Loading...
CCPC Agenda 12/06/2018 (PL20170004419/CP-2018-1) COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT -_ PROJECT ___t-- I' LOCATION 0 • L C) I 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 __ r Corsv,_ty 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 J C BR.RE«R, ` BDA M4;. and is located in the southeast quadrant of the VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial •°,-NO���O���OOO A Boulevard intersection. The non-corner C-1 tea: .co.. �1SIIS property fronts approximately 660 feet on east side of Livingston Road and 660 ft. on the A- 3 ■ sees. south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard. The property lies within the North Naples add o r1 a0��d 1. NDS, Planning Community, in Section 13, Township a RPUD° 48 South, Range 25 East. R i=13 J. 11:4'r AREA • A„ PUD" I 1_ A RpUD.. I I I IAI I I I.€ (FITL"rrr -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)(fl, 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. /'N -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 Planninq/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 (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. [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 sigh text is deleted, as proposed by staff.) —11 — PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE 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 (TCMA).. 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: 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, iii. Vehicular interconnection to the abutting commercial property 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 Agenda Item 9.A.3 PREPARED BY: 142- --/c5 DATE: 1/" yr CORBY SCHMIDT, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: DATE: 1/- L -� DAVID WEEKS, AICP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: DATE: / MIKE BOSI,AICP, DIRECTOR, ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: /,,,�.r.�. _ DATE: //— / JAMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PETITION No.: PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 Staff Report for the December 6, 2018, CCPC meeting. NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the February 12, 2019, BCC meeting. G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\Comp Planning GMP DATA1Comp Plan Amendments12018 Cycles&Smalls12018 Cycle 1-Feb\CP-18-1 Livingstn Wed Subd\CCPC\CP-18-1 CCPC stft rprt_FNLr.docx —13— PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban — Mixed Use District in FLUE 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 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. [PL201700044191 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 Road/Veterans 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 [18-CMP-01000/1443480/1]97 11/1/18 Page I of 2 0 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 Scott A. Stone /i Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Proposed Text Amendment& Map Amendment 118-CMP-01000/1443480/Ij97 11/1/18 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. 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 Words underlined are added;words strusk-through 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 strusk-thffitigh are deleted. ab— I T46S i T47S I 1.48S 1 749S I 750S I T51S 1 T52S I 753S E. '7 U a " R $ i i ' g n. 'i . ,. R ^ 44q R ^ .I$ g p,,-1.-::;f: Ie W„. - o RC^Ravgw1. R i X !! a w I< 8 8ryq� '%114 W�8 Wa :-' a 5 ^ $ "'4g $w8m$s ot8 �. 8 o s i = aR=R oI ""'Ni o = i m > 0 •112"-'1."'.'4'84..2z2 ' b _ 38k8 ? g .4 is • ° a �} S ° ° ° W w w ° °w ° w• '201.2 °'2..g.8. °wow awo°^ 8 a 1A52b aza°ba8 o 6°,o,arap I . ) ° ° g 2 is2$g- g-8- '2'bz'W,Tq"w -w-= g '4 # d = _ �3 5 < kk i i! 1 A f _ — X1011U11 _ 0 ®1 _10 r W W♦ W e0 r d' a. 8 t 4g i I — Au tI;! U f it ii i, $4li 'll p i or j i., 4 g$l!I I i% W t1/1I 1110111 _ ¥g s j I W Wcm In 2 i 1 i 1 i 12 I,45ii V hh 4 P 4 1 114 -I t It z I - % ,•` W 11•%® 111111 111111 I 1 i W \ / / ^ iii ., / / n re 1 / K 's 1--_tee / sr w d ev N a'' iii__ 4ft, > Y' o E 21 1, — tJiN W if W F$ , N MILMI illhl. • :•:, , ! w b` W os Q at as �d 1g "i ,.. "s 4,-.... . ,,,,,....„---, W tttrc 5': ,r��jJ ; [ a 5 0 p3 W in N = o a4Qo W :-.j. ,A,�ii Its 1Lir"� ���� -or _,\ �. ' � N O 'J L w KH mU /ivy—iI 1 f'1 y 11 O �lYi. W OiljN (1) .. - } � bF1 q!- n ix = a�P6 _ x e x i o iI a U. o = - . ;�_ ` Gulf o.f Y• x T46S I T47S I AT48S I 749S I 750S I 751S I T52S I T53S 1 EXHIBIT A PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 ttpg/ LIVINGSTON ROAD/VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD OEAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA — r''-- ---0\ ....... \ i_,-'\ 7n , a ct i C .� ni - -1______I____L____\\ —t_ I _— Id f � -Ilkc Celebrita CTv � i _ 0 a, Veterans Memorial BLVD c L r .J Bakilay CT ,. u , , ; Iii Ilii ; r 4 141 - 71 // j SUBDISTRICT \- 1 '1 . - .ieni VE ) .' ---- ', , 111 -11L r'D '-'----_____.---r------- \ ,-1 HF!!ee C R} ,) __ ___, ��� N � I It`TviTfli l�i� i1 %/ I ' ADOPTED-XXXX,XXXX LEGEND (Ord. No.XXXX-X) 0 250 500 1,000 Feet I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I PROPOSED SUBDISTRICT Ka 0 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: M ,, -- --- \\\ '+t pfp` L r �J 6 �taNJs]55g1diil . #( o a�-lir .0e. k - c==- 11,`45 0 , I t116ii I ,...rim .. 1111111111101 — • ®10..-11a 1.o fou 4'•AiiiiiNIA t \sr_I, v --.\\) - vas IDA— at • 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 (MM) 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 containincs 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. Coil,'er County a COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colllergov.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 i Claudine Auclair Regulatory Management 252-5887 claudine.auclair@coiliercountyfl.gov I Steve Baluch Transportation Planning 252-2361 stephen.baluch@colliercountyfl.gov -1 Ray Bellows Zoning,Planning Manager 252-2463 raymond.bellows@colliercountyfLgov Laurie Beard PUD Monitoring 252-5782 laurie.beard@colliercountyfl.gov Craig Brown Environmental Specialist - 252-2548 craig.brown@colliercountyfl.gov Managing Asst.County Heidi Ashton Cicko Attorney 252-8773 heidi.ashton@colliercountyfLgov Kay Deselem Zoning Services 252-2586 kay.deselem@colliercountyfl.gov i 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@colliercountyfi.gov Sue Faulkner Comprehensive Planning 252-5715 sue.faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov Paula Fleishman Impact Fee Administration 252-2924 paula.fleishman@colliercountyfl.gov Growth Management Deputy - James French Department Head 252-5717 james.french@colliercountyfl,gov Structural/Residential Plan Li Michael Gibbons Review 252-2426 michael.gibbons@colliercountyfl.gov I Storm Gewirtz,P.E. Engineering Stormwater 252-2434 I storm.gewirtz@colliercountyfl.gov Li Nancy Gundlach,AICP,PLA Zoning Division 252-2484 nancy.gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov Li Shar Hingson Greater Naples Fire District 774-2800- shingson@gnfire.org El John Houldsworth Engineering Subdivision 252-5757 john.houldsworth@colliercountyfl.gov !J Jodi Hughes ^ Transportation Pathways 252-5744 jodi.hughes@colliercountyfLgov _ Alicia Humphries Right-Of-Way Permitting 252-2326 alicia.humphries@colliercountyf.gov 7-1 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@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 -XL Richard Orth Stormwater Planning 252-5092 richard.orth@colliercountyfl.gov Brandy Otero Transit 252-5859 brandy.otero@colliercountyfl.gov i Brandi Pollard Utility Impact fees 252-6237 brandi.pollard@colliercountyfl.gov Fred Reischl,AICP Zoning Division 252-4211 fred.reischl@colliercountyfl.gov Todd Riggall North Collier Fire 597-9227 triggall@northcollierfire.com LDaniel Roman,P.E. Engineering Utilities 252-2538 daniel.roman@coiliercountyfl.gov Development Review Brett Rosenblum,P.E. Principal Project Manager 252-2905 brett.rosenblum@colliercountyfl.gov James 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 1 Chris Scott,AICP Development Review-Zoning 252-2460 chris.scott@colliercountyfl.gov I Peter Shawinsky Architectural Review 252-8523 peter.shawinsky@colliercountyfl.gov Camden Smith Zoning Division Operations 252-1042 camden.smith@colliercountyfl.gov J Scott Stone Assistant County Attorney 252-5740 scott.stone@colliercountyfl.gov Mark Strain Hearing Examiner/CCPC 252-4446 mark.strain@colliercountyfl.gov LI Mark Templeton Landscape Review 252-2475 mark.templeton@colliercountyfl.gov Jessica Velasco Zoning Division Operations 252-2584 jessica.velasco@colliercountyfl.gov Jon Walsh,P.E. Building Review 252-2962 jonathan.walsh@colliercountyfl.gov _ Comprehensive Planning David Weeks,AICP Future Land Use Consistency 252-2306 david.weeks@colliercountyfl.gov L Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review 252-5518 kirsten.wilkie@colliercountyfl.gov ii Christine Willoughby Development Review -Zoning 252-5748 christine.willoughby@colliercountyfl.gov Additional Attendee Contact Information: Name Representing _ Phone ! Email JeX nig CIA&S th V\oke__ Nlc.m.k A tri kfew.ket iaineVtrKc, . .C61% C ob l� 1Q, o\-0 3e•.s SY 2 - tai __ E_hr+�+1 ?. 14.04- . C11,1 S g,le•ke-t( �for..,s E•�;,,Ctr;,q Hm-91'' C_►.'',t'c.l.�.tl€J re - eci.-t /,,r. 5 o, -sa,•.- _ :-!7:c `. J 512-7>yil �,.. ,t-�sae.rbe '�, 4 A.1 �j•±'-� � >• ,1i.,14..1 :'I 141i-1-3'i I10_,.nsl . ., + cy14 a( ,.. c,..., L+b..% ,.•,.'t1- I) ,c p),.,..c ,- 334-362,0 C`Sr to c azit. E.,(1.41-,`c:•, Updated 1/9/2018 Page 15 of 5 AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION Allure PUD (PL-20170004385) FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S).&--yj,vinuton Rd./Veterans Memoria,. Blvd. E. Residential Subdistrict GMPA BRIAN STOCK (PL-20170004419) I� (print name),as NOR (title,If applicable)of SDUVINOSTON,uc (company, If a licable),swear or affirm under oath,that I am the(choose one)owner 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, nAll answers to the questions in this application and any sketches,data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. I have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application;and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. We/I authorize ROBERT J.iRIU IERE.FAICP&RICHARD VDVANOVIOR,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.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, than 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. � . 91t5111 Signature • Date BRIAN K.STO K,MGR SD LIVINGSTON,LLC STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER (� The f agoing instru ;ei t wp&sworn to(or affirmed)and subscribed before me on 9ilr15d l�1 (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. • STAMP/SEAL Signatur: of Notary Public •• afin4 JUDITH M SEALE / St , Notary Public-State of Florida 2. !' Commission#GC 027265 %;f rr ' My Comm.Expires Sep 28,2020 'a4 or Fl.,a` ���«�+� Bonded through National Notary Assn. i CP108-COA-001151155 REV 3/24/14 CATALANO REDACTED AGREEMENT • AGREEMENT 1rOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY • This AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY(the"Agreement")is made and effective as of the/Pay of/1)01/e-m r,2017(the"Effective Date")by and between Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust ("Seiler"), 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 7.5 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 Land and abutting properties,(ii)any lend 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. 1 AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 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 "Protect"). 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 PAGE 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 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 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 FOR 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(3 9)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, "fermi Nacr}e'_ _-?ren aW zv a Florida limited 'ability company By: .n Print 11 ,_ ! �'��Ji rias K.r tock,Manager [SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON FOLLOWING PAGE] • AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 17 WIT/SEES: SELLER: A AY Name yr Print N e: ems ,/frvs>,py :,S •' ata o,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 T S AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT ("Amendment") is made this j day of Nov ¢,, 2017 by and between Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust tier')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("Afreement"),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. Thp 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 teams 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 sEVELOPA ry , C Y By: �d ._ Mare CAt elan,as Trustee of the Marc L. =F', IC S -: r Manager Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust LHIBIT"A." Legal Description Parcel 1: I ► %,, The Southwest /4l iN ; .e : �-- 4-- 114f the Northeast 114 of Section 1 , i' n'hip 8 .o h,': • • 5 ':‘• (C ilier1County, Florida also known as o a, ' ;. . Acres u Parcel Id No.:00150560005 Parcel 2: The Southeast the Northwest 1I4 v `,t e, 'west 1/4 of the r Northeast 114 of13, Township 48 ge 25 East, Collier County, Flols*LOss-the ` , 'eel thereof, Parcel ID No.:00150160007 Parcel 3: • ,� .� ,,,r i,t,0 "/ The Northeast quarter(NE 'o . 411 ,yter(NW 1/4)of the Northwest quarter(NV 114)of the Northeas . .. _ t► .)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 SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR. PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY("Amendment")is made this l2 day of January,2018 by and between Marc L. Catalano as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable inter Vivos Trust("Me),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 15th 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. mesion of Investjaation Period. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Agreement to the contrary, incbvtind 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 chat mean and refer to the time period expiring on the date set forth in the immediately-preceding sentence. 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. hi 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 -�--w STOCK DEVELOPMENT,LLC, . a.Florida limited Habil' company I�darc atalano,as Trustee of the Mane L. By. Laird-4...4,a . i%: Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust WTI', K.Ste " . .ger SECOND AML*D7MENT PAGE 1 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')—(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 ("Buyer"). WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer entered into that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property dated the 15th 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: c.-- r 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 ("Seller"), and Stock Development, LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Emu"). WHEREAS,Seller and Buyer entered into that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property dated the 15th 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: 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. 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 Buyers 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 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCiiASE AND SALE Or PROPERTY PAGE1 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 ffollowing page. • • • • • 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,LIZ, :,:::?-. a Florida limited liability company c L - talano,as Trustee of the Marc L. By: Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust Brian K.Stock,Manager • • • f 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 • Marc L.Catalano,as Trustee of the Marc L. By: r. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust Ban K.St*c ,Manager FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE 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 1/4 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) • • • roman AMENrMV ENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY PAGE. ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY This Assignment of Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property ("Assignment") is made effective the 3jiltay 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 AGHENENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY PAGE 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Assignment on the day and year first above written. ASSIGNOR: ASSIGNEE: STOCK DEVELOPMENT,LLC, SI)LIVINGSTON,LLC, a Florida limited liSML) .ility company a Florida limited liab'lity company By: Otitiffri Carr By: Brian K. S-•ck,Manager Brian K. St%ck,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 of ,nom: 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)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"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 onor 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,lion-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 P URCHASE AND SAE.E 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"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. AGRRF.MENT 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: // 7 •',61 SD LIVINGSTON,LLC, ' int Na • ; 6 - a Florida limited lia ility company PrintBy: ..,?•*ti;07 Naine: �r°� s � �c►rt/ Brian K. St k,Manager [SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON FOLLOWING PAGE] AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 18 9734134.1 LUZ; .k •-ST. IN-ir I'Ma:Tr.:::‘..31 tr r • .7 / - • Sl•-•:;/;;... ../X/ (.7" •::•-f" ^.41 • • •••• : • - -• -• • - —• rtirt t Naie: ts•A• .i\-1,:;:311.1:ArIC., km S riille,TrustmoUh 5 tTLdhthIt1 V26/23):I • • • (6.) • AGREEMENT FOR Po.c.u.ksit AND SALE. P.WE 9 973,:134.1 • EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION 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(NE1/4)of Section 13, Township 48 South,Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 20 9734134.1 PARRISH-BARR REDACTED AGREEMENT AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY This AGREE113ENT FOR P CHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY(the'`Agreement")is made and effective as of the � ` day of YV' 2018 (the "Effective Date")by and between Doreen L. Parrish, an unmarried woman,and Dennis 0ar,as Trustee of the Revocable Living Trust of Dennis O. Bair,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,Seiler 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"Property"): (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 orproposed,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. AcasetirrrFOR PURCHASE Awo SALE PAGE 1 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"hailed");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 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 AND SALLA PAGE 9926973.1 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 Seiler,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 AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 5 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 mar (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. 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 Trail North,Suite 300,Naples,Florida 34103,on the date that is thirty(30)days following the earlier of:(1)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 ifthe 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 SALE PAGE6 9926975.1 • • !ti: • • ......Y.A;21Y:4"-A—• Print 1 er a,a a '.` Dorac+L.ePettish Print Name:^ Printislarne: beams G,Bear,as 1ruatee of the Pevneebte Living Trust of Dennis G.Bear,dated Marsh 28,2013 myr. z 31 • • • •3:.‘ • ACRE[MENTFOA PugcsmsE AND SALE PAGE 19 49:697+I 111 If .,l 02/09/2018 2:33 P? FAX ++++2062574129+ CODD Q0003/0003 WITNESSES: SELLERS: Print Nene: Print Name: Doran L.Parrish .110P.2 emir Prins Mims: Prin ami .-aa/___,__ /- Detoiso.am,as Trustee ofthe Rrrossbfe Living Trust of Dwaa G.Saar,datcd March 28,2013 • AG aM irroa PWIcHMh two SAW PAM:19 99`.x97$1 EXHIBIT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION The Southeast • •a t.� te eat quarter of the Northwest quarter • t .e • h q a t rs AND the Southwest quarter of the Nort y - --th ast quarter, of the Northeast quarter, • on 13, Towns 8 C h, Range 25 East of Collier County, Faor.,.- ,�. '� ba AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 20 9926975.3 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 PROPERTY.OWNERSHI 'DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. 4 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 Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 stty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliereov.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 fl 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 • col' County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coiliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 ' I Date of option: Date option terminates: ,or Anticipated closing date: AFFIRM.PROPERTY;OWNERSHiP:INFORMAT'ION 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 -01 ir4_/ 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 -ier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.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 / 1 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 Intervivios Trust dated November 23,1004 100% The Southwest 1/4 ot the Northeast 114 of the Northwest 1/4 ot the Northeast 1/1 at 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 01 the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 114 01 the Northeast 1/4 0l Section 13,1 ownrlup 48 South,Range 2S hast,Oilier County, Florida,LESS the Westerly 1S feet thereof AND • • Marc T.Catalano,individually and as Trustee of the Marc T_Catalano Revocable Tntenivios Trust data d November 23,2004 100% The Northeast quarter(NE 1/4)of the Northwest quarter(NW 1/4)of the Northwest(NW 1/4)of the Northeast quarter(NE 1/4)of S2cticn 13, Township 18 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida,LESS the Westerly thirty(30)feet thereof r eserved for road right-of-way Tvrposes, Created y/caul! #2 of unrecorded plat of said Northeast quarter. Page 1 of 3 Co` er County z _. COLDER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coliiereov.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 Ei Leased:Term of lease years/months If,Petitioner has option to buy,indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 , 1. Co er County ti COLLIER 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: Fcbruary20.19 AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP:INFORMATION i 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 ----- 4://2,"7 ..2_e.) i&— AgentJO ner Signature Date ?Marc L Catalano Agent/Owner Name(please print) Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 _ Co,�y PARRISIVRAAR er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colllergov.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 Doreen I..Parrish.an unmarried woman boob Dennis C.Bear,az Trustee of the Revocable Llving Trust of Dennis G.Rear,dated March 28,2013 %-e—Southeast quarter'orthu Min heal quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter;AN 2 the Southwest quarter of the'torthwest carter of the Northeast'•carter of the Northeast tarter ofSection 13.Townehi 4111 South Ran•t:25 hist'Collier Count e Florida, 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 Ownershi 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 Ca 8Y County COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.collieraov.net (239)752-2400 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 �1 mer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coliierrov.net. (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Date of option: Date option terminates: ,or Anticipated closing date: February 20t9_ 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 T>64.4.4.kz- 1°4444:a 4/26/2018 Agent/Owner Signature Date Doreen L.Perrieh Agent/Owner Name(please print) Sign»ture Date Dennis G.agar Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 ' 1 P,unesitishmi Collier C arty • COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 t,vww.coillereov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-635.8 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM Th4 is a required'form with all land use pet tion ,eitcept for Appeals and toning Verification Letters, Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase.occpr Subsequent to the date of application,but priorto:the date.of the final public hearing,ft 1s the responsibility of the applicant,or agent on.his behalf,to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. • Please•compiete the following.use additlonal'sheets if necessary. a. If the property Isowned.fee simple by an.INDIVIDUAL,tenancy by the entirety,tenancy in common, or Joint tenabcy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such Interest' Name and Address %of Ownership. Dpfan+I.Parra.nn unrrwntc t+toa'A, - D nn,t Q tlaor,.VTruate ere*gnw yip tirineh au,i'Iknnh 0.Thur.Jif d blar4+¢".2Uq. ;'�'� The Snuthns.tq®rter Of tit<I:ilitiCan%,Atlar uftfia .onlys%quarnrur(hc:*enhratl guArter:... l+he ulhtr,t quattrrd t r lnrtituo ryu.,)er nhhrNnnhnro movroofthr Nmtl,emt wrnrar arta.unn lt't•,+w.ht+an Sough finn•.e3 t.r:nlltrr r ,,nn•Maid•. • b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION,list the officers and stockholders and'the percentage of stock owned byeachl Name and Address n:6 of Ownership f —W w -- --•- �_J c. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE,list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage ofinterest: Name and Address. %ofOwnershiie. .}161gme tgR'RLiS.AI NoP.Wia►y 'WAf'iae.a ,Pry .5'4%% i AMa.IJ'f`/ fl I"tC fit;r41-- -------- Created fif-'Created 9/202017 Page 1 of 3 S, Co,,,,L er County • COLUER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 84104 www.colllercov.net 1239)252-2400 FAX&(239)252-6358 • 'd. If the property is In the,name of a•GEN ERAI.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 oft ers,If a cor.oratlon,partnership,or trust: Name and Address 1 • 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 • Colder County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GRDWFH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coltlereov.net (239)252.2400 FAX:(239)2526358 Date of option: Date option terminates: ,or Anticipated dosing date: hbnsuy 2519 AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION ATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this corm. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated applltatloh form.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 puerto the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applkant for this petition,I attest that all of the Information indicated on this checklist Is Included in this submittal package.t understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application,all requited submittal materials,and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN:Rosiness Center 2.800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Agent/Owner Signature Date gent Owner Agent/Owner Name(please print) I \f res a Sitm sn fate amnia C.,pa, Created 9128/2037 Page 3 of 3 SOIvMMERVILLE COI ICI County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coliiergav Itet (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 4/26/2004 100% See legal description below Created 9/28/2017 _T 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 1/4) of the Northeast one-quarter(NE 1/4)of Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida. moi pier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colllergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX(:(239)2.52-6358 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 %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 • da, to„ ler County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 Www.collierppv.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Date of option: Date option terminates: ,or Anticipated closing date: April 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 ail 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 7800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 zjy-- //.•_z Agent/Owner Signature Date Richard Alan Strainer-011c 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 Finn 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 arrank Beed THIS INDENTURE, ..*'••'s 11 day of " ••18, between MARLAC LLC, a Florida limited liability co •an e.- •ost office ad•►ess s: 25397 North Northbridge, Hawthorn Woods,IL 60047, :s t' '*, • •• c ivings,.n, LC,a Florida limited liability company as GRANTEE*, ho( 10) .:v . - _ P •fessional Circle, Suite 101, Naples,FL 34119. WITNESSETH,tha : antor, or an. in •nsi'-rat'•e • the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00),and other good and :ble considerations is ai• , • in hand paid by said Grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby • ..• ledged,has gran`': 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 Witness#1 John 7.ch 114J lC_ Its: Mangy ging Member Print N: ArI ,40001.