all new construction.The ordinance would encourage implementation of xeriscape landscaping practices including use of mulches,native and drought tolerant plants,and limited turf areas. C. Ultra-Low Volume Plumbing Standards: The university and town of Ave Maria will pursue adopting an ordinance requiring ultra-low volume plumbing fixtures in all new construction.The standards proposed in the planned Ave Maria Plumbing Code would,in most cases,be as stringent as the ultra-low plumbing standards stipulated in the SFWMD Water Conservation Plan Development Guidelines. D. Water Conservation Rate Structure: The Town of Ave Maria plans to utilize an inclining block rate structure in order to promote water conservation. Residential and commercial water rates will consist of a monthly capacity cost charge (base rate) and a monthly commodity costs charge (volume charge).The commodity costs charges will increase with increased volume use. For example,residential costs increase from $1.75 per thousand gallons for under 5,000 gallons,to $4.00 per thousand gallons for quantities over 30,000 gallons.The details and the planned water rate schedule have not been specifically determined yet. Csmith 7-5 PW/6295/231366/03/01 Section 7• Conservation Regulations and Practices E. Leak Detection&Distribution System Losses Program: A leak detection program will be implemented by the AMUC if system losses exceed 10 percent.The leak detection program will likely utilize the Rural Water Association (RWA) sonic type leak detection equipment.System losses may be attributable to known line breaks.The Ave Maria Utilities Department will repair water main and service line breaks as soon as possible to minimize and prevent distribution system losses. F. Sprinkler System Rain Sensor: The Town of Ave Maria will recommend installation of rain sensor devices on automatic lawn sprinkler systems for all new construction. G. Public Education Programs: The AMUC will pursue public education programs on water conservation and community responsibility.The programs could include presentations by Utility staff,such as water conservation topics discussed during tours conducted at its facilities. H. Water Treatment Plant and Waste Water Reclamation Facility. Educational brochures on water conservation,landscaping and xeriscape can be distributed by the Utility offices.The AMUC could also include water conservation information to all customers along with monthly billing statements. I. Reclaimed Water: The most important element of Ave Maria's Water Conservation Plan is utilization of a reclaimed water system for irrigation.The Town and University will pursue the use of as much reclaimed water as possible and will likely be able to utilize 100 percent of the reclaimed water generated. 7-6 Csmith PW/6295/231366/03/01 � Section 8 ~ Capital Improvement Projects Section 5 of this plan focused on the projects that each of the utilities have planned for the 10- year planning period. Attention was paid to the amount of water made available and when it would be made available. The following subsections present the capital improvement projects planned by each utility,including the funding source,project number,project name,and cost estimate for each project. 8.1 Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) The most recent lists of CCWSD water and wastewater capital improvement projects were developed as part of the Fiscal Year 2017 Water and Wastewater User Rate Study. The capital improvement projects pertinent to future water supply are summarized in Table 8-1. CCWSD funds its water and wastewater projects from four funds: 411 -Water Impact Fees,412 -Water User Fees,413 -Wastewater Impact Fees,and 414-Wastewater User Fees. Impact fees are utilized to pay for expanded supply projects,while user fees are used to fund operations, maintenance,and replacement of existing facilities. 8.2 lmmokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) The most recent lists of IWSD water and wastewater capital improvement projects were „."` developed as part of the Fiscal Year 2018 Water and Wastewater Utility Rate Study. The capital improvement projects pertinent to future water supply are summarized in Table 8-2. IWSD funds its water and wastewater projects from Seven funds: USDA Water Grant Funds, USDA Water Loan Funds,USDA Wastewater Grant to be obtained, USDA Wastewater Loan to be obtained, Rate Revenue-Sewer(RRS), Rate Revenue-Water (RRW),and funds to be determined at a later date (TBD). 8.3 Ave Maria Utility Company (AMUC) AMUC is currently in the process of updating their CIP and is unable to provide reliable information at the time of writing this report(October 2018).The capital improvement projects for AMUC future water supply that were provided in the 2018 LWCWSP are summarized in Table 8-3. calm 8-1 PW/6295/231366/03/01 i:go g .ON' A A A A A A A A N A A A A N A A A A A A A N A N A A N A A N A A -I E§par N F+ F-) 1-' C F-) N) F-‘ N) F) V 1--` N) F-) F-' F-) F-) F-, N) F-, 1-+ C L - d N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N FA rr if �.... i % % mD 'o im m °iomrim mo v im vo r'%'' irm v ?2L,' % m imo io ii io n n n 00 0, d Tsd 3 •a 'o O V O V V O O O O V O V O O V O O O O O O V VO O O VO O O IOG W 0 - - - - - - - - - O a 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 � N W W W W W W NJ NJ NJ N NJ F-, AF' 0 O CO CO W CO V A W W N F- V F-` O CO Or O n A W N O t0 Cr, In W 1-+ CO W l0 N CO V In A I-` to A F+ W 1.0 A o N O 0 ' N !D S 2 `O O fD 3 n O' V (D F• n 3 B n ,, 04 v o, = „ -, n 3 C z 0 m m c 0 v -' o o 0 a, io o, Fp < ro < . �, O !o ro < O < < n v or X 01. v• v' v E , o- z n v = C c v w v, v 2. a n E _ 0 3 °- 0 .",°: 3 FL,'", << 3' A Cil -, v CD 2 M n O °, - a n K fd.. n 0 L. N a =' d N N ; A N CL 0 G DO rD n -, o N i - , O c c D rt. A n ro < ,O+ ,, N 0 D ',1", m v c'', w ., W Z' " * n N m ,c1. ? D -O 0 B 6' c On On K G z 3 C O O N N x, r1D N 0, .F. N C N - D = 3 J N O = N .Or M N fg Le * m m £ < `< v E3 * v 3 A <0 m -moo v 2 5 J , v 4, F 0�+ 5. In - Ei or i __ O_ 00 O K O C d o, !D d vii d A Ja N °,4, Q O A O fD O n rD n 3 (PD V, .O. 3 o z a m ° ° 3 z ° o a p v n 3 3 -, O-0 00 3 0 3 5 H m, m K D v 0 5,0D LO m F.-_,,, m 0- -, rOo o c D m K o o m z v, 27 -0 v -0 m z in .+ .N. .�°'. D, ro' ro c 'o v LU '�O n O N i aoo 01+ j N N A n l0 > > C N 2 - - CD 3 6O 0 d g d N N a fD N 'O N p O _. . 3 O O 3 F'' ,12: O - m O H W CO H rD v (3 3 co0 0 00r 3 i 1 NJ : N 0 ✓ W N N N Vf N r N N FN+ N in FN+ N V) N V* N F+ 0 F+ N N W N In N N N F+ N N W W rn O O N A F+ O 'co 0▪ N 0 3 V N N 0 V N 0 W j 0 O O O 0 I--` N O O O O 0 to 0 V 01 O V N O CO O O O O O O In O O O O O O O In In O In O O 00 O pOO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 . 0 p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O `O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O { N F O } 0a ✓ N Vf N N Al. N N VI. 4 ! N N N N V, i/� N VT N r N N N O N A N W A N N O N F+ A N N W In Vf C CO C In O O N Q1 F+ CO0a • N N T to N N N W Q1 In O Vt lob { , O O O O W 10 CO O N O O O O O N O0 V O O F+ O N . , P O O O op In O O O O O op (op O In O O N co O N^' O O O O O O O O O O 0 C 0 O O O O O O O O O O N ,= O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OD N iy0 3� _,i 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 A A A �' N I-+ F• i-, H F•+ N N F+ N i-. i-+ i-• i-. F+ 1-, i-‘ F+ . F-+ I-, i-, I-‘ I-‘ i-‘ I-• I-‘ F. I-. I-. F. F. y g!t!= NN CN CN CCN CCN GGN CN CN CN CN GN CN CN CN CN CN CN CCN CN CN CN CCN CCN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN Q G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G xi... 0 Da N W o) d o) d d d of d CI d 0l N d N W N d 't W W 'f W d a'1' ) N d d of d (o N N N to to N t N N N N N N !o to (o N to N tD N N tD N t0 to N N 0 to NN c..' n 3s n on• to nt: O o > n ca, m d 3 0, o r2 !L * * * * N N N N A r r N H tV+ N r 1V-+ IV+ r FV+ O O O O O 3 Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 2 O O O p W O O O O O O O O pp O O N F+ N H F+ v". 3 m m m m m m n, m m m m F+ F+ - O F-+ 01 01 01 01 N N F. U A f.+ O O V W W W A `Z * * * * * * * `Z * to CO V to 0 V 01 to w co V 01 v+ V o t0 N N Co V 01 �.'» = N 0 b Oe V 01 !n A W N F+ ro Z ° C Q N v d K < v O 2 G1 v , G1 1 0 * to p z to z G1 K teo1 Z 8 O to n G1 to 2 to n 3 -0 C �. tl S a < .° y p N i z z z j N D n O „F n O n n n D .. ro v m 1 N n N n . r ro m 3 v z m z 70 n z y v D !n > F. d •3 a. a a < ^. a 'O v d n -0 F. < n ° y .'may 3 C4 $ `z n , < t^ d -o o 0 o O < m ' ° to `z o v ° m v n ID a -• m c ii v 'c m m c K ; v v d w m 3 ', v d n < , d v C n w 9 z m m m -O % t 00 C v_ 0 _v, D to rp• m v N n' w 00 m M .101. a N w y O N w 'c D p v `° �° n ° a z m m c �+ h � r � � m O � D v1 a C n D D w o z a v -4 73 3 m n m n 3 0° 3 w- w, T 2• m m c v - �" .' 3 v -0 ul m N f° N D F of C W V -6 V/ - a . ,may H O < 1 'G • 'O O - A d 5 V . T Er ' Vf VI a 3 v A a' m a n m 3 0o c � � c c ° � � D M m 3 ro N ° m a $ ,7 n z v oo > > < n v w a G) o m m 1 g v .1 N .. N 3 A ',p d o'» .Sr v v 3 c d a v m v o P r..\ j a N 0 VF W F+ N 4A V1 in 4A V1 43 V1 i/ VF Vf n N N N 00 N o OOO VOO VI O OO O O tiO O O O O O O 0 O to O OO p ,O O O O o O O o O O O O O O O O OO O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O In. N V N N O (No An. N OBD W N in N in in in to Vf N ill. tn. A (0N1-+ N AA Vt-. In O O N W to A In A W W t0 H (0 00 A CO00 fpO OO O OO 0 O CO 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O pNO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O S S O O pO O O O O O op W 2-'up W�3 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 N. A A N. A A A A A A - m rP - N F-` F+ t-' F+ N - .S F+ FJ N .S FJ .. N N. V-' 1-. 1-' F-, F, N F-, N CO Q 7 CA A A CA A A CA A A CA CA A CA CA ACC ACC CA CA CA ACC CA ACC ACC ACC CA W WCC WCC WNJ CC N CN CN NJ N CN CC Fir Q Fii a', d D1 d d d in °r7 d DN d+ d d r7 h1 d 7 d v+ DJn DJ H v+ FA N Di 5 91 D)Dio ii0 o r7 o fu i `o o v `o ir7 i ` " o '8io if * `o iN D E f F f E f F f * f f E f F * £ F f £ f n n '% DJ N D) d d N DJ N % d DJ ?-t ! % DI d D1 d % % ro m m m m iD m ro m m ro m m m m m m iD m m m iD m m m 'FO m iD iD H v n II -0. 3 0 V J J V V J V J J V V J V V J J V V J V V J V A to 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 `< C `<C C 3 FaaJ A A A FAJ W W W W N N. o ci O O O O A A A OW O - o , W W H m m m m m `3 = F+ F' N LO JO JO VD N 0 V F-, O N W F✓ O Cr, A W F' A O V1 o O O O O V Ol VI A W N Z O c A 3 n F1- N 3 3 CO K v F-°° 3 n v 5 * `2 n 7, n 3 o tJ c I o ' p o c o c t m a a iii v v v+ v ' s v iD -,7: `2 to `2 to to t . e" m < rF 9- ., w x - . m o to v -c-o' C. 0 ww W w .v1. N ' H to r m r ro m .. ,' - r O �2 0" 0 0 Lo o o m o. a o w v ro -^ v v ' F v N o n m N O p v a z in a JO 0 N m - o n n O o c °1 _ `° m z n 'o -a v G1 d O O O 7. o v � tD ,_. CC C p 0 N l0 °° pL, fD O p N "O L N \ C D ^ ^ O tD fCD ICD O c a° m °° n M v-1 a y o c r, rt m - - F _ 3 'p N 3 O tli ' "O 'o '4 N K rF .Or7, Er 3 O v d y E 3 O .s 3 O 0 N F+ 0 P2' ' c n o o ER rt 3 , -o m m o. F, v, m n ' v = o m o ' O o v+ ni F ,i .-7: m i o o v o c a �CC d v < N N N n v Ti ft 3 M < o ' �; L 'o -o n v VIll fD f _ 3 fD m iS - 3 tD 5. m n to J A o - `° o m c c S - 3 a a m N O W N I • j F N O in in Lu Iin-, -UTIn Fes+ in in N. NJ In in Fes+ In in F-, In NJ in W F' N A N F-' F' in in in J LO VI V) N N ': N N O 0 0 Ir O In In N N O N V W N N -LO A N N N O J N ., o o O A o O O In In O O O O O O O O Oi O O O O N O O O O O O O O O 000000000 O O O O O O F., O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 _, o o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o o 0 O O O O O O O O co O O O O O O O O O O O N O VF In In In In W " In VF i-. NN if, In 4n In In N In V* V1 VF V* NJ V` V- FNJ in Lu V, In F,+ - F.., W A N. A N N W N W W W0 F. In In yn N N N N in ' O O O T O in in W A W In iD Vt 0o NO Co V'I V A NJ NJ O O O 1r V J Or'- O O o a O O O ci O to A o O O O J In O O 0 O 0 0 Vt N 0 N" o Vi O N O O O O O O 00 00000000000 O O O O O O O O O O NO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O NJ`^ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O co A a 0 1 al o MI 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 A A A A A A Za 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 A A A A A A d S rT 2 2 2 H N W N N H u N H H N u 2 e', 2 H H H N 2 N N H H H H H H H N H H 00 fD N fD (D fD N fD fD N N fD fD fD fD N N fD N M fD fD fD N N fD fa fD fD fD fD fD fD N N fD • F+ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ E £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 3 ; n d d a, 01 a' Dl 01 N a, C, of C1 CJ al 0, N of Cu N N D, d N a, d D! N 0, 0, Cu C! W a, D) a, a" Cn f0 N fD fD fD fD fD (D fD N fD fo co co N fD fD fD fD fD f0 fD fD N co fD N co co fD fD N fD f0 fD j 2 go :, N N,; v n o xi C°' d 0., 3 si o < V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V to N t.:-.4.1 1......J, N ,....51 V, l!, y, A W W W W W N NJ N F+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O S O O O O O N 01 01 N T A A O YO N O 01i 01i 01i A A A A A A A A 7 7 C2 <2 C2 <2 l0 LO l0 00 40 I CO V O l0 00 N U' U' N N W CO N V A N lD 40 00 V Of M A W N G < G < `ry' N 0. n 0 44 _ 2. 