% WR CO tiA Witness#21t' , - Print Name STATE OF �irtai111 fl COUNTY OF ^l E� The foregoing inst softwas acknowledg-•t- o e - s I�' day of July 2018 by John Lach, as Managing Mem MARLAC LLC, = U :Ter ited liability company, who is [ 1 personally kn• • to me • who [ 1/1- produced - - ' otary Public ignature _ — KATIE R MOODY ( Printed Name: e 12 1 �no at-d-- Official Seal Commission No. : £z 51 3 c'7 0 NotaryPublic—StateofIllinois 6 My Commission Expires Aug 27,2019 1 My Commission Expires: P¢V c9-r- deer C/ (SEAL) Page 2 of 3 *** OR 5534 PG 188 *** EXHIBIT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1: The West '/2 of the Southwest '/ of the Northwest '/ of the Northeast '/ of Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida. PARCEL 2: The Northeast 1/of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest'/of the Northeast'/of Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida. PARCEL 3: The Southwest'/of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest'/of the Northeast'/of Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida. PARCEL 4: The Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest%of the Northwest'/of the Northeast'/of Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 Eas WI (�o V orida. ,� PARCEL 5: The Northwest'4 o' I ..utheast'A of the ',„ r.►. -St'/of the Northeast'/of Section 13,Township 48 South,Rang; 2 • lier County,Flo,.da. PARCEL 6: The Northeast'a of - • • >• • -st' of the Northeast'/of Section 13;Township 48 South,R. ge ' • C 11 e •" •s•,. C` 4 .I'llE C-13-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 ,l, arrant need �- R C®Uy THIS INDENTURE, . e 4-i s ti "'day of July'( -8, etween LIVVET LLC,a Florida limited liability company, wh,.se !• z = -:. address is: 18 .s ne Way,North Barrington, IL 60010, as GRANTOR*, • •• 6 ' •— sto• L `, a Flo 'da imited liability company as GRANTEE*,whose post o 1 ce • ,�:i i =1 cle,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34119. ft •i• • , •• • consili tati the sum of TEN DOLLARS ...WITNESSETH,th. { ($10.00),and other good .L • • e coni•eration' o said r• e',.i in hand paid by said Grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby •. owledged,has gr: •,�-,.., • . ar '•=• and sold to the said Grantee, and Grantee's heirs and assign +tk,ver, the following%- r.and, situate, lying and being in the County of Collier, State of •r o-wit: The Northwest 1% of the No - ', o `•e•i west 'A of the Northeast '/4 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 1.82 *** • 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: LIVVET LLC, a Florida limited liability company 1----1(--%."----r By: !I Oil/a Witney #1 John :ch I ' -'s te-Y— Q_ Its: Managing Member Print 1 WI e S# s i-M-/-I�_ 6 -e-- Print Name STATE OF�'\At s -- COUNTY OF '.,.litK-e. n CIC 0 V E--q The foregoing ins was ac owl-•g-'"i' be o e •-.. s !D t day of July 2018 by John Lach, as Managing Me7 of LIVVET LLC, Io 'd•:.• ted liability co any, who is L_____] •ersonally .• lb to me r $ • ho produced ' as identifi r 4/E CI' �`�r� __4.— • Notary Public Signature 1 KATIE R MOODY ► Printed Name: 0`l e 12 ad- A Official Seal ► Commission No. : ge S 13 0 Notary Public—State 1 MyCommission Expires: a 11 My Commission Expires Auu 27,2g 27,2019 ) p v'�' Page 2 of 2 3686584 OR: 3876 PG: 1542 RICORDID in OtFICIAL IICOIDS of COLLIIU COOK?!, IL 08/25/2005 it 02:0711 DMICHI 1. 11OC1, CLII1 11C all 35.50 Prepared by,Record&Return to DOC-.70 .70 Santiago Eljaiek III,Esq. 1etn: Alvarez,Taylor,Eljaiek&Rodriguez,P.I.. ALVAU! ILJAIII It AL 2601 South Bayshore Drive 2601 6 BATSHOU DI #700 Suite 600 MIAMI YL 33133 Coconut Grove,Florida 33133 Property Appraisers Parcel I.D.(Folio)!Number s Folio No.:00150560005 WARRANTY DEED THIS WARRANTY DEED' is made as of the d 7 day of ..7-1/4Y , ,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 Mare Le 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 suxn of Ten and No/100 Dollars($10.00)and for other good: • c i.igcC elly.• •s,the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby conclusively acknow fid' ereby grants, 4� _. , 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, - ore 'cul: desc •ed : follows: The Southwest i/4 ' r e 1/4 'f the Northeast 1/4 of Section it,T n hip 8 o h, .ttT Cinder County,Florida also known as ,Qc n r t .iv ao after referred to : ro,ri '). THIS CONVEYANCE , CT TO: KN. I, r •itCy)r 1. Taxes and assessments fo �• :�o• •sequent years, which are not yet due and payable. 2. Covenants,easements,and restrictions of record and all matters appearing on the Flat, 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. 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 family(or any person claiming by,throe Vit, •e r4. . or)resides, nor has ever resided,at the subject Property,and that Grantor'serr,,;,:' �y.. , • •,: 614,1";::ted at 11935 SW 15`h Court,Davie, Florida. C Full power and autho ' is e47-7-ante. o s: • Grante, (h- einafter also referred to as the "Trustees") to either protect co - •. -• � �-1-�'�- r t• encumber, or to otherwise .-� manage and dispose said Pr.1.e ', o ' 'o �' •••t f• l • Y If o•do I s to purchase,to sell on any terms,to conveyeither with •r , • • r• i,, • • o co 1 -, s•'. ' operty or any part thereof to a successor or successors in . _ • o gran to suc -•cces•or • %.cessors in trust all of the title, estate,powers and authorities -,-• in said Trustees, .e4.•n,to M•r dicate,to mortgage,pledge or otherwise encumber said Propel cy part thereof,t. - . • f._ , real estate or any part thereof, from time to time,in possession .. .'on,by leases t. ,- •-nce in praesenti or in futuro,and upon any terms and for any period n0:1 r' Ir- 1 6 •=-ding in the case of any single demise sit the term of ninety-nine (99)years,and to '''- w, elidr., tads 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: -- 3: s st express Trust and not individually,and the Trustees shall have no obligati• Oat 4 • to any such contract, obligation or indebtedness, except only so far 11' rust property a• in the actual possession of the Trustees shall be applicable for + e yment;lad d_ischa�rge the -of, • d all persons and corporations whomsoever and whatsoever •A all •e altars-d w ffi o5tt =of this on lion from the date of the filing for record of this Deed. IN WITNESS d:U t r :ex;._utedw ' ty deed the day and year first above written. C` ,L4Signed,sealed and delivered , , G'� in presence of 7 ; C g,-C. P t Name: $y V.4A/ ,t/JYOXT24,09itJ Print Name: LF/2/4N/ talano (Notary acknowledgment on the next page) *** 011: 3876 PG: 1545 *** STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) SS COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) The foregoing instillment was acknowledged before me this c,,y day of ZU2)' 2005, by Marc Catalano. He is personally known to me, -produeed as. identification. tary Public, State of Florida Print Name:5)4.e69,41 No47-24)A l My Commission Expires: Commission/Serial No.: V,R CO • VAN, ioDt?241414► .4.. • 3686585 011: 3876 PG: 1546 - RECORDED in O!FICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, IL 08/25/2005 at 02:071K DWIGHT 1. BROCI, CLUE EEC FIE 35.51 DOC-.71 .71 Reta: ALYAREZ ELJAIDE IT IL Prepared by.Record&Return to: 2601 S BATSHORE DE 0700 Santiago Eljaiek IR,Esq. KIANI !L 33133 Alvarez,Taylor,Eljaiek&Rodriguez,P.L. 2601 South Bayehore Drive Suite 600 Coconut Grove,Florida 33133 Property Appraisers Parcel I.D.(Folio)Number(s1 Folio No.:0015008006 and 00150160007 . WARRANTY DEED THIS WARRANTY DEED'is made as of the Or day of S"ey ,2005 by Marc Catalano,a married man(the"Grantor"),whose mailing address is 11935 SW 15th Court, Davie, Florida 33325, to Marc L. Catal: 1 e mope of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Intervivios Trust dated November ;VA L- ` i't whose mailing address is 11935 SW 15th Court,Davie,Florida 33325. ,0 `�' WITNESSETH: .. G . r or d i�c sidera''.n •f the sum of Ten and No/100 Dollars($10.00)and for othe.go.• . d al •_. c n i•er=. •i ;,a r= eipt and sufficiency of which are hereby conclusively ac 4, o _e, i . .`, :Y• se Is, aliens, remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto E ran -- its a, ••o-s • ;;• asst n•fo -v- all that certain real property situate in Collier County,Flit,. :. ,'� o - ..1 i . ly d ' : :• follows: ''r The Southeast the Northwest 1/4 ' e.i•* west 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of {L13'Township 48 :�t1•i 'ange 25 East, If Collier County,Flo .f`i- • .- -.t a - eet thereof, and �.E Citt The Southwest 1/4 (SW 1/4)of t.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 • ip, = " e�-t . • , .a, rty and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons 0'"' . ever. .4.6' AND GRANTOR h-reb,; c4 . -,•,s an. - s that e • bject Property is not and has never been the homestead • op ► :.01. - . ., •• 6= , _ �, .cl- X, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution , nor contiguo s t. • • e - d, : ��it,: �8,sa Gr: for nor any member of his family(or any person claim T. :• , '. re.itic ,nor has ever resided, at the subject Property,and that Gr 0 's permanent rest• Z I cat thl 11935 SW 15t Court,Davie, Florida. 'CS, „1 - Q Full power and authority 114 '40- ._ anted to said .1. --(hereinafter also referred to as the - "Trustees") to either protect, conse a i'• !,C. -: e, or to encumber, or to otherwise manage and dispose said Property or to c• 011:t n'., 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 continence in praesenti or in futuro,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 successorsin 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. COUA Any contract, obligatio ei,•ebtedness, inc -. • entered into by the Trustees in connection with said Property ay •ed into by them e. th= name of the then beneficiaries under said Trust,as their alto ey n- • re irr- •••ably a••of•.ed for such purpose,or,at the election of said Trustee,in s or e . - t e-= .•= s st and not individually,and the Trustees shall have no • •if: ti•n a • v e; •_'`t• an such contract, obligation or indebtedness, except only s - r • • an) •-[in the actual possession of the Trustees shall be applicable , paymen and • sc ge ;-reo • all persons and corporations whomsoever and whatsoever WIT •e charged with no h•f '' • ,ition from the date of the filing for record of this Deed. IN WITNESS WHERE() , al , 'r - zea warranty deed the day and year first above written. Signed,sealed and delivered GRANTOR: in presence of: P t Name: 57,41eA•.1 N 1/0.4rz,44/0 Print Name: G-Tzi,', / c talano [Notary Acknowledgment to follow on next page] 3 *** 011: 3876 PG: 1549 *** STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) SS COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .7f/ day of Gay , 2005, by Marc Catalano. He is personally known to mevr-haspfedaeed deft identification. , // 44 , N, ary Public, Sta e of Florida Print Name: 5 JL y4A) ra Ara Is9AJ My Commission Expires: Commission/Serial No.: r.8g COQY'- •'erM . .NW 141115440TARYI C 0 I n 'C..',,:1\4,et.,s 4. (.5;4 O C�� E CIR 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 III,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 DEED14, THIS TRUSTEE'S DEED, made the 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 -- address is 12107 Hitching Post Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20852-4427 0I- .��' , a M,'d,, 1 TOR") and Marc L. Catalano,.a married man, individually a - 1 ustee of the I ih!4 ,atalano Revocable Intervivios Trust dated November 23, i 0 v ollectively, the "G' ,whose address is 11935 SW 15th Court,Davie,Florida 33:25. • WITNESSETH: Tat j ° .1 '6_`, qr.:.- ion of the sum of Ten and 00/100, ($10.00) Dollars, and o go•d : v:I " co'.i.era a to the GRANTOR in hand paid by the GRANTEE,th- - does hereby remise,release and quit claim unto GRAN ' all of GRANTOR' ':ht' tit It terests, claims and demands in and to the following desc ' •.. real property, situAPIT., i g3 a being in St. Lucie County, Florida,to wit(the"Property" The Northeast quarter(NE I o r ;i w,f Li'o, 0, -r(NW 1/4)of the Northwest quarter(NW 1/4)of the Northeas .!L 14)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. 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 • 1 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: . Jcclitv - 114` kiurit£ Name i .tCOOT/0),'1/4-A-13 C-) .,........,„.... fraV�%» p01 Rlcha d J.S •inl;n,individually and as Print Name C 0 :3ii, .teeeof the Emma M.Steinien oc'•i, , T st Agreement dated July 17, r 'Ct T` a [Notary Acknowledgment to follow on next page] OR 4744 PG 3051 bITri.I•c.,-? of // coc.v,►.IMi4- .,..,:,c4ed STATE OF S l�r'� ss .Z`,N b4— COUNTY OF ' ') Q The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of November, 2011, by Richard J. Steinlen, a single man, individually and as Successor Trustee of the Emma M. Steinlen Irrevocable rust A reemeit,dated July 17, 1998, who is personally known to me or who has produced r e✓5 (4(icAls.€ as identification and who did not take an oath and executed such instrument for the purposes therein stated. ' • tiro,.:,,,...\7.lv3 .y .4.,,,.,,,,...„......, i 1 . 1 ,may- ..r,3-3�� ° w �� C I ,. . •ubli tate of liS•ti oii ri ?� '4•=r. O.S.) 1 • . 'ssion Expires: :tyoki.;5 :' ,•o;1+trl#' 4 • . Comm' io .Serial No. ' .r.';'-.9.....;. i'? tt% ?; r, l' \ 'r'.ta"A."".y i j • `OtIALO DAM. to ' `- Y SUC piSY%ICTQ GQlI P'8 4" I. f;4orrrrrtisUn4-a."la:�m�er tY,ZDt4 . 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: j 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) C Cpl j Before me, the undersigned au .ersonally appeared •' .Steinlen ("Affiant")as Successor Trustee of the Emma M. Steinlen rre ' : s le Trust Agreement d• ed /17/1998 f/k/a Emma M. Steinlen Revocable Trust Agreement dat J y '98'(� , who ,ein by me first duly sworn, on oath, deposes and states: 1. That the Affiant has know led: o'the +a rs et f.rtj%,- ci+ 2. That Affiant,as Successo Ptr tee o.the .`.s.,is I.e" 1 o er+ .following described real property,to-wit: The Northeast quarter /1 s f the Northwest qu: •e 0 1/4)of the Northwest 40 quarter(NW 1/4)of the No • asst ' arte,1...01EL4 on 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida, : '1. '.ah r . (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 He 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, FL. and Fidelity National Title Insurance Company harmless and Billy 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. _ C) s� Ri and J.S ink.,Successor rustee 111114 n CC 0 I. 11( &-, State of ar + ,„, County of o,tr , The foregoing instrument was swo • .'d subscribed before e C.7',ay of November,2011 by Richard J. Steinlen, as Successor rustee,under the Em : mien Irrevocable Tr a okgr meat dated July 17, 1998,who[,is personally known or en has produced a driver's lie: t .-. catio, AttE .CfRC1 C'1" [Notary Seal] Notary Public MICHELLE LE Printed Name: Me click t-t Notary Public Monlpomary Cowley My Commission Expires: k(t9 i 1 20I. Maryland Al Commission Expires ii,2015 OR 4744 PG 3044 11/18/2011 07:41 FAX 2029683012 PHILIPS&STEINLEN 41002 s -r EMMA M. STEINLEN REVOCABLE TRUST AGREEMENT THIS TRUST AGREEMENT entered into on this /7* day of c-u�y , 19I8 , 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 ($1000 and the TRUSTEE agrees to hold, administer and distrio = R C foresaid assets (together with all addition . -reto and all ‘`re vestments thereof) as the corpus of a r st 4LatiatJe fo, the b-nefit of the GRANTOR "' in accordance wi h = .e m _71 ,, . ); ons herein set out the GRANTOR intendin rAq - : •y, •u k NTOR'S lifetime, to create a Grantor T 0, - 4,- Q LE X - FID ES r As set forth in th ��r • '- +,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 I "A " OR 4744 PG 3045 ' 11/18/2011 07:42 FAX 2029683012 PHILIPS&STEINIrEN 11011 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• - - o inquire into the propriety . -CO ,tom of any of its ac -gt� + A any way limiting the generality of the f. egoing, ' the GR' T' hereby grants to the TRUSTEE hereuade. , he fo n• • •ec_ is powers and authority in addition to =n• of i s 1111 an pi powers conferred by law, and the stat - of the Stat of Fl :a: A. To comp . e, settle - 1` any claim or demand by or against the P . ` state o agree to any recision or modification of any con agreement. E. 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. Ni 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 M OR 4744 PG 3046 11/18/2011 07:42 FAX 2029889012 PHILIPS&STEINLEN X1009 ' 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 , s Trust Agreement, and of the Trusts hereby createdid R C` nd amend this Agreement, O a' and to alter and to • =to the Trusts a•y created. ATkeMi t NER' This agreem=nt = a, 1117,, Td a d regulated in all 1 respects by the Lav?, • h- - a -• - „ - . • The TRUSTEE h- _-4• accepts th4 # -reby created. ART I - SUCCERUSTEE rw" In the event of t ' s •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 williing to serve of the following: first, the GRANTOR'S son R CHARD J. STEINLEN of Rockville, Marylan , .) 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 PHILIFS&STEINLEN t1022 IN' WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunder set their hands and seals this (7441 day of , 194$ . Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: • (hilA4 eleeRLAA-ar ec �J 77a4de;:Z 5EAL) (WI ESS) EMMA M. STEINLEN (GRANTOR) (WITNES' ) C.1 4 , • • .4021 , - Lf,�. -e (SEAL) (WIT ESS) I � � ^ S 1 EINLEN 111iir.T;p . • (WITNE ,: Ci Signed, sealed, Pu. C •eclared by the above, named GRANTOR, EMMA 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 744N day of , 19 I$ 20 *** oR 4744 PG 3048 *** 11/18/2011 07:42 FAX 2020883012 PHILIPS&STEINLEN 1014 Dfi l•µ- r1 F L_(liVICtili IT ESS)aa,,I� (CITY, STA ) "\o ccGII Cc' v r ! (WITNES (CITY, S T STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH on the 17441 day of �� • 19 ctg . , before me personally 1p- • �v..-/- STEINLEN to me personally known to be the i �3C dual describe )1'1 and who executed the same or who prod ce. �_ s icen=e -s identification and who executed the • am, .n► w V • .7:= 'a oath. 0_, i I/ -- _____-.44:t Wil-----• N. -/Public O Cat My Commission Expires: , OFACIAL.NOTARY SEAL • GREGG G HECKLEY NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF FLORIDA 'COMMI55ION NO.CC596456 MY COMMISSION EXP Nov.21200o 21 3504559 OR: 3675 PG: 1026 RICORDID in OIZICIAL RICORDS of COLLIII COM, t6 — 11/01/2004 it 02:41PI DIIGB? I, BROCR, CLI1I RIC III 16.51 Prepared without opinion by: DOC-.70 .70 Mark J. Alderuccio Iets. 5425 Park Central Court KA11 J ALDIROCCI° Naples, Florida 34109 6425 ?A11 34101AL CT IAMB ZL 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. 0015080000 W L ' 'At � 1 ; TEED (STATU .� a ' - - SE a:9.02,F.S.) This Indenture, made this/It• f�� of e :,1- : 'twee RI HARD A.SOMMERVILLE r� and SUSAN B.SOMMER E, : us le , i d W e wh D se esidence and address is 3580 7th Avenue NW. Napl, ' /'N:• h:: ' e'7C�`tR, and RICHARD ALAN SOMMERVILLE, TRUS I ,1 o I i Pi `. �' 1 L• .4 SOMMERVILLE TRUST DATED 4/26/2004,(with fu y. .111 . .i, i- . • i• :• .tee to protect, conserve,sell, lease,convey,grant, encum•• otherwise to mana ...• • di .. : of the real property described _ herein) , whose residence . "dress is 3580 ''4 -*' ` . Naples. FL 34120-1608, • GRANTEE**, �'' [`yL) Witnesseth that said Grantor, for a ;• artk e i 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-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. • *" OR: 3675 PG; 1027 *** In Witness Whereof, Grantor has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. I Signed, sealed, and delivered in our presence: 0 re , ,. /,./.. ,/, . ,, , .de,,,..,.,, Witness as to b's _, _,--- / „Jo- , - ..,. ,..., -46- , RICHARDA. SOMMERVILLE, printed name:/Pare 4`�/Ue CCIU i g,,,- icectuailia,t) ci„,„,,,/46, thntitaftek- Witness as t�rtle. lt_Gtik SUSAN B. SOMMERVILLE printed name: U G{ � '��. COO-Ai. STATE OF FLORIDA G� COUNTY OF COLLIER - THE FOREGOING INST' i�` C .s()mid e�,e:'7:r- m=this /g4 of October, 2004 by RICHARD A. SO� i'. ' 40 i► ' \ •Ok E i RVILLE, who is personally known to me or who has p ct.' a ••te _� � as identification. 'C� r _ lQ C) rr 1-t/.11-2-E . fit 'l 1 # ae.V-kfte-) C '�'ary Public My conunission expires: yp��.:Za4o DIANE SALVATORE * ,,- * MY COMMISSION t DD 186788 * EXPIRES:December 17,2008 w9 o,ol° Bonded Thru Budget Nolary Services k INSTR 4824667 OR 4908 PG 204 RECORDED 4/15/2013 11:11 AM PAGES 2 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT CQVRT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA Doc@.70 $0.70 REC $18.50 Return Address: Codd Law Offices 15401 First Ave. South, #A Seattle, WA 98148 QUIT CLAIM DEED • THE GRANTOR, DENNIS G. BAAR, a single person and Trustor of the Revocable Living Trust of Dennis G. Baar, under the Agreement dated ag,MARCH ami a• I4+�,,,,�in consideration of no consideration - transfer •t ... 'f , ng Trust and mere change in ownership identity - ,A,4r -ys and q _, -ims to DENNIS G. BAAR, as Trustee of the Rev. a Living Trust • Dennis G. Baar, all of his interest in the 4.1 •, ' • •escri•-d re: •roperty situate in Collier County, Flor, d- . - - • The Southeast q ,a t- 1 - • . -- -t quarter of the Northwest quarter • t 'e ,h- ; -y q .- t= AND the Southwest quarter of the Nort - , a - e = :-th- . •=ast quarter, of the Northeast quarter, -, .'on 13, Towns'l • ,8 =^K h, Range 25 East of Collier County, Flor 1 1-,. j<, The above describ-•® ••erty is n. ;ntor' s homestead and not encumbered. This de -e i- • _ .e in ownership via a transfer to revocable livi ‘' ?li;' CV • 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?6rL day of/Pi l`^A. R cm , . 2013. tness •1 jrgnature DENNIS G. SAAR, Trustor . ' Printe• -am- a . 7. Codd ^7:7-0----s ° signature Printed name: W. Tracy Codd --- Quit Claim Deed Page 1 of 2 4 *** OR 4908 PG 205 *** • • STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of King I, Julie M. Codd, Notary Public in and\ fo the State of Washington, do hereby certify that on this g • day of , 2013, personally appeared before me DENNIS G. BAAR, to me know 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 AND OFFICIAL SEAL this 9± day of No _13 ' an. the State o " . Res ding at ' e," . - ! T _ r.1- '(""� STATE OF�� � e . COMMIS .�, • -E SEPTEMBE= ��lE CIRC • • Quit Claim Deed Page 2 of 2 ` • 'PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES' 3774$23 OR: 3972 PG; 2069 RECORDED in 01PICII1 RDCONDS OE COLLIAA COMM, PL DEED 01/11/1006 at 10:550 OEM 1. ENOCE, C1ElL • NEC PEE 10.50 �j_ DOC-.10 .70 • • This indenture made this j�day of November,2005, Rata° SIESI! PI10N ET 711 1000 wan TNA1101 • BETWEEN Doran L.Parrish and Dennis G.Bur,as Personal wag!1 31161 Representative of the Estate of George Haar,deceased,referred to below as"Grantor,"and Doreen L.Parrish,a married woman, • whose postal address is P.O. 240602, Apple Valley,Minnesota • 55124 and Dennis G. Bur, an unmarried man, as tenants in common, whose postal address is P.O. Box 933, Seahurst, Washington 98062,referred to below as"Grantee,"(wherever used • here,the singular shall include the plural and gender shall include masculine,feminine,and neuter,as the context requires). WITNESSETH: That the Donator,acting under authority granted in an order entered in the Estate of George deceased, Case No.05•CP•463,Probate Division,Clradt Cont for Lee County,Florida,dated 7annary 27,2005,and bolo:. on of the premises fir and inooasideratimofthestmmofTENDOLLARSANDNO/100,plus other good and valuablecaositinhand Fte paid by the Grantee,the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged,has granted,bargained and sold to the Grantsuccessors and assigns forever,the following described land situate,lying and being in the County of Collier and the Sone of Florida, it i The Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Norther, AND the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of teast i u quarter,Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East of Collier County Florida. Subject to easements,restrictions,reservations of record common to the subdivision and taxes fent year and subsequent years. The above described property is not Gran s$ ( l t encumbered.This deed e Estate i to the beneficiaries named under the. 4: and Testi` ' Ob • rge Baer for minimration. • Property Appraisers Parcel Identi8. .. .1 . . :.•1;i; • r� Together with all the tenements,f . ,- '' i, mss=.3.`gi. or in anyway appo it,and all the right,title,interest,claim: d !. ' w : ,y,pv r ! 1t .ti and to the proper e^' 7 (~ • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, . "' for has stat tt 'seal the day and ywritten. Signed,sealed and delivered -i.-.-1 ;r CJ. in the presence of ✓� O lnIA-Lf-t IN Qat. �dI I Witness#1 Si - ' : DoreenL.Parrish,inhercapePersonal Print name Jr ri I tea'y 1 ��eat Representative,GRANTO u 44d �' '*A)jss#2 alio ,qE X1014_:: Print name . Lr'nd*. C. totssii i t t sJ13`- • Signed,seal= A•%d. .. to the pre =,' , . . . Wit;,:..,, ,#1 • Dennis G.Baar,in his capacity as Co-Personal . _ _ • • rPrirtnme•'.. . AA . Representative,GRANTOR_ With'.. #Z Signature . — Print name T .. ryel s `--7'i(r ii j J Personal Rep Deed ID 00148280009 Page 1 of 2 • *** OR: 3972 PG: 2070 *** STAN OF MINNESOTA coubrrY OF DAKOTA I HEREBY CERTIFY%stab this day before me,an officer duly qualified to take acknowledgments,personally appeared DOREEN L.PARRISH. to me known to he theperson deamibed in and who exectoted the foregoing instrument or who has prodasood as identification,and who acknowledged before me that she executed the same. WITNESS my head and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this Zr day of /le Vero"? ,2005. (SEAL) ramaustei , Notasy ar.? Watt Fultlficial4380TA Print '.407.1•40.T. • ttipiiiiii461111410.31.280 My Commies:km Expires: AO STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day Wien me,an cate duly qualified to take acknowledgments,personally appeared DENNIS G.HAAR, to me iCBOWD to be dse pagan described in endwise executed the foregoing instrtmmizt orerbeturprortated is sta. Viand who acknowledged before me that be executed the saute. d0O(D WITNESS uly hand and official seal in the County and State - '• 6.6 day of -1-Lusas ;Mee.itg .:6Qr (SEAL) . _ • 4 • - ' r . ▪ I : 14, • jr• ...bob coo " • g° • - ; . •. . #40, • • 0. • -C) ................ Prepared Without Opinion By: CT9C PATRICIA I.POTIER,ESQ. 1000 N.Tamiami Trail N.,Suite 201 Naples,FL 34102 (239)263-8282 Personal Rep Deed ID 00148280009 Page 2 of 2 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 idented in the Districts, 8gubdistricts 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. 1 H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubmittal\Attaclunent B Justification and Supplemental Information(revised 5-24-2018).docx Livingston RoadNeterans 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\Attachment 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\20170921WP\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 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 diversify 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 RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Justification&Supplemental Information,Continued j. The need to modem 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:\2017\2017092\\P\GMPA\ResubmittalAttachment B Justification and Supplemental Information(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 Site V l/$�DEXBENOER File : LJfNVIFONif�iLCONSUITlNG i; 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: csmith(a)dexbender.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 r Eman M.Vovsi,Ph.D. Data Base Analyst Florida Master Site File Eman.VovsaDOS.MyFlorida.com 500 South Bronough Street• Tallahassee,FL 32399-0250 • www.flheritage.com/preservationlsitefile 850.245.6440 ph I 850.245.6439 fax ( SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us _ ,. ` H . ,tea t ,�, A ��, 1,7 s + 4 x f . of t * - '''.' ''' I -11t ' — . - 4 1 1 L i � d .• 4111111ktm.• :Y a IdII ■ H = Project area I i .-,, ."I''-' 't I.' il -' I „ :i I;, ,• . I', ; I.:,'.-". 141!# , r'' , A• 1 s.,,,,14-;,1 J 14. Ow ��� � • 4 'I ee`,Esri��iatlel Iro e E e�).t. Costa e.gG .p T.rC.I ( tes 6 USDA.= SG f E)� ', -„, Getrna ping,Aer,grid,IGN,IGP sew ssto o?rand e u ti+,�P..i °L- 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 1. 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\2017092\WP\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 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 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:1201712017092\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 G. Date subject property acquired {) leased ():Term of lease yrs./mos. lf, 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 Livingston Road and • • Veterans Memorial Boulevard C. PLANNING COMMUNITY North Naples D. TAZ 85 E. SIZE IN ACRES 35.5.7 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 B. AMEND PAGE (S) [9], 1471, 1145] OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AS FOLLOWS: (Use Strike-through-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 - i 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. r1 . 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.1",Exhibit "V.D.I" 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 welifields and cones of influence,if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps) N/A Traffic Congestion Boundary,if applicable N/A Coastal Management Boundary,if applicable 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 at a scale of 1"=400' or at a scale as determined during the pre-application meeting. • . I 6 H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\Resubmittal\GMPA Application(revised 5-16-2018).doc AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION Allure PUD (PL-20170004385) FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) a~ Livingston Rd./veterans Memorial Blvd. E. Residential Subdistrict GMPA (PL-20170004419) BRIAN K.STOCK (print name),as MOR (title,If applicable)of BD LIVINGSTON,LLC • (company, If a licable),swear or affirm under oath,that I am the(choose one)owner=applicant®contract purchaser1Jand that: 1. i have full authority to secure the approval(s)requested and to Impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2, 'All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches,data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3: i have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application;and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed. sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. We/i authorize ROBERT J.MULHERE.FAICP&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(LLC.) 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 worts"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. 44;7, �f �1�8 i Signature Date BRIAN K.STO K,MGR SD LIVINGSTON,LLC STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The f agoing instru.-;e�t w sworn to(or affirmed)and subscribed before me on ` pt (date)by ,ic it, 4 1,}P17� (name of person provldingfr Ioath or affirmation), as • who is personallyknown t�m�or who has produced (type of Identification)as identitication. • ag'&011Z_,)STAMP/SEAM Signatur of Notary Public J\ J►.J\ .r i t t + s0:114,44. JUDITH M SEALE ` i 1,041.jNotary Public-State of Florida i E Commission#GO 027285 -- d, =My Comm,Expires Sep 28,2020 €,°, W* Bonded through National Notary Assn. CP\08-COA-001151155 REV 3/24/14 LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN • I hereby authorize Robert J. Mulhere, FAJC_P, Vice President Planning and Business Development, Hole u•ites c al.. - c • • o •so ca _ _u e Col,u.. o _.o e % ,o=s e - A. to serve as my Agents in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property identified In this Application. . Signed: 0,4;4, 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, 02,-;016--"C-- S gnature of pplicant/Contract Purchaser Brian K,Stock,Manager SD Livingston, LLC STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER �i Sworn to and subscribed before me this 15 day of ,2018 „1 JUDITH M SEALS by ` i ' V 1 MIC MY CO `l` )Qf5Il7EJUDIT •Slala of Florida ,I•ta Public s' M' 6r1f •€ Cammisslon# GG 027265 ` ry "�� My Comm,Expires Sep 28,2020 NW". Bonded through National Notary Assn. ( i 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%500,00 and/or maximum of a sixty day Jail term." r 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.l"—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 271 *** *** *** *** *** text break*** *** *** *** *** 19.Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict The Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict consists of 35.57E 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(PINE)Division; 1 H:\2017\2017092\WP\GMPA\3rd Resubmittal\Exhibit IV.B.1-Proposed GMPA Language(8-23-2018).docx 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:12017\2017092\WP\GMPA\3rd Resubmittal\Exhibit IV.B.1-Proposed GMPA Language(8-23-2018).docx asmt., , , Ii ......... sirip..4.0.0 A )/r1 .111 i•c:: ir.ii ii, ihmanii, N IN ( 4/1//8#eirs wil 1r p 0 111 \ 1 1 wi.ai 4 , ,k , , . . ..... , /er►►%-4. ,N.. ipi�►,. <r-4o ►i ., d 1111 . 1 F.) 1% we 1111-E i \1100tv 9/jai ill ill ihiej41146, 4 o• t���• Illp�llil Is p 40 • NihilISIJr�� Emir limminklalt1111111 W% mal ill ......_. ____,„,„..„:_„_ __::„_,..„, ,,_,,:___ __,, iiiiiim im__Ammi. - ir VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD. _u. 2 ,-:;:f -_. i" rail �I _ -_-,------A1111fIlilli111111111111�����,"� tl — . moi �""'1""""II'1,,,,,,,,`' r� F 54 -LI 11111 ___100111•11110 lb 0. �r mole. to wgz. 4 rt lila iiiii.••• . v4I 03 IIIII 0 64 4, `,'-' III IL. MEM 411\1111111111111111E1111111111111111/Ple Ni miumuii illo!o� p111111111114p1111111/1111� �'�/I��iulll . co BEI _ J •Os 3 MN :1111111111111 =1u�111►� �' �+ ��;;;1446 101111. xi lis 111111111/1111 .M. � y 111111111111111111r"Amiga um = oTinumusii 1 rq 1........_111111110 Aft � ■ll■%z E 11- ii�iiimii l l N II I//II•�J y 1Iii I I I I I I � _ � - -=— r u a mm unnninaml t W-1-.-1- LIMITS OF SUBJECT SITE Na 950 Encore Way CHECKED BY: PROJECT No. Na los FL 34110 LIVINGSTON RD.-VETERANS J C 2017.092 cv Phone: (39) 254-2000 MEMORIAL BLVD. DRAW BY: CAD FILE NAME fi Florida Certificate of EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT 5/2015 EIA.N. Exhtbl1tJVDl i m®EN. Authorization No.1772 eEXHIBIT IV.D.1 DATE: EXHIBIT-I ITEM 8. e 0 a 3 e"y tstot --it.. Ti g , - Aj C w 5 _ g' a @ t hi YQ N A Al 3 Uz U • d g : ___ CO Q 1 }- , ,des Ia i U O n x . w --- d �! 11 i to 0 DEM lana 4Y3NA9 V11M 1 n.1 U Ms'w� Y 41 2 pig30 "WO o 1 91 1 3LL :o 4 E. I v ® �� 0 v W o mia �oo�o�� III 5 _ ^4 All D I ti, ; smi min IN _ tt- v/:, i ' i rms,mai MIEW ..., Auslion x L,;,, © ©` 1 p...._- _.1 F ap 13111 W pgg l J 1IJJ4 9 1131 m a a Eat:1 NEU ©� iEMM MID Amm w wWgg fi 8 i g^ K 121 El i in itsn Mal fill '-`:44k Iiii ic OE II. • WO o120Wq1 El a® S QI : Jaz Mal Eir Ii 111111 iiiiiiiW __=it: = PSP o J aml moa NOISO'An 011311...sv%fl \1 ii ' mE- =off Q J U Qaoc I a a 0 W m , cn 2 r ,' a I ¢ en Z z I- p o i w � Ww I h "A '� CLirs S N a W a `<v co > o oar. 1 03 T' ''* 1 = 5 d F Ili. 0 !3 c A A T a. A c A A T A .• \P 3T%1O31a353TVA0.13P j$ _ C�q . 41110 ��jj T s a�P$a„ a t r a 1,i 1 L "-I"I"I-L^I.I 1-I-Il I-IP�I°' J S Y S b s $ q 4 -tea 1 N tea rT. f' a3V m, i4 r .„" di ¢$ '''',..'1,-,I re. ' .*.t. •, ' I 1 .14°' 141 " 1, ' d Wi.r a.n_ ea _ - �� Q L.,. 1.-r14,f11i-, i 6 , , . ,,,,,,.. ,...a oW U Z io ::'' tat . elst" �;.. ', z C: " tea -4154,1,-*7117 _ -;--,,,,-1;-,•---''' mum agl a ,„„<,,,i,.,..,. u, "dllda 613c, "—*.,,"._' n� .., ^dam `rT ' W • J keft .1 N a s 81 a - -l< or °zj, ci) co ... .. 3 i t_r "ad ' Pe' ' O 0 tX .. -1 1 ii S IT �, # z20 � > q1 •.• J a J Z x j i e •: .41 - , :r�° " 1 0 W " �' - 91R �, V > . �� t - . •tib LL ,; ' i r o ‘1",','"{ .- . , - � . . •,').-�t . .` . r T 4 V e 1 t T __.t-0- .0mM. s tNI i� El c- Y g: W i N A, - o¢,y s u> 5 n� iii e 01 E - till o '771-19F2 tl'il3 EE .'E•_5`. m F. d" , -- __ .. -1 > >>dgz >> fly --1 p VMS — a c o:=v:a s a=v a=1 --Y--- ^ F / \, at z KO.�. I 3 M a Z -a'-r 3 n _ L= I� R Fab Q `z' LUmiss - N R A a F- na a l -'s -= 2 ' n I. Qga a •-- (I 1' RIR R `i nC�1111114111� ,¢ e: _ rla� a d{- j R e ec -1L-1-4''r i = n '��-__---fir ----I:4; ` a e a 3 /� % a�n4v ii s f4ylael49 y i111)'• gib 4i 4a •01 ',It Q®le aumm. 015°I �L 21,2 i- L d d e s s T„ a.mn I( ..:71 �_. cQ O i Ivusannn arca iroissrnn / I / _ ^1W 5 ;`:2-? rvi //�r i a ^ s _____ ? ., v Ym 7i L� Y�33 CLz �1 aa4I�p Ag o i 3 4 a Sg C1 Si 13 a ia R ' F CI 0 I as ..- n Q Q OC I CC re Z .o 13 _ =l I W co 5. C9 co N Iiiiii:$ \ F NA 1110.„e R R n n a a n s. n u= e ^ 3nacsrasaanwa a NI k\ W J W W 1. o, I- H a ccC:iA a A R a a a Id U) 41313.3.315.1= �vlaa�J IFI w "v. I.10 e O c 1- _ J s1 1<q<1 r--"\ '- g. °_ E O I- 2 n ; r W C1 ON cc m am ; —J i 0 fill { £43 3 CANE ThtO3 Ytl35w.ona F.,:::1_. e: Oa ", IT' V ' C. \ R: A 7l %1111:1111111111/All �' Q �' - �0 .0. :� i - 1-., 1 $1" 1 1 Oen 4 lirM A S 1E �L I '' i fit. A j' 0 t \� —:o:�: Al 1 ab 0 a n. " �� a ir F- — l fc O�' 0 r _ _ { �_:...s _ W ` I 06 _ ___(..,...--..,-J:.%I oo w 0AI 2 §a�'' O g 3 LL : K- e"' I— O iD dB a L J c 8- e J ¢ ® - Lv _L,a e .Ix�e.eep I.ral:ea -0=,'' 1 /.......„... g.....:7 -,. / X2 la IX 1 • S ' a --,,.\::1 -4,)'' n L 1 J U. y N 1 _ VI J" 1°3* G S§I - _ f w mtaxro e .4,--41' le `; e - • : E --__— —_ 3 LL n s Z n' e ( -' __ � u 1 H W Q 1'41- g euro oLL5 lJ - -Q a On!! ..01522621 GYM NOLSOlint e _ ., �� E N til i I- Z 7F ?)' J vc _— ZiP,11 E i ` � N7i v ag E 19 C 1 2-1-5-1- :1 '-7 I ey o{ ! J:.,1.;��..� 2 ,-- a sgmg. ¢aa• gJ ). r �I-l- eI,I4lelcl�lalal:4* '2 -� F 3122.1.a253.0.0239 fj c a414.° y �. ' „dais ,- � _ - 1 cJ E { t0° U t: e 3 :'a: , { Q J d ass YAwa xint 1 _Q Z O C O W m i W Z Z mi.- O J J Q P: �0 ZH H FW- W W ovc) co Q 1- U II-- > DI— Q >f WO 0U3 ct) 0 r4m� '- 0 W W Z � W W Z E V) W CO Qil OEE? U -;00- W Z . ujhUm 0 -s* i� 7 _ W LoP" r aco a2? DI- CI I-- co O 3 W � a JvZ - I_ 0 w Q = CC d W JCI 1 00 = UIOW ZJS Ud � lr ‹{<CCI Y o 0 In W U q O> N t S O F2 F } Z Z 5 0 E 0~ SI i� W N O aK p W X • ' --®I-0-�- p Y n �:! ZU W J� .0 tij SQ 1 $ Ow wita, Jw a1Z z u- RwW W O �W - YS 00 J OZO U I" )LL Ua ZUa 0=U111 W -0 w - amO -Zz O MEO= QaW [L a!- WODO O UOA 0ZyDWO r M M wHWX p.OW MZ FW FUOOa4 ,.. C c.i. , QJJ Q 2 V) O W o N o N W _.3 O > > U 8 y 0 I- f- tui i. '-4,-1,- - w�."t `bf, " 1 t•i'.,-�r te'.,.,` X W • . U �� �' e `wn .a MI N H co ZQ >•, a N L m.n*jj... ...-+rsk liiiu'.LJ .ua"r-9nnn1 ft',y3,..."-:. \{i,3`. iI y frllL t �`�� 91nnU'l t4.tl7J 9 3sai'r w `ll� �vb sett lH ♦I! 1 II .. 9f 4. „A,nn11 ` j a+l��a ,4yri��"" E..m9� =° 2LL adi gw .,agl.na7 its► /PIIP� ��' 1 - i 8' t_0_,.$1,...141:1:::-...6 A� G go EEu0'� s . :I 8 41i ilk Vp, a"v „ _ _ - n Ver, -.mow tffmk in ��wow311W I. lit __:- T -%.:Do tie . L _ ( ,mow t'71r s441 � 1§I 53 "'a _ S �i l�J O A :wail n.,,\ s1;'.'�17 t✓( I=Ili_ w ;17---1.r..111.0 i ::.4 0! ill �� L� .� a< Liii' o_ 1 ?!a1r!" til ���' it l� }• mat <0;§ W . -..�w�}. ,r, ..,+- y� ril, :t'�iu I ein 2 Q Q LL's 4_. .....„11 t: O 9� �. we 63 \yam ,G'ly SLC, ¢ 1 1 top ii.>i W t4 a7 +_- i J re-4:a , ;---. q, „DT „i•-; 1 rli,„ ..%- -...T. .,, .-1. . • Aew, 44,.E : r- r 0•, & "'"i i D CO U 0, - aps 414tA: °tea ,� i 1_ z�S nc , X31 'Vie. pI 1 O ���Z Q Z OO G ' -'''' '3' icy. . - x I� N ` 0 2 _ r. I 2 1 off_— N ;Imp ��ia �, '�il { 1 [� r i 1` •'t Z Z witce LO Jr .,....... - ,riug ',- in" L S`'.-I � 1_ w Q � ' ! /4,.,--,- lis .!4 *>, � � Ui11 kill*It±'—ill'Iivii'L # iz + �, �"' i� , � _ I W 'II% 11111 0 t -( lik 1 J �,g. 0 5 E = c. 1v �. c t _ y . Z `" ,'rid 9 .4. ref, .,. 7-24yam Q in q teil. I^^ '' r�"' � a t J h z u"i G o > Y ' 9 0 P = Z l yr o Z x Nb O N N IR o Wi— y�, Wt10 J V Q N J Oi_ W1- W eil I 0 LU 0 MI paG4N0 11913 W (AOap14# a F- O2OW U "- - � O J W <co LLa m > 2 �� � — < rr ,, •b a h1. w rj d 1 xW / " £ y ; W t j tirliL-' Al `` � T g�+fffjjj $r V b //:11.71 r y 14E1,11 • mit a� ' S�i'IIr `J f' '•' WZ O < ,, � ) I v96 .- - s2 F ,r pd r i li,..I d �T� w 14 � � / o — Wiz•— a�ga�a� 4Z44: :� Z i`ll1 — i ' i%i O + > 1 ' ~ 8 J p i° ,17„: D tiik • .40. , ... .. - . ...±._ ... . ..?1--.4 ..'...\ i • ? Z Z co tilC+ > 4 �{ �, <� {,`+ W -LLL tt '.�{ 1a w�'• . 0172 > 1 �fi :,SSI �� t co a u 12 I -I 1 El <`d®<5 • mmgggmgggammdda g aa a = N Env00.0or°,=�omnc w ;yew .2 a v W 0 4• N o o oo^, ,! O 3 N r XX� •g o ; co O O aNOO v`bMoe Wyn 'g- Z3 oD N42T pA cN eM b 0,O CW U yp kb M 49 WpH ,^ A a b U �Z u)OOO o M7ND a o fOr m O4 x X h N ' 18 43 ll v v v c X 6 6 W LL N '......2,i11.9.:=•� p �O •pp oU O 5.,0.c).-6 Qa tFE4� 1 in tO 4 ----s oz ••-•,.....,vmc > LLc COOom i;O, >p,j,dJ aHa.o'yh _,UAD. d . xC.O OCO+.OO 7:11-52.2m— N NNdVC 10Q N.!entiOLLLLU ( oaaaw§u' (1. oxc Li8800y�-j S 2,: N h w md b 8WUJW w .Wwwow -,rr4-W 1010NN N NN"Q �1, LL v a v v to ra.o sc so m m n yy ' ' \ . \ IZ' �otit ' _‘ cc E-I H .i9 4i I . I R r I� I i, I I- I , ----T- ,. / )Nil / I I .74 1 ti iI � I i i.• r� ! ) I t I �' : I I 1 t () —, I 'r Its I° �— ) / /�yrts./ • I * 3 l t ,_.,,,,j , ' 1 Nt .01 L. )Et / I , 1 2 .,-;,, ,r- 7t7 F r-4-irr. l'imer, ) j, 1 3 �_ , 4•� —� Nu i . % /r w r, b >r,i..4''': , '--\ '1„;•,,, Q.._.) �y / p�. ' / 03 ' �~ / W4, I / c �� 1 - F o j i 1 . , � m ---- -- - 0000, �. �� . 81 ` �,, , l . I aa. =._lac__^> ,.•. a`m'J�i *, c«.wm .' ' e`A. ,� # R 8.85..x. ` KYr•. � on 1q ao �y�i N W 43Vw N �-0 . C J tenon o �' 'o J O N 1/I O iL ?� J ll bO u U 0 al' O o 0 v aQ --,..0 e 0 uo W h N QM, A j gM v 0U ^iI m mma h Q)a , O t "1�z t'1 o ° 0 O 44 2 V C u9 g ail 0 a `ya O o m• m c % O E °'° — m - ti Z.c 2'Cryo- ,q" N CD N Em N O p Q .y m - 2°4N dam• °m° ti jr NN O o o CO a to N N 41 U 1 03 it; I m 1 I m 1 Q 1 1 I t 1 t1 I T .-..- 1 7' I t I 1 N 1 0 I 1 Vj I 1 I Ii 1 a IJ 1 It 1 1 I o . ._..- 1 I 1 1I 1 1 I . 1 1 I Q. 1 1 I N 1 I1 N 11 I t __ 1 1 1 I L-------.—..—..I Veteran,Memorial Boulevard 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,. , _ Spec!es Name ; 411E1 Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corals coupen) 411E2 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 coryi) 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 coryi) - €LUCCS CODE Species,Name 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 corgis 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 coryi) 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 L U - j , . f j ' T 2 ww ,:-:.:. , Cx S /* F . : ______._ _.. . it :, ....__. . .„ .,..,... _ . . ... ,.. . i i _ — . 's. i x i1411(1- , Y - `Tut g I { b d i I r • '4` `.`�. `` _ A r1 ti r i- �z._. __ 1E PI Y 1 H s rte. - `'y r —` 1 x q i •1, , 4 W r. J r - i ,'. 4 - _ , i,7' • ,, - 1 x1 • ✓e i,. . sa4. h i _ _ _ _ f", i ' S Y 0 4 - •,..- A 3 �. �+t r 1 Z V1 r W a 1 E Ea) b , LL. d j J COO '-. x ' CSS `1 N N ., _, _, a f . --) .S�t icy• S . ' ', r �1 -. a)iO U N ` ,_ o oO a) cl) Z3 c'� J 0 C5) �Q ; = o r 0 "' �, o -0 o 5 Q p 0• :, O u- O Q- O .? 0 Cll Cll cn 0 C c!) Q O O 0 0U0 4- �3 a) G O a) -, CD O � O O 'rn0a) a - p 0 0- 0 (am.) C '� a) — Co y U 'N C N E a) G a) cn a) en C O 0- O Co U C< -O C= 0 Q" c.!) N U @ -- O co a)• U 0 UO Cil G O O O Cll G) CCi `0 0 0 Cil_ cp 0 O COp Cll S) U up U .o -o co 'T o m O" Ccs CCi O a .= U O N Ca Ca 0 0 + a) o N G Cll 00 ,_ CB co CCS `C3 O N U ca -(J) 0 a) V c Cr O C CD • co E -0 m U) a) ti, CtSN a o CO CD a) U C . 0_ .,. CO Q- < C4 :=� CO U .3..-' 0 E `O CJ COO Ca (D , O ,_ 'O ' _. l•-• O C6 ll c- 5 a.- v U �- O- %- CCo c) O ‘.4-- O N Cll 0 co O Q) co (f) L N _ Q O a) — E Z N E. C3 VJ ¢ c!) cf) u) Q coCCi O U o co Z 0 O N o N 0G. ci) p 5 o CD "� Z � - (D `- i- -4-',- "a - a)Q �C.. . co Up CD a c) v) Z '_cp- s� ccs LLl m �' Q oQ o -4-- Li- w o) a) 7 O cv u) a) a) :c� ® oa) 0 o cC; Z 7 = m m ..c-- 1---.. -. u) (13 v �' ca ° CE �- o - a) m a) — 0 0 coom w o N �o t- co Z co 0 ® � � ® c u7 0 1— ivo CD j��" N -cj- Imo- �h N M W N N O u1 cn 2 73' C O < U) O E •-• (7)s.. C a U) • ) N N Q a p a -c Q t6 Z7 Q WO) N Q CO v C E EU O O O N N LL cuC6 O i L Q p J W H z L1-1 1- z 0 U U.0 w 1- �1 � fps• (f) tn (1) s• a .rte e, 03) a. ta 'Ca V .— tn I -0 CD CL) -0 4- m (I) C CD > a) o 4- L.Li a.) a) 0 CD u) 7 c c) - 8 -4- 0) 1- ^,- u“. o %--• = CT.5 0) s..- .• CC .- 0) E -I a) C1:3 > = • vs C r4 CD = 0 0 .z:i• 0 0 0 en Ln o M rg 0 .ze vt Ln oo r-- ;NI m •F•7: (1-) ° Q. Tti ca ell N 01 N •ch re) •z1- 1.....,., , a = +a CO C) c 1-- -- cNi -c) -o .> c (J) CU _c c•J = c 713 .- CD P., -0 C\•1 E ct) c) .10 a) co oo oo a) a) a) r-i CU cp : 'Ci) ) 0 -0 '''''' a) ...... .> ,-i H ri •-1H c-I o o o o o 0 o o N N ,4-. E >-, co 'al N N N N N N N N CO CU 0 _C - •+•-• -C) ..CCD ''--.(1) -Q .0-,-, C3 1. t., ›... CD, Cl) -4-, C (/) v 4+ al 1--2 ' CO >, CD •- -4.= I.t.i >- 0 = 73 0 a) •- co . 1*--- CI) CI) a) wE -.a' C•NJ CN -.0 'C. " E -4- .0 2a, c) , ,i- ..c c a a) _ c„ cN t : = 0) 0 CO Z0., .3 c al ca) 0) c15- -1--, '-' :."'" tn 15 C) c '5 a 0 4-, = C < •- = " > E a; >.- co 03 in C C 03 -C E = 0 •- LU Cl) E 4-.., CO = co u, To r, E 0 ......, _ ..-.. cal - , . ,.,...., c a w (1) -0 a a 0 CO co co < a u CD 4- cn = o. c 4, co a) le c\i" CZ LU E " L..c) - (1) 0 z ro 1-- -u) = C C Lo CO E ? >, g a .r° t ::5z D 45 Z-" 0 Ct 03 CZ = CO 0- E co o - CO cL) r.- .c.12 -;-2 -0 0'1 -0 70 co ra 0.0 -a -r_ 0 = - M 4•I CU -' "C) 13. T... -C3 a > 0 .!--- - 0 0 = < < < I- 0 c•-) 0 I- 73 TO C > C13 CO (1) -C 45 ,._ .. .., -r_- LL -0 = c -0 Cl) CU = V) 0 :- --' >,.... CO = (1) Cl) C en N tø LA m N in N I-- r-; en r... m --- in N 1.0 U cri 0 2 c CO c ._ .1=, .1-• (f) 3 CU Kr 01 sal 0 NOME= , -a W N h N = 1:3 - ---I CO 0 rr) ‘:I' - CO '4."' C N-- '., Cl.) ,....1-1--- — ---4. Cl)cn ...... CZ 0 GO ii) .`1. 15 = cll a) •zt- o a• C ct M -1::) CU --I a) -(L) < c° c) w ). Kt ri m 01 1••• 00 ID 0) CO co ri1 re. tD ,ri 0 m co m 0 cn --I re) to. tNI 01 00 01 tY1 ,-- - .4.-, C a C r•i' i-i' r.1' rii. Lfi 9... 0 0 Z6 u) C) •— 0 (13 -0 •- c\j = C13 CCI) E EE = .3) ,-- o a) u) Cll :-7.-- >" E 2 0, is -CD a.) co = ....., ,..., TO .4- W N le) CO N 00 OT:5 = -0 er) CO CI) VI CO m t•-- = 92 —i 7:3 •- = CI) a, H N en vt W 01 c-I en s.- -= 4- c= C 0) r-Z %-i' C) i----" .- ,-(1-) ,V3 -0 CD < Z CN am E C -0 > .4.-. ..... 7.4--. 00 03 44, 00 co co 00 00 - = ._ 0 cr ‘zt• vr. -i- .1- .zt =a- .:t ct$ -- c CO 0 Cl) at 0 c >. WIWO) NNNNN c = = CO a) O. tri tri sri te LIS' u5" ui' t.6 0 = = CD %. 1 U.) cn 1:3 a) 5-- •-• co (1) CCOM CO - .. O. = M -C CO C° CD E o Cl) = ..c Cl) >, ca = ..- E NV11.01".. 00610c-IN -2$ ,i5 0 E H e-I H H c-1 H N N (-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s- CZ ..-.. •*._.... C • Cl) = s.. NNNNNNNtNN a) -E-' Cl) <1.. +C-' (13 ci) U) 03 Z CL) f_CTS 0 a) c) ) co a; >. 0) E a) 5 W 0 E ..c _ -c •u) c ca. z ,F.-- - •- 0 tr, • co .....j ,--- - ....,-, E 0 < • • C v} _ . _ ix L CO �, "� �+ 0 w 0 = 4- w mC• U) CI) E CD- CCI z at Aew 4. a > C 8t-uef C� CO N 4) U -c Q) 2 Lt day .0 .0 C• CO v Lt-Aew CL Lt-uef +U+ CC) CO > a) 9T-das U t = Cl) -i--' 9I-AeW - .= CA - Y 9T-uef ti Cn a) ' >, t.0 St-daS O Q) U O Q) C 2 si-Aew C Q) C. CCS U _ = V 15.St-uef c c Q 0U Q. pt•daS d Z C U Q) j L = pT AeW a opo Q a)woo - U pi-uer l a-+ 0 Et daS N'''"' U C U cv O = =f=, C V Et-AeW ._ U) .0 O CO '0 Muer 0 co co U N 40 h ZT•das 0) L O C) = ZT•Aew C O U C- u-uef C C +U- tt-das Cn Q) —= CO C6 Q) U tt AeW ro C1) Q) U a) TI-uef I- , >, o m 4 ai rn co arc `ro N wO ales A�uedm�0 Cz U) 0 -0 a C/) p C .= C) CO a) -c COco -cip C //��� Q) U L? 0_ sr-Am V J X r CO :1--. ST•ue( C N O a) a) > Lt daS �' _C Cl) (1) 0 LT-AeW W C6 E cm o j LT-ue( on c9I•da5 CtCHCS ii o - 91-A.14 C [� 9T•554 m CN U - y� — - si dag C .CQ 1 115 a) L SI Aew — CL U ST ue{ m C(5 COC6 Cts V wan m Z -0 Cr) 4) E E _c � 6I-AeW a W Cv O Cn pt•ue( a :0 co U N -0 .U) N u Et•daS i CZ E— O •0 ET-AeW i - Ca ci E CL ET-uef m CO 0) -= .a) .a) CO 0 _ ZT-das I < CL a Q) N Aew l. O -,— Ci. C. U -0 mue{ VW U O TT das o ca. cO O ti Aew ,.� Ct Co L TO ' I I i N p -0 ci) as `],, p tt'Ue( ® -E ^, 0 E v 8U V 2 D co t.D �! a) .� � 1,_:_uC Q Jibs Jed ales iwuea (1) V) Q) cn CL i U -C C -C CO a) C U f— Cn i— -C 0 0 • • nin I a' L. ,crir *ma In VI t C w • E1i (V E <.„). CO • „et) u) <17 U a I E 0.0 0 U) I . CD W .J O Q C Ca •E w N C p > O C CO Q 25 C vO•• C p C Ca p •C a) 2 00 --p -r.-_- co p � " E p EO O O C (73 . C Ca '�OOECp N a — QC O ) N (/) .. 0 Q u) U„J t� t-- U > C CO L. = V] C C2 UC co a) C L p �-� E z c) Ca a) cn •C > p ,� C O CO N C CO .. X O' 5 N co u) -O o •0 °, co > o Q Qd' E a) �'a) a) N O Q) m 0 a) U u)oCC N . OE0 Ca C? •- L cp .L C. - OO pc y. QO O CQ .V "a . a > p co ...c _C + --- -a E oa) V O Q) CO N 0 o f CO p v m Cl) p 1�.- .,..' a co >, N Cl)p O O a) O '• - C CO _ "O E C .O u) C V) Ca LJJ a) Q -o -v a) - ' C m Ca cn v E J z v p u, °; CO C a) p -> Co co o v L3 a) C ..._' 0 CV - C c.) U .0 CO .o p -5 . p Ca tS) — _ -O C 0 `" .0 C CO F Q. — N 0 O U p C) (j > J Cl) FC O Cn U c1) C3 i N r C O (1) (-) .c 0) D C.) V)C3 co _ O_ CD L O in _c a) -,� C a) — H Co a) C c:).. Ca N 0 0 O P._ -o C C H- p CO to > O 0 C .. > a) C C O .,--. p Q co O U C p CB co C J p O O COo cp.' 0 0- NO - J' -0 = C a) a) L "_ E C > Ca _ V) Q) O. Q .*•'' Q- (D ." u, E - O u, CO -tom ... C > in i Co E Oz C c) v cn -- pa) v o o .N OV Li_ a) O J >, p '�' Q Ca N - O p >' O u) co - woo u) L o W E a`) co Co r. .� p •], "C-- C . C Ca = = 2 C?. C o C C co E cop in CO Com. 'o J p u) CO O a) C L C n co cn co C CO p C LL •C�6 = w --(no V a) E .E Q. co 'C a N = N -p U? 0 CZ O 5 � co p C N C V C C Ca >+ Q) LC) •• C6 C p O '� (00 I i J p C •`- C L C C `-_ C p co) L.L. `- L �, C C Q) a) 0- p N -C N a) Q) p .0 cn Q _C I- -C 15 >+ C W E Ca o Ci) 0- C 0 "C •L C -O +� a a)• C CO .N o) "O �Q.. 0 "' co C C E C ch S] to C C C a) Co c, o U oo '? Q co o, ; p E (� s- "O _ C Cl) m -.•-' C1 U a) cv -o O� N C') C .1 co C O c _c C 0, U C o 2 O 0) N (Du) a) u) p O Cl)VJ p E > u) F) p co C O ,co U i u) -o N I— E a) CCI C co N .0 O -+-•. - --,-• U 5 N U Q N .� .V C N _ C •L l p i x C Q _ CO Q u) C O p O Ca -p v QC) C 5 :c., -o W C O p w a) p a) U) a cA - U) U C 'O co N U' Q.. S) cpi) � U p •U , a) C a) O o O Q > Co CO s m o Jam- 4-- W • � U cn F— co -o -c3 ._..� Ii • . • v o o0a a CSD 2 N th '8 6 �c 0 'a a) � N o 5 a n' 0„ o s a % a. .—•••+• CO CO 8 0 0 0 n ^m e t- O cp o Cn G r"—t- 0 CD CD (l) Cr) w „la•. .salatr113+ .� �r r.!•,l` I.r+�l+civ rtq ia�' L ,vRYfl h /�/��S. • �I m M1M11, c-4 I M154m 2 Ya . I �lq + CV C r.:-4lory ear•Ng ti Q 4 r Ly- Y' I 0 CD 0 CZ O• U) CD i(...k) !.• 2- ° 3 0 C) n a _ ti� c;-.13-: a E G.navdhaaklvd ,,,..k.:_,. "M1.1 J� • = - CD r oo �r LegIn NCD= oa to I • •-+ ,.....0 C©, `ssJeY, fli N - h e-1-. `y �"� p OD W "CIII CD CD CO m S 0 C/) a•• pCD Ca m m i h O CZ B 73 m m 3 N 4 e a ,rb r Fl.0 S CD C ) 9" - 0 CD O O i'el = V) d m CD CD N a E • =CD - rn CD i4 r �- C i 11 SI) 10 0 41 B 5n v, N; C 2 'S 2 N a. CSCD D • Q n 0 C? x = e-,y- m a CD , Mt = m Y z i/) In 0 CD X 3 -o E (/) o =. .6.< cc, c n = z la CDCD v D -O yc-n s) 7:3 iii C CD O f .i! ,a:_. =T. s o 2 CJ n V . Cg a V n� �a, ° ,`. vii CD r v cn T1 2.� n " = X► a , C7 0- r-A A -I CD in Y = �. 0 0 1 m v s - _ vim+ .w 3aam.s u 1 f _ 1 9 ro r C m F. = `CD C) .�8I pr:. Ltlf➢IY"Yty„ • Q F,,j Y.p:_ CT1 1 A 1 rn X a = 1 1 cA� _ Or CDeL O C/O cn CCt T� D o F 13 a 3 n73 ID CD 1, m i N1,4CO -. NW CD m q C) W N O 6) Jt CO N W CD A 3 CO CP Cn N (D CO N = CCD oa 5K0Co, K,0 CI) p- oopor,„ 0 * r CnZNCD OOZZ.� C n.C n) o a@ c N n p rn rn R S 2 m m m CD = r c s � � = a � tn rn3 CD L. 9, (1) r" 7) 0m r oom Er , m y o m w -, m 'Do0 CD cn _ m � 000 m CD = a m` m v m Q'..< n 5- ` m i CCD 4 r .z (� rn Ro^y m m m 0- n. _ .G 70 2 4 W N _-. (D C a_ _ v O a CD 0 0 n i * r-r c�2 m c cn cz v �_ 0 = O p _ CD --h P� v z fl1 -< 0 0i g M N N N N N N N N N N i i CD i i i i i i i .i i O co co O O co O O O O CO (O CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO Co -, - SD 3 - - -), ' . 0 0 0 0 0 CO co CO CO CO COCo CO 0 CO CO -4 ) W CO 'J Cit A A N N .- CO O CO Cn -• O CO CO co -J O O Ut C)) CO o m o CD 0 CD 7 o mo CN -.1 0 C� CO (31 CO a 4, v j v � (31 N3 ccn o)) rn 0) 03i CD Cn L - x .. 0) N W CO Co N O .p. 0 0 0) 0) CO 6) O 6) Oo N 0 (b C ,�. m = cl) 0 1 -< P O W ? P _' i i -1 i N N N N N N CO CO W CO W 4P CD k ups\ = r- - 7 CA 6) CO CO CO CO V CO CO CO 0 -> N N CO W O z1 n NEI A CD • U} CD 3 CD ear 5:1a _ m B CD D ..z-1 (17 Co Housing Starts fr, O O n CD O V n - w w a in m r m 5o 0) _ -I �O CD N. P. 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 m -rl a -0 in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D p ii c --1 CO O I I c c o i A3 a) r-* • 1998 V co. o N ' c O v Vi 11997 I o 1998 F CD DA) (Q ) zaol I I I I ill111.1.111 D1999 Q * = Immiiiiii I a) 0 2000 c CD I o � CI) $e fa) G I I 20021111111111.11111111111!I :' (.0 fror : 1 O '~ ula) CD I I . . . _ veno ��® 2003 [� Oo o -' = 1 1 I I I J co 0 2004 • -‘ O PO co O = 2005 I p Z I I I w j j �' C -�, 2006 pa o 00co N J cn CD O ._=-1,,,:,...„•t • o43. CD 2007l=1 Cn {N� rn tD OD tit) •' +' "O = 1 2008 0 w CD O 0 co CoA ; ' = @ 2009 o 0o O 1 3 [Ti 201003 N1 .0 m Wo '" E' 74- i , op 2011 (1) 3 IIIIIIr 2012 . 0 w 1 --1 N 2013 I ;. -. O co _. - I I N10 co 0 gi v 2014 m CD CD co co W C O A?3 2015 . Jr .w K..8 re O I 'i o 0 2016111111!.!11111 t 4: co = O • ," `' -, O =• I ice, 2- 2017 a) N (7t[; , Ot (D I ti,) or. } _ 2018F Cr f ID O_ 2019F - w ''s'}-4- en 2020F s 0) .-1 CQ O ' 111111111.1.111 N N m r < 2021 F in 2022F _. ..� I ,<�' _ CD• N 0 O En -, '-.. 2 73 0 Annual Non-Farm Employment Growth 2, 4"<0 m c _ � 93 T ii m 6, fn O in O �01 o O CO = Ti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G.) . m ; 0 SD g. ca . M M - a p � mm oNm 0)oo 0h (1) g' 5- v Z N v,( � cn sv m m.- cn 0 7 r p O) (� () m ( o W ✓ -p•ca co 3 N N _ co c .� C ED -0o co Z o.a p :_ m tit 0 ° r N 0 p (n Cr) V aCD a. Cr Oa p m 0 . -s m L n §n = ; L5 (d Cn • '## ''a' (gyp m VO :...., Q .cn W °jo . . (fl - - L 7 III a 0 o•Q" Cn CQ S in N 0 N n 5• -•• 7 G t m r`� 3 ( SD 3 p J 1 Q p c m 6 II 7CD CO c _ ,, _� (pD Z 0 cn CD Cn N ' n SD 73 0 a m n N x : HI co N ti '. z co Fn- R r-r -{ cn Np- —1 v = D. w SD H = C cn a i2 = M (D o. N" ]7. m 7) :L1 O - g :- I V) (D S CD N CO 0 o c 3 3 u 0 Ow in 0 O Q' 0(11Annual Household Growth g o O c (D 3 �^ n N o =" SO N N co 0 G) J COCO = 0 O 0 O O O p u 0DE RI -00 00 0 O O 00 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Z O (Ao �°� • O I I I w O �\c✓j a `.0 1996 . Q. . i 0 n I ' I p CnCD 0 1997 3 = O O O 1998 N Q O O73 1999 ....i...■ v .- .-.« `z 1 c' N - N 2000 03 N n = w =': a1 _Ig 2001 CCD O < 1 3 � rn o w v `° 0 *01.017 03 Q � � Z 2002 m a Cl)— I o Q 17 m0- 1 -� 2003 — co N n ^ to N CO 4 2004 wUn CD -h Os' 2005 I �I O !Z C < O 5 2006 2 N m N CO 0 ,�, G 2007 W x Q- O c 2008 t NS !NMI it O ,..�6 Q.. O Z 2009 C) -i,-a O O -I. C) J n CO CD cn c >,1 2010 d ' co c0 CU 0 Q.' 0 p n 2011I - Ka A O CrN • 2012 Co �. CT SU N N m = � 70 2013N<: W O o CD I a'.;.. w oc coc 2014 B a -- w CT C CD N = Fir c? 2015 N ,2 U� N W CD Mil 2016 = CD 1111 I -4 ? o 0 2017 COill IQ 0 -a I Cl) cnCn 2018F a - - 0 03E o O N 2019F co O- 111.111111111. _., m 03 a) (D 2020E3 'it - (EA. r XI 1 2021F n 0 2022F O� I I 1 O CO - 41 0` - < O = N -{ o Annual Population Growth dv ' ,.< a ,, n = CD ET O rn j 0) .� c', .': 'o' S -t — +ten n IN, +> m 03 o N .4 CI CO a = s CT A �,j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 CO u; iU n 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m co CO C tro O O �� .-`•1999 o = =- iip o —__ R N iV 3 1997 n co tu = 1998 go Da 6 Z CD 1999 O 3 m -� n N 2000 � • ;m ._ CO N CO O 2001 - .-. 2002 I 1 =-• 0 07 0 at sv ___ 0 :z 7,- 0 sz 5 2003 —=,,, _.- 0 op 2004 Cl) s r 2005 co �' m - • m = o O at sz C o 2006 m CD CO CO 0)°' iCS *_ Z CD 0) 2007 4'm, a = o '- A CSPZ 2008 = Q p N oh ZT:1 n S � 2009 r a '< _= C/) S CQ -F y 2010 5- n o G 2011 ca a II) m co 0 FD) T 1 2012 N �- o C1 2013 13) 0 S 0 _ n 0 O I. C N 2014 mo p... p �. _—_ -* r- 0 (0 S 2015 �� c o m O 0 cnw073 2016 3 311 w X 2017 i r.. :il CD %n Q 2018E co. c= _ L z 2019E w ® 0n.) CD ---, 2020E 0- @ co m N i: m 2021E -• o . U1 m 2022x• x gn Z U? "--•\ m o 0 ....• 0. CD 0 CO mig " mom C.) 03 "In rD ;.; m (I) m > fl% usnom f,-,) 7J m 41 "C ci •?. Cn -0 -1 1111111111� lfi$ Ate+ A► 0 0 m a M C D o o CD Ai Sty * — i CD CD 0 2 o -z - m 0 • a CD 0 --< m m - cu " = = cri Z a 0 m 0 0 a a �* a ,..,. - V J - ,-. (.71 o m g CD m = 0 r p =s 2 0 = 0 Q- 0 . h -r: O 0 0 CD o CD h o 2 0- • cn o cD a 0 OH p _ ( C 2 • o 1 'rt�� � c ' a0 o oj Z o 0 < co a y rr- a Fe * CD " v cn 0. ril =O —� = < U ua i - - 0 7' CA m 1 1111. I Y a a CD m B_s ! • 2 Cn 0 0 ° a ` i 1 -4 -°-‘ 41•V ----- ,:l'Z' R 0 v ----4"`" ^ ..UM'� ,p..... T T -,.6 • ' \_\ ' -1""'"- o LI) CD M 0 a Cr __ m ` ® W CD = 4c • m i 5 T 8 ff_ • nCo o o ..... _ cn aJ a Cn Q Q a u CD x CD H m n 1. Zp 3 CI- > a m n ;, . 0 4 • =1,4 - • = � sm n \aFvD n N T 3 H _ iv 0 -c• 7vg .41 CID CL f;... do g r, * m m a CD CD 1 //'N� toiein+nb O i I (dI x m o CD o m r Q p ¢' (71 C O a' ,i '1.4crati teco N V/�s5 _ 0 m' ' p E. 'a " irif:-:-'---,-- -,-°_,--,-.. ,.-'_,.€.- --, - ,-,!"*T44,--!---?....--, „.„,,,__-_ ....- ', .1 --.. ,r,„„.„,a,,,,,,r7 4 1---,i,. --1 0 , ET 0-' 0 s',„--..-. -I < ,z7,-,,:;.:it„ � Y fit'4,?,'„`-'!,r., ,`"":,- ,�a e • s r„,,l4i,t,..:4,4-4i-i4:4;44-;7- ' .T4_ . t'L lu PO s1,_,P,F4, i-t- r- . -:-.,° ---. y1 i s,t ` il- U 0 Q _ j Cr *4 - ' d' 0)CT V�'�P�o »a# - � � r0-h Q F ��;. m v 0 CD _ cn ED cn m m °S = pyx ) p p—., p ,� . ,fi O C]2, 4t) ,1' 0)Ea cc,-1., C g:',.. - 0 O m r ,..?)1.- y> 1 t coL,,-t 0 0- CD • � � o C) C j -11 0 m �e A� s . .-I C GD • If �' ,,,L5._ ! _ CD C� 4,,,, �. ,. + �1 cn CD c .. +-�- r N to --1 r� ``® ,-; 7 i� f-4 ^tip �' cD A O { //p rr��� 77, Q � ,IRI 1 o CDT� Sls uo cm - cr— m , to,,,,r,, .,.. 1- _ 9.4 w o c Qlii 0- C ,.. m> ��� itlit) ` m{� CD O _ n n -. _ cn 0 0 elek IN=III 0 Es) 13) !k< m cD now is u (D 1•1=1111•11011 CT Cf) CD ..=-1-: ‘.•••• CD 74: 0 1 rp- 0 Cr)* =* lj = '"'" r--4-• .-....--- CD t...1. . (1) =" M =-- CD CD ° z 73 a a s Cr =- > CO 5 (D O CD c Z fl) = EU M ID — 0 -CS • - . fu 0 X CL Co '• U) CD > St -0 CD ID I ...4.. = All - . = 0) 0 = 0 co (I) = CD 0 cs) —•• 5 m0 (0 B 0) __. = 3 0 = r..... — .... ..11 C Et) ...-,..- ....< 74: ..< . 0 -o a CD > a ..... . 6., -0 eL cp . z ....a tV.11,I4,1,,i 0, o ca)-,- 5 cn cp rt - 4 .- - - 7, : 1:3 (I) 1' ,16 . C ---"--- .- ' 0 - ck • - . 1 SO ,_,.., 1 to Q v. 2 f` 2, cu CD so r, — •--1., a A 1 NM 0 C CD 0 _ CD r-•F „ . -..., =•-• o cr, --, il 2 i a 0 gCD Cn . k , g r 9s e .• a Lif ? CD CD t _ ,...s. ..-.. -0, .-s s-• - = ,-4-- CD CO o a i I _ ,--p: . "CS CD o - =z al. = i cl = al P -.... 0 13 fri ---- --- - --- --tilt'V''' 3 ..,.,-- . SD D.) —...cs 0 "Ci 1 . .. .' _ CL — T . t..sutPlol S X O P71: ..3 .iiI 5 . to , -_ -0 CD '-gf 3 o c x 7 1 < e--t Vi.) -1-6 '' t — CD B B I P ntg_....1 r a , .., Pt< or, gs X3 i To 0 0 o -p =. _. .- r `° m Q� � Z CU U _ Cn �_ Z 0 Z m- z co Cg D3 p 0 Q 11) o v szon to 3 N.) n 2 0 7 0 CD Q O -0 O CO : `G v _ O CD O D O 3. "' OCn .y+,,.`m,4 CU 0 o Z0 O V/ r L'a^t,iwblt i'n 'eB [T O a 3 C cQ T Fd p m - P t4 W p; .4Pi. 'kw t-l-t.< ��. n p M1 Pt,�tytm .. a LLS •-~ y n, Sao CD _0- m E = a e '> > rThraBn $ e - -- -- la v 0 o I w aM : z m o V J Q 3 m ' — O a_ CD "m - m _i t _ = 2 e t . _ `< ea- EU Lalli R CD lid fl < ;y CD 3 Up Ple C P - • —, a I e CO CD 111,0,:LG,iI Js Lrcg. I.114 10 •=1:- n C _ : 0 3 a _ z n m O Liz ni. ' C/) -0 - CD ro n C/) --r D� C) -' 1 tin -71 s I,1,1,I,, ii! r Z C 0 � C ZC !AC X T m< C XI S_0] r g Z 03 03 Ill el m 11 � zm Nc� on C D2--I-1 wD0 �� ta C.. my v;z 77m r p pm �_<o �o ,..1 _ o a m < us Q)iO �8 Z oma m r_1 En, r Zp- A� r r z r to WA lb +{ • ;as 111111R1::?7,1: rites 5 • (._�f i iii fl, v,. +1,1+�.! 3 Z 1 2 .6 �r- y.l 'Z! �i R5 c vi400ol 73 6v9 2 C4 r s ti / 1 A l v 1 „ ((,_ _, ,, F I?3 __---- 0. ,r,,. , i 11,; . s c) , ___ a (i) V 1 -..-�.. uMv SW 9Cly g z v _.—.. yy • m @ 3 0 i�-V 1L.. J - � v- S� i jrrri. � 101 I i , 'D g C ; I,s � @o a � , .>�or 9 a iQ�•" a ty — — 010A0 i.MA 71 { , r ' ., 0 "qi , i. r it a S �O PO z al v . �, I. T — ; .O i Va !LHL 1 3ii!1I 1I r st' 14 i I co• N z CCO /-'\ owl ii § ° D 77 1T1 ,y rte_ :' 0 wfi �m z m ,��, " ; ;, �� fat.. .. ril z � _s �, - . '.rl WO� 00 a � � �. cn�o 1 � � , ,_A 4 "� v CO a z .. as41 '" £- •RCI1NG TTON` LIVD 111 2 111 CO '°r - ' a�a� �O ,s sa , �m 113 2 , ,.... ..,,,,,,,,, . ,, . ... ..