2 c 3 a a 0 Z n N 2 2 * n 3 * r K 7 m 3 3 3 2 K d p D' n * £ O D £ `-' 2 c C rN2r� 2 n .s N p d d w 0 o Do as oo rN n m c -I v = m ` 2 `2 m ' < p n, I T n .. fn m 3 N oa �, D 0 Cln T A v z a a (0 > > > > > a U' 0 0 m m m o = o o c fD m v' f^ = m 0 v 3 d m 0 > 3 a r a T T n m F. n• w ? g. g * n (A 4' , O O D O t 3 O i g w.1 ' p , c c 3 - v v v a g < o o o 0 * g '" A z 11 n v' vi' N g c m .o p = 71' a 3 �p S S S S N 0, a d N w D D 9: .°: ,g"' v, °i m H w ^., m v .g, p c N 3 m H m o D a, ,� 1 n N m m ° ^ a A . d m o m A r 3 N ^ w O. c G cp. rn W Ol f3D O m G W 3 3 . '0 V N SII fD Xi N p fD 00 N d n fD .p N -� 1 —1 Or1 S S y W d 3 3 N 3 h _ -, H r. g c z n ova 3 v£ 44w o' N £ Aa c o m a, Li. 'amu\ N O H WW A 041. 1.6. IA in to o N N N 1A ANNNNWWN N V. NNN '" N tn. N N in. in N N in n. A ." NW ANN <O N O 00 O O Co In AO pNO U4 OW S O V OW O pppO OSOO OOOO O llOOOOOVOO0NJOOOOOO O Q0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O pO O O O O p O O O O O 1-4 o O O O K 0 N 1/0 W i N 1/1- CO 1./0 iA IA V. CO V1 CO CO CO CO N V. CO CO CO V1 N N N W N W 1.4 V, W N CA in 1.0 O to O $ O CO ONON so NO v. O 01 IA -c•pO O pO O pO 0 U' 00 0 0 00 0 j, OpOOpOOpOO O PPPPPPPPPPPP 0P O O O O O O 0 0P O 0N. 0 00000000000000000000 N0000800 00 0 0 0 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A oPIP A AwA A A A A A A A A A A cu ci 7 uei fg uei u01i fg 8; fg u°'i vii u0i vdi u01i 3 to to m co co co CD m m m m m m m N H m m DDC Doi a d w CODoi CU DOC w m m m o g m CD CD CD CD m m m CD m CD m m 0 N 6 m 0 O 7 C y 3 N m o 3 m -a y = O En A A g A A 0 0 0 0 m o 3 F W W W W W T 01 001 {O!� V O O O O O W 01 N Ol ZZ ZZ Z �, 7 �L r2 mTi 3 cr w m .c m a o o S P APPA A d m n > > D v * v 3 m y 7 .'^. '^. • 8 d o f N W z m c v� o N ar0+ en. N D D A d N D D to -1 < K R- CT R v 73 A 0 vO m ,� '!1 0 „33 5 OBD 3 O 3 ; S. < A m i m . 8 < m mg Vii CA.,W W '� D N mr. fl 7-3 f1 Ad f O W * A 7 m P 'm0 'O 7 {° O A N V 9 W d a < d n g m m 3 3m d m 3 a » 0 b m CD m 0 0 A C W 0 m 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 3 • 0 m 0 0 c 7 m O N O • F.. N ,+ O,s_ to W ,N N .N, N F+ N, N N Q1 Lo 0 OV' 0 0 0 0 0 pO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O - - 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O, N N N � A N N N N W N 0 N O O w A N 1+ DCC O (!C l0 N 0 0 0 V1 0 0 O A 0 0 0 0 0P0P000000000 p O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (7) " —I A A —I A A C --I —I A A A A A A A C 1 O A A W Dl D, N 00 co D, D, Cl CD N Di Cu Hv * 0 0 rp 0 0 0 m m m m r7 r7 0 c m3m 70 3 F r�D Dm 61 m r�D N CDD CDD CD CDD w N J J J J J J J J J .PP N C C O C c C C C C c N ` o 7 O CD CD 3 CD CD rD CD CD CD CD 3 NO d N rD rD N (CDD CDD .,: F F F F F F F NJ rD /D rD CD CD rD CD rD CD 0) W J O 0 J J 3 o A o A o O m m ° 3 C m E N a O iD n in V 10 oA F * F * * * F * * F * F ~ 0 0 o 0 0 * F * F F * `< * F W N 0WNJ O O O O OO t0 00 • 0 Z Z E CT A 0 Z C A A r C r - AC o `D ( ssmCJC° F 3 a D - r- 3 rD D CD 00 o NJ o. N , W y Q v A m Wo-moD, inJoO p * n n fl CD a w E c(° UO N n K 3 pEj 07, d S CD N rD Ll = rD M 0 m X Di In J < < DJ iD C H CD rD O CD O A , O T. 27. -‹ m N H n rD N n D F c CD j OJ N N rra - X7. lD rD < DO CD (1 N O' J N CD O CC. CD ry O - n. N X X 00 rD N N J j C 2 D ° Dl 00 S 3 3 CD QQ O o n O D i'.,- ,.,,,,, Jv. pOrQ S J JDG -, 1 F F OE J C v _ OrD v F A a v J C , J 3Zxp Nn 9. J m N O_ lco ., - �. v N v-1 p A 3 < C < N N w 1 v O K a < w 9 v N v, 0i r5D D O K Fo4 M d tD o• N J S O N C OO 00 C 1 N S m 0 I In _ ..< rD d i A O d a • Tp N OE, ... o 00 NJ T N CT N W VT VT VT VT to if, VT if,. LT VT V, '' <p O N CO O V O F+ O Woo 00 011 .~C+ l00 t.0 l(D 00 ON'p O O C O O C O O 0 O O In O V V V N N'- C C O C C O tD O O O O O O O O O lD W OOOOOOOOOOOOOAO O O In N N W ti N N C1 i- T Irl o O O ONJ N O CO O O O O a d a • m HNAco W v o = C > L mi+ c Q 3 T p C y m w s n • oC o r: m O• S w• N `G N J O r 3 • oO 3 n a + M C o v n mm .n. O N z ro C bo 3cr V D N • pp 3 v v x. 3 C d J • y a o t<= n m o O F X N v 3 d D 3 f o O N b m fD 3 d 2. 2 N O T o F v v m ,-» 3 7 w ELT c Y 0 3 :' F o' o n= 0 0 Y o ._ a m c O 7 O 3 d O d O 3 n O 7 N O 4 O : Nt C co j00 € N. W N AO O O Oo O O co Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Interlocal Agreement between CCWSD and the City of Naples Appendix A YP CITY OF NAPLES WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVI c INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT AND ACCORD AND SATISEACTION p4 c - . THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, (herein "this Agreement") is entered into this N o N t day of k,h rl ctc.1 , 2009, between the City of Naples, Florida ("City") and the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida ("County"), as the Governing Body of Collier County and as Ex-Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District("CCWSD"). ARTICLE ONE BACKGROUND INFORMATION N �) t0 ~_ 1. By enactment of City of Naples Ordinance No. 2698 (passed 2"a reading on June 15, r` 1977), the City exercised its Chapter 180, Florida Statutes, power and authority to extend the City's water and wastewater utility facilities into specific geographic areas in unincorporated k' Collier County as such areas are depicted by a one (1)page map and a twenty-one(21)page legal description that was attached to and made a part of that Ordinance. 2. The County and the City entered into a Basic Agreement(the"BA") effective October 16, P 1977. The original BA addressed only potable water service from the City to specified geographic areas in unincorporated County (as such areas are described by the legal description in Exhibit "A" that was attached to the BA). The following items were attachments to the original BA: CI Mtrad ro ar baf rq a Exhibit "A" - (2 pages). Page 1 of Exhibit "A" is a "metes and bounds Iegal description" of the City's Water Service Area Boundary. Page 2 of that Exhibit "A" is a map (graphic) depicting the then existing geographic boundaries of the �. w City's Water Service Area. .- b. b. Exhibit "B" is a 1-page map (graphic) entitled "City Franchised Water Service Area." c. Exhibit "C" is a 1-page map (graphic) denoted as "City Raw Water Transmission Main and Supply Wells." d. Exhibit "D" is a 5-page "preliminary report" (in letter form) signed by Ted Smallwood on behalf of"BC&E/CH2M Hill." That Report (at its page 5) states that it is "... a preliminary report intended only to provide general guidance to Page I of 16 both the City and County in establishing policy for the future of the respective governing bodies' utilities." 3. Addendum#3 to the BA addressed (for the first time) wastewater service from the City to specified geographic areas in unincorporated Collier County. 4. The original BA has been amended by two (2) "Amendments" and by nine (9) "Addendums." The BA and the eleven (11)amending agreements are: City's Authorization I Effective Date Item's Description Applicability City Res. No. 2783 October 16, 1977 The Basic Agreement Active City Res. No.3284 June 20, 1979 Addendum# i Added 2 water meter sites City Res. No. 3305 August 1, 1979 Addendum #2 Added 1 water meter site City Res. No.3502 April 2, 1980 AMENDMENT# 1 Fully Executed Q City Res. No.84-4526 August 15, 1984 AMENDMENT#2 Fully Executed City Res. No. 84-4598 November 7, 1984 Addendum #3 Active b City Res. No. 86-5136 November 3, 1986 Addendum#4 Fully Executed City Res. No. 86-5160 December 3, 1986 Addendum#5 Fully Executed co City Res. No. 87-5430 November 18, 1987 Addendum #6 Fully Executed City Res. No. 89-5733 February 1, 1989 I Addendum #7 Fully Executed qty Res. No. 90-6117 May 16, 1990 Addendum #8 Fully Executed City Res. No. 91-6347 April 3, 1991 Addendum #9 Fully Executed _._j Informational Notes: The original BA agreed that the City would supply water at the following four (4) water interconnect locations: U.S. 41 and Thomasson Drive; Radio Road one mile north of Pine Ridge Road; Pulling Road two miles north of Pine Ridge; and U.S. 41 and 91" Avenue North,Naples Park. Addendum #1 agreed that the City would supply water at the following added two (2) interconnection points: Lakewood Unit #7 — Boca Cieca Drive and Marcor Drive; and Kings' Lake--Evergreen Lake Road in the vicinity of Lakewood Boulevard. Page 2 of 16 Addendum #2 added one (1)additional water service connection point as follows: King's Lake North— Eastern end of Estey Drive. AMENDMENT #1 (a) amended BA paragraph 13 to agree that the City was to quitclaim specified utility facilities to the County regarding the City's water service to the BA's Exhibit B water service area; (b) added a new paragraph 13A into the BA (regarding planned relocation of City-owned water tank) and(c) amended BA paragraphs 7, 8, 11 and 21. AMENDMENT #2 (a) added a new subparagraph (h) to BA paragraph 2 (to add one additional connection point to the City's 5 million gallon water storage tank, located at Carica Road, subject to the County assuming permanent water service to the geographic areas described as south of township line between Townships 48 South and 49 South, outside of the City's water service area as depicted on the BA's Exhibit "A;" (b) Amended the BA's paragraph 3 to establish a rate payment formula applicable to only BULK water sold by the City to the County; (c) Amended paragraph 7 to the BA to agree that the water meter at U.S. 41 and Thomason Drive would remain in place and continue to be used; (d) Also amended the BA's paragraph 8 to agree that the City could limit the quantities of its supply of BULK rate City treated water; (e) Deleted BA paragraphs 9 and 10; (f)Amended BA paragraph 12 to agree that the City could limit the quantity of the City's supply of BULK water if the County did not commence construction of specified water facilities by January 1, 1989; and(g) Amended BA paragraph I3A to agree that the County would pay interest regarding specified construction costs. Addendum #3 acknowledged that the City was serving (and would continue to permanently serve) twenty-two (22) geographic areas listed therein with wastewater service and also agreed to 4=a many specifics regarding that wastewater service. Paragraph 7 in Addendum #3 refers to then existing contingencies regarding possible wastewater service from the City to the Pine Ridge Industrial Park. (Permanent wastewater service to the Pine Ridge Industrial Park is currently being provided by the CCWSD.) ao Addendum #4 transferred the Pelican Bay Improvement District to the CCWSD for permanent potable water service and transferred the following (as therein described) water service sites: Located on the west side of Airport Road and south of Pine Ridge Road) to the City for permanent wastewater service from the City: Bear's Paw, Poinciana Village, Poinciana School, Pine Woods, Naples Bath and Tennis, and The Falls. Addendum #5 transferred the Sutherland Center to the City for five (5) years of interim water service from the City. (The CCWSD now supplies permanent water service to the Sutherland Center.) Addendum #6 agreed that the City would provide interim water service to the Pine Ridge Middle School. (The CCWSD now supplies permanent water service to that school.) Addendum #7 agreed that the City would provide interim water service to the East Naples Community Park. (The CCWSD now supplies permanent water service to that Park.) Addendum #8 agreed that the City would supply bulk potable water service to the Wyndemere Subdivision. (The CCWSD now supplies permanent water service to that subdivision) Page 3 of 16 Addendum #9 agreed that the City would provide interim water service to the North Naples Fire Station. (The CCWSD now supplies permanent water service to that Fire Station.) 