* . liti IEa `n • e 1.z11 v�j� ... a m NY j ®C 0 m • 0 23 7 l':!..iiiic4,1 I, -,11,, ' -•,"',' 1 -, gy7 q % ina a" ^' 4 3 a a k ^ D VI r G �_ �� O ® l 3 s r �'. z a �; 3 C 41x• x. l. �` cn O �. ' �. .:4 tJ9 $ d Or B' t DZ• m �y M� -3 is k� m 5 y o war �, co oro 0 E b � T A AA r / 1773m is co m o A P. a 5 M Z _ -4 g D i L` r Ip • lIk4GSItla to o [ ''' ,.....: lil ..2. —1.t........................ . -2 zi oir:ig �s ti, 1, D :C i a i 9 5i .O I _ /..)„, ` /V� Z F '440 3 3 ci 4.. 6 7\-......,t3, x5,rv.z.c...c v € q I 11111 ,M S © I/I eEU C Is. x x x ' - -- c= y ��E O, TP '. TIP ..1.,-s*▪e .`«Q Fig ei b •=I_ e . �+ e ;5114,n,= °3 €� ;3 _ s `— - I 4 :ii e�Y —� - D �— ..xm-a:c—' \ " ���`�:x k x t a N8'0'0 $p \ L•��� °/ t t__S:° .e e L!e j (i ' 1111P1141'"'" i.ff9 0 w- L} I It rm I ii • '7'i = 1 '��—fib"`- c �si� c, 3 98 yD � ; CO .0 ..1 p - M r 0 0 I taiN D ze Yee m V. Z .. t 5, sCI 'C 0 000C 000) 0 O CD O (/) O CD O (0 O 3 C C C CCD C C C ((DD C OD 7 0 �r 0 r+ D) s) (/j D SS) 2 cn cl) Fit O m = .1.1 n DO) 0 0 O fl) O O m-. O C C a � o. -n 1). 15 C 9 N N z- b 0 0 0) 0 v COD flai cc, = O CQ fD 73 rn -. W r_ N N al alO al O N s W co coZ N O 0) W 0.1 N CO N O)co j �D 0)) 0) -P C -1 W 91 U7 _ - N co co O C 4)' (1t cd s 0) - a N O � U1 00 - j W W U1 U1 -.J V -1 -1 -3 N.) N O O O O 0 y to- U1 -4 003 O1 �1 CO 01 N co N N W 0 W N <31 (O CO 00 W t11 W 0 0 o O (''' o o to Ul a) _a - W 0) CO 0) N 0) a W -0)) N U1 -1 of co U7 :-.1O 0 0 o O N o o ' CO W .p m 171 O 001 N W W :P j W N W a) N 0 o es) t0 co 1 .--4 O W-1 0 0 N c o to N c c O --� 0) d CO 0 0) j O CO O W N 4, N W y ,/ N O :-.1 O N 0) <O W 01 0 O o N 0 0 0 0 -5 a .p 4a ▪ 03 X7 03 N. ? (O N W o +01 N ffl X O \ 01 0) O c. A 03 N , ITI I N m 0 -- CD 3 0 co 1.--"\ 2 Cl) I% 0 D 3 -kg 1H+a VF-4A.-EA-4f1-+a ^ 0 3 O 'r1 2 v fa fD < fD N F+ µ V of W N N C FD < Di 0 0 7 (0 5' < < 01 o O 3 `•-�-'� m q 000uloUIUIUIFIn 0. � 3, C 0 an.= o 3C c 3 Di m 00000. of m H w /Fm 0 ` ) lm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 -1 FC 1D 01 7 lD l0 if N d 4 aro 0000000000 210 o n'. 14 " Om N =a1 57 ^' W 2 0 + O o , i 1 i O N Co N 0 7 1,OF 10 nO n 2 Cl 7 Yy/ n 1^ ID H r 1t0 A 1.0...AA A `� m to ' fl) C 'Co vci N /=� o S o tO0 10 10 10 1D 10 5 O G .13 if d J 0. a H ZS 1100 1100 110 1100 C M N a t a > > W Z 0 • O o O 10 A o > N Lri N 01 rD C rC'F O On On r 6 D ID-1 ..0.0' O Lo•.:.C,CCD 3 r- �. V ,..- 3 N n• 0 1µv CU =1 n 0a CD W F.. W N 1--1 W N H H N V c0 CO W N D ---- 01 10 W`F+ N W V1 O O C7 n A O N N N i+ Vt O n o0 0co 0a coNUt W V V Nr O 0 0 0 0 o d 4) O 10 CO 01 10 O O C 1J A1'100 Det N N r N N F+ F+ F+ Z O V N cn 0) F+ OD O O P. N N C -11V O 0t F+1+ O 00 10 01 10 N O VI 07 CO 03 10 O W V CO 00 03 F+ OF CO F+ A U) O CO W V A to to A , N O N -0 CO {. r F-• rW N N F+ F+ N ID N 1-• N N F+ v, A 0 O N 01 N O VI W N t0 W 10 OD V R UI W W A VI O o ix, o 0 Co "co 0 0 7 D o o co a rt o f'' A •W KI ONi O , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R. o 0 0 0 0 0 N V O CO V UI to O 49- -EA A F+ V N N N N W N N N Z 000% (0 F+ F+ Ol N f+ O W O 1D C3� V W V N N V W 00 co W N 111 O" 1D 01 A V N F+ 10 N N 01 10 CO m N V V Vl to U1 A A A F+ A CO , " N O .n N Z101' -o W w A r r - A N N F+ N F+ N FD N N 0 0 0 M N F+ 01 O 0. ,' NJ N i01 01 W 1D N 0) Q1 VI a VF r V V m 0 in j0 N DJ 0 O I,.< V e 0 0 0 0 0 0 :...1 ID 0 0 0 o a 3 ~ O N W ,....1 1D 01 N i o a o 0 0 0 o a rr o 0 0 0 o d 1D N co W A O 01 W N 1 M — • D n• -z IIIcI rn O) 73 CD 3 0 cc:) ('--`N .c3 x -, m 2 v D 3 +rF in+n A--IA-HF iA in hp O 3 O T x v f3 3 O D -o x 'o , ! ,''•__/ N < (p N r r V to W N r{(F C (D a 0 0 0 (D if * < d O O C '+ (D a otnotnotn;n,FI t cv tD cv 1 C) ao 3, yarn lo 3 n@ o0000000�^ � w m C y! ai rrm iJ m tt,c m 'O ((D woo 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 p O = N p ^' N = Q ITO -1 N 10 N p `r CD m xo 000 oC o x a.- , O� On x o. 3 o c4. � . c m o In in m TII. FIT 10 , O. • 0' totototote5o O cao I Hool0F °o. to ttoto nN • a n. i0O W x • t. 3 3 c • O a o C �' (1N 7 (D ^ U 3 r� 0 '' PP al N S O 0 . CD _. .... _.._. _ .< C c t C 71 71 13 rt r r 171 r+ _= N n 0 O =1'' n N Q CD ___ W r W H F—t W N t+ r r V (0 CO W r N D W in OD Co Orn A O F. N N r to o n a o o Co o M O N to W V V N 1+ 0 0 . 0 0 o d to O to m o to O O 3 I A 10 011 r Nr N N r r r z ''1-)0 V r In oD r Co Co O A N N C V O 01 r A O CO tO 01 t0 N O B- (D to co CD co to O W V Co CO 00 r (D CO r A to O Co W V A Ui t0 A -, N O I-1 VOD Ar 1-• 1-• W o PI w N tr0 W to CO V O N r r r r A Q Q N Oc•, N O 01 Co A O O *co N co (D N Imo• O coo1A. W O N A W A ON1 zit N 0 z-,9 0 0 0 0 if-' 0 o rt o 0 ..1.' 0 .e. to N V CO CO V In tD OD iPr A r V N r N N W N r r z 00 01 N ;+ r 01 N r O W 0 to C I V W V N r V W 00 01 W r UI gj- to 01 A V r r to N N 01 to CO at N V V to to to AAA I-' 4h• 00 -, N @; O 'o 0 v W at r r r A ✓ r r r r at N r 0 0 O t•! N r 01 0 0- N 01 0l W to N co 01 In N O V N N ID in0 V O WG to01` N` O a''; 1 o o i0 o O° o Oo 0 0 a Orn o o t o o c r O N W W s 2 N -< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o rt o 0 0 i 0 — t0 N CO CO A O 01 W M 7.; = m � y� A M n -t y z to r C) 00 K CD e-t- D 3 -i m 17.3 73 • m 0 -- — ..i ID no n N AO 40 EP,.64.to IA 4A 4A. EA 49.-CA to to 4A .01..01.t/F iR an 411.4.9.to in r f1 XI A A 0 7' W W N N '+ 1-' '-' ED 03 V V CA 01 Ul N A A W W N N r r CD N l v O O In O IA O Ino In O Ino In O VI O N N O 7 r7* N O O O O O UU1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N 7 (� a7,, R O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o d m C0 (1 o 0 0 0 0 0 o 4A-+n to- to at v+40 ut- - to iPr- too K 9 �� ED CO V V 01 01 In In A A W W N N r+ r M F N 3 'A iR to to V' to tO tQ tD A tO A to A t0 A to A 43 A tD A to m 111.111 (D 7 0 W N N r r '-' O 40 t0 t0 tD t0 t0 tD t0 t0 60 to t0 t0 40 tO C o r* n Loo to t0 to t0 A O I MIMI-• ED tO tD t0 tO tO (') 14 H c §' o o D C D ) ED Z n;n' MEMO= v nn. H 7'I0 0 = 03 n• • C C M 0 . . C �S O C -n 'T) U1 �d 7r r r iCO N A U T i r .1.< ] 2 Q) n• o -< m r in N -EA N ..+ W A In A A t+ r r A V 3 NO N t0 In 01 W W r In W O lJl O1 W O1 r co In 03 W N N In N N F' t-' V Nit I-, V N O W tO In N V V N A W W A CO to N V t0 O V V 03 In r+ CO CA 03 .de V In O to V A t-` V r t0 01 O V t0 A V W V N W W A EAV 0 tO E.0 CO CO _�t /0 Y` CD N 13 / '+ r r r tO O M CD O O N W t0 '+ Ul N N A A W N F' N N O O '+ O O O O O W O A 00 r i0 i-' '+ In V O r A t0 A t+ A In N O O CO to V Co A W N N O co 0+ o o e a a'• s a v e a' o a a' o a o 0 o a a o a' 3 r r m' tR tPr A t+ t-. r N In 01 I31 In In N N N N N N N t-' N N W. I-' N W r 01 I-' W CO A W A l-' 0 O tO 01 01 In CN I-' O W N N In V O t-• CO 05 LA 01 Ot H- A UI In V W 01 01 r In O A W V A t0 In A 01 In N O In W V t0 W r W r - -� 0® ig ECEiE ®PEIEDEE;E EEE[.DEEEg EU CD 0_ ✓ cr . ` m .to -;:. D i CI "t i j-_----- i -- L--- = ri )' ( j> ---:L-' --0 L C1) r % 1 _--_ XI I M _---77- -_ •:4- (/) M :::1 ... , 4,e• r P ort-w4 CI) , n -I ,. IU) a cn . . < —1 CI) CD =" - CD CD a) •c a) = -h e--I- #.7.7 CD EF. gi) w -0 CD = CDC:1- =— = --. (0 91 0 cu ...< = CD -1-, cc C2- Cr co 9) Cl) r-1- c ,< CD _ -0 S1) Cn- Ca_ 0 Zy 0 0 CD 0 sa.) ....... ..C3 Fe -C) -3 =11 (.0 a ,- -n ...., ; 0- = CD CD = ,--4- 3 ---. ;‘, o 0 0_ = = cn a) = CD ,-,... ,...... < -..s 0 CD 3 5 ,?.,.. -0 .) CL 5 0 —s = —, 0 - -I, CL cp. o 0: tj CD 51) ' 5 -, "0 (1) 0 -, C) 0 cn -0 CD M.. 9) cn = 0 a) ,-4- r—i- ea si) , -0 CL all CO Er ca Cl) a Cn 5c) o-=. ...„.. ._r_. ,_ .. 0 . e-- ..-.4, S CD c 3 8 ...=1•--- CD ND 0 3 -< o_ cr. 03 m 0_ CD = ' r..) ,..19 NNNNNNNNN "1 '--- M.. 000000000 -.-. CD N) co ...... U) CCD 13) 0) (PP N N N I" F-, I-, f-, I" I- " N I-, 0 lb 03 V o1 U1 N CD 3 a) = ci) 0 ND 0_ CA el . a) 0. ( ) Cl) cn — a) = -----I a) c C = = 0_ 0_ = e-1-. f-.., CO 13 -1 CO eL .7-li a) =.- " = -- Srl •P' al 0 al .!-" 1-n .!-n -0 iti CD . •• < tv Iv 1•-) 1,.) sr..) UD a, a) .-..F = 0 . CD 4N 41a •P 41. 4::* A- A A et r''''' M 51) CO 00 00 00 00 •P-I. 00 00 0 < a) CLZ > a) 0 CI "--'S 3 0 Lo w w 03 _.., ow 61) — 0 ... ..-s- -cm -,-, Lo 0 .4. w ts.) 1-% M 2 CD. FIT cu --. ., .4 w cri D. c 0 a 0 63 , U.1 00 N 00 al NJ cn -P. co (I5 0_ --' -I = 5 l.e., e-4- 0 ,&.• 0 0 r) r-i- cr a) 3 = to -s --s 3 3 -0 CD -s 9) 0)al- ci) .!-" .14) v el-, = fr 0 cn (/). ,-1- , w co co l.0 N V GU i..k CL rt. -0 * 54- § 5 C) vicov.., 0 fa., 0i .4 W < 0 413 .. ...,-1 a) (e) CD 0001 V tO 1.0 I" A CD (/) ...77-1CD 1 0 = r+ C )18 c.-5• 5 = = = = "13 CL 73 ...-1-: .... = ;4: CD 71: -0 -0 - — --s = $41 to cl) CA 0"1 "", = cp CD CD 3 ' -1 F-1 < co ..-2. 3 -ED = = cp 0- A U.) 0 00 O. CD SD co Pi= 24 -;1"-' .5.. N V V On 0 Ui U.I .1::. ,...t.° in° M- CD °-- a.) 0 C D ,CD NI -" 02 C/) -j 3 - •••• . CD CD= ti a • '' -0 ICD NI crs w ....2 w h& su r...r. = .- ,,., (/) VJ ,+ --• N U1 N U.) U1 01 V LI) = CO .-t. M.. 7:3 •--`" C D i i 3 3 N V A 01 0 us w 1-1 .P. a_ CT cn 3 k cl, 3 a) a) co -i-• 0 6 cn a) = M. .) --c CD ,--.- C) = CD 0_ CD- = r-s- - cn 0 ca. —• ct_ 0 _. 3 = , (1 3 CD cn - cr) CD 77...--.. _. 3 -,- = 0- 0 = w CD C) i-..... -.,...-.3 CC) CD 0 ,...i.. -", w r+ CD CD CD 0.. CD i--P. --1 '•-•• ,--1-• c..,......) < * Oa (1) -- --1 CT CD = C-) = CD C/)__. 0 0)__. '< CD -s --.1 = 0 = °,• X) ...."-`, 3 cf) M .< . m ox, = a) N) SD = CD > 09- CD * r-t CD -s -0 -• :7", 7j 0 raD '''- -0 , a) O,. -q, C) "I -0 0 0 = ND CD ‘Z. ' •:'. I (/) CD CD C CD CD CO CC CD o CD o 73 73 m T3CD Ci) C)• m a CD 0 Oco . a TT w 0 CD N C3' co p cD- —'• co CO -0 O ® i $ g 0 < O �11> _ £ ," i s§ 7. ' 7:1 - Ca. 1:33 C S I ' ff '_ T> 1 cp ,—P- m3 w C O Z f0 n... -v H - - �• 0 E USO s w CD cn • a 3 _ -z ® w 3 • = `C Z con YLi cE O C G '� m co - c- > CD (a =i g) a = CD fo D fD0 a t J sq i 01N CDJ GO a!" n crl t. CD N V CD B J ^ ' cn O O 83 1 C CD G., 11 1 0 co a 3 N n GI Q ' 8 ''^^• rM C V+ 9 o (I)3 I-I - = r.y. .sm . CD Ci) l OW �- �., � C. _, • z ncu -0 Z C t< CD r _ Cn 92N M i rDki< - (.) dt CD n 5 --I —I cn 0 sv 5 acc• Cr a -0 SI) Z =s O CD C_D. r,'., -0 ,...,0- rn ,-f- c 'O ca. CO 0 `C 0 X-r O = 0 M- -0 -O O- > CD = O O O Q ,--�- r-t- C C Cn rzr. cn .-t• = O Ute) "i CI) O CD �' 3 Sv Q — N rF• _ ' CD CCD - N 0 CD W CO CA O '�J tV r =': 0 0 D v p < 'a > m S° D CD W S= CD w v m " m = R. v v d 4 Q IV -�P O .-f- Q _. m ® ,c = cn CO n CD n m D v) v �' Cl) 1 O 0 n- - 0- m ra -0 CD T M Co CD S= 3 N °� 0 °� Q -' CD C' CO 3 m Z A. Q O- CD SI) r'" CD O m,_1- Sc = . 2. O Q CD C) - -I = -. CD . CD LQ O -DC = c ea = CD ' < OT N CL rnO, et CD cn w 0 mO CSD 5' S ) ,-i- Q Z3 o ` CD CO ' 0 0 0NJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 - p CD 0` C --t., O T O CO Q CD n O �I. . CI) Cr CD 0 Q Q -0 rn 5. cnSD N P W .P N W N W W - Q CD CI 0 CD Q 1%) o cn w 0 0 0 .P o O CD O O O O O CCD "' LU CD Fe ` rF EDrn = CD D . - M - ea : � CDO- CD OO CD SI) CD -0 co. -O cD CD (I) CD 0 Q a 3 = ..-= :.,.- m . ® O CD m _ = CD Fe O cn n m f P CD CO/� . CD , Z 0 • • • • a e • • • '' n -O cu C') C C) :U 0 m n o 3 Cn C0 C) o "0 C) m 0 (D o 0 c CD 4. c m D (D o o (D o = o = o c o 0 a o o -0 o :-.• ,s, _ cn m a c CD •C. c v C v 3. 0 c c o 3 +� _ c o o o 3 = 3 w 3 m 3 3 -, a".< 3 3 `< m 3 m 3 m 1 3 m = (D Q v XI sz = O = C7 = = sn `< ,,- = = _i = = = CD y 0 O- o .� -cis `4. _ -0 sv ur' o a 3 m 0- "3 a- h-o 7 m = c7 0 cnn m (D (D _` -�, `< 0 ,-�. Oo ,-a SD .-.* fD - 't (D .--+' O a . '• * 0 '. o o „. N 3 rn Q CD -� CD n O CD O O• (D a CD O n CD CD .0 =' (D C O .•f. N 1 .+ tZ n =. O- `2' CO O (D CD CZ CD CD O -� CD -o 0 c -� CD 0 `° 0 3 m m CD 0 3 m m O tD 3' a CD a) 3 x - 3' 3 rte) o 1 1 sou m o nx �' o -ca m 0 o -0 n3i m 3 c m m o < N CD X77, v 93 O (0» = o 0 0 n Q N -10 (0 v a o --fi J m Cr m E_ m- = -•, 0 = •< c m m 3 zs NOO � ro (On 3 O (D C.9 4-4. 4-4- =' c S = 0 o ca C)'< sv N co c CD { O 0 CD co O� Co 0-" 0 co 3 m CD eL n) O- c N 3 3 sv m ?- m sz o .-.- CD sv 0 (o a =,, — c = .-.• = 0 0 ED zs0- 3 m m �- o :z m- Z m c = -o 3 C o m o al CD o o ui x m p n • o a) @ (� .69 m o CD m o 0 0 2 0 3 N • , n CSD s ,� CO o ,CD ill CD = CD o n) m cn s (n m 3' v CD y u) N Q- -, c O- 5 o 5 ((DD 0- p o = a, fl) m' n1 CD 5 O N•D CD G4 0 �-) 0 3 3 3 m o D c CD CD (0 CL _ 2 n o N - C s+� 3 II) - 3 c m = CD (n -, Q o o o sv • Da CD A- o-r 0- co O .0-,- O- O- m 0- 0 O, " o m -oh O 0. 0 Da c° ( a) --' 3• CD sy c 3 s o Cl) ci)c 0 c a;. CD " = IV • m a O CD CO -• •, 0 U) O G o 0 CD c 3 O o '' C CD CD - v (WD Cn 3 - - n 0 h (D -, O 3 = -++ CD O 0 O� CD CD 0 O •« =s, < 3 - •-* _s. (n << a .O_e N CD CD CD O 0 O (D O 7c �' C7cD CD CD a) 3 iZ O -, 3 II CD n O N 3• 3...00 O o B v im-' 3 �_ N @ CD s (n `< O =. .4- c 0O v �_ Cl)O SD 51) iv c = 73 CD . . * O '""' (�D O O 0 C7 c-,.«. 1 O CD .�.• —I 0 < 3 i)) iZ !v Cn' -`CD .fir Ocr CD O 0' O (D -++ D C7 -' a1 @ Fp' CD CD Sc o = Cn CD 3 --, c O 3 Cn sv 3 = �' c* CD _S CD 3 fl) - o-. CD O O Z s (D 3 3 = c o 3 O cD " 0_« c Q- s = a -, NOY 5' vOi E `< c N N p Q = CD 0 CD O CSD CD 3 W 3 a CL = = (D Cl)V, CD c ES co CS a) 7,:-. g O CD Ul �0, O CD 0 O @ 0 0. o 5 `< (D '•'s — c 0- c) •II -' O 4-4-- -' CD CC) -i O — CD to CD CD CDCD co cno r,.. = CD O S (D a N CaD o c g 5 CO(2 = 3 — CD =' 0 CO CDCO O N o N = — ((D = O o (D -Gs O = (O O N N O < C� �G N Sv CD' '• ° co sa CD CL C) O C CD N -, . N C O co Sv n _ :E-'3 0 - O c o CL O < "0 (lOi o O 0 C0 3 O co O O o N (D C� N II 3 O 0 SD 5. -i -0 0 0 -0 .p CL z O n ) O O o -, (D CD O ? II7 CD c = = a) 3 `< * tr = D- *, ---I m o Sn o O C7 29 sD m rn 7 e) O (D o 0 �, iu • c O N y = t3 n N o tD ff) m e m - 0 a. t s o sv O 3 o sL-a 0 O Oo -, n0) 2 0 0= = Z D = 0 . -0c0 OQ n O cD CD n CD 0 CD D D O 5. _ C N ON — 7 O oCD c51:-- v ' 0 CO c noN3 omov 3 `3 m3o 5' sv g c m a� 0oo .Ca a. D ? m 3 0 a) c *C 0 S c 'a CD o Eu 0-h O 3 —I CDD 5. .-« o O CD 3 0 O CS =-� CD O = _ fOi tD 0' v) 0 Q < 30 0 CD o 3 3 ,.•; ID Cl) o `< O O C!)' 0 co CL 0 .,- - m cn -a c p c o o =' CD 3 n. <'CD C o Cl) = ([) `C sZ CD C `) C-ftD CD -p N 0 O 5' n = GD Q CL 0- -h 3 -0 ED = Q ..� -o N m (o o -' n-�• co ? v s 0- o 0 a) o (n CD Co 0 c- 3 cn 3 0 g rn CB c v . 0 co o _. 0 T co a 0_ CD C� v v -• coo 3 01 00 n Cl) 3 Ca - 0 C) mo CD '=—. o• O N• c CO (D p Cl) iv 00 ' O N m O 3 (n W o o -n O hs-h 105 -� v CD O O 00 Sv 0 -t CD n CD C) 0 = CD o CD o-sly 1:13 n - U) CD -o 3 CD CD O C) O o = 0 to (D c n' COD 3 '8 GJ CSD C CD t3 = n O3 SZa = SZ '� 0 01 * 3 - m N _ * 0 CD m 0 3 o rn a) o c- 0 G) s o c- c- -, o- CD 0 0 ';' 7Z1 X m < 3• -o CD * Cl) c • 3 0 < CD << 0 co O C__D CD O v v (<D .' 5_ (D Cin m rn S — Cl) m 0 co sv (c Cl) 0 0 7CJ c y Ns m X v o 0 0 n I V1 . . 0 ah --Iob --1 M -0 - =-• CD M = 0 0- o o __ cq N ts..) IQ N s< = 000000000 CO -.,.• 3 NJ NJ NJ F-s i•-s 1-s i-s 1--, e-s NJ i--s o CO 00 •-•.) cn Ln N -. = o o_ -=.: CD 0) Z CI) = k< 0 -4, 0- 0 o C . CD cn- cf) '-.."6 < 73 ET UJUJUJUJUJUJ 44UJEr co B 5 - co 0 0- z 3 N 0 CD CO -....1 •-•.) 01 U1 U.) it e ...74 •CC) .}.° CC) .!`•-' 9) '---1 1") 0 ID (.0 ars, CD= -CD CT) CD CI) 0 W 01 -P 4N U-1 CO (.0 l.0 (II O 0 3 `•7°- M w" CD (0 fa) ,-*. 0 - cr) .-I- --+1 = CD S :_i ci-. B a o c-L3 =. -- (-1 -I ri:.- Po ' CI „." =- 3 (D3 ci) a4 1.-s ., ,C;) ..L. CD CI) -..., 5 = CO 7-4." ..........' 0▪ a tp Ul CO 0 U-1 CO Lis U. '-'- '-'- 7-7 ct- a) Z CrI N..) U1 0 01 (-, 00 44 U1 Lel --' Cf) CD O.. -. CD --1-- -. - '0 17 0 73 - = - kw ca. -• •-i. -0 0 al (I) "0 171 ---) = s --1 0 0 0) = CD 5 0 CD sr) FDs NJ N N.) N.) = 0 C7 = m: 0 EC 3 Fe, cu 3 0 EF 73 (--) --s CO CO 0 N U1 01 00 CT) 0 -5a2- C ° Cn C7)- 0CDS 73 1:' '3 CD ca. B co 0 '< --.- aa 3 o w M CD 0 0 W oi a, o 3 (77; C3" = 8 CD .•H Cf 'e •eCP ) .0e , O. Oc0) cu - BBB -. `< t' cio 2, x 73 CD Cl) =" 0•• -0 -4., ,....t. 0 0 CD = = 5-- sm 0 ,.....,. 0) ,--- -- c = " =.- w (7,-;" ss3- (D 0 cis-5 0-, cp 0 in f+ ......=. N N N N N NJ N N ....._ al 3 r-4- .T1 = 5 ••1.-- `< 0 cu Z S.:n ,Lrl ...•4' .P' .!•4) -rs-' Isi 1' 0" -73 < CD 0 4 01 CO 0 NI--, •--.) 0 ,.--‘ = en- *--1 -11 0 CI. CD l. .1 . CD .4.' Ci) ,..-} " •11 0 CD Ca. 01 00 N 00 V 1--4. 01 V a.- 0 c-ii --,. * 0 F-, 0 1.0 CoU 03 0 4. (.0 tis =-- .... r-s- CD "4* 0 0 X rn c.n c.n tri (A Ln ul u, ul n) - CD ?-) 2 F-1).-N. cD=" -6 > Obbi:DOObb = CD 3 Q. CD CD c CD0ç c-) 1.,) "C3 = CD 'a° 49. es •A) •a9-. e c'' e. M = CI. 3 = 0, cu = o o Ci) co = en ni 1--, 1-A ,!-1 0 0 0 CO LO ..1 = CD t.;:<-_,-: B ,::::, 0_, =-• '-<_, cts CJ N.) = • o w I-s (.J.) ,-./ N.) -...1 0 at ,i• z a) V 01 00 `....1 VI 0 .4. I" 0. cl) 0. CD a) CD CD CD =" 0 W 0) = w CD -4, * C 73 0 CD CD -;:j Da 0 c:::1_ (--.) -n • ..•• (.0 es. >< CD 0 ,...., 73 0- .< C/) 0 CL) CD 0 ..--.'- col ni - cn 01 01 43") 0) (7) U1 U1 i2-5- ct) "CD --% ,-..! :.,.,• 8 P., 5 '5 '.th,' 3 g " g g c. gggg 0) 0 0 Co CD '-`"= 0 Q. 0 0 ci E -I 0 m 0 i--1.• ,....., CD co 0 ..., Ili 0 cl) (7). a) = w -s = cs, L1.3 1-, LID ••••.1 CAS 00 •--.1 ci., X' .... 0 .-th'- 5- -_,-.1 ,_<. M N CD CO 4.).) 0 UJ 00 CO 0) 3 ,.., = --1 C , NJ ....,"' t-1 01 0 cr, 4:t. cri 4::. NJ 0. CDL CD cn = --_, -1' -:.--.- =- cn in cc n 730 5. CDC') CD 3 al. 0 0 CC "r3 CD C/3 ,--1- 0 .91 .571 P PI gl Lrl .V1 ..1-11 13 FL; 73 o ,r- c 0 cc) 5 ci) it '-+- 0 = • B 03 00 CO 00 CO 4 CO 00 0 512 .7-,.) Sa.) 1 --1-, e•-t- s..., = 70 CD CD a) 0 ca. CD = CD .!""' 1- m 0 =-- 0_ " 0 ,< -'--*' = Eri. --% CO 0U.) N1 4 I--, 40 3 r- CD 0" - 0 ,---, ti) CD C/) --.1 4 U.) CO U1 CD U.) U.) 0. C --1, CD U.) 00 N CO 01 N 01 4. 0) 0 _ = st C) h ,--,- --, 0 CL -• 0 Q) CT D) c:i cl CD * cn = -0 a) 31 co (r) 0 Hi - CD 0 DJ C K cn ,""-- .$11 •!..%) •N 1" 1" = - co o (-7: CD 5' 3 SA l0 00 ID IV V GQ 1" Ct. ei. = . V1 00 11.3 0 1" 01 ',.. Lia Z. 0 1-s- 4.0 01 00 5: CD -- CD 0. CO 2. _ Cl) 0.. ti i tn Arn C CD 311) 0 .) h< 9 1to3 Rental Rate per SQFT 0 0 "' N iv C O = Ci) to = Ca CO 0 0 0 0 CO @ -a Q' o -� o CD CDD Jan-11 c CD C 5 SD SD N a) May-11 CD CD �- -t �rn Sep 11 CD-Ci3 `C CDD �- CD ■�'/'�' Jan-12 ,o r+ CD 3 :C D4 O ,-ti V J May-12 O [n O !y •-+ C? CA n Sy C2. Dim: O_ co Sep 12 = C Q Q O O Z m Jan-13 N a May 13 Crt SD 73 CD ,-r O CD n O 0 CD _ 0 T O V Sep-13 �• `< CD `O c 0 CD a Jan-14 7aO) - n C7 C—D CD CD - c) O 0 May 14 •sr+ Di CD --s C.TI C cSep-14 CD .< O70 w C .—t- = C 0. yL 'D - Cl) to w Jan-15 a �V I May-15 Sep-15 Dry, CD �- Sy DD `< CD CN SCD = CD ii.) O r CD =Jan-16a r-r n * = Q. Q QCD May-16 = Q _- � ) Cl) = _ Sep-16 S\ \ v CD l) CD O CO = Cl)Cn Jan-17 = DJ = = CDO C31 T May-17 CD '< XM Sep-17 ' 71 Jan-18 May-18 M 0 Occupancy Rate 00 00 00 2 T. T * o g e o o Avg SqFt Slut Jan-11 w o r 0 0 § o i i = May-11 73 Sep-11 r, M Jan-12 ,.• et O m May-12 = c til 141 "H Sep-12 0 2: rF =Jan-13 -I O� May-13 n• i n 41 y w C Sep-13 otr, c D Jan-14 A ° c N °° 3 fD !i`�� 0 o May-14 13 I : rt T v o• Sep-14 7 . /�+ a • 73 2 Jan-15 ,C o rt Oma\ Co c tD May-15 g Z Sep-15 CU "t to Jan-16 CDD May-16 n Sep-16 0.1 Jan-17 IV May-17 0 0 ta N au o i-, v w s' vs b, Sep-17 v+ u. v+ vs v+ w vs la us N Avg Rate per SqFt Jan-18 May-18 m D%< X7 I in CD CD --I K CD 0 t-, 11011111•1111111MINI II IL < tr8 IMINIIIIMII CD CD -' Ca, ry 0 CI) Eli 741 t•-. ),• „, 6. - — cp ci) -,. 171 ,i ,, •-_, - I D =_, 8 = o 5" c-) simmis. = .....I r.i.` ........, = : x-i: CD CD B a ,i 'IL s!,,' -•' oo • = CD Co '-' awimmil 4 '="-.: 3 ti) 0) 5 IN-. ___ cn = cp , ,..CD - c1) c r, 'r ' Vo • T< 5' °- = < CO tiVEMEMPERWL.:I ill s.), N.) co- (-..: i 3 CD P.' CoSD --(5 o .. CD 7 -Ti - CCD _...1. -1 ...—t Vi g = Cl) 0. Cl) CD CD B S 11 CD --s M- X ' CD CO I fflkiffit._ = 0- 0 0 0 * = --i ,_,_ -. )i.• o _u_ I g --I CI. ?•,' fi,' --,i, 1.11111.11.1.11" ci Et CD cp 9 CD = .... ,--4-. 1-1 kU i i3 I '‘ Co . , . . ca. 3 = 5 Cl) ç) = • '• c,, Co Illana*V--, •co 1. ci) si) = a) a) 4.,7 CI. M < 0) = : 0 MNEMEhili,,,t, CP . 7) : =s- 0.- cn 7 a) Cl) o - --i••, CT Sn -' Cr 0 ; (Th."'' a) 0 --<mommtais..... CD -/ 7;. •=-1. Cn „ = C : 0 Ca 7•••=s: IMBEINEElli ,ll 0 `•-• C) """ea * CD Z z• !F`,. si) CD e.-t- 0.. = CI. ,-, j-C A 8 18 A111110MNIML: ......, 0 = < 0 a) ."'"1 . . co .-, : - • cn= ( co CD FDI CI) CO ' '9" F3' 1111111101111116,1-- 2 (1) 5- Cl) = F, ,..., , • ca. CD 0 0_ 0 ' MMIIIIMIsims cip c 0 3 Co B = . co = ----.: 0) CD 5 - cl) n = = Mannibm,.. c . = C): ct-CT 0 Cn a =" 7-11%. NJ- CD 3 •••••••• ig MENEMIN...j... '....:...1 .....' \J •—• CD 7 -5-<- = CO CD Cl) = C7) "8', ,.-1.• -0 • cl) Ca. CD = -1 0 -1 z cn -=1: , --I. 0 .---, = 0 a) cn 7 o < CO = o CT ....... r•-.1.` .--p, ..< = !NO = CD . Co g Le, ,, ,e, Co 8 8 8 i T F 0 GO cr 71 -4 CO Co t.'", a . —; r-q- cp r13 ci.. - CI, _., f••••+. _., co cp co ',D4 IIIII 0 -4 7o -1 < O. 0 0 CD a 0 7j cp — g e. INN cr R- ro = 002 ' w SIMMINIMMMEMI a co (c) = 0 Co 0 os NM 0 h ,-,-- ..,... 2 6- -4. 0 2, -, . . -•• ,- 0) • =- .. ... N. a cp c.... 0- cn = 0 0 =a7, 0- ... 0 fi3 M • ?u•-' KC . „, 5 Cu Di in to . I 0 = 0 . a 3 -ii CO = 0 CO ,z '. MINENNIE cra x C -- C 0 --s ..zi- Co '• 3 ,2. a) = Cl) Co g 73 .' -0 c sT 111 .— CD IV CD c-1- cn Cn C) CD • Co 3 ifi II4 ..< e, N Cl) E:5- CZ) Ca = CD u, co Et. _.71 • •.,-• x xi 0 c ea cu C 5 Co es es) CD NC 0. 0 -- ::"1 = = 1 w 8 1 D = r-4- ...< 0- CD 5- co a Cl) 3 0. Cl) a) >7 ct) 0 ' 8 111111 ,..i 0 a 8 IMMINS4 -C3 0 — — — 0.) 0 0 CD (CC Co CD 3• N O ,2 1.1111M FI) CSD 3 co (-') CD a) CD a) = c Cf) = 0.) = - W P- 111.11111 ,--i- a) = , (,) •• 0 C.) 0 M M 7- 0 —0 ° M . c =.. . . _. ...< 0 = • 4., . _ cn CD = 4.3 CD ._...c.r. lova+ •1,111.1to••tro 1N% ::: II t 5, .. _ N--- . _ 41hiel icii .: ._.. '2. 0 , , Li r : IllI -81 I e'l i 7• t Z I, ' _ , -_ -- , , 73 = CD a: 0 c.... — M ea ,LR"' 2. -0 = CD CD ,--o-CD '' >---I -= - : -' --Ic---r : E>cD=: _ __ I- I.' 'V ' - X 0) - . 0 SD -- M K z -. i. !ell ' _ = ___ C.0 to-- 4 - . - it,1•8allazea kilo 4 s/q11.1.6,1 - "''' 0 Cn r ,--1- 11 3 - - ' = " ' 0 0 0 CD —4-, 53) —. • 0 0- -5, .. --, = cn cr, CL 3 CO I —1 , = Ifilo D ...I. ••• 0 0 CD cn _ > 0.) 13 * , n) eL a) 0 ii g 1 2 o o = N.) Ci) cn —, c) a) CD ‘.< _ 0 Cr) cD __ 2 C CO a.M i il 7 L. CI 1:3 X.,17, 7 '1 ' 7 P t M 3 4 v .—I- ...-.P - `-. •••1 PO 5 17 . W —1 =, Ha 3 1 I .""S I-1. 5;3° 1 CD = CD E, .-...Y. CO = ,t -rs CD * o CD CD U) (7, '' 'IC --I . _ c...,,, *. -0 il') : . , S.' . -'7 D' 3' 3 CU c . ,. ,--4- E .1.. tEI CD 0 ...z. — C) = "—I- F). 9 Cl. CD .1.• __. 0.. g = ,---4, 2 = ci) .:, q CD cp CO = 0 5 El " L' hi = a __ , a .i. m ..... 7 23 v#W •,--1 n -I L U PQM Wg a [r > 0 0 a) x LU c a 0 C w Cl.) o C n f. 0 U -0 0) a) o2$ x c o c a) C1 U CD o 0 c o* l6 N CO = CDco O 0 N U co CC O O 02s �j C 4--, O -c o c c� c :.c) o p 0 c LL >, a o +, - cn a) ate) • 'U) o 0 U) a) a) U) a c W NO v0 01,) N v) o2f >, LL1 a) m g c a`) o °� a) o a) -o m ix CC c a) cn c '3 E '� o O ..co m o -c v - a. s ¢ p a) vas < 0 Q — c UJ m a aa) c o. v a a g C o D > Q css U o �+ Q c L �° r o o O o 'C3 c6 -o c c = O :� C Co > c a) a) ors o :32m -0 a) w a) ( o ci -c O- o E _� m c6 as)i a) cca is E E rts X�x m a c) m o C CD m E E c "vo) a) ti,c a) U o v CO ci) o 0 a) 0 W Q W a_ a_ 0 u_ ct C/) = 0 0 0 � L a. n 0 I- d 0 0 C > C o -o o N Q U 00000 c'0 -.may. N = C 0 c.'r) v cB cUI) sU_ > O C a) N :.a U c ti 0 O -- 0 0 >o -c 0 ami cu 0) c4 m .0 m 0 c U o o >, C c n 0)'c 0 a) aa) s c 7 u) o v in _ c a) ° o c RI CO S o 1 c -a ca O a) 0 U) U 0 x c a) o c a) .c °) •cn o ami ccs - > � 'c -a m = a) o c Cr) 0 - w z3 c'n a) a) -s c c o _-0 -a 0 E o_•- `+- a) a) O m o a) as a) 0 O o o a) o a) 07 a) 0 .0. c s a) an`. >, comas as .� -c E 0 a '8 U co c _` U en O o >' con 0 -c 0 >, E N E Q a) `) as _ t L "O -O O �� - N > 0 a) S �� > - z� � m CO • • o c o o v) c�' U c o E �..cu = c O0 Rs C �O a4 L._ "_ 0 Cl) •a) c a- c U c ca >, a a) v c E O ..... >, a) o c 0 cn c v v o 0 c 0 _C - o > 5, o U cn co S - co .x - E c E2 a) " Rs a) O c E c c "co in co o -c o 733 a) .E) co E a > 0 O E c� cu ca as w ca c U coa c m m oo..-c o S 0 v o a) v 0 ca co-E 0) E S E '� a) c S c - 0 C6 Q) C :._� a) Ctf _� 0 y ,E o > ' C his o o a� Z -Eo 0 0 0 0 `) 3 a) c -C3 a) 0) o Q S <- a) a) a c a a) c o 0 c o .0 - .� Cr N o a)- O L._ _c as ca -C cci) a) N aci �c a) C a) o_ QC � o E a) a' c -c C C U C a) c a) c o 0 to C CB U a) E a)S c O +.. L U C C a) U > 0.. 0 U O 0 -U " N .0 ,...„0 C6 �t C t6 O 'O a a) N >..0 U - O Q) .O > 0 C 'c O N U a S o szt CO -� a 0. O U c © o 0 "a X a) ca > U 0 4) CO N C L2.. 0 . -p • Q•ra .� \/ 0- a) .c as co i > C E > '(n a) x a) -5- .a4. Cn = a s /0 LUcu 3) O Q' - 0 'C � Ls 0, ' O aC) -a 0 > V) W tC6 i •t0 •.= E o o i 0 . C 4) v- C E 'a) 0 E C O o co cn ...� U C6 > C 0 •as E a) Q) C C a) U CU ff a7.- E o O a) Q t4 -c O . 0- E >,— c: v- E a) c o 0 m Ls) �c U L ax) '5„ a '0 �L c o c v r` a) a) = 4.- c6 U x o 0 +- U y S O 2 O c o 0 N s 'CC 0 0 c 9_ a) CZ Z7 L U ` WaLIJ Q t / • .111 1• INC F N Q. E O U O N T 0 N N ca U J J C.) N a, N N 0 a, CQ 0 a, Q co as C6 t6 Cu ; ; O— I3 gill f .. 1 -: II "1411 e ,-1 AA' z"i,,` mjilLT t(It '; S 'Ilii ,IMII. ! 1 1M � I!i !P!/ 1 gaff' j ., ! !I % sh 1111i!ii iI-j1Iltt - ° ".A "`"i1lV /11111 q1 , .1., ,a 41 ll fill I nth II , . frill IErn- .SII i� ��� � ' i� , �i` 11 a ieaIPnge eonipanv� I _II I !IT,1. I A 1 I! APARTMENT __ DEVELOPM ENT FEASIBILITY STUDY Livingston Road Report Date: January, 2018 Naples, FL PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: 2201L,fhc� hlc Blvd Stock Development,LLC Chuck Ehmann, Real Estate Economist flirh.irci ctil I X 75082 2639 Professional Circle#101 1=. Naples, FL 34119 �J5_3 2:.1z axiorneett ics corn 239-449-5227 EXHIBIT "V.D.1" !�n IF' • 1 !! �! ! ! ��a „ t t y J. 41 AXIOIV1ETRICS �i . : `` :i� tr , �� 1 i;1 t !c111111 �l �{ it U i oliAt t' �E ! ,9 i�E''�zl(�'l m � ., 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 r 2G17 Pf,:-x nit trli;° LL'_: 4'r_ ,.tit-11;c P LLStf VEL) r _ n " [ l P.711 1 1111 411 I:r � frXIOIVIETRuS0 • ig jpitt, 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' P rovided 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 HEREIN. Please use such information at your own risk. C,2017 PP Axiometrics LL ALL RIGHTS RESERVED it,I I tAXIOMETRICS � � 4 ' ,}.� •�.q il II 1 � , ; t1 a RealPage company i! . 1 It ... ► 1 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. '22017 RP A.lon trlcs LLC ALL RIC-HIS RESERVED A ;,i1 tr, = iItu if is AXIOMETRICS® � ; ,aas ,,e ! 1 �l III I� t. a ReaIPag Cnrn0arr r t ' ' 1 ;" it e ' 'l� -� 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 SQFT Mix 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 MEW02+017 PP Axtometrics LLC ALL R(GHT RESERVED • 4'1 " _ it d j .� U.0 g 114 II 14,11 ' ea lila 41411 ; 11111, 11:„ PXlOI /1ETRICS !fili ,.•1= , , i m 11 �.." �e.. , . rjn u s 1 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) 2017 PP Axia etrics LL . ALL QR.:411 �rIIIA x 1�� � r ;I- giji AXISMETRIC " .� `'- #� �� I MII fiE'41f',3� com1}�7t; y 4'9111 ,a'*.. ii 41 1 ' .< t� 'I M 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. ll 1111 03 6 X IOMRIc5 r .i t- •. ' ,. !1 I NAPLES MARKET .+ t I-7 6..ki,„-1 ,/,...,, ,. , 1 f ' ' 2:1::: '''„,,. 4.",,,, ' l.. E r ,, t 47 x Tom �y. * • C--::: ,`,' 1 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 111.111W t.:2C17 Pi'A.K)rn tries LLC ALL QIGFITS 1.2ESERVEL) at rf Pi! -ta- lis- 9 1t'tKtl , . . � x3 FBF 1 `t■ I t t 1 N f byrt%a111 ■ °°Z'f +'-t., i luN AXIOMETRICS® a RealPagi company 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 Submkt New EN Eff Occ Rev iu 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 -2.2% 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 2.8% $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 `*!017 PP Ax netr,CS'LLC ALL PIGH 15 PE.SE.PVED ;t L —tea ,` $ '.� 1 I IF ® ; 1 ,04— �` f h d 1 ��8 triJ, 1 ,3 i f! ,r� 4' I' �t !11 AXIOMETRICS ®�} ' i � ! . ..`!i E I i 1# M}�; yi:' :�f '! s!1 ira 1L1 M' ea �, a : :;!i��4II ,� L 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 immt New Supply mai Demand —Occ Rate 6,000 1 - 100% - 98% 4,000 2,000 ` �� - 94% 0 , r�)� 92% - 9D% 2,000 - 88% -4,000 - - 86% - 84% -6,000 - - 82% -8,000 - - 80% N N Ni N N N Ni Ni N Ni N Ni Ni Ni N N N N Ni Ni Ni N CD O D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OO O 0 O O 0 O 0 - CO NOA00OCOON CD O W 077 6y CD O NiN W A C.11 0) CO D O N Sources:Axiometrics,a RealPage company,Census -' -" n 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. aster , : yl A AXIOI /IETRIcs® p,i �.. . :, ,." r" tt: l� � � ; �'ii 11 a RealPage r, m�,any if It,l A �.1 ' ( ' A i i R If M }j "' M !' NI. t� why .1ff Ug „_ _ t ' i -� k: u t I! - Submarket Share of Metro Absorption and Available Supply -,--%of Metro Available %Metro Abs 60% 200% ti 50% i 4 ,. 40% 100% o /; I rn 2 30% r ..1 %, 50% Q 2 I15 ` a 20% ; 0% 1 10% / -50% 0% -100% N N N N N N N N N 1.1...? N N N NO NO N N O O O O O O O O O O O O ON j NN(D (D (DOOOOO O It) V Om° m T m m(O (D (O O O O O O CO O V O OO V CO CD O NW .PSource:Axometncs,a RealPage company rs)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% 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 i 17 r4P Axxsmetricv LL';,: ALL PC,.HTS RESERVED ��� 1 � !!8 T �r., ;.� �• aP !! ® _ ° '�� � s� i t"[illi •_IIA " t AX' METR'CS � I t ! ,eel rljdip9 i� ;. ,NtiI -1. �� ) i a C3881P7q rOm,^,� ti' s�' iI i i i�'Ile I ` " II' ', ,� 'P r �a�' ! 1 Ritta << . Ue �' . - , rix' •; ., ..,... Occupancy and Rent Growth Submarket Occupancy and Rent Growth Occ Rate Eff RG 100°l0 15% 95% ,r' 10% 90% 5% $5°!° 0% 80% -5% 75% -10% LNO O O -15% N NN N N O N70lN N 0 O O O O C7O" " m " TibO DD OO O 0 OW mpany ON Source:Axiometrics,a RealPage co o• 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 ata 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% in 2022. Three-year and five-year rent growth is forecast to average 3.1%and 3.5%, respectively. 9 ) rill ' ' 4 -7 it c 1 1 . NI x ® ! .L"17;, t="ft ttih 1S . (l r ." /� v! 11 R AXIOIVIETRICS ��i` I i t fit` z~ r.4 ti lle d , 1111 E !n I3t�r 111 t i 'i a RealPagp rlr iDar,, i :" s I k �f('!W: ork. 016 �,ri' ,:it I Submarket vs. Metro: Occupancy and Rent Growth -Submkt Minus Metro RG(Bps.) -Submkt Minus Metro Occ(Bps.) 250 200 150 a c 100 c ani 80 •• 0 o A t%01 ‘vi/ V -100 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CO CD O O CD O O O O O O O O O O CD OO O CD O O CD O O CD CO CD CD CD OO O O O O O O _ . N N 00 CO O -+ N CO A (n CA V CO CO O -+ N W CO a) 00 71 T TI T 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 for proper 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. 