5. Only the original BA (regarding water service), and Amendment #2 (amending the BA's Paragraph 3 to create a rate payment formula applicable to BULK water sold by the City to the County), and Addendum #3 (regarding City wastewater service to twenty-two listed geographic areas) have provisions that have not been fully executed. All of the other ten (10) above-listed items have been fully executed. Several of those items applied for limited time periods that have come and gone. 6. Except as provided in paragraph 5, above, this Agreement cancels and supersedes the BA, the two (2)amendments to the BA and the nine (9)addendums to the BA. This Agreement does not affect any previously executed aspect of the BA, or any amendment or addendum to the BA, such as and without limitation: (a) transfer of title to any real property and/or any previously executed transfer of title to any personal property; (b) any prior grant of, transfer of, or any other right to use any property including easements; nor (c) any prior grant of any right to use personal '•P property. This Agreement does not affect any now existing water interconnection service site, -- c any right of any water or sewer service customer or service site, or any third party beneficiary. cc 7. Term of this Agreement. This Agreement shall continue for a period of thirty (30) years Cr unless terminated in writing by the City and the County. 8. Amendments to this Agreement. This Agreement shall be amended only by written amending agreement(s) executed by the City and by the County and which shall include the following example (title): "This First Amending Agreement amends the 2009 City of Naples, Collier County Interlocal Agreement — Accord and Satisfaction." The Second Amending Agreement shall be titled"This Second Amending Agreement ...." 9. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and/or assigns, if any, of the City, the County and/or the CCWSD. 10. Definitions. "Complex" refers to the present County Government Complex. "County" means "Collier County." ''CCWSD" means "the Collier County Water-Sewer District." Page 4 of 16 "Imputed sewer service gallonage" means the quantity of sewer service gallonage determined by a percentage of water supplied by the City to the respective service site or service geographic area. "Horseshoe Drive Areas" refers to the South Horseshoe Drive Area/Collier Industrial Park, plus the Coconut River Estates Area (in residential use), and plus the River Reach Area (in residential use). "In-City rates" means City water service rates and/or sewer service rates that do not include any surcharge. "Out-of City rates" means City water service rates and/or sewer service rates that can include the City's discretionary 25% surcharge. "Meter measured gallonage" refers to the gallons of water and/or sewage gallonage measured by a water meter. In that sewer flow meters are inaccurate, sewer flow equivalency will be based upon the metered water bill. "School site" refers to the Shadowlawn Elementary School site. "Sewer" and "wastewater" are synonymous. "Surcharge" means the City's Subsection 180.191(l)(a), Florida Statutes, twenty-five percent (25%) surcharge. ARTICLE TWO CITY'S EXISTING WATER AND SEWER SERVICE x TO UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF COLLIER COUNTY 1. CITY'S EXISTING WATER SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES IN '��. UNINCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY. The geographic boundaries of the City's existing c water service areas in unincorporated Collier County are depicted in Exhibit "A" attached to this p— ce Agreement. Pursuant to this Agreement, the City shall continue to provide those water services to those geographic areas. 2. CITY'S EXISTING SEWER SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES IN UNINCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY. The geographic boundaries of the City's existing sewer service areas in unincorporated Collier County are depicted in Exhibit"A"attached to this Agreement. The City shall continue to provide its sewer service to those geographic areas, excepting only the Complex and the School site. Throughout the term of this Agreement the City's sewer rates, fees and charges to be applied to the Complex shall be and remain the same as the City's then existing in-City sewer rates, fees and charges as set forth in the City of Naples Utilities Rate Schedule for Commercial Customers. For sewer rates fees and charge purposes, throughout this Agreement, the Complex shall be treated as if it is physically located within the Page 5 of 16 City's geographic boundaries. Those geographic areas at the time of this Agreement are depicted in Exhibit "A"attached to this Agreement. ARTICLE THREE 1. WATER AND SEWER SERVICE TO THE COMPLEX, SCHOOL SITE,AND THE HORSESHOE DRIVE AREAS. A. City Water Service to School site. The City shall continue to supply water service to the School site, shall invoice the school site and retain all such water service revenues. B. City Water Service to the Complex; Rates; Minimum Water Pressure. The City shall continue to supply water service to the Complex. The City shall apply its generally applicable in- City water service rates to the Complex as set forth in the City of Naples Utilities Rate Schedule for Commercial Customers (no water surcharge). Provided an adequate and appropriate meter 0 size is in use, the water pressure shall not be less than fifty ftY (50) pounds per square inch as pressure tested at the water meters that interconnect that water to the Complex. C. Sewer Service Supplied by the City to the Complex and School Site Transferred to the CCWSD; City Sewer Rates to School Site. The City has been supplying sewer service to the Complex and School site (through the Linwood Avenue force main). At no cost to the City, the ao County will disconnect the Complex and School site from the Linwood force main and concurrently connect both of these two service sites to the CCWSD's sewer system. This Agreement does not control the City's sewer rates to be applied by the City to the School site. Applying the City's then generally applicable sewer service rates, the City shall collect and retain all of those revenues. D. Sewer Gallonage Imputed to the School site. Each billing-cycle the sewer service . gallonage to be imputed to the School Site shall be fixed by applying 100%of the City's metered water gallonage supplied to the School site. E Quantity of Sewer Service Imputed to the Complex — City's in-City sewer service rates. The sewer service gallonage to be imputed to the Complex shall be fixed by 100% of City meter measured gallons of only the "net potable water" supplied to the Complex each City billing-cycle. The following City supplied water shall be excluded to calculate the sewer service gallonage imputed to the Complex: City water for irrigation; City water for use by the County's cooling tower; and City water for other future water uses, if any, if that water will not increase Page 6 of 16 the sewage gaIIonage coming from the Complex (into the CCWSD's sewer system). The City shall apply its generally applicable in-City sewer service rates to the Complex as set forth in the City of Naples Utilities Rate Schedule for Commercial Customers (no sewer surcharge). For these sewer rate purposes the Complex shall be treated as if it is (and remains) whoIIy within the City's geographic boundaries. 2. THE HORSESHOE DRIVE AREAS; WATER AND SEWER SERVICE TO THESE AREAS; SEWAGE EQUALIZATION TRANSFERS FROM CCWSD TO CITY. A. City Water Service to the Horseshoe Drive Areas. The following three geographic areas are referred to in this Agreement as the "Horseshoe Drive Areas": (1) South Horseshoe Drive/Collier Industrial Park (the "Park") which is in industrial or commercial uses; (2) the Coconut River Estates, and (3) the River Reach area,which are both in residential uses. The City will continue to supply water to these areas by applying the City's then generally applicable water service rates. The Horseshoe Drive Areas are depicted in Exhibit "B" attached to this Agreement. B. Transfer of the Horseshoe Drive Areas Sewer Service from the CCWSD to the • City. As contemplated by paragraph 5 of an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement between and among the City, County and the East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District dated November 2, 2007, in conjunction with the Collier Park of Commerce annexation (OR:4298, PG 2715, Public Records of Collier County), the City shall provide sewer service as soon as possible, to the Horseshoe Drive Areas (through the Horseshoe Drive Interconnection - See Paragraph E, below). C. Sewer Service Gallonage to the Imputed to the Horseshoe Drive Areas. The amount of City supplied sewer gallonage to be imputed to the Park area shall be fixed by 100% of the metered water gallons supplied by the City to the customers in the Park area during each billing-cycle. The amount of sewer service gallonage to be imputed to the Coconut River Estates and to the River Reach areas shall be eighty percent (80%) of the City's metered water gallonage supplied to those areas each City billing-cycle. D. Sewer Service to the Horseshoe Drive Areas. The CCWSD has been providing sewer service to the Horseshoe Drive Areas, and by agreement with the CCWSD, applying the CCWSD's sewer service rates, the City has been collecting these revenues and has been Page 7of16 remitting those revenues to the CCWSD. The City shall continue to collect those revenues from the customers in the Horseshoe Drive Areas and shall continue to remit those sewer service revenues to the CCWSD. By means of the sewage equalization transfers (See Paragraph E, below), and that the School administration shall pay the City for the sewer service gallonage imputed to the School site (as invoiced by the City to the School site), and that the County shall pay the City for the sewer service gallonage imputed to the Complex (as invoiced by the City to the County), the City will thereby be paid in full for the sewage equalization transfers delivered to the City through the Horseshoe Drive Interconnection (the net result being the same as if that sewage gallonage is delivered to the City's system from the Complex and from the School site). This interconnection point is located near the southwestcorner of Airport Pulling Road and North Horseshoe Drive(The location is depicted on Exhibit "C"attached to this Agreement). E. Sewage Flow Equivalency Transfers. The intent of this Agreement is that, equivalent sewer flows will be diverted to the City, as measured by the City of Naples metered water bill. The amount of equivalent sewage to the City's sewer system from the area (as described in c> Article Three, item 2.A.) connected to the Interconnect ("I/C") will be diverted by the CCWSD opening the I/C located at the southwest corner of Horseshoe Drive and Airport Pulling Road. Throughout the first year of the agreement, the staffs of City of Naples and the CCWSD will *rs 4-1 jointly monitor the City of Naples Water bills to determine equivalent sewer flows as noted in other sections (Article Three, item I. D., item I. E., and item 2.C.) of this agreement. After the first year of execution of this agreement, equivalent sewer flows will be adjusted in the months following based on the joint agreement between the CCWSD and the City of Naples staff. If all possible flow from the area connected to I/C and diverted to the City at maximum hydraulic flow capacity of the I/C, said flow will be deemed equivalent. The process described herein will be repeated each year following the first year during the life of this agreement. F. Reimbursement Payment from County to City regarding the Horseshoe Drive Interconnect. The CCWSD has expended S138,159.25 to interconnect a CCWSD-owned wastewater force main to the City's wastewater facilities for delivery of sewage into the City's wastewater system from the CCWSD and/or from the City's system into the CCWSD'S system during emergencies. The CCWSD managed and paid for that work and the City paid the CCWSD already incurred costs of $50,935.62. As this interconnection is not to be limited to emergencies, the County will promptly remit the already incurred costs to the City. Page 8 of 16 3. LINWOOD AVENUE FORCE MAIN QUIT-CLAIMED TO COUNTY. Only the Complex and the School site (until such service is soon to be transferred from the City's system to the CCWSD's system) are supplied with sewer service through a six-inch (6") wastewater force main, referred to in this Agreement as the "Linwood Avenue force main." This force main is now of insufficient size to comply with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's requirements applicable to transfer of the current combined quantities of sewage gallonage from the Complex and the School site to the City's sewer system. This force main shall not provide any service to the School site, to the Complex, nor to any other site after the Complex and the School site are disconnected from this force main. There is doubt regarding ownership of the property title to this force main. To remove this doubt the City hereby quit-claims to the County (not the CCWSD) all rights, title and interests the City has or may have in this force main. At the County's discretion, some or all of this force main (but not the City's lift station) may eventually be removed from the ground at no cost to the City. The location of this force main CJ and lift station is depicted on Exhibit "D"attached to this Agreement. 4. CITY'S UTILITY BILLING ORDINANCE. The City's current water and sewer service w rates are listed on a two (2) page schedule attached hereto as Exhibit "E". The Complex shall be treated in the same manner as other City commercial customers. I- ARTICLE FOUR ACCORD AND SATISFACTION The City and the County agree that this Agreement settles and forever resolves any and all claims and disputes of every description that each party hereto had, may have had, now has or now may now have, against any other party arising out of, or associated with, the 1977 Basic Agreement (the "BA") and/or either or both of the BA's two (2) amendments, and/or any of the BA's nine (9) addendums, including with regard to any and all utility rates, fees, charges, surcharges, impact fees, water and/or wastewater service, water and/or sewer pressures, water quality, all service area boundaries, and otherwise. ARTICLE FIVE EXHIBITS ATTACHED TO THIS AGREEMENT The Exhibits attached to this Agreement are: Page 9 of 16 I. Exhibit A: The geographic boundaries of the City,the boundaries of the existing water service areas, and the boundaries of the City's existing sewer service areas in unincorporated Collier County. 4. Exhibit B: Depiction of the Horseshoe Drive Areas S. Exhibit C: Depiction of Horseshoe Drive Interconnection Point 6. Exhibit D: Depiction of Linwood Avenue force main point. 7. Exhibit F: City of Naples Wastewater and Water Rates IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County (including the Collier County Water-Sewer District) and the City hereby enter into this Interlocal Agreement - Accord and Satisfaction, this c '` day of S.12. L , 2009. CITY OF NAPLES ATTEST: By:44"4"g/14/ By: '•/' e. BILL BARNET94:=1MAYOR '' Tara A. Norm ,Ci-44 !1(.ty Clerk C7. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT EBROOK;Clerk OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,AS '' THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER f`-.J :....:: .� ' COUNTY AND AS EX-OFFICIO THE GOVERN BOARD OF THE COLLIER &rap� COUNT TATER-SEWER DISTRICT F07-7,-rucd 444 By: }1 �� `''7 DO A FIALA, CHAIRMAN 4yk.r f ..ti... Approvedas to form Approved as to form an legal sufficiency: and legal sufficiency: 7-?#-43r ,.v e frey A. Klatzkow Robert D. Pritt, CityAttorney County Attorney /revised 2/6/09 12:00 p.m. Page 100(16 . . ...df,. • R H , :k /2 ki'r), '.f.,,,xii.,.)./.' Vcrii! , o , o t �' gr��:,E`P t Exhi�itA \,,,,,,,' I,,i t,7'/,'.... '''.'1././.c.... 3 0 .5 ,.rn II ,' c B : 4 ! ,'"'",tea„" ,. /' .s a r { /' `� j` ,Q a. r� Q /, / `� 'L' ; 1 1' / at / 4 i. , s( ', ♦ A , r r 1 1. 1 i i ` ' ! s i' ', V 1 ,/ h. : U iI 1 ' 76/ 1 i' v .` • IC / '� � ...... . ' / i '1 ,'"' - - . 4P4''14141k10,4 ? 4 u '9(44 11 q '1 • �. %r I // r' ema f• 2 Cn !7 11 / l 1 /f -— CJ 4 l GIf 4141 -1111111 !' i • t Fri _ L1 i �'�J p ! =• - 1 ',Il i� !•! rill . )' d o 1 -J I a .xk \ r ' 4`,t i .... , N Tl 2 41 9 13-0:' 4. ..0 • ,;:, ,, ,, .., : ... .. , .. , u ..,..„ , / , ., . 4, s ,_0 . .,. . , ..................,.... Service...Vitas . 6--5 1y ` env or tapes,FICrIQa ' /'"`,1,Lived ,'1 /5 y Set.............. 'T i y G M I' 4 osnsracoa / M l.l.-7ff�' w.n,rMON w.ww..fwmp .I /1('' / w—AI.-[ / !_N'', GI5 Division ' 7 't' .$Pj4.W$11411414, +w..n sa:m .c. fi� X1_J I Miles •'e•*tweak*.YA•i.7rYu•4..0-mmit �.'`. ! �.L Page I 1 of 16 II CaNI'1 '.• .. A1siY • Ji .. • • • j • i! ft H r • 7• . !° /` i 1 { f� ) r n l'•" .amilo' reap i . • • • .t It l _ ' I } . I € • r!. ....� F r.,€ I � 1 ie a • • t . 11 . • M • ! .. + i •... F r 41, �'it0 - ]j • PI • ii 4Z •I I: 1 at C• 1°) ti 44 di .14 .fi • igi.Lit i, , 1 z 1 1 i i ..0104°'°4 mil wCa , I4 • .- •..,j..-. .._.. .�_. ...r......_. • . r• fn C + .r u !• 1 S • fir...•" • a , IP • 0 10 q c • • 43 z ,w n • �► •1 1 I 3 w y' l \ i ••••• •• ,.. . 0 Q , : 1 x E IA as A.6 - d3 am ,C S s co C CO N GI ONfilnd 1:10c1 ,V c o 4g 1 he ft af06.1. 4.1 ZG / I fit .. a �. a 4.� ..., . .• . °a 1.- ...• o 011S 1M CO . I Z I c Q U f 'a c c 76 g a1 m m m = c 4DEa _i ti n o t� c� Q u'.. 1 W x ai." xtit fipirg §.Q iu • 0 a I E o X c . , • .,9• S c- ON111i3d.1210.:041V „9 N . . o a • c L. a > ea . .t, _ ..•WS 0 y.r r1 't U) •- N a. • o U .(7)... .. • L 8 t 0 • C • • _ .._ .0 , . . " • • • ..0 • . , • • • • . • • • • . . .. 1 : . I " V c e a -a 1 • C u u Q"g g +! i Cil I } 1 : 9 4. Yr i t 1 • Exhibit F § 30-36. Water service rates. 1 Meter Size Monthly Base Charge (all Equivalency Factor 1 customer classes) 5/8"-S/a″ $7.05 1.0 €.0″ 17.62 2.5 1.5&Prime 35.23 5.0 2.0″ 56.37 8.0 3.0″ 112.74 16.0 4.0″ _ ,....._ 176.16 25.0 6.0″ 352.31 .. 50.0 8.0″ 563.70 80.0 All customer classes will be charged the base rate according to their actual installed meter size. Monthly Consumption Charge/1,000 gallons All Customer Classes Block 1 i Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 5/8″--'/4″ 0-7,500 7,501-15,000 15.001-22,500 Above 22,500 1.0″ 0-18,750 18,751-37,500 37,501-56.250 Above 56.250 1.5″ 0-37,500 37,501-75,000 75,001-112,500 Above 112,500 2.0″ - 0-60,000 60,001-120,000 120,001-180,000 Above 180.000 3.0″ ry 0-120.000 120.001-240,000 240.001-360.000 Above 360,000 4.0″ 0.187,500187.501----375,000 375,001-562,500 Above 562.500- ._ 6.0″ 0-375,000 375,001-750,000 750,001--1.125,000 Above 1,125,000 8.0″ 0- 600,000 640,001--1,200,000 1,200.001-•-•1,800.000 Above 1.800,000 _- Usage rates: ca Block 1: $1.14 per 1,000 gallons. Block 2: $2.00 per 1,000 gallons. `J`' 4-3 Block 3: $2.85 per 1,000 gallons. Block 4: $3.42 per 1,000 gallons. Irrigation meters are billed in the same way as a potable water meter with the base charges and consumption charges listed here. The bulk potable water rate is $1.85/1,000 gallons. This rate will be adjusted annually as indicated under section 30-33(g),Annual Rate Adjustment by Index. Page 15 of 16 Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Ordinance Integrating Goodland Water District into CCWSD Appendix B ORDINANCE NO. 2012-4 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER- SEWER ATERSEWER DISTRICT AND THE GOODLAND WATER DISTRICT, REPEALING IN ITS ENTIRETY ORDINANCE NO. 80-43, WHICH !! CREATED THE GOODLAND WATER DISTRICT. WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 75-5 created the Goodland Water District with all of the powers and duties prescribed by Section 125.01 (q),Florida Statutes;and WHEREAS, on April 22, 1980, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopted Ordinance No. 80-43, which superseded Ordinance No. 75-5, in order that the Goodland Water District would be granted the powers and authority of a Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit under Section 125.01(1),Florida Statutes;and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Board to repeal Ordinance No. 80-43 so the Goodland Water District may be dissolved and integrated into the Collier County Water Sewer District;and WHEREAS,the Board fiords that it is in the interest of health, safety, and welfare of the Collier County citizens to repeal Ordinance 80-43 in its entirety,which established the Goodland Water District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY •'_ COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND AS EX-OFFICIO 71E GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT;: 4.: SECTION ONE: Repeal of Ordinance No.80-43. .- r+., -71 Collier County Ordinance No. 80-43 is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION TWO: Inclnsion in the Code of Laws and Ordinances. The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County,Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered or re-lettered to accomplish such, and the word`ordinance"may be changed to"section,""article," or any other appropriate word. it - ISECTION THREE: Conflict and Severability. 1 In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other Ordinance of Collier County or other j :3 ; applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of the Ordinance is held A invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction,such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the 1 remaining portion. SECTION FOUR: Effective Date. :i This Ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Florida Department of State. id PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,this 11111 day of December,2012. A 1 FEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS! DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;AND AS EX-OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD' OF THE COLLIER COUNTY:WATER- : ��' ��A SEWER DISTRICT AND THE . -:':: 6. ,,.', .. °- • GOODLAND WATER DISTIU, a' ` ice IV i i . I. . f ' By; ,.�b''A #Q ': FRED W. COYLE, . ..� � .' CHAIRMAN Irl Approved a*ta orm and legal sufficiency: :i. S-ei 1(714" :: !. Scott R. Teach Deputy County Attorney This ordinc rlCe.iiiedI wi f9 'thd Secretory.af'S'# r .Cuff the' _ , of 201 rrdi^Cir.•rwt.c‹, emu • of that fl. .7.to.c.,:s. this 4W1071 day r t I _ i STATE OF FLORIDA) ke £ COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK Clerk of Courts in and for the A Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of: • ORDINANCE 2012-43 which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 11th day of December, 2012, during Regular Session. :1 WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 17th day of December, 2012. } DWIGHT E. BROCK Clerk of Courts �������rz4••����'ft ' • Ex-officio toa f & County Commi(isao3 s By: Martha Verga! -, • • Deputy Clerk Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Agreement for Potable Water Service Calusa Island Village (Goodland Area) Appendix C i { 1602 AGREEMENT FOR POTABLE WATER SERVICE CALUSA ISLAND VILLAGE (GOODLAND AREA) The effective Date of this Agreement is the Lf"'"'day of March, 2004. ea go THIS AGREEMENT FOR POTABLE WATER SERVICE to be provided by the County to the Development Site is between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, as the Governing Body of Collier County, as the Ex-Officio Governing Body of the es o Collier County Water-Sewer District and the Goodland Water District hereinafter (the "County") and Calusa Island Village, L.C., a Florida Limited Liability Company ("Developer"). One primary purpose of this Agreement is to contract with the Developer to grant to the Developer ten (10) years to recover some of its costs if and when other specified lot(s) or parcel(s) of land rg. g N w connect to the subject system. as C"' y L.ris RECITALS w : vim• WHEREAS, Developer requests the County to supply potable water to and for the �" Development Site (which Development Site land area is described in Exhibit "A", attached r hereto); and cal w WHEREAS, the proposed Development is in need of a supply of potable water from the oc' County to the Development Site. The total anticipated water demand from the Development Site G) as '" may not be available from the now existing Goodland water utility facilities, and these facilities ^ d co may have to be rehabilitated, renewed and/or upgraded before the County can provide the total 12 2 potable water demand required by the Development Site; and WHEREAS, all lots except those noted in the Chart (page 4) are grandfathered against be No Coa 1021 reimbursement to Developer and each such lot has a claim to water capacity from the facilities that is superior to the reserved water rights of the Development Site, and one (1) or more of such 0,1 Cr. MN vested lots/parcels could possibly request water service from these facilities anytime during the g ten (10) year reimbursement time frame: and WHEREAS, County shall supply the subject potable water to the Development Site by purchasing potable water from the City of Marco Island pursuant to assignment to that City of a former agreement between the County and a private utility, Florida Water Services Corporation (FWSC). The City of Marco Island has recently purchased