1cr :2,-,17 Fdl-'4..0 -tTE'trif:u LL'.._ A.... E i��l•1 • AXIOM EIRICS . ,. .t I .. • . Cy t ,on i r,,;a IIP 1�.�- If 1! E 1# 1 L a RealPage rnm Jr., 1: Tlit im , meq' . :u b i, `, i I.- -! if Psi u int . 1 IA I( .It ! •bbl lr ± jl @� 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 -2BR 3BR 100% 98% 0\ ..... --.........-N 96°to ` �` r '`V/ 94% / f 92% 90% is 88% 86% 17 D fJ l� IJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 _ N W A N W A N W A -.t Na W .A -+ N CJ -A _ N W A _ N CA A O O O O -+ - -1. -+ N N N N (..., to C+) CA - .A .P - CJ7 CT CJS CT 0) 0) 0) OS V V V V Source:Axiometrics,a RealPage company MEW -2017 t1P Ax omettncs LLL; AL_RR H I S t4ESt•k�:EL? 1111 :" a 3 q"i � rt AXIOM ETRICS Q r /R: 111:. 11.-. . l°411/9131 IFa NeaiPage Ctmra wi � : . Revenue Growth Submarket Revenue Growth Rev Growth —Avg Revenue Growth Avg Revenue Growth in Positive Years 16% - 14% - 12% - 10°l0 - 8%6°/0 .1 4% 2% , ' 0% , ® . � 1 t. �.��t.-� -4% - -6% - -8% - -10% - -12% - -14% - -16% - -18% - N N N N N N N N \2) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N co Co o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_ o_ o_ o_ _o _0 0 o O O O (0 60 m O 0 O O O O O O O O N N_ N CO (0 0 -+ N W P Ul 0) V CO (0 O -t N W A (3) 0) V f0m Om -n N 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. 1111.11, Lr 17 r7F Ax trics LLC ALL RIGHTS F ESLF :LL) ¢1 � 15r, ,r,,�i b 1,114- 4� �� cc x'3 1 !( 1! # 114 AX ICBM ETR CSair It •a ,,., tl y , r i New Supply Submarket New Supply —New Supply —LTA New Supply —Inv Growth 3,500 - - 6% 3,000 - 2,500 - - 4% 2,000 - 1,500 - - 2% 1,000 - — • vI 500 - tD NV A fJl NO htnirtaihrl%....„/ ' 1y 1N 0% ' c.1C. rN NN O N NO O ON, ' , N 0 , NN N NO OO O V8 O O O OOOOOOO NWCD CD O O co A Vm'tec0 O O T TI -fl -17 m 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. c2 17kRAxron 4rir5LL,: .ALLl'2lt;tiTc,4ESSRVL 8 ® e` i [ ` t' {r;l l ,,11 8 �' # AXIOM ETRICa I d e ; 0 IF - Nil r . ti'+r. h8 . [[ Submarket New Supply and Job Growth imwm New Supply -Job Growth 3,500 10.0% 8.0% 3,000 6.0% 2,500 4.0% 2,000 .,` 2.0% -2.0% 0.0% 1,500 1,000 -6.0% 500 10.0% 1 II II I LO O N N N NT ONNONN N N NN N O O O O O j NNN N N N OOOOOOO O O O O O O N W(VN2 NW .PSOurces:Axiometrics, ON (31 Census,BLS 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 jobgrowth 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. 14 .D17 t.4 �hw= r tsa " -� -- • f •11 . 111 ) 1 `w3F ) t i� �t� ty..� s ! 1 . t ��� , t ` t ii 41 ", t z #• �� ' it 4XIOF1IETRIcs® . , r ) t, .I � 1.,�� ` ;� � �, a • 1,12 1U , a Re lf,aq r,�r� artti �` a i i t 1 9 ; ) " 1! 1 wit � � - 111 �Q � � Naples Submarket Mar 14 Apr 14 May 74 Jun 14 Jul 14 Aug 14 S414.'14 ep 14 Oct 14 Noy 14 Fcb 16 Mar 16 Apr 16 May 16 Jun 16 Jul 16 Aug 15 Occwancy(lased on Total tilts 21.6% 24.5% 34.0% 39.0% 50.0% 61.0% 85.0% 77.3% 98.0°0 24.8% 30.5% 53.6% 58.0% 67.0% 84.4% 926% Abs (this) 8 28 Y4 30 30 66 -2.1 51 24 16 65 12 25 49 23 Abscrp5on Pate Per Prcpert7 Per f4xnn 8 26 14 30 30 66 (21) 51 24 16 65 12 25 49 23 Aslig lien 31250 51252 51252 51228 51229 $1259 $1283 51241 51233 $1556 51653 $1658 $1669 $1682 $1662 $1669 Anlsg Pent lOe Square Fact $1.10 $1.10 51.10 51.08 $1.08 51.11 $1.13 $1.09 $1.09 51.45 $1.55 $1.55 $1.56 $1.55 $1.55 $1.56 Anlug Growth 0.1% 0,0'0 -1.9% 0.1% 24% 1.9% -3.3% -0.6% 6.3% 0.3% 0.7% -0.4% 0.0% 0.4% Hfecbre Pint 51250 $1202 $1202 $1178 51204 51240 51258 $1241 51233 $1556 $1653 $1658 $1669 3;16152 1662 $1662 $1669 Hfectie Rent Fer Square Foot $1.10 $1.06 $1.06 $1.04 $1.06 $1.09 $1.11 $1.09 57.09 $1.45 $155 $1.55 $155 $1.05 $1.56 Effect. Rental l%cw5t -39% 0.0% -2.0% 22% 30% 1.5% -1.3% -0.6% 6.3% 0.3% 0.7% -0.4% 0.0% 0.4% Cmcession Vahte $0.0 (550.0) ($50.0) ($50.0) ($25.0) ($19.4) ($25.0) 50.0 $0.0 40.0 50.0 50.0 $0.0 50.0 50.0 $0.0 Concessbn Value as%d Asking Rent 0.0% -4 0% -4.0% -0.1% -2.0% -1.5% -1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.095 0.0°0 0.0% Naples Submarket Apartment Cycle Expansion '05r111121131141 ,95 191'21 '18 , ■'06116r22 '20 ;17 8.5% Equilibrium '08 '09110 'al 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 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). t 11 A )(IO1V1ETRIcs � �, Lti IN 1 �F �It t , . I a RealPage rcm5ar,, " : !�E1II tl 1#il 16- I { Eire. it ik e,y utt: . 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. 16 :7 PP % ann€trlc LL :LL Wi(HTS tESEPvED 18XIOI\I1ETRICS® •�1::� s� � kt`ims,, N9 ! -- ° a l �R ,� rumsi.... i � i - �� 11 'tI d .l l t R .a zlq t� F 11!s1s lief' II9 13' !� '-- 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 6 Under Construction Pipeline Unit, 150 'a:l] c-re/stene LaKe a:ra • • aea 36° Surilaysat Cm!, u.ttil Stater Nnnh Pnlnt IIPen vvitt nrt •F'.16",,l ruti•.iI0'. ▪r �a tpt ■to= Mosaic:•••Oak t reex ••Hunita Ft!Lowe bubierto • Addlcon Place Legacy Naples incpiraattelyResot �alUmiutaks •VIncentlanVillage 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 Joumey'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 a 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 ii i : 1,480. :271:74- � ' .r � 11 4XIOP./1ETRICS® 7? Ili t d HeaI'84f Ct}fTi[k7r y 1.19 1111 ' tt c1i i i /g I t' r� Miss `. iL1 " ,44,"1.„'441:-, N I I � t - 111v360 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, are 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 Inspira 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 1� i _ �, 1 ,I( &XIOIV1ETRKS i FOtt 11 3 i-it?r!f'3�E!'�,(Ii{Sc7"•�` �1 � C�� ��qq��' r�' .�t I �ti�S � !� ■` !�I �� If N* 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 clusters primarily 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 t i pro I , Cifi'fl'; S. AxiOMETRICS I-eLLid. , I !I ki i r I iii1'!t ii` ' i . . iakPaiPar im^.0., '' l .,11lig ! Naples Job Gain and Growth Job Gain('000) -Job Growth(%) 8.0 8.0% 3.0 lielk „ ,,,,,, 3.0% (2.0) -2.0% (7.0) -7.0% (12.0) - -12.0% A A A A A A . A . A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A pA A w Qo g4'' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A. o p p p p p p p p p p pN N A - 00 t0 O I- N W A W Ol - Oo l0 O h+ N W A N 01 V 00 t0 0 I- N Sources:Axiometrics,a RealPage company,BLS U.S., Florida, & Naples Unemployment Rates 12.0% 'Naples Florida U.S. ti" 11.0% 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% i ,, 6.0% 5.0% ~� 4.0% .,.iii.,,/OIN/ 3.0% 2.0% N F� j-' N N N N N N i- N N N N I') N NJ N N N N N N N N N N 2 LID l0 to lD to 1D lD 0 0 lD O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O p O E•-+ NJ tO LO to W .P IOJt m V 000 W 0 0 W A 1017 001 OV OW IOD O N N W A 1�J7 O~1 E-4 V Sources:Axiometrics,a RealPage company,BLS 20 _ .. i, XIOF /IETRICS 0 ,! 1e �. I �) �� I � fll p S-Hl t_119111 9 q1I e {ill l P?if'1r= b �'eel ip11s • E. 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% } Leisure and Trade,Trans.& Hospitality, Utilities,18.6% 18.7% Information,1.1% Financial Activities,5.5% Edu.&Health Activities,15.0% Professional& 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. 16 I ii �LL ; �E� kf 11 �AXIOIVIETRICSeIV- ;22 111114H4 g iP.1111 � 11- # ` " :1111111511 :111'1 :: r . �• F f9 1 a 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 Garquiio 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 rots wM.e&.,otc-r.thn 1 ;t,277 :Ti to 355 whim =Mr AXIOIV1ETRIcs +�:. ���. a FsealPag- �-, a 14 � ' • a a, 11� !air Itso. ;f 9,1 Ili 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). MEWc``)17 kPAx►on*t1iLL ALL*Th F1I cF2ESEPr'EL) J ter ` II k 11,1— if 11 a AX IOMETRICS ;�. `�� #� d ; }d ° ��� ` a . l ' !1 1! ��1 I_ RealPa $rnm�h7 e Population Naples MSA Population & Growth ••••Population %Change 400,000 16.00% 350,000 14.00% 300,000 12.00% 250,000 10.00% 200,000 8.00% 150,000 6.00% 100,000 4,00% 50,000 I 'I 'IIIIIIIIIII 2.00% 0 0.00% tri Na VD'�tatotootototototototototo otm6to�toto'toI000'8 '8'8 00000000 1y+N W A Vvi Ci V(0(0001-'N W�N 051 V 1 W 100 N N W A tesla 0C1 V(00(00 O.9 WA c?, OCoa801--NNW?t~fa0C1 Sources:Axiometrics,a RealPage company,Census Bureau The Naples metro area's population grew rapidly after the widespread use of air-conditioning began in the 1950s,with Collier County's population more than doubling each decade from 1950- 1980. As the population base increased, annual growth slowed to average between 5%-6% through 2000. After 2000, annual population growth averaged 3.9% before slowing to less than 1%during the Great Recession. Growth returned during the recovery, averaging 2.1%from 2011- 2016 to reach a metro population of 365,136.Axiometrics forecasts Naples will continue to grow by an annual average of 1.9%-2.2% over the next four years, adding another 38,600 residents, for a metro population of 395,200 by 2020. The population of Collier County swells by about one-third from November-April each year because of seasonal migration from colder northern states. 24 "`r;i7 PP rvrn tris LLt. Ak; PIE 4i i ,� i Ir�oi g r ° 1 II , ft ® �r! r [ A �"� k!3} ! d I%R t( rx t`r �� • I! U u ■ " e' er 11:.; *tr € 1! AXIOM ETRICS 1■ � a iib?iP3q Corn;x nY t 41 ��t t vi 1 t� � .E ,<4.11111 H'4'ty it:1 e ffi ifow4i ti.-ate'° 90 1.1 , 6 �' i� �.� �s +� .. Flvo-Yoar Projaetcd Population Growth Rate Papulrtion i.ewth$mi-7-2x 14.2 as D, 1") 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. ! t ,Is 1 ,;,,1 r 1 '` fr !' 1 hi XIO1v1E1RiCS ,,i .! -- Ile ,- _le ,.. -�'-'' 'i.-r . 4 ' 1� 1 kPalP3 c;7-0,'Y - • mini A Ii g I'll— 1 y rp 1p il * . 1 { lir it 9 Its 1 Mt, m • ' l 1 1� !` Population by Age Group Comparison $ NINaples 2016 U.S.2016 •Naples 2005 A U.S.2005 A A 7.0% A 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 " "20:7 FBF'A.' r'= 'F I; L'_ LLL i-21t1FiTS ESE `1LL ,.» ', __ _: i ,t '11. !.f 11 if AXIOF¼/1ETRISm 1-- ' � r1s !e I - 11 n a .SII '4 it 1 MeaIP3q rlmDan, ' i�'!l1: �11' t# — . a 1 4t 9 : l : 1 t,` r �� — A E. .,� la" pi i..i n a F a I d :` ' 413t _, g �I, E 1 [ 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 t ... %a `'� 2CS A4:{meslivi) AS:0 41410 Af, ii . mer . ,,,- -40 i. : Tii d' 9;n lipli. ,.. ,14.1, la IC.t,1?....70 4 3 . 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 lifestyles. 4XIOIV1ETIncs® ,a l �� �� • .4 ./ ,>! 1 $ ( , �° Educational Attainment •Naples a U.S. 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% II II 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,townhomes, 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 at txi ;-xr r 1.t L`;_ .A__ l(;FIi 4 C9 c i r Ly 31 li11I°.Mg �f 3 � �t IF 4'u 11 , �. AXIO1\/IETRIcs � .� t r.i :�:d� E �� I! . I ��ti�e ail II t '1 a H€r3��8 Cfif 1i78ny' i B ii ! witsgtRanter Occ-upiod Unita late CrMn Oampid Kering Unite Household Tenure ■Naples Owner U.S.Owner ®Naples Renter U.S.Renter 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% :::: 5.0% • 0.0% " ■ ' 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 1l-11 1 1 11 11 11. 4: l Ali XIOI\/1ETRIs � r,';e� 4� 11. 41 111 X*yi a RP,aI{'aP Ct3rt1 i r ��i'�� 11 ,�; ' T ( � 1,; IF 4! ift Q• I -'}r it�� ( ii et to 7 i 7 41 1■ •r�(tlCj if Lug 11 _ (M t. l ,jft l :Ia I 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. IvMedion Household Income ur . F`r 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 c PAx n' trlcr, "_l Q1(3aITS i4EStPVEU ,t' �r 1, t a `�. t1: u p , AXIOMETRICS �} ;FP, �� 1- i.w ■■ ;': (� 4! fir] a kRalPagC cn, . .8 t �/i 111 3 � ii 111 I I a i N r 4111i, Eta tiff- lg + l� Ntuldl �!' �. Household Income 14.0% X Naples A U.S. 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1 11 11 11 11 11 2.0% 0.0% �� A�,°�° °° c� c°° f� c,9 `' d?,o°° �� �� ,'o a 0 Q 1 Lz) tioYa, oro o� o ° o� or ° ° o° h5fc tioo 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. 111111111W '017 PP A,,nrnetrr£s LLC ALL PIGtf I` qtr - t 0 �� � � k� , IIp � "� '� �1ir IIS ii AXIOMETRICS® �� a ReaMPa ,comnarty i f I I1 R r; i i�g :21.! y 3 I r! ��LiE � nY Ili _y ' • �� ! I =; ! PROJECT ANALYSIS: LIVINGSTON ROAD Property Summary 4 fr _- � SUBJE { • • a • c• l �.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 MEW2,117 1 A 1nietric LLC ALL 2It;Fi15 • I 1 mal t #i ' Bill '"�"� �`r!z ��.�Q I. l� i AXIOMETRICS ": filik,kett „ Inti :011Lhi at- ` � Eil � ! a lieai�'a(�F°c rt;,a" t as � i ; 11- j1 @ i 1 1� �� •sr11c. i � yet '10 ii i i r . 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°!0) 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. IMEIWA11.1111111.111=1=111 r �� .r e ; !,r'a I F op Bill f II II 'f a � ', It _ tr — lip . lip In AX IOMETRICS ,g, �� o1 mu At r „ t II i� - E 1A s. ply IF f! § I I�� f. 1 tlir '!■I A li a S :- I i `i I l,'. !� r 1— a ;, a Real('ar7 rnmtklrti� !lain a Ili 4l I" ' ' r [! "I t I l '1 4 r:N ft ti' 1 :� 1i., !P I. ` F 11 Comparables Table Size Range/Avg Ave Eff Community Year Built Total Units Size Ave Eff Rent Rent/SQFT lbdr 2bdr 3bdr 4bdr Orchid Run 2016 282 812-1,388 108 126 48 1,070 $1,948 $1.82 38% 45% 17% Addison Place' 2019 240 758-1,397 96 120 24 - 954 $1,738 $1.82 40% 50% 10% Inspire at Lely Resort` 2018 304 7841,348 88 168 48 1,051 $1,862 $1.77 29% 55% 16% Aster at Lely Resort 2014 308 821-1,435 126 158 24 - 1,036 $1,701 $1.64 41% 51% 8% TGM Malibu Lakes 2003 356 759-1,617 118 152 74 12 1,047 $1,672 $1.60 33% 43% 21% 3% Spectra 2017 324 700-1,307 108 180 36 993 $1,571 $1.58 33% 56% 11% Sierra Grande at Naples 2014 273 895-1,313 830 160 2 0 - 1,135 $1,721 $1.52 30% 60% 10% 700-1,617 727 1,067 281 12 Comp Total/Average 2014 2087 1.042 $1,740 $1.67 35% 51% 13% 1% Livingston Road 2021 320 775—1,355 $2,033 $1.98 140 144 32 1,026 45/0 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 355 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 aunit 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 j) � e © s�l•E i rl El a r:,�1i lla moi'' +�i 1 ��, -!3 MM AXIOM �TRICS F . wz � «; '! �l g - ,F g a FtealPage rorlra�; 1 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. )— Ito 1)::*: 4, 4 .1 0 h - AXIOMETRIC S .1 trke—T: r ; g , 4 C. al 1! I [IN E a Fiea!PaQr r ^r,7 �v! "�.`1l�l a;i a ." 1 i ! it laT ;: txl 4 g t�r � He i� !f 9L. r. spectra Subject Addison Place TGM Malibu Lakes Orchid Run Sierra Grande at Naples Inspira at Lely Resort ASterat Lely Recur! Project Address City Units Inspira 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 �..- �Fi Iltt i ' I. �� �, `� _a Is ! �i IIS �, �, liN Rf � in AXIOIV1ETRICS® • 1 ' a kealPage compare ` _ � •� tt . C E ► !! 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 � .F J AXI0METRICS 51:4 aft ie8 'agF Cpmhry4 { r• xie` l� c I! l • 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 Ir gip F Fri!, AXIO1VlETRIcs : i .� i, ;�— i t ISE ��':01 I I n PI - • gi �� 41111, exit Ile�(( �` � i1i.• ' • 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-stylepool 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 2Oi7 kP A*K)R tflC r LLQ A'�r FSK h1T ;int`_= Rb J )1 itkfr ® iG r i� ;1111 , II4 s Ar XIOMETRICSrrE ilk a o 4 kealPage r mpar, ! t�ll�! ®� r i t a I - xF i "' is t f it a ��l of u 4: R��Itt. 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 S 111WEIIIIII ©©MENIIIMENI©11111122111110 100% IMMIEZIMMEMEMIllill.111111111=MiallIMINIIIIIIIIMallIMEMMIIIIII 43% Visitor Par ing (©©©©©©© 100% i111•111111111111111111111•111111•11111111111111111111=1111111111111111111MIIIIIIIIIIIIIMINI11111111111111 0% torage paceE�r.L� 43% Recommended©®©©©©0 100% IMMEMEMETECEIME Recommended 100% ©-----© 29% Controlled Access Recommended 0©©©®©© 1009 Stan.or'Poo -------- 0% Resort Style Pool Recommended 1.11MI=©0©©©© 100% 100% Recommended 57% Recommended--©©�©- 43% Recommended 100`x. 1�1 ' E1-----©- 14% IMINEMMEMENNIS Recommended©-----_ Tennis Basketball Court Recommended©miimm- mm©©© 57'i Yoga Pi ates Spin Room [ ©-©©_-© 57% Bocce Pickleball Recommended--©---- 14% Social Area Activities -------- �ll ' '�©00_©_© 71% Recommended©-©©©IIIIIIIII_ 57% 00----111111111111111- 14% P ayground Recommended 43% Picnic Area BBQ Grill Recommended©©© ' 100% ���� I��� 0% • Wi-Fi tiotspots I(:1©©©©©0©IIIIMIEMEEIDEUMMEMME111111=111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIINEMME111111111111811111111111111•1=111111 100% =0111111111111111111111111111111111111111=1111111=111 14% IIIMMENEGEMIMIE Recommended---0_-- 14% co ee Bar Lounged©©©©iiim©igmig 71% Recommended©------ 14% Pet P ay Area I.f t ' ' ©©®© 100% G tT] f�F'TirT GC I��i'�'�������✓i 100% % Most Desired Amenities BB% 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. 4U '20171-, •,1",r 1cilir~ L! L . AL_ Ht`s t{•� 1 E i If " ii-i tin XIOF /1ETRIS® �.. � � , t:r' U �„. Iii. T „,„ l!! III Interior Amenities The table below shows interior amenities for comparables and the Subject. TG NI Sierra Addison Inspira at Aster At Malibu Grande at :'6 of Market Property Name Livingston Road Orchid Run Place Lely Lely Resort Lakes Spectra Naples W/Amenities puna_ Washer/Dryer Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% W/D Connections Y Y Y Y Y Y 86% Kitchen ------_- Dishwasher Recommended Y Y V Y Y Y Y 1006 Gas Range ------_- 0% Electric Range Recommended Y Y Y Y V Y V 100% Granite/Quartz Countertops Recommended V Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% icemaker Recommended Y Y V V Y V Y 100% Island Recommended Y Y Y Y Y 71% Microwave Recommended Y Y Y Y © Y Y 1007 Wine Cooler/Fridge Recommended ---_-_- 0% Nook Recommended --- Y __ Y 29% Pantry Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100`% Self Cleaning Oven Recommended V Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% Stainless Steel Appliances Recommended V Y V -_ 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 -_ Y __- 29% Electronic Media Features -------- Prewired Intrusion Alarm Recommended Y -- Y -- Y 43% Intrusion Alarm monitoring -------- 0% Structural Features ------_- Ceiling Fans Recommended Y Y Y Y Y ® Y 100% Crown Molding Recommended ----_-- 0% Patio/Balcony/Lanais Recommended Y V Y Y Y Y Y 100% Track Lighting Recommended Y Y Y Y 57% Walk-in Closets Recommended Y 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% Floorin: Wood(vinyl) Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y 86% Ceramic Tile ----- Y Y 29% Berber Carpet Recommended Y ---__ Y 29% %Of Most Desired Amenities 76% - 70%--- 55% 5$% 64% 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. 41 AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOIIIIIIIIIIIIEIEIIIIIIII e AXIOMETRICS° t t' _ � r 4 a He IPagff ccrn pry !Ingle,' ,'A:3 * ¢` • ' Atin j, �: k ! .1 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 1/1/0 60 775 $1,720 $0 $1,720 $2.22 $2.22 $1,870 $0 $1,870 $2.41 $2.41 1/1/184 885 $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 1355 $2,280 $0 $2,280 $1.68 $1.68 $2,478 $0 $2,478 $1.83 $1.83 Proj.Avg 320 1,026 $2,033 $0 $2,033 $1.98 $1.98 $2,210 $0 $2,210 $2.15 52.15 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 42 i °i �� �i>;I� , i- lie 17 �, t? - IISpp AX1OMETRICS� �; �, t ' ,:,�; ,a ,� 1 . , ,t R g_ �.. t t11911�1 F o a Reaipagp rnmpla , 1�� n 1. . ��� 1� �� -Itt 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 X2.20 1=1.117,cct 52.1D Orchid Run • Subject S2.00 Insplra at tel'i Inspire at tcty • Addlsdn F'Iace Orchid Run urchld Run at 1,splra at Idly. 51.40 Spectra nr,1111 Run • S pr,Ira Inspire at l ay tirrhld kun Ater at Lely kesort $1.00 Sierra Grande at Naples TG61 Malibu Lake: 51.70 Aster at telt Resort Yen sGremdra1 C:apirr. Sierra Grande at Naples 300 720 MI 7b!1 780 800 820 640 E60 -430 000 V20 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 )(IOF.I1E1'RIcs® �i; t �� Irl • ; p• ft kip �' �E p !It ;:I r Rpa►Pa9e company I' � '!Il5l1 _ .� . 11 �e p11 ' - �" Ala t! 1' I 8 .-1 1 t l o .. _ �. ����Is t , .. n t �� .! 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 Sz.t o • sowed ot,hid Run • 51.90 On hid Run • Subject Ors1=14 Run • 01,111.1 Rua $1,80 AddiscnMace InspbaatLely inipir,,at 1 rly • Orchid Run Orchid Run W 51.70 Orchid Run Aster at teiy Re:a t S1.fi0 TGRL Aster at Lely Resort TOM M.iibu Lakes St-so Spectra Sierra I,r.�nde it fial,te•. Spectra • 5,rrrair:mrlr.11 tteute; • 51.4n 1,020 1,040 1,060 1.080 1,100 1,120 1,140 1.160 1,180 1,200 1,220 1.240 Area 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. 44 /It 1 [n11 !1 r tt. -- ` ' � �'� � t11 pQ r'" � � ,E � � XIOPv1E'rRIS® .!. . , ,� , r1 tr 1,� I�_ � 1i!i �� ,! it I 1" ' 1��1i �1 {�9 •:. : .�r}X139 i t E i�j 140 i . _ ri :1 ! Three-Bedrooms Three-Bedroom $1.65 Subject $1.60 • T61Mi Malibu Lakes Orchid Run 61.55 _ 31.50 Addison Mara TWA ki.,1,b lnsn tpplra at ,. Lcly • $1.45Spectra akts Orchid Run • Sierra Grande at Naptes $1.40 - ltakt Malibu Lebe $1.35 $1.30 Sierra(sande ar tdaples $1.25 Aster at Lely Rc,nrt 1,230 1.2S0 1.210 ],29J 1,110 1,_10 1,1SU ],370 1.3'!0 1,410 1,430 Aria 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. ,v If Il! 1 q_� " ' 1 11 , i n n I I :! It 1 II4 ii AXIOIV1ErRlcs® '; 1 �1. r•.�;+ '-II.3 III _ 4 ii I �!� �� ! IR Ql tP�if aqe ror*r; I.��� l��t i i II i ' ! !! ' lift IIS ,l1. 1': �' t . �.'t iun t, g i ... w 4 i r 1 ! I! E• Household Income and Ability to Pay Naples Household Income Distribution by.= Age 16,000 IIIUnder 25 ■25 to 44 45 to 64 65 and over 14,000 12,000 . 10,000 ii a '.;':'*': , x;. _ .: $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 If 4 ,; t IL / .-� r g pp 1 II AXIOF'IIETRIcs tr e l . � tql i ,11 . ,d ,fl a , = t !! �- 'II . . _ , a �� !I!'" '4"!, 'lit *g 1 � t _ 1, " � i i l a ReaIPar campar�ti' �Ee I R .11111 E .t �! fti tg II ' r 1� �1 61! !�', 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 Required Monthly Rent-to- Income Income Monthly Effective to Qualify Household Income Ratio Required for Required Rent (B X2.5) 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$1,380esuiting 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_20171-4-Az ,metrics LLC ALL Pit3Hrc PESEPsv[_[a If! it i A ISM ETRICS $, 1 ,,,,L0 ,!• ,1 li - .i'11d t , K li . =1 ! f1� 1 i 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)/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 t �biltl� rlfr Ali I�!' !! � IISd 7i * ,1 c,,bI 119 i` 1.14 t !11 ax�oM �rR�cs is ;1 . A a iiPaINiQi,cpm:;1"ti' ' • �:3lir �: _ :a'I:- St 0 '4, r �� ill,ll E=1 It !, _ i r.F 311 !! a !IIt- ` SUBJECT LEASING SCHEDULE Total 45% - Cumulative Units Turn 55% Gros Cumulative Pre-Lease/ %of Sub- Ye ar1 Units Net New Coming Over Retained New Pre-Lease 8 Occupancy Mkt %Submkt Conversion Weekly Month Released Leases Off Lease Units Units Leases Occupied Overall Available Available Abs Capture% Rate Traffic 202001 0.0% 320 8.2% 20% 202012 0.0% 320 8.2% 20% 202003 0.0% 320 8.2% 20% 202004 0.0% 320 8.2% 20% 202005 0.0% 320 8.2% 20% 202006 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% 6.5% 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 2.9% 3.5% 54.0% 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% 0.6V. 45.0% 20% 11 202104 320 1 - - - 1 309 96.6% 11 0.3% 0.0% 4.5% 20% 1 202105 320 0 - - - 0 310 96.8% 11 0.3% 0.0% 4.5% 20% 1 202106 3200 - - - 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% 0.016 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% 4.5% 20% 34 202111 320 1 42 19 23 24 313 97.7% 8 0.2% 0.0% 9.0% 20% 28 202112 320 2 50 22 27 29 314 98.2% 7 0.2% 0.1% 225% 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 56 314 98.3% 8 0.1% 0.0% 22% 20% 19 202203 320 0 9 4 5 5 315 98.3% 6 0.1% 0.0% 2.2% 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% 0 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% 0.0% 4.3% 20% 1 202209 320 0 75 34 41 41 316 98.6% 5 0.1% 0.0% 2.2% 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% 22% 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 C 2n17 RP Axtometrics LLL AL,_ WIcst 4 r S RESERVED f xw I c ?. intt ; e I r !� qi I II! !! AXIOI /1ETRIcs_ II �, �� t� . p If 1`,1 '� "$�° ':�� � � ii i till !! a(1ealPa cnm7a 4! a :. 7 tt 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 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:12017\2017092\WP\GMPA\2nd Resubmittal\Exhibit V.E.1-Public Utilities Report(7-13-2018).docx 2726 OAK RIDGE COURT,SUITE 503 ® FORT MYERS,FL 33901-9356 A TR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE 239.278.3090 C ,S U LTA N T S, INC FAX 239.27 8.1906 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" 7ATRTRANSPORTATION 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 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 -47if...1:171 • ir -•" 1 \ .tr ` �. �'i.Mda �y7 4,.,- �, ��je! N.4- • \L__. E ' • vim '+.` ` t, „\ t`• ` c 1 ' -- f - - .r y• • 4 \ r da f { 1 ie _ � I • a An.. k 0.- . . Nr .r M '-rYd's y az �i ti. :.s �yy 7 �• �s 6 mni nu _ r i ,k-r.,11a'. 'n . .d sewa tf t wa Ep` fl ,hy. .\ £ j} .w t rr v 3 f `'f`�`-r `` r� "`n - .wr ' ers € r L p r�t ri�4 ,I i•-) 47 I 4 rctatra I ,r-4 t -• r 11. ):-: , i C i� ..J L s .�, - ;'r z '‘,17,. ',.7r,.,r'Tl+- e`�- ten. `•' 'T M 4-.." I- 3 t x ^.14.fP*'1c1e2,� n + -s wEJ �;;" .-.fie-. 4.. . - • • ...L. . .✓" 1;1,,,,..,,,tz.....:: � 4,,,; gf 91- ia :snows,. �l i t' r 11 } •••++++��a �, - . .,m. �� �,L..c �', c i �'+n � v ' i - 9 r - 7 . . j -� Q 4' �� 3 S f ra _ , I , ; , ,. i ,, -1 . _, \,, tr. ',.., -14 I, til A i irI _� -f i 'C" "�.t '= sk r .k �}}�+-"+....' y W.M� l..a p S t I.. f L t 444 .."11-';;' s v ,. _ @ 4 1 . F. . 2�1 1 • Y -*Slat!, rte. 0. $� �° � CF F 1 • M - F€ � -• �- �.. s3.. t .� - 1 1 f_ 4th C -� t 1 V r . i. . .1 ` y.aa. .a.4.. 4 - "^te L - �; Fl..i ,„,. f •.L ` jj � a •ti i{ -� 'i .11.;.=Rfix_. r- _ - � (�� (.F � �. f�?� - t --_ rg a. ra , 1 _ L r 33 ail `I— J ----'1°C. t 4- ,« . 31 m otRd ii.... - , �I m kale `; _;, 846 tW I ti i _ • a �`�� $ E _ f ..� t9 , is.. .. 1 44' 1 4 s .• -T e—e t {`sem_. ♦ I, ;`' i n as + i . ii `� •'''.-• t �'BvM34 //f r"y . %. I ,..i,"'-V..' aL . l 1S t • iTRANSPORTAON PROJECT LOCATION MAP TRCONSULTANTI, ON LIVINGSTON RD./VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD. EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GMPA) & ALLURA RPD Figure 1 7AT 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 7A 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 RoadNeterans 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 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 i� 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 _ 7.4 TR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Table 2 Livingston Rd/Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Subdistrict(GMPA) & Allura RPUD Land Uses t Existing Pry osed Zoning District �. ]intensity RPUD (15.38 acres) 111 Multi-family Existing 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, 10th 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`h 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 Uae In OutT 1.. L Out Total (2-way) Multi-Family Housing 36 104 140 107 69 176 2,287 I (420 Dwelling Units) Page 5 7ATR 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 COUNTY _ _ N atCOLLIER COUNTY .6. 4 co / r + 77....---- S N.T.S. (107)36fi 1 1 1 1" _, 1 101 M I i' CY) a, I--1 (14) c VETERANS MEMORIAL PKWY. 68(45) o f ll 1 N - N1 II 01 1 SITE I •- __I I --- L 4 1 d * I ce 1 til 14(10) I CD __I + ---- zU n Nrc- M r'N IMMOKALLE RD. 41 + �7 (22) 4111...30%-► (32) 11 J + 411F■20%♦ 6g in + LEGEND — ♦ 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR SITE TRAFFIC 441 (000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR SITE TRAFFIC ♦20%—► PERCENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION J TRANSPORTATION TRIP DISTRIBUTION & SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT TR TRANSPORTATION TA ON LIVINGSTON RD./VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD. EAST INCRESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GMPA) &ALLURA RPD Figure 2 7AT TRANSPORTATION 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 LEE COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY N1 i7 E 1,671 (1,635) S [1,647] 1.25% N.T.S. U °1 5 VETERANS MEMORIAL PKWY. o 1 l i LL SITE d 1,671 O (1,648) zO [1'32% 602] 2.32% IMMOKALLE RD. IL -214 IL 730 (-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 2023 REMAINING CAPACITY ON SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED LINKS TRTN$PORTATIONR LIVINGSTON RD./VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD. EAST INCRESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GMPA) &ALLURA RPD Figure 3 7.4 TR TRANSPORTATION 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 TRANSPORTATION — 1 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 74 TR 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 December\10 Della Rosa RPUD Zoning Comp Plan Collier\4-12-2018 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 p•t •7 • tda=r.--•P :1,143 na.. .. �_n:.b?7!•a'�,;.;:p;�,yH•r.;g^a '*PP;•q`•C•=3 _ i.SC' 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 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, 10th 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) >xa n.)sd" _.::rc•y 2"w cSw Pp 1,�ih;p.,,g. <'?.oilr..,ge i.e r:r-r•r.:zs+., _r t,i, 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 Innnokalee Road and 20% to/from the east on hnmokalee 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, 10`x'Edition Base maps: Prior study reports: Access policy and jurisdiction: Review process: Requirements: Miscellaneous: SIGNATURES Study Pr;.a er Reviewers Applicant II TRIP GENERATION LIVINGSTON/VETERANS GMPA/PUDA ALLURA Table 1 Trip Generation Multi-Family(Mid-Rise) ITE Land Use Code 221 Weekday A.M.Peak How Weekday P.11.4.i eak H ur iaiiy Land Use I In � Out Total I hi Out Total (2 way). Multi-Family Housing 36 104 140 107 69 176 2287 (420 Units) 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 On a: 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 N X X X X F 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 R2 0.77 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 N w x a. 200 X X ►- X X X, X X x 100 X X ' x x X! X , , X XX�XX X X 00 200 400 600 800 X=Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - Average Rate • Fitted Curve Equation:Ln(T)=0.98 Ln(X)-0.98 R'=0.67 74 Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition•Volume 2:Data•Residential(Land Uses 200-299) Item. 