the Marco island Utility System from FWSC and as a result the source of the subject potable water is now and is anticipated into the foreseeable future to be that City; and 1 OR: 3518 PG: 1802 16 02 WHEREAS, before the total demand of the subject potable water can be supplied by the County to the Development Site, the Capital Improvements described in Exhibit "B". Goodland Water Booster Pumping Station Upgrade— Phase I, from Greeley and Hansen, (attached hereto) may or may not have to be completed, depending of the extent, if any, that vested lots may request service and the fact that the total actual excess capacity in the existing facilities has not been quantified; and WHEREAS, Developer agrees to pay all project costs associated with design, permitting and construction of the growth components of the Capital Improvements (the component parts of which are described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto) to enable the County to provide adequate pressure, quantity and quality of potable water by improving the current facilities to meet the (increased) build-out demands of the Development Site (current and future uses), which maximum average daily demand is projected by the Developer to approximate but not exceed sixty-eight thousand three-hundred and thirty (68,330) gallons per day (GPD) and an anticipated average daily demand of 10,400 GPD for Calusa Island Village; and WHEREAS, Developer and County estimate that the projected costs of design, permitting and construction of the growth portion of these capital improvements will total approximately $173,200, and may exceed that sum, but Developer's obligation under this Agreement shall not exceed $200,000;and WHEREAS, the total, actual costs shall be advanced to the County by Developer according to the payment schedule specified herein; and WHEREAS, the total of these costs shall be adjusted as appropriate (by mutual agreement of the parties) based upon determination of the final, actual costs; and WHEREAS, if at anytime within ten (10) years from the effective date of this Agreement, any representative of any non-vested lot(s)or parcel(s), identified below in the Chart (page 4) (the legal descriptions of which are in Exhihit "C" attached hereto), applies to the County (or later possibly to the City) for any County authorization and the respective County approval will require that the respective non-vested lot or parcel will require water service from the subject water system, a pro-rata share shall be applied to each such non-vested lot or parcel of real property and the Developer shall be reimbursed by the landowner (or representatives of the landowner) prior to the County providing water service to the respective non-vested lot or non-vested parcel of land. It is possible that within the ten (10) year reimbursement time frame 2 OR: 3518 PG: 1803 16 02 the subject facilities and service area may be transferred by the County to the City by Interlocal Agreement. In that event the County shall make such transfer subject to this Agreement; and this Agreement shall to the greatest extent allowed by law shall be binding on the City during the 10 year reimbursement time frame; and WHEREAS, the applicable payment shall be determined by the future estimated average daily water demand for each non-vested lot or parcel, and shall be paid by the respective non- vested property owners directly to the Developer for the purpose of reimbursement to the Developer for such property's pro-rata hydraulic share of the Capital Improvements paid for by Developer under this Agreement. It is not anticipated that any non-vested lot/parcel will be eligible for water service from the subject utility facilities, but in the event that any non-vested lot(s)/parcel(s) listed in the Chart(which are described in Exhibit "C") should be eligible for and require water from the subject facilities, that parcel must pay to Developer the applicable pro- rata hydraulic share of the improvements in accord with the Chart subject to adjustments determined by the final actual costs; and WHEREAS, no such County approval with regard to any non-vested lot or non-vested parcel of property shall be vested unless and until County staff is convinced that the applicable reimbursement has been received by Developer. The County shall not operate as a collection agent. Although County will administer this Agreement in good faith, the County shall not be liable to Developer or any other individual or entity in the event that any reimbursement(s) is/are not paid to Developer; and WHEREAS, no such application received by County staff after the ten (10) year anniversary of this Agreement shall require any non-vested lot or parcel of land to make any reimbursement to Developer pursuant to this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the amount of reimbursement money to be paid by each respective non- vested property shall be the total future contribution calculated on the basis of $2.53476 per gallon per day average daily water demand (based upon the estimated $173,200). The amounts calculated below are estimated to be 3 OR: 3518 PG: 1804 1 6 c2 Chart Arca/Property of the Non- Future Estimated Future Vested Lots/Parcels Average Daily Contribution for Water Demand Growth Component Calusa Island Village 10,400 gpd $ 26,361 Calusa Island Marina 18,200 gpd ' $ 46,133 Palm Ave. Tract 2,930 gpd $ 7,427 Future County Park 8,000 gpd $ 20,278 Moran Condos (48 units) 28,800 gpd $ 73,001 Totals 68,330 gpd $173,200 Only each above-listed non-vested lot/parcel must pay to the original Developer its respective — pro-rata share of the actual total costs for the subject Capital Improvements in the event that the respective non-vested lot/parcel is to have access for service from these utility facilities. The applicable pro-rata share shall be allocated to the Developer in relation to the original contribution as adjusted by mutual agreement of the parties, as appropriate, to reflect the final actual costs; and WHEREAS, the Developer shall be eligible to be reimbursed its actual expenditures for the specified items, which, as specified in this Agreement, shall not exceed $200,000; and WHEREAS, the entire Developer Site must connect to the County Water Facilities upon completion of the Project, subject to payment to the County of all then applicahle charges related to water meters, tapping charges and other generally applicable charges for such service; and WHEREAS, with regard to these capital improvements,the County shall not impose any water or wastewater impact fees against the Development Site; and WHEREAS, Developer has accepted the terms and conditions in this Agreement as part of the County's review and approval of the Developer's land use petitions. 4 OR: 3518 PG: 1805 WITNESSETH 1 4, c2 NOW,THEREFORE,the parties hereto agree as follows: I. The above WHEREAS Clauses are incorporated herein as if set out herein. 2. The Developer agrees that the County shall design, permit, and construct the Capital Improvements to the Goodland potable water facilities as needed to upgrade the County's existing water system as described above, with the Developer funding the growth portion of said costs, and Developer agrees to connect the Development Site to the County's existing water utility system, at Developer's sole expense and at no cost to the County. 3. Pro-Rata Reimbursement to Developer for Later Physical Access to the Capital Improvements. Representatives regarding each non-vested lot or non- vested parcel of land, if any, that requires water service from these Capital Improvements shall be required to pay its pro-rata reimbursement to the Developer if, within (10) years from the effective date of this Agreement, a representative for one or more below-described lot(s) or parcel(s) of land then requires water service from these Capital Improvements, and at any time within this ten (10) year time frame applies to the County for any permission or approval that will require the respective lot(s) or parcel(s) of land to connect into the Capital Improvements for water service. 4. The potable water service to the lands within the Calusa Island Village ("Development Site") shall be connected to the County's potable water utility system at a connection point approved by the County. 5. Developer shall be allowed thirty (30) days to review and comment upon the reasonableness of the proposed project budget and specifications. 6. Subject to adjustments as specified, the Developer shall make a payment of the estimated amount ($173,200) to the County in exchange for the County providing potable water service at adequate pressure, fire flow, quantity and quality of water for service to the Development Site. Subject to adjustments as specified, this estimated sum of$173,200 shall be paid to the County as follows: 5 OR: 3518 PG: 1806 6 C2 a. Eighty-six thousand six hundred dollars ($86,600) shall be delivere to -- staff within thirty (30) days of execution of the Agreement by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners; and b. The remaining unpaid balance shall be delivered to staff before any Certificate of Occupancy is issued with regard to the Development Site. If the final, actual-costs are NOT known at that time, the second installment payment shall be $86,600. If the final costs are known at that time and total less than $173,200, Developer shall pay such smaller balance due. If the final actual costs exceed $173,200, the Developer shall pay the remaining balance up to, but not to exceed, a total of both payments of $200,000. If Developer's costs (now estimated) are less than $173,200, the difference shall be reimbursed to Developer within thirty (30) workdays after those actual costs have been finalized. 7. Although the Developer desires that the subject potable water be available to serve the Development Site not later then October 1, 2004, the County cannot make a firm promise to meet that date or meet any other estimated deadline date. However, the County will proceed in good faith to try to provide service to the Development Site as reasonably possible. To the extent that effective service can be provided to the Development Site from the now existing facilities, and subject to priority of vested lots, and notwithstanding completion of the subject capital improvements but subject to the Developer paying the applicable fees to the County as scheduled, Developer shall be allowed to make connections to the subject water system and receive the concurrent applicable Certificates of Occupancy. 8. The Developer will pay all costs associated with installation of water meters and water tapping charges by the County as applicable at the date of connection of the Development Site to the County's potable system. 9. The County and the Developer agree that, to the greatest extent allowed by law, all the terms, covenants and conditions herein contained are and shall be binding upon their respective assigns or other transferees) of this Agreement, including, with regard to the County, the City of Marco Island should within the ten (10) 6 OR: 3518 PG: 1807 1602 year reimbursement time frame, this system is sold to or otherwise transferred to the City of Marco Island by Interlocal Agreement. In such event the County will expressly make such Interlocal Agreement subject to this Agreement to be binding on the City to the greatest extent allowed by law. 10. If either party (successor, assign or transferee) desires to give notice or to make any tender to the other party hereto, such notice or such tender must be in writing and shall be deemed delivered when actually received by the other party via hand delivery or by delivery through the United States certified mail, return receipt requested, and addressed to the party for whom it is intended as follows: Collier County Water-Sewer District Attn. Public Utilities Administrator 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building H Naples, FL. 34112 * * * * * Calusa Island Village 5130 Main Street, Suite 6 New Port Richey, Florida 34652 Copy to: Leo J. Salvatori, Esq. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 330 Naples, Florida 34103 Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent either party from changing above- stated place in Florida to which subsequent notice should thereafter be addressed, but no such notice of change of address shall be valid unless given in accordance with the terms of this paragraph 10. 11. Failure of County or Developer to comply with any provision of this Agreement shall be sufficient basis upon which the other party may terminate this Agreement except to the extent, if any, that such failure or delay(s) have been caused by Act of God, war, strike, fire, flood, weather, lack of supplies, breakdown or shutdown of equipment, failure and capacity of transportation facilities, or any law, rule or regulation, or order or action of any court or agency of instrumentality of any government, or any other cause beyond the control or the party hereto responsible for or charged with such failure or delay. However, the nature of this Agreement requires both parties, and their successors and/or transferees, must administer this 7 OR: 3518 PG: 1808 Agreement in utmost good faith and that termination of this Agreement shall l Ra c 2 last resort remedy. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, acting under authority of their respective authorized offices, have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above issued. Calusa Island Village, 1...C.,a Florida Limited •-- I� _ tk. Liabi ' y Compan First Witness Robert M. Re-d, II, as Manager ---‘2.:-.1-c.•- A-A . (c J t Printed , ) ,n• u ,f First Wi ess 4 Ar . . r►itn . P ' - •. (typed) name of 2n Witness ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) The foregoing agreement was acknowledged hefore me this ___k..9.7— day of may, 2004, 20637by ROBERT M. REED, 1I, as Manager of the . •• Island Village, L.C., who is ersonally _,-.-known to me OR . •• , -., as Identification: }: i :�"'k LEO J.SALVATOR# .. "• ,R. r•.IYCOMWSSiON#CC 967892 Notary Public, State of Flo ida My C• 'i-i•:•-.•. i n� b i er 28.2004 1 _.. !.` .,i._ . ._.,......s,;onS ?V Naxry PubNc UndYm'Merb ._.......... ....._ -- _.--.—�. Typed, printed or stamped name of Notary Public a, A3"I' tr,..7. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1]V IG -IT'.1 :',000K ,e1Qxk OF COLLI OUNTY, FLO IDA `l .•t----.`.:-1, .J ; 74 & ` A4•.14:•fir 4 ' `:1, `5 DO A FIALA, Chairman Approved 4 'R 1b and legal sufficiency: By: , M40.------- Thom• C. Palmer, OR: 3518 PG: 1809 16 C2 Assistant County Attorney 9 OR: 3518 PG: 1810 EXHIBITS FOR CALUSA ISLAND VILLAGE AGREEMENT 1 6 C 2 -- Exhibit"A"--Development Site—Calusa Island Village. [Attached] Exhibit"B"—Capital Improvements. [Attached] Exhibit "C"— Legal Descriptions of the Non-Vested Lots (listed in the Chart). [Attached] 10 coflO77 Od es313s�:ai�:+ aVsria --x. 1iiII ^111. I M1l II yI }:sty, - :. ':�n !1$.. ,� d t t E .4 . j ;t \ a° it 1#4 114 11441€a i A , • I 1�1�•' !f - I1, iig 11 4 ••iii X1� j11�`w,r! ! ,t1'1 i i1i l-t� .itri!I Ui? a tt 10 t , !� l t _. i t. o qtll r. .` . YO\ 4k1 q 44 i o , S + 3 .= � j °-. _ Vii. + - , , .�;,t alt L' t a 1! 1 F 4 1 i { .. r , ; N Ilii A `� : ,1 C tI —.. r. , _ '1I 1151 1 - _L t j •.1 ill 1 i 47 �- C I it / 111!! -i10 i+ A••• iBaS ..-. a .�` s`. I A .--.� a t1 } i, E � Hi 0 N R i # I!ii!1i!! ii!It !] ty • i it e 0 d! .,[ � ` ` Rt A ll A 4 is� 4F liiiC #t. / !rr Y 7ti tail /! I fi ' a : )1 i 1;i b 1181HX3 g 1 1 .1 �& Nil `Irk OR: 3518 PG: 1812 . EXHIBIT 1 6 C 2._ o o 0 w ^ Cas n c cru 0 c e. F.1 c 's c4 0 r ct7 4 8. tra `�° r etc rA9; Cs r14 rr? Lt' Lis w ca 0 �r 7C o ,C3 - '� '� ;fin . — .•. to _, -• O g ^ a A W P i Q c `° n +`` I. v 0 c '"' rCJJ•s `1 -, In St. CI wr sew �• �. --..._. .. �� -. .�� ._»....�.�.»......,_ ; E. r� Mi W re n he h4 _;10I eil o QO a s »,moo c o o c a '� O O' rli :: e M c„ c c... ,atz,. P-3 E c Z 41 2 _... —._ , — —._..... —----- — t- r CD ..a w 7 ,. . r W L. C'� fy4co i to ; ro Cm -�"- ' to 4 VS — be 0 cs t< r ,�,. �' s, a -,� '' he C, CC ao rINJ ia r n 04 a Q t:::, g c a c c c c c ^a M e r; as oc M tre �c o 2 5 DO r y• n �' to be cse a bl 6R ton V" 4r4 E4 t F 4 "" o w -a tsa sa v cc chh SX: tv I c:› o o a a a c a o c c c� '� C: a a • O ,~o! e 3 C . . _HI . 1 •'� w,i, c o 1,,, %r, ,a o o c \n c Lo CZ o �, G cp c c cz 11 c © c C3 $ u' N ; CI 11 DA wrrrrr�r 4049 I. 2d' ci s''•1M a1. Lgnd 1CqufoJ ...tat- L iod 'dos - 6O £d-id-I-PO [ EXHIBIT C PAGE 1 OF 14 I 0 02 1.14\ .'\ \s I 1 ft 1 ., I -.- I . : ,. , N.. . ..,',;• . •• ' •, il i ' Pe....• .. / II t 1 i _, i . /• -. ..--"'-'•-•-:-.... ,,0 '-'•-•---....' 1 ,..•'''' I ' II' \ .....-• ., /r / _ _.,„.,„ .• \ - _//"Y. / ' /• CONDO'S.(48 8).- .---' - --. . . ‘.....)••.,.., , ,.... , f / .e. 1. \ ,\ .,, .. ..„....• . , •- t t \ \ '" , 1 C, • c MO • • \ r, . • 1. ... . s s . ., t s, La, i \ 1 I ACt. I, . •",...‘. ,}-1..--.:,,',....,,._ 1°1:0 ... I \I ''''' ,.„, r...,.. ,„. ..) .., S. 1 , , ,. : , .,....„.,, „, ,..„.... [....it,... -_ , k ; ,, ..,,...„, ,.., Ji - .--: I ; v,- .,, co . il,7 /6 1 1 j''::, %IA ,i-1- ,..,,, •-....), LI Mi3,6F :1 1,R"..\ -4,"? -e-' \ :-.\7:/-zr.'4 ,,,-,,, • ., i I --1-._--ss,--, , -----.- ---.----.-=---' ••-..,,, , 1 ..- ‘ )1,.- • -.1.' i, , t..--. ---i---..... %, -' - - ' '://,%,/,',Ifftg'Pi.. ' i,,ettr-'7.$-, .•.• ••.: ,Ile; , ••7)' •,--44--,› 71 i ; - • '471.,'..:fr`k..-.11) .a,..1 g•al'".....,,,L,--...,,,,„ - ..,4-''''a-'-'. ; I ,, ,l'..:+r;,,,I•'-i't1.-f:S''''1,24,‘\— 7,-•m,-- , . 1 '44.1="ft-r ..-4,-c "3f-.., .:Fi•1121r 1.4(77r;i: ...,,.3.,r...,4 ..,,, i t .'1. .1 .---• izietiii•V1.9 t,,:',,r- .4.=,4.4'it,e': r., ':•-V n .,,..C r•...'' ' MX;CA 14'./AV '' i ,, , //',,,4%, q'4 4., .„,....— '1,1,-.•-•,-1;its.1.4titlii,,,,Ie4,:r.,....ent.# -.44A,...,-;,,I, , CALL)8A ISLAND ..,. er; ....,..'7rre;1,,Iial t..CV."27: -''4444 417-'')7.‘ 13.F2 4.14. ..?...., 1 VILLAGE F , .±';'' OfI"'r40.',„,,sja.T"';''''f*1-14.1C7."4,71-p., ,trr %nr-, .,,,a:. 4._.4 ,...t..0!..* \ ,•;., t .44Z-401,V.7:1'.. .,- tv4=,:,_„,......_.. ..- .._.....,....... el .....,.....% ,y-- .:. / .....--;..4...-T-..k.i,.v.,.., c:145,',.-eall, •v".:, -,, : ,,,,,..' ' -"e:1 .„....,„ ., ••:', ,_ ,?;.,ip,:_re.:t:-.,:7:,--,e ....•,,A. , — •••••''..... .,A. l''kr ' !;i.,!7.. i -P. ''..7 7. in -714-.I 1 ' CALU8A ISLAM ,, \\., '‘: ?'," rc) -., .5.1-4ee?': It -3./1/ , ' , 1., .war.. MARINA •'\\. ,•7,;;%.- ,... 1: ‘.6. p-- -, • •k . V.,.......,rt•-•'ji 11 , -cl! f„s s.,,,,.......,.:: r' 7,../.:,. , .• (PALMER lAU kll IAI i Er RANCHz(9fTe „, , ' DEVELOPMENT) 1 \\`..\\\\• \kx., \ 0,-- //:' .,....... ,, .- , .. .. .t., iff 0 04 .. .....I. it —. - --.— FUTURE PAic .• a' , 1 . ,.., .. .. ' S.-' w ... ci. 1 if • A 4,, ,, ntor950 EmFLu3 411% MCI=BY: PRO2J0EC0T2N0o2. 2 . I NON-VESTED 1! Corttfloolo EWE: 0201011Vort MOW-ITQF .-- BMIINAMMIS.11118111 Auof LOTS C.C.Q. thorization tio.1172 11io3 2 5 EXHIBIT L7 T T 1!1 y c r,. , •-� ... EllHIBI S C. _,..;� r,,i ✓ .n.. ,, r' s • PAGE 2 OF 14 �,y'X�+ „7 XC,It��►�,y �1 y�..p-.•7..�,,�Aay •r 1 ,C�,yi� ..�i ... _ter _ �;,_—.. }y?'r .t�.re„i.��j.1: R.., ; t_ .:.;:i '�•'..... ..•. _ ... ,,. . �� . ! Pf?pLit4'd•-y; 1 6 C2 .„.... �.,:.. _, {.. RCC�Q _DDept.4•,Htorso 'tb ;�^ 3250 SA likild isor=re .00C#ter-50.0 ktsmf,Florida 11119 iNT—•— 1-":31S Xr9D1=848St, rade this tub... day 0E 7sbnsary -r A-D., lelliir batreaen ONLTVIA 4.403 6 ilaYSFITelm7eT CORP., s skorida oorparatiors, her inaftar referred to as tate oarrxntot, and dame 'd VELEM, i , ,;y syr a eloriee general r:=.;_.narchip, ahmee mailing address Sn !,L'S. era „ .?. $3�G, ssc��lee, a•:torida 13841 harolt:aStst referred to at the as p1 k �' °tEzsnksie*. F �sg s� I�iB'.6J�1� • • r p hat the egadGrantor, tat and in consideration of the num ' of Tan DoilarrG (ota,(30 and other good and valuable consideration, to it in head paid by the skid Granter, the r C= raceipt anG �aufticiency whereof der hereby Acknowledged, hms ot s4.R Wcr; 'v grente3, bargainstd, sold and cOnyeycd to the said Granted, its rise ter �osccznsorc and asaigna focovers the following described land C5 L+aituate, lying and being in the County of Calder and State of W r:ae idr, to-wits ILsi is-'—' :' (SMO SX RIT "A" ATTACHED eeF820 AND rZ St liSYMbiCti. t(ADS A PAP'l� HERM') This deed its °scouted subject to the following terms and i e---* C conditional l---* s ni+ 1. The Grantee shall. be responsible for the ad valorem '..4-;. eased and all r,anesa erste, if any, imposed upon the real property rmitinssi.c with the 1988 tax year. [ • ' . The Croontee takes the property subject to ell sesemenfm, • laking and ohhat reatrictiane and reservations of record. The aa'sf Grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said 1. r• .:y land, ,end will defend the sorra against the lawful claim of all q p:;raons wbo.:seevem. i TO 1&V £SD TO BOLD the gYemises herein granted unto the 0 Gzsntauo ike aucceaeors and assigns' in far simple forever, ( - Reerivad$ 1 8 Sarva txurnanteni Manly Tax Fi teived$ Class"C"Intmn34bto cranal Prer arty rax COLLIER LINTY CLERK OF C RFS 1 l t+w • .r'. ."'.y-rr'[..,,,7.r"-7r7•a«;.1+7117•,arx�!oe--:t f",e'.:Y'C ^!�i!rlt,7 ..._' . , ...��.c!. . . POOR QUALITY ORIGINAL EXHIBIT C PAGE 3 OF 14 �5r' !ti l4Zgtas M}13,1.1'D , tra' arantot has canoed the9e presents o bra ai5"ir.od in itts Haase by Lte autha><isad 9ffLCRca and its of : cospOra=e Seal to be affixed the day and year above etittan. ,a. - r COEl7. Wed, sealed and dam''!vista DML & LARD 4 11V 1St11t! as pteXolfl , s 4/A .�,..st4 eY l Via. a'� IA: !tea'dant "o wa111SL--314r1W6=1.------ �._r• `s,•'.'ri A• �," .,• . J Ai1!BCI ,....-- - A-17___:=1....,1;5.;-: � dIi�-- r.; • Corporate Coatstiry ,t• t.:.•, A, 3kji ; STIC S os r ORMA ) ma. ` CC,i~=u'i*'s an DADS 1 hin 29th dayof• ..�. r 41 t I t'3 , before p raonallyIP1 that on tagpeared SAP.Y.Z0. COWTRISBTr JR: and :S President and Corporate L,ecretergr CAA and illCtii:tly of. GARSYS, a plorida CAA respectively, aPLTQ?+R LARD A I>1vSsiMENx CORE.e a-� :�' corporation, to me known to be the per.:ane who sighed tthe he foregoias instrument as such off.kers and acknowledged such execution thereof to be their free acts and deeds en CXM officers tux the purposes therein mentioned and that they affixed inuk�umentthe iiiftYeiactanal and deedsaid of ceidcorporation, aarFetarion. that the said bmi . . 'x • lVft S my nt nature and official acal at the day aadmYncc inthe [7D County of Dade and State of Florida, a-� . C-,, :, aforesaid. 1..►- !a3 -. . . - Notary Public, :tarn of T.. at targe '.`•. ;• • "M' y num Neu iiti OP'LOD& ►iaafan *spirant i+ccrrt:ra[[++,rtMolt Resect.r.,V Oti[UA III.M. :moi ' +K. YR . . a 11 POOR QUALITY ORIGINAL . . ... . . . .. .._E-XH I-13•I T C ... . .. • ,.K •• < , w:,;a -. i.'.Y • PAGE 4 QF 1 ••••-;•:••:4 f�4f.ti} � .•lye� . . :: I. 6 CL2 .;; . j• ' ...: FARMS' ^d►' al_330011321,L20. . ktatiR. isge'� s tq±t3gex tlS *it'L . ;if h paroel of load, ling ir. and being *aft of the pkat of NAACO LtslF`A fait` artitait', aacardin9 to the plat ►bassos as reoofda6 in - i.51 • Plat &oak 61 lave& 137. thaqllgn 318 of thr pubiia rsoeade or C. .'arc County, flocLda, end Vitt at the pl.at-of MARCO haws Ow ;. i °z!1aE4t�y, scaar4inp te: ti,a plat thereof as re otdod it Flat &ook 5- 4i County, ; 14rlGn.through o being acre particularly tn • oad as fao i}feC a. ., REGIO at the Northeast nornux of Rection 21, township 51 South, Rana 25 Feat, Collis: County. Florida, said coriumbeing on the Eacteray p'..°. boaftdary of siosesaid Mateo ',Rauh Unit aisteans ' thane; :un arlatig uaid fast.trly plat boonr Eactsrly~8 =t in diata.:aa 512.11 teat' thanes 'saving ;athence k ill bounuSCy 83' 33'44"x' a diatanca.of 621.30 feet to an intersection with ilia uu r b rX Al}it hbo•boundary run 1101'15'271W a dittea•id unit atanca of 1r,..5L 2 a &attharly p• I;S.Si sect' thence !saving said Southerly plat boua4nsy. can L 0$°42'41°rr a dieter.a of 403,93 feat; thence c127'22'45'11 a t distance of $43.67 fast' thence 932'12'50'a a diatanca of 24.10 teat? thence H49°53141111 a distance of 25.20 fast! thence L2.0004'11'1 a distance at 16.65 feat: thence B54'009'21'8 a i.:': istanca of 15,S4 teat,. thence 839•01'14'E a distance of 24,51 tustl thence &:,3643'47`8 a distance of 104.88 fest; thence W : 1183°!0'63'L' a diatanca of 139.48 feet; thatica 1l705'e1'20;W •• a i.7', distance 'of 9'37.7.2 feet' trance's897°01'44'Sf a distance of 27.85 feet; thence '3gg,'a2+30'4y a diktance• of '.9.90 testi thence B8.}•s10r0841+i tlissta'i'g of 2748 thence'N7sfast; 4 g 58 Whance dietand"e4of 03II 86 s 2' • r ,iatnatca of 33.20 .Rs t; f7 feat; thanca `sS3112'28wit a diatsnce- of 32.30 fasts thence N16'41'17"18 a dist-tench of 37.4L feet; thence ti77'20'079I a .31 ditOtaTea of 37.95 feet' thence 1167'31'S9'W a distance.of 52.09 •_ '•;'ri feet; thane& ;''63'37'15'!1 a diatanca of 35.56 feat: thence 1;,a x153'43=36'44 a distance of 30.56 'feats thanca R4.3'00119** a 1+--e CO diatsnce of 14.11, `-feet; thence 814'31'54'' a diatanca of ,19'5.60 • iCSI tont to an intefaacttan with the 'gouthatly Right of tray Lina of ii Btata Road .10. 