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 v w H X X ,)<- X X 200 X X X X XX x- - 100 X >#C - X X. XXx >k< x X X X X of, 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 R2=0.72 wow Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition•Volume 2:Data•Residential(Land Uses 200-299) 75 I-- {" z z z z z<tk II O ■ 0 O e @ @ at e w 0• N 0 R o 0 u § .1 y ' 0 ; 0 §- w § 2 % $ a (7, (7, I- > } © ` , N K 2 a. co 0 iel < ° 0 a d - ! $ . \ 1- ez UJ 2 § N e '- mN & 0 — \ kaJ@ e e U) ` \ \ o - 0 u § a `_ & 5 ^ @ § § 0 = CO a m 0 O » k e 0 § w e 2 r K ( 0 « 2 0 g 0 0 0 _ 0 2 \ • / o o E o a ce U. \ $ 2 0 co q © § a » a 0 s , u _ I k co k § ca co 0 0 \ / 2 q § U) z z ® § Q z 0 ■ m 44 ill« w c. , © § ( § ■ ■ ■ o o § ® E > ; ■ n ) cc = � w zz I- - ° I- « o m 0 2 0 ( ( ° U 0 a @ @ ;. ;% § aGfvo oB ° 8» 0Q 0 0 0< <m § a g B q0 100 0 X \\ . ? £ £ = A j ; 2 , ■ - - © 0 - 0 2 - N N N N N N > > § 2 0 0 ri- IT ƒ # & & I- k 2 W W z k R k / -a a ■ ; a _j j -6§ Z j\ \ 9 ? < 0. a ,_ ) ) < § § coa / / k Z 7 2 R 2 5 a __c o o c'. 0 o e c a c c o�o c_c c 0 o a i,-o o c o c_o o c_.. c _-_O O c -i-o_= �.r.,-.r.,vr,375H ..-2792` oce.�8� mt..,C.i z,C.s.2i.sCV. rFzp vz�ex a^^n^nn^n^ ^^n^ <nzxn n^ z rte_•.• �•: ^LLi iMof zPCCAFFF �FJCF Ai?S -!- . K.yv— A'!,•' e s, 5f—S S AT ' "n Z zr — — _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ c L.�- - G G G w D J J__= S F F F A F S S R v> V. Y t.-- - s,r "_ 7- _ _ _ __A __ __Cis T ___ or__"_ = _- _ ' A S S A c A n z-A S F S A __^___ r Z Z 2=2 r. _ _ _ _ _ _ S L s i 3 t y ----a- a _a_-€a__a c .- F 3] L r r .. r r v. u. v -__--t r- _-f-E F A F A 2 F%�� BnC-^ccrc2 =Yu. -=ru.e v,-r CGz^3 - -=cnCgn r S _^r_ 'y � n ___^G _a G[3 f�_= __ __A ai_ a s_ -_ d � . QG,A- nza V. _ - _ _ _O, _ _ A Y_: A I _G x y_. f�AA??, O^FSij_ -Ar Lr';'" __ F 'T A�yC S- =i__ g Aly®F�AR, H 3Cn-g7,7 °I?=Fo' zn= _2f, AOn_^n_?7,.- _=nc -v_._A V1-1?=ssc - z. =A F c � _ -3 r cF _ 'J- n _ .,-v. n 2i-+ =V v e i=a ' F FGF.- rY .E-G�' F.. �Z-NS =sZ_F C G F ?r_ __G _ _ AV a ti-,7_v.%Cla.- r-. _a. - a =_z _ c _ - _ _ _E _ _ a ;-E..1,- _a 7.S SSS C__ 14 a . T. < F- I S 7.a x _.. E-.;:CCO6O'v OOCCCC .=:'OC G7COO:. ,,,..7...I V CCZ I. ----r, fi H F':4: r,z rr rrrr I "== li7r- o<t�wr- EgT:_r_ iii:ii;.. 6.2 S � n 1. -.c.mrm07G z..7..vv.,-,,pp., .,.....r..m-mO uzuomm m ^, ^ vOG cz-r.. K: $y ZZZZZ---m...............K v.v.r`<zz2 Z•r.222!!r<!m r..rr rr..�rrzv.m2zz:+•zzzmzmr m r 7,1 ,.� 3 3 e{s- Bc c_ ▪_ o-i x 'a z g o ^s. 4 z z.4 a$ z 2 s§A i z =.yam. o o - 4 O _=t='c S -+ >O_ .:1.,_ c ri - T - _ _ r. -z_ x i. O G O c O 7- C C i F n ;<.7_ C C - z - r v-=i x. .o a.,x c g= =i _ r,..i,v = Y=F.. ,-- s c i- C i t i- _cOc_-_O- - -_ - 6 O_..-cC-C _ _ C -.O t _ r.,c - ;'<, e e a s a a . s a a _ . a e • . . , . . v a a _ a a a a . . . a L _ ? a s e _ . e - _ g.vg ,+ x 4 O e..L=.... c c r�G x-c ..a O a -O- .- n 4 _ -'___.',3M1....,74 , G-- la-i- ,—;•i0.47. E ▪x. __c c+ ..0-Ox n„__ _„i c-.:.-x r.coc.r. < x,. cc =_'.Y'- x'oco'i = oS Bio- g.,:7 _:..�,_. o r,z =g:="x<o ,.x - nxNi x,,:'n .Oc cc..nc-c a. N ,....s '-<.�.. ..g_cz. cc',.r.+o-- W2 --, ^ 00nGGC•GG nncncGnn.GG G9 G Gn,w.psn=^ O-p O^') n^9G 9 mmnG^nnnn .Or P2 ^{ tl s z ^X e C m _ _ 2,4K.,.' _ n, r7,c _ _ a rt t t x r s z. a v a, ' t',ww ._-> v - uv yr r R t. ESiz=oil P^ =r= PE ,-_-_ -=i= a__ _KPo `£wc=HI __- - nnn^.nnnnt vnn .nnn.,nnn nn..n.-nnnnnnnl' n nnnnnnn z FFSxSFS SFSFICFZFFF.'9FF XX�F"'"';'2V;;; Ko z;zzzS FxS $ SF� 4ZF cQ��'ip •r w'`r•`r i.'r'r r.`,. •S.n nen r r.rr• cc_ _ _ Et r!rr • •• - o _ ';'n=nnnL.;'-fin nGCn 2FF .;7CCC--GCGFnnnGgYYYi"' J.M1.rn `/, _ - A G G G?Y YG s r G'=n ^ L _ z __ r r>> c a c g E` _ _ --rY C"<C L -GCC t G<v- - =G<= --Y_^.n^.z Y-n-C uu•• '< _ =C<_ ai u. c- _Erb __ -`___n = -`_ 9= ==fir `v_- z-'n= __ 7.y__-_ ='.f'L G r e n G�. - era F't F n r'O _ -' F a c S S - c =- -- C.0<?zz�G z�,- _n,C_C.<<2 _ G<n Y.•�_-�GS^.r!'�r_�m z=_=-iy G�C)_2$ =cD �_c''�;' _r C T_` i.�-- `F{ -:G = - .'F.. 1> -Y� : n- - _a_ r�z:ti?_o�` - _ _T C_'G L'GE-� - 'i : - G -i 5 F z G c 'y ^Gn �. G c_ _Gp C _ _ G _ c__-- ?A _ G S F -' -� - c_ F-, _zF = _Scr=C- F1- T•s_ T 5- _ - < G M1 S R _v 4G.Z:. C jCGG 07 .7.a CC7 LTJ LO CG'v�.^.00C^.'7Gv GD.-i..'77G _ - m m m m r.....•..,.,v G G•m •• m O G G O m m G G m m m m G G m m m m m C C C C G G'�G G G G m n n m r..m C x r 3 mmmE I immZZZ22 Z Z ZZZZZrZ2mZ2222mr..r..r..mmm�r. r. mmmtAm Zmu.•r.ZZ ZZ Z Z F - 8 _ _ __ g - F crat E ;%1> - «- v M1W,333H5M054i1W1i :i0W-4i70.5 i=' G�� r«r •x•,_oc c ccco<oocc_oLc000000aa_o - J G G n.C G n G G G C m n n n G G n n n n G n G G C n G,%C C n G n G G n G G^.C G n G G n n G n G G n n n n V.c C O m CRy. - TABLES 1A, 2A & 3A k Q LI / z§ z z z B■ 'a 0 e e @ 2 ® / G S @ u § ,- - 0 o 0 § i w 2 § § g e 0 2 ) e § - / @ @ 2 2 O. S 2 .2 » o , e @ _ cc Ili ; 0 e 0 2 > _ � n 0 0 / 2 R 0 % 0e e co c.> i f a a e o § o § M ¥ b 2 = CO r n A I.- g Cl) I- \ —I 0 v) e e r o 2 ¢ \ ) ) ) § / o o Li ° o @ ct UJ - \ w w « § ( J O = u § a J m n z IT 3 ( % e O. « o u _ IL ? 0 ■ 7 K S 2 9 a . LU I— § i z z ■ co a m m . ( 0, \ . k W ■ < - 2 - m m 0 Ce E caO. e o k § I— u - ° < k } § § § ) ( $ § % % § F.) z 0 k k - 0 0 \ w w 0 n n C n g e > & § c c c ) o g r - ) U a a g CD z ® 0 z z 2 2 R R R o / 3 G 2 «N tal . 0 u) z ® 9 > 2 § 2 \ I § } § 7 ( ) 0 / 0 -{Cl 0 . / / 2 k CL Z IX 0 0 " ` 1 LIJ0 0 z § § 0 al E I k \ } k \ k ce§ ) co Z j j j \ 2 2 § § ` 03 0 0 < ) i CO S / / 2 \ 0 R 2 0 3 ) ( fi§ a. k LIa. § § w 2 © ( W $ 2 >_ >_ 7 f 2 ° ' # § {n [ , u / § \ ® roe § \ 2 a ` § CO ) F $ tu@ & 0 k K 2 EN. a a m < w , , , � cc ° 2 § ( § E m m co ; , . L_ , m U .12 6e k 1 ° k b Z § d N N N . , 7 2 L 2 2 q u , ) w [ \ f R pk al cn coN. CA g < Ngo § _ w � ILI § a k ) $ ; m Oa, ®FA ti) \ « \ } ` .- U % 2 2 ° coID Oa 2 .- U. } } $ N N § kIll # ; - § ■ ; a e ,- p 7 « 2 E ; § , zE � \ % o 2 ) k a. § t m Q © N a To / ■ a. § k k I [ § § & k IY °Ili ) 2 2 2 / 7 Ill 0 ! ! § , § k f 2 ® ' B « 0 _ ei n to _ 2 ■ I- % z 0 _ _ (.- - , 2 Cl) % § . - Z v N- - - 32 - > 2 - 5 G II / tr. k 2 2 \ r ` — § [ § k k / 0 (3 k II » « ! ! ! 113 § t , 2 - cc § Z a w ■ x x » ) 0Ti \ ! k \ ° # ; § / / 201 f | / m re ! a 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 "(1/Yrs of Growth) Annual Growth Rate(AGR)= -1 2011 AUIR 1,180 "(116) AGR(Livingston)= -1 1,074 AGR(Livingston)= 1.58% 2017 AUIR REPORT !laIll 5.-'; '-:: ; 6 Eit =Oat v L.:.G C O v V C.C,O=:,'J' n..C,==I.SCG.O:,00 _t,C O=C,=I..Lm C.+- .0O==t.,z 7 C P-4: ge°44i14.17.:1Ze.e':44e;: er-:., ege.114e.gi!g4ge.gi:44442i14 C> "_'.21 : E.,Ar ..-. '.a-x=x ..=_ .._..s=,.a-.<a a'?t:a..a_ sr� llP,.=xz _ : i, z_ Yi =-=__ _ = @2izg;^2"$3- = : da7cir . -ia V.I.g=1 ZRiiiMig;.ftUF.7. 55MUiiaF.iMil!li3.g.fiF;MfEJ§FUM,OA >a -r_ __c w==a=r. .. _ -a_r-----4'..'. 55.EE- _=T T .-.r. A.Sga _$9 _ - =r it1 _-- _“_g4:7:_.:ash _ ss£zg=+s__X_'X _ ?"'c >E 1 'P'o a3 'i_`EezvN 'r'-_--_ ---ry«..-- .nUli.:14 4xF..=..te n«« .,- . 1,7. .._.-. 213. - __ a « i> _ Y I- ZZZZZZOZ - A2=1ZZZZZ..ZZ VIZZZZZZZZZZZZ W.'J JS.w's a 7 HN .3, 3; C=wu'a'.J CCOOC'I,OOCOO twwW'.L:O❑=w W wC Oi.0 OCC^W L"L'1'.J CCOO C'.'..2.1.w 5 I J Y a v.n r,v....w r.a.-i '+.a n +.a r.o r. a r.r.v.3 a T,�i r.r.. la<E 0 3 r.F r.c ia s - y s O C C C O C C t T N 1 2 0'C O.a_O_J__i F.:C__« -0 0-_T C O C C C'i __C _ F_ _ .z '_ 5=c_t:a 3 r- a= ' _ ' = __ r__ _— s z ii _ - a -__ >3 = 5 n': t, _ i s e-. ” .g a " - m h C ' 3 I-v.s s ; t iC-0z G74-°r''%�:.n z:..�:7< O-= 'J'3..U=c.._==_-....,>=.:7-(--1 . S 22 F t ; 313f.-fig S z 3 a __ . _ ` __± _„1117= 14� s' 3_ 0 41 1_ i =_ 13 '-» ,sc11;=»S % G.:1cS¢.t]=c.>o�.i Jl= .,., o3s ... � r.. < 5 3 . 'S 9 _ =_ 2 >1.1x.=.. _4,, ,, g _-t., _ - ., 1 ? J T- -----• .- ,, 5 = ;-.- ' - +r i i r r r r r r r u. . . . = . :�.=;ass =__ - - - - - - ' _ - _ '- ^. ._gr_ szsszrrz 1r= ° _ 1 ' ' ;33333313333333 = _>E F S F 5.- 3= 3 3 3= - 5 - _ - ' ' .- . _e h e `s b 3 i g:''y s 4 c-c c c 11 -G <7., c3',?.C,.. P.,d.—' :: - "6:1:5.:.5.=,11C7L"G:.....C:.-: C CC.,:,CC--. =T.s a= 1 2, 2.,2 Y r ===y Y_ YY%i'YY C Y-=n'Y 5YYY YOGr.-^1l i'YY Y5 Y YYi� C .. ..,,,C,.,:,1, t , .r ...,ttt ,...,.,t,.., C,.. :... L 4C.'. w n ..G 3t 330 =2 2 Z x a - _ w...F. ,,., n r. .,,,,,.=x4 rr r :-..-:.22Z - r.n z:rrr Z s=- ---t _ _ _ _ tJ g -««r.ww.a r Ic '"'' '''7 c_.i i. ;12 re«««««n n. .r....:.rr.r,t.a w w 3It • y _ - ,....'\ .z try v r A ., -:o. c.G,LC.C,C*:-.===t,L,m,,,,:,t,CCCG:,a a=a;,;•,===C 9=C '=Cu C;.(,a 9 Ca^J' L CIICG C' ,:r.-n Y:. e 4 a a 1 E 7,e F s-° -c? +.v w.i<B J,r.__n-,..;7 1'r a 7.a n s .4 4 7.7,-_ ' - ams °:-:.z>. _rA _- - - _ ••:-.,4-3 _ r...r.- - _ .r.n- _ Yw,=- a o- a ...a3_ Le a-�-=-n - Vilc 11 .. ' ..e r. =- _ I -_ss _ . _ _nr.=o s!n "'r. z rvr.T-_'7 ____ :,__- _- _- '-_= - p C=1-9 1.T - n r_n n ,;:-J.1 - r. 3 x,44==.=.--„„ o-- _=a a=o 0 :1.:5-1 ry _ -.1.1 igWWig1414““gr1“01“MtAlgit:g“Mit““gerg".“ AAl' r.r.= -' ,,oen - _ . -7- a r. .._ 'a --r ---n a - - - F = ll _01 32P.7.7iligtUiT,12.2.- .4'"AST2r,.,72Ess-sznil.4,7.1„1; P �` 22:111,I - v a �s z ,_•-r"z__zn�,ni•, z z-z- --_ -_-nr.�n _ __ -aro-_sszz 5i i _ --_ r r. ___,,,rv,. r.r,n ,..4,,w,- - 4.4.. ..%4.,..:-: tL P '_wwwZ'n Z ZIZ r.ZZZw....ZI1I:Lwwww ww i»a>ZZZ wZZ ZZ 7,Y..owww ww www J'w ZZ ZZZ G - 11 w C C C C C C u.w w C C C C C wW w=.w C C C:C=•-C' - :7 C C C C C C C w w w w C C C C C J w w w= a 81cEurr. S- lr .< ,n . svit-Yr- -r¢ .TIF_.=ES`` . 33 Cnne - - _ - , n.n-C -w C-C C C C C C C C C M C ry __C C C C C C=C C C C C 3 33 c a z. - Y Y 3 5 t i 3 Y- t_ -:•: _%n m a 7 c▪ _ = n w r ' _'• - >_ - -___s'-'m,-"=m,.=".`=-E 7 B L == '13.2 so• =o E .x DICv:C3'-34 ',gge,23,54Ez _a' =c, ¢d=.. -574:3-s_ _ E. -- = y i =- - .,. .12A,.-. '= S i - i„ .- = x - -_ = - = - -:1 ,- yx=a =d 1 > .- - - cYY , _ _ = B_ - - = . a' - . _ 5= ca=: '-_ z❑ -= $5' A3_lf,24 -?:7s _ = 27,35 _= 3. _ ''C _ ,, g .yt _ > - _ _ _▪=-v= - -▪ - - tea - - _ $-- -. . s _ _ - •.�"��� :. s'c' 75253., „�... 42,;.:.3z=^ ocY. %=4A.Wis:3 , 2 3 7331 44443333 _� A2S _ L S -T'L , 1-21.1. 2 -150. 1 e z e y 15 : n §f -- g s C - - - 3 3 ?622Z 7 v Y _. ^ G s -▪ - - ” _ ''.72Zv^5f SY-rr •-=Y Yn Y- 1l e f'. Y Y _ :r4�2' a _mCr_ - Y :e Will xaiii;isa7,;3HJ^ r,HR-07,3r ?.7t ....z . ,, ,,v(,G. 0 ' r -a H_ ^_2 S R; a a-eta = = 5:.53 gt• ..E. . --.:" 8 _nw`a r,e-�,r.nr- ,Y,$ :=2444'"'"^4444 eee 7.7:a44 Oae•r=ev.v. _ _^14:a-nr.'" t.:�`+nsx z x a za zza-._ _ V b __ COLLIER COUNTY NEEDS PLAN & PROJECTED COLLIER COUNTY DEFICIENT ROADS ATTACHMENT "H" alrcivu-Nevus ism;CR r.101 • 1 23rd Street SW Brantley-Keane Avenue Golden Gale Boulevard Enhanced 2-lana Collector 60 feet 3.0 2 Airport Pulling Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Immokalee Road(CR 846) 6-Lane Divided Artenal 132 feel 2.0 97 Bald Eagle Dr Collier Boulevard San Marco Road 4 lanes 100 feet 1.3 3 Bonfield Road Tamiami Trail East(US 41) Wilson Boulevard Extension 4-Lane Divided Arterial 200 feel 7.6 4 Camp Keats Road Oil Well Road(CR 658) Immokalee Road(CR 846) 4-Lane Divided Artenal 200 feet 5.2 5 Collier Boulevard(CR 951) Golden G0te Canal Green Bourevad 6-Lane Divided Arterial 132 feel 2.0 6 CR 951 Extension Immokalee Road(CR 846) Heritage Bay Properties 4-Lane Divided Arterial 120 feet 1.5 7 CR 951 Extension Heritage Bay Properties Lee County Line 2-Large Artenal 80 feet 1.5 8 Enterprise Avenue Airport Pulling Road Livingston Road 4-Lana Divided Minor Collector 148 lent 1.0 9 Everglades Boulevard Golden Gate Boulevard Immokalee Road(CR 846) _ 4-Lane Divided Artenal 200 feet 9.3 96 Everglades Boulevard Interstate 75(1.75) Golden Gate 4-Lane Divided Artenal 200 feel 5.3 1D Florida Tradeport Boulevard New Markel Road SR 29 loop Road 2-Lane Arterial 200 feet 2.6 11 Golden Gate Boulevard Wilson Boulevard Desoto Boulevard 4-Lane Divided Arterial 150 feel 5.8 12 GoodletlnFrank Road Orange Bbssam Drive Vanderbilt Beach Road 6-Lax Divided Arterial 156 feet 0.9 13 Goadle0e-Rank Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Immokalee Road(CR846) 4-Lane Divided Arterial 49-156 feet 1.5 14 Green Boulevard Extension West Livingston Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 4-Lane Divided Arterial 156 feet 2.0 140 Green Boulevard Extension West Over Interstate 75(1-75) 4-Lane Divided Artenal 200 feet 0.2 15 Green Boulevard Santa Barbara/Logan Boulevard Sunshine Boulevard 4-Lane Divided Collector 100 feet 1.0 16 Green Boulevard Ext 1 1815 Ave SW Collier Boulevard(CR 951) 23rd Street SW 4-Lane Divided Collector 148 feet 2.1 17 Green Boulevard Ext/16111 Ave SW 23rd Street SW Everglades Boulevard 2-Lam Collector 80 feet 6.8 18 Interstate 75(I.75) Collier Boulevard(SR 051) Golden Gale Parkway 6-Lane Freeway 360 feet 3.3 19 Interstate 75(I-75) Golden Gate Parkway Pine Ridge Road(CR 896) 8-Lane Freeway 360 feel 2.6 Interstate 75(1.75)High Occupancy Vehicles 20 (HOV)lanes Pine Ridge Road(CR 806) Lee County Line 4-Lanes Limited Access 360 feet 7.4 21 Immokalee Road(CR 846) Oil Well Road(CR 858) Shady Hollow Boulevard 6-Lane Divided Arterial t60 feet 1.4 22 Immokalee Road(CR 848) Shady Hollow Boulevard Camp Keais Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 120 feet 17.2 23 Immokalee Road(CR 846) Camp Keais Road Eustis Avenue 4-Lone Divided Arterial 120 feet 2.5 24 Immokalee Road(CR 846) 5R 29 Airpark Boulevard 4-Lane Divided Artenal 121)feel 0.4 25 Immokalee Road Extension Camp Keais Road SR 29 2-Lane Collector 80 feet 2.7 26 Keane Avenue 23rd Street SW Inez Road 2-Lane Undivided Mina Collector t5.124 feel 0.9 26a Keane Avenue Inez Road Wilson Boulevard Extension 2-Lane Undivided Minor Collector 16-124 feel 2.0 27 Little League Road 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 Artenal 132 feel 2.6 29 Logan Boulevard Pine Ridge Road(CR 896) lmmokalee Road(CR 646) 4-Lane Divided Major Collector 148 feet 4.2 31 Massey Street Vanderbilt Beach Road Immokalee Road(CR846) 2-Lane Collector 80 feet 2.0 32 New Gordan River Crossing Goodie/Ile-Frank Road Airoort Pulling Road 4-Lane Divided Minor Collector 102 feel 2.3 32a New Gordon River Bodge al Gordon River 4lane raised median bridge 95 feet 0.4 Enhanced 2-Lane Divided Mater 33 Northbrooke Drive Immokalee Road(CR 5461 north to end of oublie right-of-way Collector 60 feet 2.1 34 Old US 41 Tamiami TrailNorth(US 41) Lea County Line 4-Lane Divided Major Collector 150 feet 1.5 35 Oil Well Road)CR 858 Everglades Boulevard 011Well Grade Rood 8-Lane Divided Arterial 216 feat 3.9 36 Oil Well Road/CR 858 Ave Maria Entrance Camp Keais Road 6-Lane Divided Artenal 200 feet 1.0 37 Orange Blossom Drive Airport Pulling Road Livingston Road 4-Lane Divided Major Collector 102 feet 0.7 38 Randall Boulevard Immokalee Road(CR 8461 Everglades Boulevard 6-Lane Divided Arterial 180 feet 3.4 39 Randall Boulevard Everglades Boulevard Oil Well Road(CR 858) 6-Lane Dmded Arterial 180 feet 3.5 40 Rattlesnake Hammock Road Tamiami Trail East(US 411 Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension 6-Lane Divided Arterial 132 feet 3.8 41 Ratlesnake.Hammock Road Extension Collier Boulevard(CR 951) Benfield Road Est 2-Lane Collector 80 feet 1.3 42 San Marco Road(CR 92) Collier Boulevard Tamiami Trail East(US 411 4-Lane Divided Arterial 102 feet 11.5 43 Santa Barbara Boulevard Painted Leaf Lane Green Boulevard 6-Lane Divided Artenal 132 feet 1.7 44 SR 29 Interstate 7511-75) Immokalee Road Extension 4-Lane Divided Arterial 200 feet 14.8 45 SR 29 Immokalee Road Extension Immokalee Road ICR 646) 4-Lane Divided Arterial 200 feet 5.0 450 SR 29 9th Street Immokalee Drive 4-Lane Divided Arterial 130 feel 0.9 46 SR 29 Immokalee Drive New Market Road North 4-Lane Divided Artenal 130 feet 1.1 47 SR 29 New Market Road North Hendry County Line 4-Lana Divided Arterial 200 feet 5.5 48 SR 29 Loop Road Immokalee Road(CR 846) Florida Tradeport Boulevard 2 lane undivided arterial 200 feel 2.4 49 SR 29 Loop Road SR 29(South) Immokalee Rood(CR 846) 2-Lane Arterial 200 feel 3.3 49a SR 29 Loop Road Florida Tradeport Boulevard SR 29(North) 4-Lane Divided Arterial 200 feet 5.6 50 SR 82 SR 29 Lee County Line 6-Lane Divided Arsenal 102 feel 7.0 51 SR 84(Davis Boulevard) Airport Pulling Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 6-Lane Divided Arterial 132 feet 5.8 52 SR 951(Collier Boulevard) N.of Marco Island Bridge Tower Road 6-Lane Divided Arterial 132 feet 70 53 Tamiami Trail Fast(US 41) Collier Boulevard(CR 951) Greeeway Road 6-Lane Divided Adana! 200 feet 3.0 54 Tamiami Trail East(US 41) Greenway Road 6 L's Farm Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 200 feel 2.5 55 Trade Center Way Extension Airport Pulling Road Livingston Road 2-Lane Collector 60 feet 1.0 56 Tree Farm Road Collier Boulevard(CR 951) Massey St 2-Lane Collector 58 feet 1.0 57 Twin Eagles Boulevard Extension Vanderbilt Beach Rd Immokalee Road(CR 846) 4-Lane Divided Collector 150 feet 2.0 58 Vanderbilt Beach Road Tamiami Trail North(US 41) Almon Pulling Road 6 Lane Divided Arterial 132 feet 2.1 59 Vanderbilt Beach Road Collier Boulevard(CR 951) Wilson Boulevard 4-lane Divided Artenal 200 feel 5.0 50a Vanderbilt Beach Rood Wilson Boulevard Desoto Boulevard North 4-Lane Divided Arterial 200 feet 5.7 60 Vanderbilt Drive Wiggins Pass Road Bonita Beach Road Enhanced 2-Lane Major Collector 100 feel 27 61 Veterans Memorial Boulevard Tamiami Trail North(US 41) Livingston Road 4-lane Divided Artenal 150 feet 2.6 63 W estclox Road Little League Road West of Carson Road 2-Lane Collector 56 feet 0.9 64 Whippoorwill Lane Green Boulevard(Whippoorwill Way Pine Ridge Road 2-Lane Collector 56 feet 0.4 65 While Boulevard Collier Boulevard ICR 9511 31s1 Sheet SW 2-Lane Divided Collector 102 feel 1.2 '4-Lane Horsed Median dodge(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 Collects 12 feel I0 67 Wilson Boulevard S Wilson Boulevard Extension Golden Gate Boulevard 4-lane Minor Arlene' 150 feet 5.4 68 Wilson Boulevard Golden Gate Boulevard Immokalee Road(CR 846) 4-Lane Divided Arterial 150 feet 3.2 69 Wilson Boulevard Ext./While Lake Bind Collier Boulevard(CR 9511 Bonfield Road 4-Lane Divided Artenal 130 feet 2.2 70 Wilson Boulevard Ext.)Black Bum Rd Benfield Road Wilson Boulevard 4-Lane Divided Artenal 130 feet 3.7 71 Wolfe Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Collier Boulevard(CR 95 f) 2 Lane Collector 56 feet 0.7 72 Critical Needs Intersection Immokalee Road(CR 6481and Tamiami Trail East(US 41) single point urban interchange 73 Critical Needs Intersection Immokalee Road(CR 846)and Livingston Road single point urban inlemhange 74 Critical Needs Intersection Immokalee Road(CR 846)and Collier Boulevard(CR 9511 single paint urban interchange 75 Critical Needs Inlersection Immokalee Road(CR 846)and Randall Boulevard single point urban interchange '� 76 Crilical Needs Intersection Pine Ridge Road ICR 896)and Airport-Pelting Road single point urban interchange 77 Critical Needs Intersection Pine Ridge Road ICR 8961 and Livingston Road single point urban interchange partial cloverleaf interchange with 2 78 Critical Needs Intersection interstate 75(I-75)and Collier Boulevard(CR 951) loop ramps 79 Critical Needs intersection Interstate 75(1.75)and Everglades Boulevard Diamond Interchange 80 Critical Needs Intersection Tamiami Trait East(US 41)and SR 29 Signelization-Mast arm assembly 81 Critical Needs Intersection Tamiami Trail East(USd1)and Collier Boulevard(CR 951) single point urban interchange 82 Critical Needs Intersection Davis Boulevard(SR 84)and Airport Pulling Road single point urban irerchaige 83 Critical Needs Intersection Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road single point urban interchange 84 Critical Needs Intersection Tamiami Trail North(US 41)and Golden Gate Parkway single point urban interchange 98 Critical Needs intersection Tamiami Trail East(US 411 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 ad Bridne 2 16th Street NE.south of 10th Avenue NE Bridge Construction 59 feet ATTACHMENT H es as r m d 6 d Year Expected DeOment 2023 IMMOKALEE RD E -__..._, r iSSFT MAP is-v2-Less Ruadnay+. Northwest TCMA Rearmoaa+ae Rd. amigo at 47lh Ave.NE PD1E og r_d Campy ° Armen Road year Expected Logan Blvd N. ROW:FY2078 ,Farr,,,s FY 2n) ir''! `' 7.,„,„,.6,,..„,m Oe5cxnt 2026 (By Others) .Design a MBigaWn FY2020 +p Aursse 1 H�. , Design'FY2021 Construction:tY2022 ''' ^ BOF.AB_aCH RD Year Expected -_ c de / D r 1 (2o rear Exorcist, Oeficonl 2027 / ';Intersection Improvements. ..__1 r ROWDesign.FY2019 ! E edD Fdc 2527 . N n I T Lu 4 Immoknleo/95t : m .p n m 2020 _ i ConsWdio FFY2022 Noon m IS MPO Prim E -•ct a ? , Imerselion(201566) D 5 1202] d — m Slate SIS Fund.g, • YETEPIN'.LE'L�9LY - OIL WELL RD P rsua Slat ndng Nnrt ITCRLA 'a I � Tr Farm�'ootluesr - _ -_. Tree n I (By Others) _os y r w Y Eapenetl 7- , E - - LANE so. De -ate a ' dauo1ALEER0A0 I ( r M 1-CVA - - I RANDALL BLVD „{ w Immokalee Rd8 ( .„J yardero.n Beast)Rd 1 Badge at81h SL NE w Randall Intersection "�`�` PD 6 E Underway Constructor t]i-50 1 •. VANDERBILT f,- Corridor StudyUMenvay onotpil1 Orange Blossom tS _ansv 7 BEACH RD 'm - BEACH RD EXT. vOr - Bdd 1 15th SL NE d I 4-Lanes .� ' z j �' O Design&/.Legaaon:FY2019 CI sdy FY<'OIB 5 O • GOLDEN GATE BLVD , C g i m w _ y Construction.FY2021 7 "Y2019 e a an rg 11 RDN.FY2021 < ] larder CmsauNon Under Con lm lion 'C on recon Future .PnsE"I RC --- —Y——s,ExOe:red Debcem 2023 DesgnrBwm FY201B REEK 11.-- CmMun m Monitor® 'fear Emated '- & �'5 , -10 o'-o East Central TCMA - Vanderbilt Beath Rd.Ed_ 3 Defc ent_C25 c 'N - _ {X ticrtrnresl 7Ct.la q g ? ^ wnd Lrut.!arde'.a New 3-Lane(of future 6-Lane) n ', - i ' Lakes Blw.M:erconnecwn Roadway to Relieve Congestion on - C't Year E.rpec:ed M -- � i Constructor FY2021/252211 _ ImmesGlee Rd and Golden Gale Blvd. v Decent 202S OLOE .ATEIPKMh' Des gn FY2018 CO East Cental TCGIA 1 - ROW 8 Negation:FY2019 I RAOp FD< _.,- Cons _- -1-75 _ aucoon.FY2021 1-75 intersection Improvenr_nts i YJ usi - City Gala BNa.N Stuay5 ROW FY2019 - 0An5 BL (By Others) Ccnstrac Future I - , 1/ t"-x-- 'Nilson/Blackburn d r Shish UrdeGeay o a Iey Others)Co ` 01 -Wilson Benfield Ea,Cenlmi TCS•A l S ..nStueyrPE:FY2018 Intersection Improvements(FOOT) _m Mn.ROW: Design:FY2021 lcer Expected Dement:027 RATTLESNAKE m 752021 a2022 ROW:FY2018-2020 4 HAMMOCK RD 0 -- Co truction'.FY2021 o Year Expected Deficen12025 Mie alien FYZO1B^FY2020-2021 Year Expected Deficient 2927 D 9 Continue to Monne - qe, Year Expected OcOde 20027!Eastnt Central TCMA nrersecnon Impm.emems _.. --- Legend ROW S Conslmmmn.FY2015 Year Expected Del-Cent 2027 Continue to Monitor 1111111M,Capacity Enhancement Project N 'tear dears v 1 '_ - ._. Existing Deficiency 2a26 i Ea TWA A "'Ty - - Year Expected Deficient 2920 y Widen to 6-Ln;POLE Funded(15116) SProjected Deficiency<5 Years S F '-,. s' l Pursue State Funding ,< ---- - 6110111111Projected Deficiency B to 10 Years S Year Expelled Deficient 2021 ?9f (�"r MA Souls US at TCEA 7f _j TC /-CEA Boundary Year Expected Deficent 2027 F Comnue to Monitor PROJECTED COLLIER COUNTY 0 I IE R• • •S Wiles COLLIER COUNTY NORTHWEST TCMA REPORT TCMA Report Collier County Transportation Concurrency Management System PkHr-PkDir l't - .. . . . Lane Miles 'AUIR ID -.Stnet Name from .To - 'Inc Ratio Length • - • lLan.s • Lane Mlles ` VC en 1.00 --- Northwest TCMA 98.0 Tamiami Tran 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 9.1 9.11 100.0 Tamiami Trail North Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 0.75 1.51 6 9.1 9.06 101.0 Tamiami Trail North Vanderbilt Beach Road Gulf Park Drive 0.75 1.26 6 7.6 7.58 102.0 Tamiami Trail North Gull Park Drive Pine Ridge Road 0.61 1.44 6 8.6 8.64 109.0 Vanderbilt Beach Road Gulishore Drive Tamiami Trail 0.71 1.34 2 2.7 2.68 110.1 Vanderbilt Beach Road Tamiami Trail Goodielle•Frank Road 0.81 1.87 4 7.5 7.50 111.1 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 5.03 115.0 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 8 9.2 9.18 23.0 Goodielte-Frank Road Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 0.95 1.80 2 3.6 3.60 24.1 Goodletle-frank Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Orange Blossom Dr. 0.59 0.88 4 3.5 3.52 24.2 Goodlette-Frank Road Orange Blossom Dr. Pine Ridge Road 0.65 1.53 6 9.2 9.18 39.0 111th Avenue N. Gulishore 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 Tamlaml 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 R 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 Goodlette•Frank Road 0.87 0.50 8 3.0 3.02 65.0 Pine Ridge Road Goodlelte-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. 0.85 _ 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 Goodiette-Frank Rd. Airport Road 0.84 2.47 6 14.8 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 Ilne 1.09 1.57 2 3.1 0.00 110.2 Vanderbilt Beach Road Goodlette-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 Total Lane Miles: 288.7 Lane Miles x=1.0 V/C: 285.6 °n V/C Rat.based upon Total Terre.ndudng Traffic Counts.Tnp aank•117th Vested Tops Percent Lane Miles Meeting Standard: 98.9% MASTER Attachment F-2017(090617).xlsm TR-5 NORTHWEST TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT AREA (TCMA) a P.3--, _.a7 i co U 1C1/ I enp) , ZLU ! Q I I c W n a. 1 j, i aN 0 Zi , • o ii O i wM �a i � V _ 31 ' W ; '1 N CIA18 NV001 8, 1 I to La 0 a2i NOISONIAIl p ' OH$Nlllfid 12dOd .Mlyµ C JP.. a pvR fw -k.'-':-..zao 6,@ NNH2d-31131O0OJ 1 .65 411C o, Ce 0 4E1 So CO e iii �, N RII IWVIWb'1 , -.o L. D) 1 Q Z H F" IQ i �+ C i z C d eV U— I a 0 1 0 0 ' ,tu' l' Ell 4i z .. s- - '�,* ...� _. pm. , IS 1 1 GVH ov� t r�-- s ¢ n fl Ia r E 5 fit' 1 to a j a ] 4 2 o a 1a ` giii 0 0 S1 [IIII Page.1. ...- ........°'1' 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 (TDM) 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). (XII)(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. (Xlli)(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 NOCF: 0.87 WEEK DATES SF PSCF 1 01/01/2016 - 01/02/2016 0.98 1.13 2 01/03/2016 - 01/09/2016 0.95 1.09 * 3 01/13/2016 - 01/16/216 0.91 1.05 * 4 01/17/2016 - 01/23/2016 0.89 1.02 * 5 01/24/2016 - 01/30/2016 0.88 1.01 * 6 01/31/2016 - 02/06/2016 0.87 1.00 * 7 02/07/2016 - 02/13/2016 0.83 0.98 * 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 *13 03/20/2016 - 03/26/2016 0.86 0.99 *14 03/27/2016 - 04/02/2016 0.89 1.02 *15 04/03/2016 - 04/09/2016 0.91 1.05 16 04/10/2016 - 04/16/2016 0.94 1.08 17 04/17/2016 - 04/23/2016 0.96 1.10 18 04/24/2016 - 04/30/2016 0.98 1.13 19 05/01/2016 - 05/07/2016 1.00 1.15 20 05/08/2016 - 05/14/2016 1.02 1.17 21 05/15/2016 - 05/21/2016 1.05 1.21 22 05/22/2016 - 05/28/2016 1.07 1.23 23 05/29/2016 - 06/04/2016 1.10 1.26 24 06/05/2016 - 06/11/2016 1.13 1.30 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 1.31 30 07/17/2016 - 07/23/2016 1.15 1.32 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 1.33 34 08/14/2016 - 08/20/2016 1.16 1.33 35 08/21/2016 - 08/27/2016 1.16 1.33 36 08/28/2016 - 09/03/2016 1.17 1.34 37 09/04/2016 - 09/10/2016 1.17 1.34 38 09/11/2016 - 09/17/2016 1.18 1.36 39 09/18/2016 - 09/24/2016 1.15 1.32 40 09/25/2016 - 10/01/2016 1.13 1.30 41 10/02/2016 - 10/08/2016 1.10 1.26 42 10/09/2016 - 10/15/2016 1.08 1.24 43 10/16/2016 - 10/22/2016 1.05 1.21 44 10/23/2016 - 10/29/2016 1.03 1.18 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 1.13 50 12/04/2016 - 12/10/2016 0.98 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 * PEAK SEASON 21-FEB-2017 10:54:33 830UPD 1 0300 PKSEASON.TXT TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT LIVINGSTON ROAD @ VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD To E 0 N )11 10 M V' to t�D 0h h (!) et to O 7 co O U O h O to 8 C r N V' 0 O N O to U 01 c N O.15 _ h V. 6 co co cl M N N 0 M C i� %-• to 7 a N O O 0 O i co Oma' Z v H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 c o ; h o iv > 0 0 0 Z :3 m ii ns o o 8 c v v, v, 0. v r i 3 E 7p N r tD CO r r r O M �' O tD r 0 0 h to O N T d .0 0 0 N VI 0 C W cin 0 '4: V Oto V. L O O r M t} d' CD r N • O r 'V O o Tr - to .S� aa) I- O O O hO p G N > N M o O d' Q O CO o W t�0 n T N h N O CO N t0 O n N to to Co 'ami h O O O O o t O Nd y N CD co to h co h o CD M 0 e! r coO V" Q� r r N Nlh M CO N N O e- 0 0 - 0 V" i in et r' 6 '300000 00000 0 0 c c c 0 m � Z ' T3 = ix ( D O r 0 NV Tr C dM h N p M Oto N NrMOO mO /W C 7 r N M h wO _( tor (, r r N M r O O A. O to 6 C t' i CD a tD h M M LE, N 0 O N O o0 O • O L N N O tD h N 0 0 0 N 0 M tfj O O .L J Z N r r r r (() N N N r 00 r h M 0 O h 0 .= r n O CD Tr ‘-- E E N O CD r' N re r rl� W h r W M ID O h co O O ~ M co CZ a 0 CD G > (I) <t C In NGr et O O pO T ,L Q - NNh M r N OO Q AL` W9 6 '300000 O 0 in .�.0 > > > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ) 0 (O C CO r O h Z N M c ` d' (D M 0) 0 h M CO CO N O N 0 d. M 6) /�� O O J tD r r r a N r N r h O r 0 O 0 G N C 1`tS/1 2 N 7 Q) (D O '' a- y W L r t() NT- N N CO tD r O � 0 N N O O V A: ) L� N I r O O p O C II t M N. 0 N co 8 r M M N O) r o h N to Ce ca 11) tt? N O O C M p (}I�) ,' C` ra to m 11 / p Q p CO IOD 0 e(0 0 1C) .1.a 111 1ca 5 0 ter., O ti N o0O p •- E a N r N N M r M N N N r, N 0 0 r O N J to E 2 E0 O y Z N in 6 = 00000 00000 0 0 c c ) h 0 Z d m N o •E Y v v 1 CR 00 0 in O) a C OO J r h h rIQ r- @ h O�M CO o O 0 0 O p �' Y CCco C j i M to h h co N 0) CO N G t`.. O) 0) O a CO ' E O..UJ JN N N NICO)oo N N N cv NI� O OMi O o Or el CD o O 0) Z M e- O . (0+1 o 0) M (D h r N co O O N 0 d O co 0 h M O C1 7 I- �r d O z Y y 0 to 0 N -7., 0 to 0 to c. c a . = O LL Z CI E r: A A is O do CO tit, CO a :°o a' o' = Q x Q Y Q a.. O LL J 1- 0 0 0 0 F- 0 0 0 a E- 6 E- a N E n- a U E 0 0 Ul cV 0 cm co c — o c N 0 0 `- 0 0 Ci ui o 0 O U >. a N Y in co ....... Veterans Memorial Blvd a 38 17 73 0 CO Right Thru Lett U-Turn 0I r e– m E anon //��\ RI o F" 4. U t•• to Vco .l' M •L 0 ra a 101 c= w an C \ Ch cQ c> < _ _ _ �am/ Foo J r .