92-A (1001' wide 'tight of Way) as shown an hfo:aeaid plat of Make Ssach Unit Twenty; thence run the I 1following „cautious along said Southerly Right of way Line. S45003'43"1 a diatsnce of 186.86 feet to a point of curvature of a circular curva, `cancsve to the northeast cad having a radius of 365.31 feet; thence Southsatteriy along the arc of said curse • thfottgh a central angle of 41034'30• an arc diatanca of 300.11 • fiat to tha point of tangency, thence 9&a°37'09.8; a distance of 170.97 feat to the Easterly plat boundary at, aforesaid ?Sacco teach Unit Sixteen, said pkat boundary also being the saatariyy tine of Section 13 of aforesaid TOvnshlp' 52 South, !tang* 25 111 ',act, Collier County, PioCidat thence 00542O'43°8 along maid 8astarly plat boundary and section Lino a distance of 1293.57 ill *ant to aha Point of g,girning. Containing 15.02 &area, !iota of lase. ' : • ' -440 - JAutsC wif%CLEW( _��hss-,�; .i • .E' r '/„u ... r'...-.:..-..w�. ..r_��,.�y..+a^v...^.-^.a'•+•rw.y++►�.'a7r':a�•y K....�. •:sn.•' .• .?'' i - 1. POOR QUALITY ORIGINAL1 • EXHIBIT C 16C2 PAGE 5 OF 14 • 2711140 41: 1741 PG: 0874 wow is emu dot of MUM met n 11/H/210.at NM*Mart L 110u, Gut cal MINAliC Ito tf.N Ke-.951171.NThis instrument prepared bye btu DAVID C. B011 GBAU nut MI UMW stAut & BOuRGEAU, P.A. itQ N 2375 Taatiaati, Trail N., Suite 348 ' Naples, Florida 34103 Property Appraisers Parcel Identification Number; �f 3�T,7 Lr3�•-�S' WARRANTY DEED THIS WARRANTY DEED made this 31st day of October , 2000, by ytz GoCDIp. TEC. . a Flar0a corporation.. hereinafter called the . . Grantor, to PALMER *vol. It.L.C. . an Illinoil Limited Liability Ca venv . whose past office address is 655 Center Road, Frankfurt, 1--,1 12, 64423, hereinafter called the Grantee: cd WITNESSETH: That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the G�`a aunt of $10.00 and other valuable considerations, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargaina, aells, aliens, remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto the Grantee all that Co certain land aituate in Collier County, State of Florida, viz: SHE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN • Subject to zoning, building code and other reatrictions imposed by governmental authority, outstanding oil, gaa and mineral interests of record, if any, reatrictions and easements cotton to the subdiviaion, and ad valorem real property taxea accruing aubseguent to December 31, 1999. TOGETHER, with all tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in fee simple forever. HD the Grantor hereby cavenanta with said Grantee that the Grantors is lawfully seized of aaid land in fee simple; that the Gator has good right and lawful authority- to sell and convey said land, and hereby warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful cleima of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances, except taxes accruing ey aubseguent to. December 31, 1999, POOR QUALITY ORIGINAL • EXHIBIT C PAGE 6 OF 14 1 6 c, ......_________ . ._. OR 2741 PG: 0875 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has signed and sealed thele presents the day and year first above written. iiimpz-. in .this P-,ence of: • Ni Z.! �^" GOODLANt, INC. , Wim'ese *1f�-' Si-,.=cure a Florida coroorstion, Witness *1 - Prin e`. Nano J.8. `eurcie, as its President III tMIIIj�/+. is i P.O. Box 126 ap- 411r, igna ,re Gocdland.J1or da 34149 L Poet Office Address Witness *2 - Printed •ame WCorporate Seal) - - STATE OP FLORIIJA _w v+ COUNTY OP COLLIER ,o b '2/ Th f ing i meat was acknowledged before me this �` _. 24)00, by X.E., Curcie, as President of GOOOLAND, INC_, a Florida corporation, who is Banally known CXD to me or who has produced .--� . . - E.., as identification. ars Not-Iplublic Signature Notary Public Printed Name My cissian expires: (seal) 4& mqualimmismum ,17 kwiinTrintZdha / ...... POOR OUALITY ORIGINAL • EXHIBIT C 1 . 5e2 PAGE 7 OF 14 • ,r. _ E *ft OR: 2741 PG: 0876 t*t t . EXHIBIT To all that certain real prapihy tiluo c lying and being in the cpeurry of Collier,State fFlarid�described as follows: mai [_+J r-� The upland portion of avc' parcel of laud lying in Tract 2,of Block GOODLAND ISLES,as recorded in Plat Book 6,Page 7,Public Ards of Collier County,Florida. • " ti co Begixlxing at the Southeast'coma ofLot 24,GOODLAND ISLES,FIRST ADDITION,as recorded in Plat Book 8,Page 1,of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida;Thence South 16 degrees 06'17"West 64.00 feet to the point of curvature of a circular curve concave to the Northwest having a radius of 50.00 few Thence along the arc of said curve to the tight for a dish of 2121 feet tbsu a central angle of 26 degrees 35'42";Thence South 15 rlegrecs•4414T`East 27.88 feetf Thence South 16 degrees 06'17" West 94.03 feet;The ncc•South 55 deg es 38'23"East 216.47 feet;Thence North 16 degrees 06'17"East 295A3 feet to the pont of curvature of circular curve concave to the Southwest having a radius of 100.00 feet; Thence along the arc of said curve to the lett fora distance of 181.41 feet thrix a angle of 104 degrees 00`00"1 Thence North 87 degrees 53'43" West 11728 feet Thence South 02 degrees 06'I7"West 95.00 feet to the Place of Beginning. • POOR QUALITY ORIGINAL _.. ..._ 1 6 irl .., , • EXHIBIT C . PAGE 8 OF 14 l\ IliAlUledke *Rig ft. Neel*. Attorney r.*own "- 925.teethCotlferttrd. # 182E 00#6$5 a, *woe Island, FL 33937 oninmensionennane OR BOOK PAGE -Walter 9. Serakoty • "''°" f45 central Airtime .i ilecelrN 11'I64DOocrptel%tars►lox Replan, f f 339113-9394 !11 l_,t.li f ti Clad'V!Muddle rneder Aow4ts leer*ise.eff..u.n VWrarerAO. *+seed Prowls Nil 6AWs. C[oF aaar aa'NMM S. yy./W/�.911 • t R.C. L.• •. ':+L✓~ W1. 1M Ue PM 1aewH7lr MA Mgt NNW 1/11/1E lar ws I1 11.---: "4 wr, . .�'m`.rrtarr. t..s ala. i m" . .,rte;: 1LJd EXHIBIT C PAGE 9 OF 14 • • .. e.{.,: ":."T `�.•` 'S OHc .i ss.S<ro.. w., .r. 7'.. .. • F.} 'gay. •�• - ..�.- •e 3i%SIS1Yt •A" Ila tutdi'tida4,ane hailf flit) interest in and to tile following $sicrAbM property: g co ata last 7311.434 awn at'reset•e-,Puma pidCtl 11aiy m'a'im• tis amlels*s Cm lit repos v Oat as amasses tae nix 1s*t. Nuat7.Plmrlda.Paget 21, I semis¢.et tswain rename l salter Cwter.isteg 2.52 MOS.sacs as tats. anti An Wldivida4 etre half f1/21 iintxreat in And to the follnving described property. a� rams.is amostmn 2>'.rr4ssnlp is teeethi. sdant La east, Ci s AD sarapisa by tapeta', eseys pita at latch Si.tai t 33 C9 •••- v aawtdsa ss'es aril at at s 411. Santa*ta*Omaram Salim mimosas . • Ls-1 6 Snr at mem e t Sand Rewe en Us rota Olde SC Stan rtt t. arra lie• II Ca samba i2,er.ranlp H iemtaa Cogs ee Cafe.Wee e Int at etw`iada ascmpisa ie&swabs* ____ Wilt tart adolsis rase taeadmd Lm O.la.seen 21 at4Ns rnr Si tW paid haemes et Cal7ilr aosast.'a.lm s kr re pstaa&Is damning as seam i "Ci rtes Mr aaitsta mauKssw.n rite a ower u untiar ria Cal assist..-mamtla realm.'as tar sass now rs sett&Meta a • 52.ism O.atsi.vIY U. sLq omit Mlle UM tar aims tads in.maosts.mn...meea with s Seas map e•sr saute'. StIl t-mt•wp 1Sao 4t 152W erase 1W.us'arrm osseusi 'tee ares surra tit 17.07 hit M I mtit in lei Setaet2tai CO at neat tads skean son at.a2'IL.(0'5.owe Nie eac.sa lima l.r I41.14 Coat w a'warm tap in the wain*la salt massa Was theme eaattase as am sass eraser Slp.74 Itai sa S .paha tr.705 tame vast el she wet rat at Wags ..MS'tags Ida am mita stats east,Mame somas IV tvlr• v.he DI inn to s pelma sn tis umlaut sl t-*as Una ad said Mao teas tr.. Us thaws res V.grow V. slam said siokt.at-say tl..tae LSI tats to at pats'si .be . ICS sed4 pUtat et t.plsnlsr'ssntiaam F.• 51•4i, tt.stain Mad rigtr-at-eiY Use sae 311.25 Pesti •y thesis ire ee.srts•i!'it. bor RAM Lent M•errSetr mamma sant a Sines tap Wad oa the windy Uwe st . raid patw2 tasm•7.4 by oast manic!C.0.1.deet 2I as sirs Isla thesis mrrsans on do sum tests*be L20.25 last sn matt ar lits snlaamst COMM.utiles emotion s4 tit arta awns tar 22.52 lasts Waseca see 4.Ir41.11r 5. • seat's;411 mate rtghs.af-say Use at Hats read 11M U Ns 33.1.51 teal;Seaan%nes alb stell.11.t. ver 144 Into 1 to ras psl.m of beginning as wad Stamm Brat rtii miew. e ;2ms.f..sabaat Lee totes. • tea taettidty its or tin teralsahae.amanita pima seas is air amass et swam attic or PRAM.send.rk till Yates*. In masa socittsa sa isa2.elm Lb�slu dascrlbad pascal razed outrun* as.54555,mot.ermcr rw'e till al isasgrlar sii0••a•l. µh 555255s b.[.eiaaba�Vey.aatt..a4 ifs taw the stents mean Sam rust C.stdinatn yes tt em ttaei Sias anent lS. ater. sandasia 1.tteor srtaag tam • • • } POOR QUALITY ORIGINAL , I t; • I 4 EXHIBIT C .. _ __- ---- 16 ( .“7.' PAGE 10 OF 14 .- } _ ..� -'x--ww _ s.' •. 'ls:•4, .,e.. 11110$ %woe Pomo..ue ..':- N. Reale,Attorney .. & �!£!!6 37 • igLi etli Calder Sleet. 1 R BOOR PARE "s ZtM"island, ft 3a1f7 echoaaemser esance Weer ii.idreeety oft. IRS 1$Ltlkfal Ave. #t het'j� sites Stin Tits • iteplei it S?4{O-d25t Retele.n f Clan'e' lstrnie le ' OPSilJW4ke+rPIM*Weeelepwlliedla dwail a iCJj�Jaiwu#harms sii C.t•r•'e. or Of St IT t?ear s about at _ o.r anq ewrao�mo.rn. rz,. cuts axra e n tug tori tam 6 ._-r �a.wwmii+ria+,VMR",:.....'° .2=14""w"."..ZUZ2'.` '1a 41.""'"` . 1. • ter er Xa&e a . i!!te day aj' April A.D.ai.D. toff , DeboraLyon Rouen Bel ey r C,1-t, ArtitCrenr$ Cal 1ler .deNeBeetea/ Florida ,yore, yelifetpm.and Myren Kern. tic. ;c= . ibis Casey of Col 1 ler ,is die Stab of Florida ,ed.0 pea Oe:Serbs u Q 12 ' t:16 They large et Roedland Rrid4e.?ZOO state Rd. 9?. Spodland. FL 31917 Oh ply d Os second part gi - cf� Yhrt dr otti Y sr the.1Ctst par4 JQrr'bad its Wnsf4satWn of du SI* of era p71Q -- [Sid. O ~•-DatlarR L"'3 !: e.her 4s haat c_rr Paid by offs arid party /rse:entad part de re*starterie e,�i w • hid prahat laiioloeC,std iodd to s e tett irk eine soma Fat its ides bet a longi 6rrsu;d e Y; —1.......aa Hart+giebrsri664betatine FandIntagieUmCrustyo► Col ,psieof fl arida , p1.4,40 is described is attached Exhibit'A' CI the property described in Exhibit 'Aa ` Is ralarerciel property. t.: e-•-a Cal r..7 Oa ' tatb}sct to seaeseats.seServatiass eat saatrta:tLoia di retard and anal estater,...1 -- c testa for Else rase 1553 and aubsgnaas yenta. we ' Xnalosling*1L n1 n*tsa and sntwarrad lead slights of nisiah Granter is aaisad. Pr. ; r3t Alf#as d PITY of else Arai pest de es Early Any mason!she title to and dad and sotlt'tidied - It Lis alit apnduesOs&seadams ofall poem arl.wrcrsrr s Mom Ellizzed. 4Fresea perty tells piton tuts Anuses on her baud I end not dear ant'serJfratabout wain. realad stilt "• is the proms at may r / 4. ' wJ ®: s a yal " Warps itf4-- kit A(05 . tt+r.e c < tlaplts,Fl.33g$P _ D.,ratq,.a+raa..wn..a teCorrivx...z-r • Mararw Raper. • VOU..ep4k a i...ern H lqj tot Ross aaart. ••-•• a1+[ASa r 8rdIi07_,t:tdrl145 _ ..3t limb,CWAr!holm[hlsaaCldatatn;aadMer8.1No4aelod unniYor Cat 1lel' rsaemIlekl vaSimiiiutoaeirmaildpn+r+r bsaw+u isomeewta otter rm..._,k`^a1lr;d Ile rdrieentuda4S.edjep&4at l.Rtrames.eietdea.k.kabdir.n,nnua,t e., Medal asn6tae4leeieieer.ase hinter ostetv_.ode. tRna.adifir.R.v.wmalpeaottrdtg::aSeAlto:ttoreirlrl:-' I 4'"A-k ,C.er _�,.. - nnitl4[m aWhrrXww*.Jlh1.s r t notiaw avada9slul "---."'4W1hemialrGMComity SJrtaRkintiraiSego .nOBleL iY...1.w nbithla _ .1`.-- - Apar Vel g4-. . ./..M la.n. a ei POOR DUALITY ORIGINAL _1.. '-�-}•._ •. -4,,: •$•. - ,,_•' mss- - ..e. �.M"41-ay l-'.Vit. '.'4'f • f:�, - _ I • EXHIBIT G 16C2. PAGE 11 OF 14 . r.11012017 • ..._ - •-- - _ ••• . ...... . . .71.1 • An 7tflr#iVidad bkdc hale 11./21 iotaroue ill and to the fallowing , • •described prapatty. Q r 23 Ito fat its..east of pleat 1"',i9 psis Ann fs Wi4wtrtlaa. emtfl 0.bwa�ea W or pee la aynewa 1h live book O. C7 "a 10011 obit lel..aatruwoft,e0 .Pella riboses bur 1 call& 711 .' . tenet.Morita. C11l&aat(, 5. lama. 3 a5 . soma as lea.. • nail ' 6.1% izd£v£dod oma half Si/z) Luterant in amid t4 the delIcwitp described pzopa Aly• ,- 1.t.a ie Wafer.12,morale 17 Oetth.a.a:a 25 tion. •,. fi4 by lap 11* pm%at ...*u .np1[at krD4p > 01l4 a1 re 1500 !da !1 sit Yip, 0:444vs Osarey NM ua.e.a I . gt ._ 0 tat yr Named at laid 201W 0*Wmaaslk 1340 et Seava • GI m +�. Wel Pe.*7 to ff.eell5 331,tarlualp IR roast.eaait It Ili W Ort.awry 4 pat rest 1011141 5Ara17344 la 151.54104. fp 40 4101 001144*4154 ara.saad It 0.1.ofd lb at fit at Po pa5*tir neva of a1111ee fa•atri Alois UV C.a.,sr pima to dawibaI as tsUessr r fist suawUMWe memos aariad.r*Ota a heave Ares e.a315 f a•a s. Ori laast.-asaiUMWto Oa Iran ilea 15 oath tuatial 6-...ii 1/.14114 at.airway,v.Albs,alta rasa 44010 for 534.10 CSC. ham sa■5esaas/4 55.4..14%silk•Aoaas op ea 410 op.eha:7y s14 -at-wy 4410 el Nt111 4.104 11*.alt 115*11 aant1arr an R. a^C� SM atom moor ler Mita fee to•MU as H./aeataslt*a 11*914 tsar Woo*0*rot e.aaU 0 !.atm,/Dail.area•• al . 47 use Las iia.*.lest Is a Orals tae in OR p.irinast in . 1114 050111141st Woes,maim.w lir 5Ur mews*1141.14 1.. fat;ea a pub*31.24 est reit at Ito raa0 015 at a hr4Al0e , ..s drama Asada law as 1514%tile Sias N0.»tea II. 01.15.1.10. «y 14 ler 404 tart a a prat la the myths/ay rlaht+0l.rap fa„.t••14 115a eve b..223 41tsae no a. s7a*t'0as a. I Y: alN Mel meld riitI•at .. d•55y iiter 110 faro to p*a fats* - f./a.) .t.41toga5mi• rem sail piles a ¢ d haa■l.aw..e*le.a.✓ lr•'II•ar•ir.wawa Sita statmspot-ma,tare far 310.42 laity t%mat ala M.12012.0.W.far 0.13 Ikea es a awasrata •. • .rr.*r.as with a brava asp Meal es she s ielvis Liam at . rail tarea3 115.7.4 bp Pail retested Li.0.t,bed -• 31 as paps fits 1tat11 1.11155*a slut rasa tains!sr e - 110.3*two u seem 1111.51..011 tot, thaws 1071 1 se 415 inn ewer!or 13.02 testa steam run 15.tp041•*1'V. wand lith ode'lobe-ci•ra7*tar at 01015 aloe H0.7t fie 111.33 taw slats tr.I. 0*'11'32•t:. tat 124 rola A a Rap palms et 1rpawat.9 as maid Stat Iwai ril113.of r.r :M•..f5.falla9 11.51 aeons. r s. 1".55115(37 1iw al de frwabaabSs.Marsha,pascal ro.m Is tha eater.MI!Nets War as 1w1.,ilrh al 11h1a 2.1141040 F Winds faiers rano.angled fie 411.1115*paa.5%y.1 1ab1j 5 51.%1110 amas' 414 0t lraap.tar a*Aosove5. , Ai 1/151111/1.571.111.1 Mette11.a 1e,lir Oe!testis 1111 4 tee.ria11 10111aa11 Stook 0544700 1410 0.L.C.aat& 5114.101 Prism ii-Isavaiatior.Isilm ay proal s aravasaaa. • bad all, at thy entire parcel described as tallows. al 1 let*1 Y5 dm leak 110.at Swam 13. Savaak*p O raw 3i flag. milks Carta.1104341 Ii 50 40'V 11634 tva11 how tta aaeelaalt olio=45145*[ •41024 6 tie 115 14*if.1103.28 lam Yea 911513 ammo at 4*'215 43•'V 130.33 has is a vadat; doom R 40 13'3*'tl 305.38 Raa0 Re •.p0041 thous if 111 314 ds If 830.13 Gas tea paha; thence 8 11°105 30'V 1370.118 east pea pease. aware r 21 44' sou w 151.11 teat 11 2 p51nt it 115 p71eu11e5 at Sept pain Manage 15 Swop read-twos 7044Vont Owers V 17 14' *6"a 11054 ea erupt ma at 1.44 1114 MOM last tea pofat {4S fast amen ar toe w.1 at a a*3tx1.1511.1 rases Nosh 1111(44 II 110 10' . 330 Y 400.Y last le.voile o4 Ito noteui 3fr atat..•et..as at rata rout to palet it 1s4'4"s"'.1►115 kilo bane.4411111114 .1•4%6��i► 0i babe ooziest by a I WA 1*ra1et5 rs U tic with•bream asp. 1. 00it .arm ararterieR•2a 40'300 V 21.1*sat is•.Oe.t01*ammo.. 1 Bo''Y till a Ideas�p so Via Vera 111 toothed 0471 1615:1 1151110- .,p'ew•,dgi5. lag a es 400 se a 10.0 test n."aka; ausa a/Phi"' 10"• b f• palatfa2 15 a5. dd 15,415117...o.01-0.4.1...o.01-0.4.1e1 raid coal 140.7 l:le" ,'"'1''1 •a 0 pigtail Stale 1 t 40' 305 it 144.0 tate 40 a 90114 1n aha eteprl7 eislivolrwq.at 1111.1 pain raer■t to 14010.rmlaf *Net d 54.0fasi1t Mala•at Oat*rata portkorlp.4an110. WI*50401/1155 e.11s04fe',ay •cT atte of late. / POOR QUALITY ORIGINAL . .: e n _ i.G • L/ LV/ LVV7C SSIO.. r.+ rv.+ .... _.� - - _ _ - __ _ Page: 003-005 EXHIBIT C c2 PAGE 12 OF 14 16 IMAGE01 : FL-04-3874-2 02/20/2004 11:00: 11am Page 1 of 3 i 2924999 OR: 2972 PG: 2967 PROJECT: Dolphin Covs+Goodand MOM Is OVUM IRON it MUD Goch,R FOLIO: 48372980201 1t)l1I1I12 at 13:11Nli NNE I. 110[{,Cif tt tats MINN tlt m ss.M IIL-.11 Inti.!! Will 2.11 Mir WARRANTY DEED Uhl11P1wtett diff ams THIS WARRANTY DEED Is made this Wrb.,day of. OA*.,1. . 2002. by DOLPHIN COVE DEVELOPMENT OF GOODL AND, INC„ a Florida corporation, whose post office address is P.Q. Sox 158,Maio Island, Florida, 34148(hereinafter refined to as'Grantor'),to COWER COUNTY,a political subdivision of the Slate of Florida, its successors and assigns,whose post office address Is 3301 Tamiaml Trail East,Naples,Florida,34112{hereinafter refereed to as'Grentee). (Wherever used herein the terms'Grantor"and'Grantee'include all the ponies to this 'retirement and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors assigns-) WITNESSETH: That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars (310,00) end other valuable consideration, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sells, aims,ramiees, releases,conveYa end Po confirms unto tate Grantee,alt that certain land situate in Collier County,Florida,to wit t.....) rare See Attached Exhibit"A'which Is incorporated herein by reference. CIO Subject to real estate taxes for the current year and thereafter, easements,restrictions,and reservations of record. 4'7 THIS IS NOT HOMESTEAD PROPERTY ►.--+ va TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto ►ga' belonging or In anywise appertaining. TOGETHER with al rights or plumb to build docks or rights to leases of submerged lands or leases to submerged lands that arise from,relate to,refer to or are connected in any way with Grantor's property or plans to develop the property and all other property rights arising from,relating to or connected In any way with the property and plana to develop the property. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same in tee simple forever. AND the Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee thet the Grantor is lawfully seized of said land its fee simple;that the Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sail and convey said land; that the Grantor hereby fully warrants the tide to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever;and that said land Is free of all encumbrances except as noted above. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the said Grantor has signed and sealed these presents the day and year first above written. DOLPHIN COVE DEVELOPMENT OF GOODLAND,INC.,a Florida Witntss: (S. , ) "` corporation Name: . .i .. •_ BY: C' �.E�s l4` . Nicole GWc,President e i�.�yLr/ l_I`/ 9r �,� P.O.Box 158 ..` �� .il�//��' :.r=�f Marco Island,Florida 34146 Plfn`.r Type) Tata coev vAMCI ACCO/TIO Sy TWO SOMA OF COUNTY CONNUSIONNIS Ti r ao.4.1121_,.. isaisimismatkP°°R QUALIFY ORIGINAL te: L/ 4VILVV'1 1Lmu. 11. .'G. IMV. 4W . ... ------ Page: 004-005 EXHIBIT C PAGE 13 OF 14 1 6 C 2 TMAGE01 : FL-04-3874-2 02/20/2004 11:00:11am Page 2 of 3 €R; 2992 PG: 2968 STATE OF 11,;_L COUNTY OF (..11:44— The foregoing warranty Deed was admowkdged before me this i.f day of "is.,,...r , 2002, by NICOLE GENIC, President, on behalf Qf...Doplsin_fae Development of Goodtand,Inc.,a Florida corporation, ntonanr known to me who has produced as ident€tccaliLlit -----.. . (affix notarial seat) •,---__-,•.---- ..._ ' -v•.- ( red Notary Public) 6- _ . as s 'r°Oc (Print named Notary Public) I>r rr ptira NOTARY PUBLIC 1,`r 'r'' Swial ommleslon S:if any My Commission Expires: ......., oPrir ss !o fad li i su►stcs-eecr f t_T� Autstaat;mai U st,4.+..) oo "d CI oo tv c.si POOR QUALITY ORIGINAL Page: 005-005 EXHIBIT C PAGE 14 OF 14 IMAGE01 : FL-04-3874-2 02/20/2004 11:00:11am Page 3 of 3 1 6 _ *** OR: 2972 PG: 2969 *** EXBIRIT 1,A: A ps l of tread being a portion of Fact shower on but not a pert of the Plat of Goodland Wes Second Addition,as recorded in Plat Book 8,Page 19, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southeasterly corner of Lot 33,Block F of said Ooodlend Isles Second Addition;thence S15'11'20"B 390.48 feet;thence S 72°15' 19" E 128.00 feet; thence S 13' 50' 44" E 180.00 feet to the southerly '4 boundary line of said Tract 1;thence 28.70 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northwest,radius of 100.00 feet,chord bearing N 51° O 23' 18"B 28.60 feet thence N 43"10'00"fl 250.00 feet;thence N 12'20' 20" E 381.83 feet; thence 87.47 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the southwest, redid of 50.00 feet, chord bearing N 37' 46' t_•s 41.5"W 76.74 feet;thence N 87°53'43"W 66.88 feet;thence 162.41 feet CJI along the arc of a circular curve concave to the southeast,radius of 1365,08 oxo feet,chord bearing S 88'41' 47"W 15231 fees~thence S 85. 17' 17" W d 201.52 feet;thence N 18'12'43"W 87.42 feet to the southerly tight-of-way ,--"1 line of Palm Avenue; thence S 85' 17' 17"W 10.28.feet;thence 3 74'49' 12"W 60.08 feet to the northing corner of said Lot 33,Block F;thence S F., tr 12'43"E 96.75 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 33,Block F and o0 the Place of beginningCFN Parcel contain'5.22 acres,more or less. Boeings are based on those shown in Flat Book 8, Page 19 of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. 1 POOR QUALITY ORIGINAL I Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Potable Water Bulk Services Agreement between CCWSD and the City of Marco Island Notice of Termination Appendix D City Marco Island 4111111k a r �k Chr 44.- September 26, 2018 VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL DELIVERY EMAIL: maryjobrock@Colliergov.net Leo E. Oths, Jr. County Manager Collier County 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34112 Subject: Potable Water Bulk Services Agreement between the Collier County Water- Sewer District and the City of Marco Island Notice of Termination Dear Mr. Ochs, This letter is in reference to the Potable Water Bulk Services Agreement between the Collier County Water-Sewer District and the City of Marco Island (copy attached hereto), signed and approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, May 9, 2006, Agenda Item #16C8. Section 9.2 of the Agreement stipulates the City's right to terminate the Agreement with one year's advance written notice. This letter is to provide the County with the City of Marco Island's intent to terminate the Agreement effective September 26, 2019, or shortly thereafter pending the completion of construction of City infrastructure to serve the Marco Shores community. Further, the City intends to sell the impact fees previously paid to the County for the treatment capacity stipulated in the Agreement. Please let me know if there are any County requirements for the sale of the impact fee credits previously purchased by the City, Please feel free to call me. if you have any questions. Sincerer Jeffrey E. "m• eet General Manager, Water and Sewer Department City of Marco Island C: Justin Martin. Manager of Engineering and Operations, City of Marco Island Scott Hennksson, NWTP Chief Operator, City of Marco Island Guillermo Polanco. Interim City Manager. City of Marco Island Debi Mueller, Controller, City of Marco Island 50 Bald Eagle Dr., Marco Island, Florida 34145 Tel: (239) 389-5000 CDM Smith... cdmsmith.cnm ZOO I FRIDAY,NOVEMUER le,2018 I NAPLES DAILY NEWS r r NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission. sitting as the Local Planning Agency and the Environmental Advisory Council, will hold a.public meeting on December 6, 201s, commencing at 9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber, Third I nor,County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami hail East.Naples,FL. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 09-05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE POTABLE WATER SUBELEMENT OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT TO AMEND POLICY 1.7 TO REFERENCE THE UPDATED TEN YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORE PLAN, AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. (PL20180002552J All inlerestcu parties are Invited to appear and be heard Copies of the proposed RESOLUTION will be made available for Inspection at the GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning ,.� Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples. between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.. Monday through Friday. Furthermore, the materials will be made available for Inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, fourth floor. Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, suite 401 Naples. one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Any questions Pertaining to the documents should be directed to the GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to December 6,2018,will be read and considered at the public hearing. Any person who decides to appealeany decision of the Collier County Planning commission will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this pproceediIgIg,� you are entitled,at no cost.tO you,to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,located at 3335 Tamlami Trail East, Suite 101.Naples. FL 34112- 5356,(239)252.8350,at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Mark P.Strain,Chairman Collier County Planning Commission November 16.2018 No.2160700