- \.i y .. Y Y N J CO it d d CO 2aa0- Ed E aaaa 1 o. O d C OC ct) N uml-n 301 nail 346!21 E CO .; m 0 L5 £L 95Z o N M pn18 lelaowaw suelaaaA ruoi VI CO c a. m a) 0 > o. a) - V c aci c•a E 0 rn`ro oo co>io 0 C ......... y O C R O F-- Z Z U.: ...1� U 0 E y o FO ID d' ON) to C)i 0) N 0 OroIn in 0 O N- C U w to to N N t0 tD n tD N d. 0 r N p N L 0 0 co a O O n C a ate.. N O i r P CD N W O co co O co U1 C O O.O N r N N h NNNN 0) O ~ O C) 00-. <H O r - 0 O o r �� E. 00 °. 0 Z 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 O t 0 to > F O o en„ Z ti r m C o 0V a t,c T r Dtoo N 7 0) M N tD etM N etM N rry O -4 r 0 0 N fnY g y t7 C W 7 to CO 0 co to cc O r N N l0 r r of N OD O h O O r O to ^. i N- O O O r O e0-a, r t N N r N n O C') t` O co h ti co0 co co it I- T• o 00 r C tV a o 0 1MD 0 ro) °Mr) 0 ti e- n o ti 0 n ° en r— <H M N M M r et M V' CO r N Or e- O rII co Z t I- O O O I O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o G Z O A 73 / C ` T' N N rIN tD tD N I, e- M tD r O O r r .CO+ , J r r r N ID r r M N 0) 0 a0- O O 0 f 0) p 0 C O 2 ti CO CO00 0, 00 d' h 0 0 in e� O O h et 0) •L JZ F- N N tV MIr C') 01 M M r N C) b 0 r r p o n 0 0o to M Tr E N °) N °) 0 d n r r M o °� 0 0 0 )` M co Ts r o Ca) .0 G = CDa 'EL 11 Q N N 1') N r Cn N CD e0- NlC)) O N O 0 co O) oocn O L ,Q C 0 0 0 Z .N > 6500 ,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c . 0 co `CD m //// 77 mi co CD et 0 o to O J co r r SIN c r 0) .t- O 0 e- . O O I� tD CO y to N 7tD N0 0 to MS 2 the L ON r it h 00 r NCO O O et O O M M /�/ A 1- O O O O LL L t r 00 0 0 M i T- > Ii O O N r N 01 N 1 ID O r ~ CO M o V 0 0 ^ M N. r O 4.0 r N CI V C m �` t0 p.l0 0) N 0 0) 0 et h ID MID 0 0 0 ..M.. O 0. O CON N N 0r0 N N N COO O e- 0 O N ...I N Q~ r 2 c0 0 OO Z In j5 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 6 0 0 Cl Cl m F- 0 0 T z r a) 13o v0 a. j as a) tor- a) rn V) r0) : 00 coi 0 n a ,- 0 0 co co to 0 0d.A °Q J 0 0 0 p IY C "O O) co 6 L r tD O h N O O U) n N en tD N O en 0 N T N ( CO E C:Q > =O F 00 . CO 0 ID N P N N N N 0M) O T M O r 0) 0al > O it� Jci3 O on.�6I I M 00 O O O 2CO C) M M co M 7 O co M O et o O O h M n O1 J(no O _ n I- 6 O_ C to O y O U) O N 0 to O to 9 .2 L. O �{, Z +-i• Z n E O r M ' ,.0, o r M et .., two'' a v '9 o e _ > _ W v ioicictD o r; r; titi o � o o ax ax as 0 LL H r r r r h r r r r F- 0 F- < r- H n. a 0 1, f E 0 U N Co 0 rn co c o N m0 0 0 Gi w m a Q 0 V a in co Veterans Memorial Blvd a33 3 61 0 00 Right Thru Left U-Turn N 0I grr V" -13 CO E � ototi /� L m ▪CO O , V C.1 ~ NI" CJ \ / c M MN t+ O �/ �L. N N iv y 7+ E d O `m C� V (.4* L CD t C7 J t m > LL \/ f- e- w O 0_ co etS 03 L. 2aa La CD o -g) 0 a• 2 2 2 z 0 4.0 el ir a. a. 0- <C> 13 CD a V Et C O 0 '; <i\.; \r� ,N CI 0 uini•f1 Sal Hutu UAW C m III= To M • 0 0 Z6 9 9L o E M —• J mg lel�owavl sueaa;e c cofi m `m o 'CDa > a) CJ ccc .10 N N C .0 E C:D ru7 Ott C• (t C J(m E 3 F- O N C p_ Z Z D O o 0 LL J 0 DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE YEAR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES , v . . \_ .. _ / ._ � .- \ -- / w to / ca ® 000 / rN N COnRn / nn m � , ® � & — W ƒ f \ \ \ m2 2 / ƒ 3 / 7 0N. $ 2 N & E $ \ $ / r $ % / f2 \ r2 2 L . - ® & ® N & & 1 m ■ E b / \ - 0p - bo \ m / e ■ ■ CV > a) / G / 7 / © 2 2 � � ' / / a in 'et 0 k C 2 % nf » kna ■ � Iofq krp m n CO 0 n m m � n o n n o « n & & 0) 2 m / f0 / ® - em mq \ % / ® 0 %0 CCOO ] ) q1 — & - - / 0 - 0V - - o 2 to § E / $ f $ 0 « 2 co / % � \ / � $ \ 03 — & — R 2 coo NcC - 0) \ © � N0 a3 % � f 0rvt / / ° z CV z § co R = m \ \ \ % mN ,j- 03 m \ \ k / r � / � J0 2 ¥ � < & m m 2 , � � & - q D / 2 r / ■ co & ƒ m / \ \ ,0 to N = — Ro oro 0 $ = \ 2q _ q \ n n 2 � _ ® 0 — - 2A \ 3 E ._ E c o CO D c o ® = 2 ti m — a 2@ 5 / � / a) � � / 7 Z.,. c o o c CA •-• 0o > / @ ko > ' @@ c E & c EI 2 a) R / •o + b \ S / $ + G § $ g 2 > 7 § § 5 2 > 2 S o m 9 q / R IQq JR ER oc � CO / � j � \ � � / q / \ � co� / ± / j 0 2 M 0 o e e 03 M@ _ o o ® @ o _ 0 wmc .c — t = @qc = ® = t = a) • � 0k \ k \ 'N 0,- \ kq o\ 3 •0 5 « Q � 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 £ QE QIO o » & I & ƒ IO / » m 0- CV INTERSECTION AN ALS SIS SUMMARY SHEETS LIVINGSTON ROAD @ VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD 2023 PEAK SEASON BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Lanes, Volumes, I imings 2U23 AM NeaK bacKground 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 02/05/2018 f -t ' T ■-- I#� P \* ,r Lane Groff EBL EBT EER WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4 'I tft r ) ft+ 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 Fit Protected 0.992 0.972 0.950 0.950 Satd.Flow(prot) 0 1648 0 0 1738 0 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Flt 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, timings LUL,, f\IVI r-Cdl( DdU\y.tUUI IU 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 D 1 102 '0474 IIM 'a 4— 05 475 eaIIIIII MINI _ 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings zuG: t-'Ivi real( tsacl(grouna 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 02/05/2018 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR Wt3L WBT WBR NBL NBT MR SBT tBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ ) +14+ r ) tt+ 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 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT. *IR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR LOS B C A B A AB 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 \P01 t02 X474 MINI Ell _ I 4-- 4\05 • 06 08 EMI MI MEI 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 2023 PEAK SEASON WITH PROJECT TRIPS Lanes, Volumes, Timings f, 2023 AM I-'eaK VVI I H Project 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 04/12/2018 IA -► nt Tc ,- 4 ' '\ t / \* 4, d Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ ) +44 i l 44+ ! _. 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 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, I imings 2023 AM Leak WI I I-I Nraject 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 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 1 \*01 02 -004 1111111 IIIII 05 .4- 06 08 EMI Mill, M' 08/03/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Lanes, volumes, I imings LUL3 rlvi reaK vv I I h rroject 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 04/12/2018 f -. Nr #' 4- i ' '4 \ 1 p , '/ k T, Mk .101, 2EOR Lane Configurations 4 4 '9 atM4 ? vi. +14 r 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(prat) 0 1653 0 0 1726 0 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Flt 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 Rafio 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 WEL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SOT 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 1.--� 'Z " i (# llf:[ ,.:*::::;-----,'„4.;%--s .F.;,7:4::-.::',7,---2:-e—,;,..::-..a—,:::.i:,,::, .R,§ „y.°a-sv. + t 7: w a �.: t, - �c �s ?,« , . 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 ,„� \*L71 - t02 . '0174 I= Mil I #\05 T 06 08 IIMI Mil 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-Rise T=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 Land Use Weekday A.M.Peak Hour Weekday P.M.Peak Hour Daily 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 P.M.PeakHour Daily Land Use • In Out, Total `.Ian Out Total _(2-way),;' Apartment 42 168 210 162 87 249 2,669 (420 Dwelling Units) NIM Summary Allura RPUD(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.Mulhere 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. Mulhere 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.Mulhere 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:\201712017092\WP\PUDZ\NIM\NIM Summary(9-11-2018).docx NapLro WrWs NaptesNews.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!aside 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 forythe purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Customer Ad Number Copyline P.O.# HOLE MONTES INC 2092331 Allura NIM Pub Dates August 20,2018 Lir 62Y2. ttegvi e, (Sign ture of affiant) KAROLEKANGAS ida Sworn to and subscribed before me 1 NCommisslontGG12G04Public-State of 1 4 to " 'MyCamm,ExplrcsJul 29,2021 1 This August 21,2018 !,; sowed rMaghNoma N2 I qcvArro (Signature of affiant) Ft{312 Bang Nevus PEOPLE IN THE NEWS Aug 18 11.14.3114341-62x3 P.dodkak menu' `;:° t - - - lapsed that were holding up the en- a•17.27-63.33.6'zx2 postage pa Naples, and - •4 IMlo numbers are dawn each Wednesdsyand additional emus.Ns7s 127x90) trance to a resortwhere the Backstreet Saturday of 11:15 pm.wecirmdeyh)edgmt drawing Potmaster,send form 3576 for address correction — jI l 1'4 re F$ Boys were set to begin a concert in walbermssmitian roaunt to:1f00Mmokalee Road.Naples,FL Sett° { r syr .k Aug.fa Winners. Payout 236.213-5000or544400-no5 1, k - Thacketsvllle. 'IN- c• VA: o% 50 I. WinStar World Casino and Resort VA: lip f7,017.SO Subscriptions 4 : , l says in a statement posted on Twitter nae.auoMth mu orersdyastheoppabwey ""` To Psbsdtw or mats amps toc.,./..-1---;$ to mdtiply their nan-leckpot cash winnings byme sae bacrlbs ormakea udm your.cnwd,al ._.k w.=. on Saturday that the resort began an thre4four orfive timeswith stmere per play.The lynmeeimeetee —r-,'-ii,,,, evacuation at about 5 p.m.whenlight- xTSA...b Iromnps,wmb.517:atrandem All fou accost aubsoiptiom Include mast to ..- _i.- --a- �..�-.}t-. '"- non was within 4 miles of the casino. J"rteeforeehlaaw.00il detarmnehpwmurA the ,uelesnew.com.tabl.L mobile and thee-Newspepee Michelle Yeah,from left,Henry The company says about 150 patrons 014 ch10tca,h pdtes Mll beinoeased for the draw. 'Numbers atter duh 119110.XMAM.71•11 IRA access In,.Mon-Sun print edition delivery: Golding and Constance Wu star in did not evacuate and when the storm MEGA MILLIONS Ipoisee sa Ins.Fr'Sun prim edition delivery:$10/mo. "Crazy Rich Asians."5ANiA hit with 80 mph winds,it knocked Aug.17 1.31-6247-46.3x2 IAA mass Inc.sun.Wed print edlgondetvey. Aug.14 11-26Wdllpcn.x2 S2s/ma BUCKO/WARNER BROS.ENTERTAINMENT VIA AP over trusses and the entrance col- MEGA/411110A drawings are conducted at loom 1Fuu aaestlnnsunprint aditlan dervare..122/mo. lapsed on them Ofthel4 people taken Tuesday and Friday Kph..meoutof75 numbers IIDMnxonly(excludeshomedellvery):610/mil to a hospital,two have been released. galaWgjsv),i0h eaelwgtaaBir�.nna be'„eeeweengand'5 All prim edition delivery subscriptions Include the 'Crazy Rich Asians'shines WinStar said the concert was post- numbers*,the Megaean toon theJad,pet,or Th""M"N pPrirn p �'„y'4 e Pdla d'gs,°d a bright at the box office poned.Band member Kevin Richard- o 6P""4"s corwwliensmMn the then Premium Editions per yeah whkh win be charges sl sontweetedthatthe concerthadbeen Nowinner Aug.171 Aug.2il.ckpot MOM oath.These additional charges wylbaadded atthee r Glitz has won out over guns at the sold out with about12,000 fans. Aug.17 CIA winners NP Payout tr you oddeliveryrintediier elalon Kyou reauut that we not aew.ravrine Millon for North American box office this week- 5-ooh5 g50 Sb° vacation arother ream,tyore ur content through our end as the gilded romance"Crazy Rich Ward,Rushdie draw large crowds MegeprerIMP)Is aspedal feature that skives Players digN4ypyour full amiss r ourraendorsal delivery to win two to four Nmes the eon)adtPaPsees,MS1 Appdit tdidcn for at rogueixroen 000ntin eto of Asians"took No.1overM Mark Wahl- at Mississippi book fest per play.The Megeplier number,seieneit light the Dim edition fp Nal,eauertwe M6centimero berg's action-packed"Mile 22," before the MEGA MILUONS dmw,Ma determine the dl argeyou the subuription fa.Ahar sixteen dalhnryrmdtipl@rforthet draw. ays:your aubsWuoncontinues and we w;nnot a.m. Studios on Sunday,estimated that National BookAward you tin suba,00tonfee unarm,eao.rtresump/enol "Crazy Rich Asians"took in$25.2 mil- winner Jesmyn Ward - POWERDALL d elve.of the print adaion.awe fall to deliver a print Aug.to 24.24-62.61.67.16a3edwon,wewillcredityouapmrateaamountoflh. lion from 3,384 locations over the told a home-state audi- _ Aug.15 u-24-66.7.67.16:2 subscription fee.If you want to stop.usm,guyw weekend,The Alm starring Constance ence in Jackson,Mis- - a Drawings take place Wednesday and Saturday nights roustnne&your subscription. Wu has banked $34 million since sissippi, a11019 pm.Buy ticketsuntam 10 p. night or drawing. May Is a convenient method for automatically paying on on Saturday = r No).dmpatwinner Rut 17, 1aaPOS6PM yoursubaaiption.To start or switch a subscription opening Wednesday,far surpassing that she's working Aug,to n..wwnarwrs' s2 Payout payment to May c.tost ss•nos. early industry expectations, two books. --'. - s-ai-tea o/- so angle ropy:Mon-5st$u par salon.Sunday 52 per It's a surefire win for the film dis- One is a New Or- Ward 6row6 1/0 St Miller, • edition tdbuted by Warner Bros.,which cost leans-basedstoryabout `Numbers after slash show Power Play Mona,. Delivery Service $30 million to produce. the slave trade.The other is a young LUCKY MONEY Warner Bros: shark movie "The adult novel about an African-Ameri- Aug.Augis itiai6•asses Circulation Customer.re dayBin...7pm.andr Inked Me fell to secondplace with can lwithsu supernatural powers. Orae/nBstake place Tuesday end Friday nights se11:16 Monday-Friday e.mal*+n.benorms Saturday �� girl P her pm Pwd,ase ticketsuntll le:aop.m.on the night of amgwday.Ifyou have not roc.NedyaurPao.rby $21.2 million in its second weekend. Ward andacclaimedauthor Selman the drawing. 5:311 am 190.7106 beforelday 5 by to rteewbaunttor a Wahlberg's "Mile 22"opened Rushdie attracted] a audiences at Aug.17 vsnoate 51 Payout algia Monesearores Pm.t0Medveaedatm. delivery error orfor asuse.ncein acme*.the with an estimated$13.6 million, the fourth Mississippi Book Festival. 4A•Oar"ii. y St,STESO ,e -Edlgm,on On Sunday please before afora During sessions inside the state Capi- plaument copy or for oasbtanain accessing the FANTASY 6 e-Edition. Oklahoma fans injured in storm too and ata church nearby,dozens of Aug Tg Not.WMNe Reproduction ofany pardon ofawl:maMtnotb. at Backstreet Boys concert authors spoke on a wide range of top- Aug.is sIs-28-29-se Permitted without.sp,esspe-maskmarehfNael.t ics,including food,sports,politics and The Fantasy 6 drawing is at 11:16 pus nighty. o�News.Tha pwrwerr.serves the right toot. . At least l4 people were injured and civil rights history. Aug•le Mows $1 Payout w.,a•advaslub$,h.t.l.yum..Twford.advertiser P P ) gh 4-melt 1 s2u124.50 .gr wng out�pubbethadv./thing.not ha law�n r&mag s taken to hospitals after trusses col- From Loire reports 641911 295 014.0 nt . pail for the spaceacNaly occupied by that portion of PICKS 2,3,4 ANDS the advertisement In which the emroaune0,whether Mrs 2,3,4 and 5 numbers are drawn Mice daily,at such error Is duetted,.n.gtgmn of the publkhers CORRECTIONS t"""'"..5.114.6"6‘.2 :30pm.enar vpcm mpbyeas or otherwise.and there shall be no'lability 1 R2 PICK PICK4 PICK (omen-Insertion of any advertisement beyond ths =LIZ" DO T6-u 6.7-5-2 7.2.84.3 mount paid for the aaveNeemam. The Daily News promptly corrects all errors of substance.Clarifications are published when Ary/edgy 6.7 5-la 61.5-1 5.34.5.6 raFAig.nn rom rA,m3ted Nada editors believe the information will help readers better understand an issue Sr news event. sours.Thenorm.Lcttery 0 MamM Poraomw'/rove eAtiIf you think we have made an error,call us at 435-3435 between 9 a.m.and 5 p.m.Monday aea$nn-Puvorwwwemon.,ysam plated ontaeyd.deapr. through Friday. The public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting held by Robert) i • ar . Willem,FA1CP of Hole Monies,Inc.on behalf oflhe applicant at the following lime and ; l� Ct'tedyN•g it ift4''�1cW f n/ location: r� z Thursday,September 6,2018 et 5:30 p.m. Fresh new looks for your homer Collier County Public Library Headquarters,Sugden Theater - J 2385 Orange Blossom Drive,Naples,Florida 34109 _ Thousands gf.desi,,g,.ner fabncs at Please note that the Collier County Public Library does not sponsor or endorse this Whplesf7le,pt ryeR?everyday ' program. The following formal companion petitions have been made to Collier County: our onsite workroom cart help'with anything from _ 11 Petition PUDZ-PL20170s04385-An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners rnlnor repairs ' rnaior recovering and complete 1. of Collier County,Rorida amending ordinance Number 2004.41,as amended,the Collier F i3re-upholstery projects:.r rt- County Land Development Code,which establiched the comprehensive muting regula• g , r i _ lions for the unincorporated area of Collier County,Florida,by amending the appropriate t. ,zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described a .x real property from a Rural Agricultural(A)zoning district part of which is within a _ - i,„„.3.41.;4.,.:.',; - Special Treatment(SI)overlay,and a Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD) Y t 1,41,44.... known as the Della Rosa APUD,part of which Is within a Special Treatment(51)overlay, - V. to a Residential Planned Unit Development(APUD)zoning dlsb eco for the project to be - , known as the Allure RPUD,toallow construction of a maximum of 420 residential multi- .M- f a Cfr . family rental dwelling units on property located on the south side of Veterans Memorial , - r= ' Boulevard,just east of Livingston Reed,in Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East, r s consisting of 35.571 acres,providing for the repeal of Ordinance No.07-73;and by pro- i.t viding for an effective date;and =lets. q,ss-y "'� .1 t '`s 21 Petition GMPA-PL-201700s4419/CP-2416.1,Livingston Road/Veterens Memorial l' ,3r * L _, II -a Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict-This amendment seeks to establish the\iter- .A'" _. ass Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict,which will permit up to 430 multi- -d 8,�1 a to - T� family rental dwelling units on property located on the south side of Veterans Memorial t - "4'"'1f -t'll . ..PI (ii .° F BoulcvaM,just east of Livingston Road,in Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East, (3 .k-1 .e..,-_;c5.47..,;::1114�$pq 1 .t`a �Ax consisting of 35571 acres i �'_ - of . 'dS'G'i i$ ' r f.. ` ra•' r til Es. t t �l A a* {Cod - - ::,. N 1 lt _� 81f7 kali us today at i , --� Imo-.. a___ 239-41f7 9107 •.• OFF r - Bou lia rooms has ato.;cked IhF. HMI f 1 j i t'' 1 l tb your workroom order. NgN 3K1Ce 1[tmt Bmu W reiling tY1lh Altura SPUD m b,LtDt3fUtd,LBlgD{.r_rHbf3 L HURRY IN SALE ENDS SATURDAY '� �' all baler,wbolerafe prls&si4_ .'411.:-•.:` k'WE VALUE YOUR INPUT . .FABRICS BY NAME-BRAND DESIGNERS- _ Business and property owners,residents and visitors are welcome to attend thepresenia- 3 TOMMYOtdtlMA 5t ia$at/i3TIe2\T(,pK 51110 ttA�Ea{cEtt5IAR gv,hET VE .Nr!495E, Hon and discuss the project with the.applicants and Collier County staff.If you are unable 3 - -• - ..to attend this meeting,but have questions or comments,they can be dinned by mail, phone,or e-mail to: OPEN rnoN-SAT 10AM-5:30PIa Robert).Muihere,FAICP,Vice President,Planting Services OCA OPEN aa75 NAPLES Hole Mentes,Inc. TAI 114 MI1RAP F. 950 Encore Way Naples,Florida 34110 735-4 n-5307 Phone:239-254-2000,email:bobmulheretthnuengronl Desigrher fnbe ics l'nr lbw Homs DocwaARGooNs-coat August W,2018 ND.2092331 Iona Ter HMONTES ENGINEERS•PLANNERS•SURVEYORS 950 Encore Way.Naples,Florida 34110 a Phone 239.254.2000.Fax:239.254.2099 August 20, 2018 Re: AlIura 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 35.57± 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/sek 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 1'E OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER • The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before.me this 21' Day of August 2018, by ROBERT J. MULHERE, FAICP, who is personally known to me or who has produced as identification. .j ' J (Signature of Notary Public) (Notary Seal) SyoAccini e Vann\ Printed Name of Notary ,y STEPHANIE KAROL �p4�r a . Notary Public•SIMS of FloridaCommission f.FF:0399f�Atri.1 d�,oa My Comm.Expires Mar 9,?020 *Igh;;.`•••� Bonded throup l National NahtiAssn. H:\2017\2017092\WP\PUDZWIM\Affidavit of Compliance NIM(8-21-2018).doe 16176 ABERDEEN AVE ALEX JOSEPH ALESSANDRI 2 TARA M ALLURI NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 i 16406 BARCLAY CT 16380 ABERDEEN WAY NAPLES,FL 34110--0000 NAPLES,FL 34110--0000 • i I ARNDT,WILLIAM PASSISI,FRANCISCO AUFDENKAMPE,ROBERT —.I ANNE MARIE CADWALLADER I SULEN,EDWARD=&LISA L MARGUERITE AUFDENKAMPE • 16365 ABERDEEN WAY 16403 BARCLAY CT 16360 ABERDEEN WAY NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 NAPLES,FL 34110-0000 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 • • 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 I . 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 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 i 16301 ABERDEEN WAY ASTORIA,NY 11105---0000 j NAPLES,FL 34110-0000 • I ' COLLIER CNTY l CRUZ,MARGARET A&OSCAR R CUCCINELLO JOINT LIVING TRUST C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 16423 BARCLAY CT • I 16246 ABERDEEN WAY 3335 TAMIAMI TR E,STE 101 'NAPLES,FL 34110-0000 i i NAPLES,FL 34119--0000 NAPLES,FL 34112-0000 I � 1 i li ' 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 I NAPLES,FL 34110--0000 DORCY,STEPHEN G DUDAS,VIOREL ECKERLINE,PETER MELANIE A QUIRION-DELANEY LOREDANA OANNA DUDAS • 1492 HUNTER DR 16281 ABERDEEN WAY I 16325 ABERDEEN WAY • WAYZATA,MN 55391-0000 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 I NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 ENCLAVE-LIVINGSTON LLC FEINBERG,EMILIA FIUPOV,GEORGE 870 111TH AVE N#5 I 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 I 16189 ABERDEEN AVE I NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 • NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 i STA pie CO label size 1"x.2 5/8"compatible with Avery®5160/8160 VILLJ JI\,IY lll.l lr\LLJVIIIY VVi\LLll.l\J VVY I"11YIIIVIYI vrr�ry rrr YIVVJ V • SARA MARIE GILLES JANE GORELICK EFROSINI 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,BRUCE 1&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 REV TRUST KIMM,PAUL HYUNKYU KOKA,ALTIN • SHERYL K BIEDERMAN REV TRUST BRANDI NICOLE KIMM 43-43 161ST ST 16493 BUONASERA CT 16418 BARCLAY CT FLUSHING,NY 11358-0000 NAPLES,FL 34110---3232 NAPLES,FL 34110--0000 KOWALSKI,ANDREW A&BETTY.] 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 LLC MACKENZIE,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 W MACK-LISTON,DENA MAHONEY,JEROME&DYAN MEGHAN K MACKINNON DAVID 1 LISTON III 16489 BUONASERA CT 1046 GREENWOOD AVE 16270 ABERDEEN WAY NAPLES,-FL 34110---0000 -- WILMETTE,IL 60091--1754 NAPLES,FL 34110--0000 A r-re 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 I MARLAC LLC 11935 SW 15TH CT ! : 4 BREDDER CT ; � 25397 N NORTHBRIDGE RD ` DAVIE,FL 33325--4633 ELMWOOD PARK,NJ 07407-0000 ! HAWTHORN WOODS,IL 60047-7359 i , i i I MARON JR,EDWARD ARTHUR MARTIN,ROSELYN D MARUSIK,DANIEL HOLLY ANN RUSSELL , JORDAN MARTIN 62 3RD ST 16181 ABERDEEN AVE ( 16407 BARCLAY CT BONITA SPRINGS,FL 34134-7321 NAPLES,FL 34110-0000 i NAPLES,FL 34110--0000 , i PMMATOGA PARTNERS LLC MEDITERRA COMMUNITY ASSN INC ' • MELINDA K GARLAND TRUST 6001 PELICAN BAY BLVD APT 602 15735 CORSO MEDITERRA CIR 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 16274 ABERDEEN WAY 16265 ABERDEEN WAY i . NAPLES,FL 34110---0000NAPLES,FL 34110-0000 i 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 HITESH S BARVALIYA 16188 ABERDEEN AVE PO BOX 933 1 16309 ABERDEEN WAY NAPLES,FL 34110--0000 SEAHURST,WA 98062---0933 I NAPLES,FL 34110--0000 PATINO,PETER&TRACY L PERGJINI,FREDERICK J PETISCO,GUSTAVO ADOLFO 16180 ABERDEEN AVE 60 HILLSIDE RD • I • ROSE PETISCO NAPLES,FL 34110--0000 GREENWICH,CT 06830---4835 • 16369 ABERDEEN WAY NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 POLLIN,CEDRIC&DOROTHEE PORECI,ANILA • PUCHALLA,MICHAEL J&STACEY J 16266 ABERDEEN WAY ( 93 ROBINHOOD RD .i 16273 ABERDEEN WAY • • NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 �I CLIFTON,NJ 07013-0000 ! NAPLES,FL 34110-0000 i RENDA,ANTHONY.F RENDA,DEANNA LYNN • RICHARD ALAN SOMMERVILLETROST 16205 ABERDEEN AVE i 16242 ABERDEEN WAY ' I 3580 7TH AVE NW NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 • J NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 ; i NAPLES,FL 34120-1608 1 ; I "ONTIA Me r1h8 label size 1"x2 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 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 ZHEZHA,KRITON ZHOU,HONG 16328 ABERDEEN WAY JORIDA GUDA JOHN ALBERT MACLEAN V NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 16320.A4ERDEEN WAY 5930 THREE IRON DR#3201 NAPLES,FL 34110--0000 NAPLES,FL 34110---0000 • • • • • • • • "'vim inn Pte® label size 1"x 2.5/8"compatible with Avery®5160/8160 v 1 t V c. ��' ; (1� Off ' le -r Y ` ` -a-a y \ Lu . .-+' a) .c r ) aa O `3 C O O �. �. d 0 �p 'i S v `-'' ` 'r ` CIS �, Q. J J S `C -5 ^E' o W �. ` W- ¢ Edc 1' ' � I l� V N W d 7 4, .(0 N C y O lr A c o. 0 Z) N a+ ° Z W N s ° [~-{ H P1 ' r 3 ` o It c c - - A.. . ii 07Z ;la SI 3 i-4 > o u d V O E..k O CA tea�,//� c o = vitt •• ti C1) N t4 C C v u \ Z � GN � a30� W C� cOi 3 y O � `-` � WH teaCS W " ` " W W � � 5) CO oL. u l '\ !�' 4s> o � „ N .1t > vCLFH � � a� a� cc � �. Oa �' �' cWn a�, W „see fl d .g ,q 2 1 t Z 0. A e , v) \\ P2 C z ,7, A L..... A y s- - iii 0 V� O ) N O W N > 0 3 H v = e a acut ` L, 3 ICA A 10 0 o a 1pill 0 !_ \-44 N. 1 m °7 = 3 413-4I "0 E � �` 4 C ,� N t i U .,, % '- ' y ( o -- _ t C al cla. v '/l i "p .1 L ` ..1 I d - ? _ . V .-0w = 'C 3 % �� H -.-i `7 — E 0 a - -� - h3p � .—o t t w :0- L E ti " W Q n p p W % 1 v 0 � �Aa; o t 7 i oyo = CU m > CI p ` N'MI , i Cfa 0.s13 �0 ' � 'cis y v- f9 h..1 ar -8 a1 F-1 N v s a+3 ❑. Ii : a7 y \ VW4 g • £ ac-04, 0A t is Fc ..c , el ' 4t g ci N W-.4 4_, )"4 e:D " * E � s r ti , ;%.r4 '-' C:( w4 E—+ "g pcu `1". 5- 2 .t ,Ii" % 6 ; r Ora p., * 0) L V5 16 1N _ � .Z V c CU 'PI 4111111 e'N CD O +msvai `� . pJ \-3ZZ ~ C!a W ° ioa _ y ."-- Cs) H W48 g _ 0o ° � CI ocgc •y P..4 4-, 'F' 0 O 3 I WO CJ N C vS w U ,_ Q. 7' A A ° = `n0 } 1 4 nJ} g ::F.: l' .'' 6 cg c--3 .)‘ _44- - ) P o (0 = s z � � . 4" � 4 � � 4, a) = C) 0-3 4114q 0 C a 110 S c • N N Oi'A l r L L L r I Y �� �\ J k 3 J J ...4 ,-)3 _ r " s , • ' Sof N �' cc-- \ • & -4 N toc. d 44 V v CP. J ` a -o u -O ,. O Ro . lb O 4J d c4 0) Q b - C1..- viii 411 oo o or la 1111 �� ' - -C Ln W 2 o 0 ' � O U- O @ o0 - \--- . iltro ,,/� (� '7 O- u o ilk o 4 O' o d N ilik) -.Q i .\....c), FFF^^^ 6 N� It t ,..1&< . -4,A ?---2Prn S Send, 1F•A' -44* 1 % u‘O..6 S 4 & •- A ' ._ 13 ul A o•70° la, Q0 • 06, s O � W oA ta - -0s to, t IA T , rt CIS Trla O 1\ 1' 0 9 W a o O o U o d - 0) dN 4 r- N • o d )0 .. _, 414 4 .• -IS, 1. 4 a -"474 s u r111111 ' J ° _a 4 4- li ,7.-,_ c' 13 d b°u. d A ( r . © �` c .c ,. 1-?, L.j — .....,_ 6 „ , ,A, ,: ,), Y C. ds ' s l F+^ 03 0. 0 Hca —�-3 - �{ A (.> . ,.„ ... . , .., _ , ,.., Hca N7 , t i t 2 - a ‘ • '' .--. �, , % is ., ea A‘ 41- lb �. e 4, _7` W p° l'‘Ik �C� O c y 4 � Te 'tki 30cl 45r �0 Tela -6 9 �� ts i � 10•4 ° O 4 % t' 1 d � y 4 � * 4 ° 0 � � - - '3 A A 04 � w 4 4-3 - � N O ? GG ‘1\t, Z litti , ' S6 11 i 0 To t, S P tt 0 izi ?, I o 1 �v) pVG 1 " ; i 1 _ . is.j, p‘ , C)2 4 'r'4 ?ir '3'r:....k 0 0 0 .,. - „c„,.,9... ,,,,,, ; v:\.) lik) 0- -">(-3 0 c-.,.._ \ —: '?1/43 ,,,.i - lit ---‘ s2 ' � —asY..% 0) C, 0 ,\ 1 t C -c,^J ° .d ca y 1 "13 N rgl 1-j .• Y u n48V @ w c 0.0 ) dl sn SCO y id s °' 4 ` v H oo - CO y� � q o o /. L d Q 1-_- O UI S /� o a.s ° „- T 00 3` WE vs C CU s C11o ti M A L c m `� f ° iIiIi • CN OD/'64 d Tr V 0W p _ ° N 0 OOe. D3cc It; 4, C c Hi .4 Cn C = s H o N : ° ti5 a g c-4 a E o c m — ., * ,► % � L ( ' '14Z t Fa Pi Pi 4_,Y 44 c a Q. i 1 c _ U '► ® �, a3p., W * °' ; moo a \4_. Q c, s(n * Q. ° cc d F� ►x ° HM 1‘ W rN Y .a >� `7 / T r. WOE 0 u tz [�� T 0 N C a •� x 5t - % , H ° UQT d d C.'° H �,� @v1 T 1 1 C� IP C "CS y \0 _1 .:,-,- , tx. IP, ,,, ..,.. ..s o � � -4 '- p o s � � J ' 0 � ,tin . d J i� SIGN POSTIN =jaalEUllasa (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 STATE 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 t 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. kuku Witt) Signal e of Notary Public Stephanie Karol Printed Name of Notary Public giodimihrowdbadawardbodbidindiudirimbe My Commission Expires: ; opp.,, STEPHANIE KAROI (Stamp with serial number) ( *��' , 's Notary Peek•State of florid: ' �—. •= Commission M FF 938980 Rev.3/4/2015 1 My Comm.Expires Mar 9,2020, '" 1)"`V Bonded through Nstlonai MKT Atsn. sal ttoau W Ca µ 1-- z C3 0MIMI o CC a o Z r = J a — CC Z ox xf- ~ z � Q V 1.. J Z I. N U 111 t i Gr \ '. a. a ugiq � � A • , -.. _...... ___ _._ U e31 m A ►L y 1u U.CD N o — �s - 0 ..F. W 4f) LU d LZ = �-� o o c Q U ■. - a -< x vi Q . Z Z.W 9 N V m — .. .<e, - - ,.ter-- ». E 4 4 w = N U U S G *. C_ , mac- , •' a u - M Z . ? _ IZ .i �_ t. C, ... 0. = W s Z_ d . '' M k^ 0LD 2 W OF en In � � L1J d U% — ua ® Q PGC a �r�� CI 1 ^r- o °° 4rdigrd- s t- a F- 2 �-j r4 . gig cii, Cm) U cp �i W 2 O W = Q_ Q `. CC Z 11 CCU s a ,! . . 1... a W W N p O d �' O. • .. Q7 . N I- N d _I a W W =CO • �.t t0 W u1 Q d u7 Lu � i �_ C Y W ~ 14 G N NEIG. 6Y ;€ 1 ti i; 2 W = O W r a .. 6a LL .J ., sdr = O = W O d OC et`` Ea re N co "-vS Q .4 �" t e .. co 1- o , . o 'f W o aj CO �[ z . ter ounHo �e sn CS) i 0 4. Z_" m 2 L1 4 W 4 02 F•^ r-- - .� Q ame � d 4- as -- r - - w O W ti _ om c7? 4 E • . t Crr,y. ' .; :19 . ! V ® st JZ VO d Y en LW. . 1�J ¢ v r d ® dpf d . osas } 1- ^ x � ~ _ LLI Igat om � � � s d uUim CO i dq ® ¢ F- omoq, CI LU C.C) c :- J o � W a 0 U) aid amu' e� �,A .� Z Nw . Z4car auto f-- Ili ,. k ... t. Q O C1 W W W W W N p gcnow W 1 G : ac �F�. ' A__.' 1'^ - a r a _ v C3 s O '= - i w dx zQ � ` i sa .red I- m U L3 F-- C7 a 1 �� C l. ` l* %_ ` Y • W � w 4 : i 0 .7) o co X Q } p = F Q I- 7.4 .__ o cc yy am J r z U 2 7 �'! 4 .= = O 4 V ¢ = t CC: Q V ® Lu W C> CC 4 ' Z = F O Q == CC W W 0 FM ® U Q p _ 4 ,...E J Q J IICE Q w ® do ...1 ig, CC CC ri, f ® 4 4 W = O N U ¢ F-- W U ~ W CS CI ¢ C? H Q w ¢ W S7 u4. =L2 = O a Q d . _..-. AIMZ r x WCO = Z W W W W EI! EA Q C., N _. . d O W ~ d ZC .CO CA 141 Z ") ¢ G J z f CCN CO =.,, � 4wO1 we C).--. OCC IMO IC% ,R,. Era O a, ,� c� C, CO WI C, ! (7.1.- W m w Ch O . � 4 � � � � .. N v� ,,, W QE. I= as .1X iii v ® Q .� ~ ~ ti U 1— Z '=',...- • CC rCrq+ p s W Z O > c C V h.. Z w W EA . p O u. N C) 1- ‘,., ..Z O 4 _ 0) >. 004 VJ 4 = V w W M C/7 aa tat 0 Z s— p 0.. W a O N O w W w $ ® W � Z = 67 Z la V W C Z ? H G I-' Z I L ..J = W + Lu O O CC MEM a Ca ® � > 4 ® E ® 'Inqd � 1— Cla ® H ¢ O w E3 — Q 0 7 4 0 °� uZi ~ q Q CO Q I T C7 N H ,_ O Cn Cn I.E,J �• � 20 co cc co YAC Q Z ZO4 W .1 CO 1- 1— ifg C4 . J w 1 N Ski Mgr I CC? 0 a Z F 4 0 J Z N - t — a e 4 as . _ A O u. O ® O O ® Q "' y W CC b LL a ¢ O r }Cd LI IS 44 6O CV S W 0 al LL F W !_ W 2Mill o ® =CC zQLL2 = 0.. we ® w - CI O ¢ h" s O a, W O ®CO r. GC W - 2 V) la- eL 1.. d U.. H I— CI., OflU UCI 4C LU f® = 4I_ 2LW A ry CL L) W Lial f.. ga41x2 xo � IL, c.) sC.3 SUPPORT DOCUMENTS U.S. Needs 4.6M New Apartments by 2030 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.\1'eAreApartments.or_. 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). �1 a 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 www.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. Study urges Collier County to act soon to create more affordable housing t`t...No,greg.stantey®nnptesnews.com;239-263-4738 , ,.. ..."i-1:,..._r i- Lpt - I::-, , .;._Pi- CLOSE Throwback Thursday:"Golf Capital of the World"Naples in 1958 J , 4 itit . ... .. 000.0.: - ::;:;, :.,; „pr..,. , r 9 .,. v ,*4^�Tk k^' ti t °O „ a �K (Photo:Staf) 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 it's 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. CONEECTiKc T 2utfiCED CQStitecEEAAlLMORE Collier County Florida January 29—February 3, 2017 , :, `, Albs *�" ,. — ;'."'...—: c ' � iI: w S r . y '' . • 464* .,- . rn ti - { '" "'"'�P,+wrap+Y »w.'hz' ...ry - --- ......„.„,_________, „.,,,„„.... .___ , .____, ,..„...:1„,.. .... , _ ...,.... ....„..., _. , .,,,_ 1 ,_, . . .. ......, ..... , ....._ v , ... .. .. n w .. _... ... _ . ......,.... „,....41. 'U''-- ''' 'fflr';','''A' '%:, '''''.9:'',:11,4(''': '''—!---'''''''.: '-':''''' f '' { -: r 4 =x .. , • •-y r PPP yam • F - • , II • Collier County 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 devel- 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. /� 1 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. 2 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report 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.Eider 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 chairs each panel. Director,Advisory Services 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 About the Panel 43 Collier County,Florida,January 29—February 3,2017 5 ULI Panel ProjectStaff and Panel Chair Lacy McManus Director of Program Development Philip Payne Greater New Orleans Inc. Principal and Chief Executive Officer New Orleans,Louisiana Ginkgo Residential 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 nity in the nation is,to some degree,struggling with this to millionaires and billionaires from around the world.The issue.It is especially true in retirement and resort commu- county also has a sizable second-home retirement com- 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 s _ - F 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 com- 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 affordability needs.With such goals in mind,the panel's ■ According to key stakeholders, including residents,what primary recommendations include the following: are the major obstacles to producing and sustaining 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? ■ 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' ■ Increase the county's supply of affordable housing(intTh - recommendations for change? eluding 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- `ou.,y Mean income,multifamily housing development. ■ Consider establishing an enhanced minimum-wage $ ordinance. INNOSSOMMOCitosaD • Raise public awareness,educate,and communicate - iimmismswith the community about housing affordability. Collier County circa 1930-1945. m 8 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report ...., Study Area and Surrounding C LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST END of the Florida Charlene Harter _ "—ij -------Iiii West Palm BeachFO >>4' "E" RB lie% la• peninsula,Collier Countyis the largest countybyland PALM BEA Cape 117, --- . Bbynon Belli area in the state.The county contains a variety of differ- ii glee, \a aivi ent communities including the city of Naples, inland Im- �____"-iv ,gat•11,, mokalee,and Marco Island,as well as four large nationally Naples7 ` fi ort Lauderdale CO LIER BROWARD „,w ollywood protected environmental areas.According to the 2010 47, B,9�PR� -t-_ _„1 Y census,the population breaks down to 65.7 percent non- GULF - NPsaEs ,iOR Hispanic whites,25.9 percent Latino,6.6 percent African ',4 j l Tia:'N ' lam! OF ,. t--fi am ; (._i-I American,and 1.1 percent Asian.This diverse community, �. t.,.-OE BiI' both geographically and ethnically, makes Collier County MEXICO Whitewater Bey Hohneste$d� ' ATLANTIC 1 ^t;' unique when compared with similar tourist destinations. ,i E • '"P However,this diversity has also led to housing issues . OCEAN throughout the county. FcoR164 BAY,,,-- Key Focus Areas Key West, '''• ' �1 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 j 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 , , _ t l_ I of the highest housing costs in the country.The limited Urban 1; - 1 area --44.-- number of commercial areas consists primarily of retail ____.> ,• , e 41111 t - . centers and financial institutions. City of a q --I __ Rural lands/Estates area Naples lit. i14 -; a __ _ ■ The urban area is located between the city of Naples > Ui:1-1 1 "`$1.:".5..2_ �ss� and the rural lands(which run from the coast to about __ ten miles inland).Most of the housing,commercial,re s "4 - tail,and other services are located and permitted in this '' '- • area.The urban area is characterized by large,planned, s gated communities and by strip-mall developments. c' _ ` ' `h ----t- - i ■ The rural lands and the Estates area are located �' x=4 ` _ e ma . _ between the urban area and the more environmentally t r, r te.` _, �„, g 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. /."s. 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 Acivq3=151, aZ?E i Rerun ,,. 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 What 1I s 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 LL examines income as compared to housing cost.Therefore, it has a localized outcome that recognizes the different'141111; 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 p ° m, r ,. 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 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 4 gross income(https://www.census.gov/housing/census/ � ., -lawk publications/who-can-afford.pdf). 4. 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. line Os COst P' LOrjeued eco 3cRier 3®urmty? 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 com- 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 U II @ev sc y Se vices _,! Table 2: Estimated Cost Burden for Households Headed by Selected Wage Earners Annual wage range Housing cost as percentage of gross income Profession 1 (entry to median) Median gross rent 2015 median home sale price Health care Registered nurse $47,000—$65,000 ,; � 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 43% Patrol officer $47,000—$59,000 x .�� 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) "x"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 concerns. at 90 to 100 percent of area median income can incur 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 ULI 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 is 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.) Y 410 tin — > wEE 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 and mitigatingresidents to age in place and to receive health care.Also, gestion 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 ULI Advisory Services Panel Report n • ■ 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 _ ' "1.;iF , the full spectrum of consumers.Housing options should , , be economically and geographically diverse throughout �, ="a:* •� the county,as well as having a range in sizes and types such as single-family homes and rental apartments. i, 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, qualities such as livable wages,job opportunities that the anticipated growth will erode the very qualities 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 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 ■ Enhance transportation options; can commit to,and the panel recommends Collier County ® 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 IFN g ,„: 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 i ' - throughout the county.This recommendation will be dis- cussed is cussed in greater detail later in this report,but the current w An example of existing density that allows for a mix of uses in density bonus program needs revision to allow for higher f downtown Naples along Fifth densities to ensure that additional mixed-income,mixed- 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 Post reported:"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 ULI 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 developers to build a spectrum of housing types and sizes. Palm Beach County's Workforce Housing Program 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 In addition to enhancing existing tools to create affordable than 1,400 affordable or workforce units have been 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 of affordable housing options by linking the zones to the recommendations by the real estate industry, 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 IZ programs can be flexible in implementation to fit the broad mission,their primary role is providing successful needs of the county and to fit different project types.For homeownership opportunities for generations of lower 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 n 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 ,11P,Zr.a. },b 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 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, supply.The National Housing Trust finds that renovating an range of housing needs is through effective public/private existing property can be one-third to one-half as expensive partnerships.Elements of effective public/private partner as new construction.Renovating older properties does ships include creating a shared vision,clear roles and not require new land for development,takes advantage of responsibilities,consistent and coordinated leadership,and existing infrastructure,and reduces construction waste. frequent communication. 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 is 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. e 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 standard percentage reductions in minimum parking existing infrastructure. 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 com development pattern while encouraging affordable housing patibility 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 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 redevel- u E,J, opment of nonfunctioning golf courses is appropriate. ea 9 i.j� lip I' '—_// 'ft4 - - . Permit guest houses as accessory dwelling rental . units:There are a number of existing guest homes,pre- ,--- re- �� The Bayfront Naples "' 1,41' dominantly in the eastem portions of the county and the development is an example Estates,that—if permitted to be used as rentals—could of successful and appropriate ,,, i density and mixed-use have an immediate effect on the supply of affordable development in Collier County. y 26 A ULI 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 exploita- increased.For example, 30 units per acre maybe 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- sary expense to overall project costs.The requirements per acre.Bonus density is even more important given the further exacerbate challenges to providing affordable approximately 9 percent of unentitled land.Finally,the 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 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 Target Certain Activity Centers for Significantly Triangle CRA where high-quality transit facilities along Higher Density with the Provision of Mixed- ncome Housing transportation corridors are provided. Collier County currently has high concentrations of housing Streamline the Project Approval Prccass wiser 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 com- 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 C�ii is .y,PeriFla,.Canusry 29—-ebra Try 3,2017 27 /'\ Enhance Transportation Options Collier County,the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organize- --= tion(MPO),and the city of Naples have done extensive public outreach and planning for alternative mobility op- s. - tions in the county.From the Collier County Master Mobility Plan(2012)and MPO's Comprehensive Pathways Plan PinRid e Road (2012),there are clear strategies and recommendations for 14. 's , • _ enhancing transportation access across the county.In ad- iiit dition,there are policy frameworks—such as the complete streets,the existing community movements including the Naples Pathways Coalition,the community Blue Zone,and aP"' ts the various committees and task forces that are informing S The panel created a - a range of government entities.Those efforts have created conceptual framework to help .±=_t, an exemplary foundation of outreach and data to inform identify activity centers and transportation corridors with a _ pa and to guide the implementation of a thorough alternative higher density of mixed-income \ ; \4,1�a� transportation system. housing development.Activity '� .—-a 1, i j* centers are denoted by red _ -1 tai/ squares and transportationSuch assets and engagements are critical in the context corn'dors by purple lines. 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/publications/download/ DevelopmentlnCRD_CRA.pdf)fot 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 ULI Advisory Services Panel Report �tComprehensive Pathways Plan 't h r II 11 11.111111.- At 01,4 1). 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). o JD,.n,ner 2011 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 com- 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 VII Advisory Services Panel Report 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 �b the demands alreadyplaced 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. In 2014,the fund was expanded to serve the surrounding ;a1 seven-county region and is now capitalized at$24 million. ':, .JI Borrowers may use funds to purchase,hold(for up to five `` n. sr u i years),and develop sites within a half mile of fixed-rail l Ag Ni i i o 10_` 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 0 permanently affordable units and more than 150,000 Denver's new Regional Transportation District rail system has 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 P[ iON\1 rt&NN1Vc rnaiyr"1fN ;0 within the community. _ 7 F� .,._, .•,�.w qr n.o-nnor r e�o:o.. a:WtI 2 RIDE Mame GreenRtda7atwtal Second,the panel recommends instituting enhanced , minimum wage ordinances.Several U.S.cities including /1 Metro New Orleans Graeme. : Albuquerque,New Mexico;Flagstaff,Arizona;Malibu, VIA n-zke,deseon" ° 'n0`e v California;Miami Beach,Florida;Portland,Maine;and 1.1-un N-A C ana s fr.nReS.,s completely •.t1 wigs connect commuters wee carona mashes*, Washington,D.C.,have attempted to address the issue g-hv- et R1eboS tun RE-o,n RE-o, t eara make _„ :v ip ITN*4111.11,,TIIITallt,as rorunn[WE, ,IP., wit " > wmroof housing affordability this way and are seeing positive .r I.ed oaf*we about RiglE19,r1g 1 0. roue_a4 ' .m the aeenfida Tunnel ea ahrne • - results.In virtually all cases,the ordinances call for a mod- Getting in'tecles quick eieasy ..:..w •eble est immediate increase in the minimum wage followed by I R+J n aCoh I S..,rT 'an caug)h n 3r ,,,-41 "" a series of incremental steps spread over a period of three ',tan ca�nnnq 7 7 .,,,.gr Sian In or Resister to five years that ultimately lead to a mandated minimum 3 wage of$13 to$15 per hour. ii w. What t worth? Ready.Set.Go. w�'�.,�a ( #'tea... i � :-:::,===.7:::::.:*--- libEngage, Market, and Educate .11 Beyond moving ideas into action, education and corn- munication also are critical pieces of a comprehensive and 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 linmks commuters with carpool affected by housingaffordabilityissues in Collier regardingwhat affordable housingis,what it might look matches in the New Orleans County. g 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 ULI Advisory Services Panel Report /•"'`\ to raise awareness,and to make affordable housing a vis- -�-i D.. ible problem to everyone. ENy1SJp%N * „ . r. East New York r Starrett city D ,,, Bolster Existing Programs and Processes VEL OP `ENf `/ i ( Tr.nMx&.cmKtwn m l0„xa& OO tLKIT The county government has already developed an afford- 1/--_-- / ) ' .z �M .. ..�. .. WHAT IS ., $ di i , able housing database that tracks for-sale and rental units AFFORDABLE throughout the county.However,the panel recommends HOUSING? "4 -- - ""t"'` enhancing this database to include and track new units ?-Q> C) J i - \\ / :iil .. coming online and to include their sunset dates so that the New York �": !- — 26m33 county has a clear understanding of the supply of afford 4 able units in real time. 1ionalw • ; ` -__4,....--- , ,„ ,,....- .k...„,„ This information should include comprehensive details, r..- : including addresses,bedroom sizes,square footage,rental -\ ( 4 rates,for-sale rates,and neighborhood location.An en- , i s hanced database will also help ensure that the community 1 ; 0-'19: has a credible source of real-time information that shows • j ` - °,. that affordability is spread throughout the county and not "'"--p A\ concentrated in any one district. -'' N. . '`I _°; aP By improving existing housing information online,the _;, �• M^ -'•i county will create a robust information portal for exist ' ` Income Imanhoi - W n 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 to housingin the county,ensuringthat residents have the less they are beingcommunicated to thepublic at large in created an online map to help � Y 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 lan- 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 Seekers of affordable housing.Building on an enhanced i, 4 `� online inventory discussed earlier,the panel also recom- i, - mends the county create an affordable housing directory I+ — for those residents seeking housing.The directory will list ��' both rental and for-sale opportunities and will draw from ethe county's live online database.However,because not ;.. everyone is comfortable with(or has access to)the internet, One of the many community workshops conducted in the - the panel recommends two options for this database: Park View and Pleasant Plains neighborhoods in Washington, _._ ■ A web-based platform,and D.C.,as part of the community , ., engagement video project SEE/ g CHANGE DC. h ■ 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 information in a way that allows people to become engaged Create a Residential Toolkit ^ in the community and connected with their community. 1 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 conn- a r N b,.4 3 .1.‘ 46• ' . .„, -A , V, N -, ' • The panel recommends that Collier County think creatively about �_ ri 4. community engagement,marketing,and education strategies. Volunteer programs such as planting projects related to new housing =.N developments and YIMBY(yes in mybackyard)campaigns aregreat i`� -- r p �,�g � . t � ways to raise awareness of and to engage the larger community in housing affordability issues. *•K 34 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report 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., plans and District Department of Transportation transit corridor studies neighborhoods:Park View and Pleasant Plains. 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 Bell Visuals, 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. I ,a-111.,Asp , rsjj 4 1111 " .. IS A.__ :. _ efroet Most your neighbors Mp 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 ALI;, rte. 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 Schedule 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. ®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 corn- 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:// cornpact.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 Policy Leadership Award Winner r)a — r.ok ROBERT C.LARSON i HOUSING POLICY a —� _ AWARDSr � 4.� 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 http://housingworksaustin.org/ www.austintexas.gov/department/ 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 1;10417 derived from private sector developments built on designated city- Terwilliger Center tar N_- owned property. 40 A VU 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.Housing"'(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. • Two tiers of affordability are required—10 percent "a 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. • r To date,117 units have been constructed at 50 percent of MFI,ten at 65 percent of MFI, - t rid,: and 357 units at 80 percent of MFI. " • The Downtown Density Bonus Program 4602 (2013)and the East Riverside Corridor * F 1� Program(2013).Height-density bonus i 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. critical issue. I believe Austin's affordable housing bond votes IMPACT STATEMENTS were successful in 2006 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 from providing affordable housing on housing affordability.To date,Austin has issued more than 150 affordability impact statements. for low income families." 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.ultorg/terwilligeraward. 42 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report 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- berMetropolitan Washington." 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 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 ULI 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 alt- 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 aor created them on the spot in design firms and universi- ance Program through the Coalition for Sustainable Flood 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 r0-**N 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. /'1 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 Hing 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 three major infrastructure projects(i.e.,production farms, A lifelong educator, Orfield was a member of the fac- 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. Gu ct y,E^o; la,si,anuarr 29—Fe rL ary 3,2017 47 • I • $ t 2001 L Street, NW Washington,DC 20036 www.uli.org :; Printed on recycled paper. U.S. Apartment Demand — A Forward Look - 7 7-,,,„„„ ., , ,-- ..r ,1 -Iry Vir:, ° ,11 1111 h K i N t ter' _ ti ,' _ F 1- ° fr i ti e ,. , 7 ' ii 3 , 1,.. i . � 0 01.. , if il ,,,./_k! 1 : it , os i i, 0, r .i g , i ,1 ,,,',14-, I d. 5 1 ir , ,,A 1 ,..r. p ,t. , , 0, 7,7 a r . •- ii i ,,. 4, ..0.-.„ . : , r , ,, , 1 4 • ' „.- II If '. -I 1 ,' ' if I ' °I.-' , I'' ,.." os Zt , fI 4 $ *l( frtz • y !r 0,14 fir, NATIONAL MULTIFAMILYA A HOUSING CO U NC I L 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 include'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 persons'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. '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 200972014. 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. 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.miRrationpolicv.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. 8 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 1 ii I II 1111 I ) O 1,000 500 0 O M la a1 N 1.0 CO e-I Gr N O M to al N L11 W c-I N O N n n N. 00 CO CO al CO 01 O O O O .-I .-I c-I N N N CO 01 01 al al 01 D7 01 al al a1 O O O O O O O O O O O r-i c-I c-I c-I r-I c-I .-I .--I ci c-I N N N N N N N N N N N ■Net International Migration 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 t.. 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 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% :::: 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% 90% 80% 0 70% a 60% 0 I 50% H 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016 Number of People in Household One •Two Three Four ■Five 4 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 v N I0iiIIIIIiii 2.50 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% v, 20% -a 0 s 0 15% o 1 0 10% : ffi ;. v t 0- 5% i :•1 , • e 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016 2020 2030 Under 25 4 25 to 29 years - 30 to 34 years 35 to 44 years •45 to 54 years i 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.'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. '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.comicontent/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. 12 Figure 7:Base Case of the US. 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 3,200 1,300 ::: . iiiiII 1,250 1,200 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Population is Households U.S. Projected Base Case Households by Year as Used in Figure 4 in 000's Year Population Household Size's 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 y. '8 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. 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. 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.ed u/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Characteristics-of-Depreciation-in-Commercia I-and-M ulti- Family-Property 0317.pdf. 28 See https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cinch.html. See also https://www.hud user.gov/portal/datasets/cinch/cinch 13/Renta l-Dynam ics-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% IIII 111 90% II i iiii 80% 70% 60% 50% i' 40% '1 30% 4 = Tai 20% ��`I 1 10% ANx 0% 0:1 0:2-4 0:5+ 0:M/0TH R:1 R:2-4R:5+ R:M/OTH 54 B1939 Mt 1940-59 '__ 1960-79 1980-99 III2000s is 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 01 LCI 01tiD 0 O Cr) 155,000 m Cr) of `° N co- o 00 rn to 150,000 —4 N m N N �fl dt N r 145,000 N O1 —' N kN C 140,000 F N 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 0 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 -500 m -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%3Z. 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.oewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/06/around-the-world-governments-promote-home- ownership. 33 See http://eveonhousing.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 c, co 10% 65 a 64 5% 63 0 v 62 0 0% 61 60 -5% 59 O N .zt l0 00 0 N a' CO CO 0 N d' CO CO O N V l0 CO 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 O1 0 0 0 0 0 c-I .-I O1 01 01 01 CI al a1 a1 CT 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c-I c-I -1 c 1 r-I ci ci c-I a-I c-1 N N N N N N N N 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 as 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 htto://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. 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. 21 bought near price peaks or had their credit affected are hesitant to jump back into housing ownership.4° 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 L.fl LO N. CO 01 0 c-1 N m 'f Ln l0 N. 00 01 0 .-I N m C' u1 (.0 01 01 ci 01 01 Ol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O e-i 01 01 01 01 Ol m 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .-1 N .-i r-I r-I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Under 35 - X35-44 -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 '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. '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$30,000.45 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://financeographv.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.' 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. 45 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.h u d user.gov/porta l/pe ri od ica is/cityscpe/vo I18n u m 1/ch 9.pdf. 5'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. 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 IiIIiiiiiiii 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 -100 u, co 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 12% Single-family Detached 28% 20-49 Rental Units ,t 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 -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.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. 28 Figure 19:Small Scale Ownership of Rental Units Distribution of Rental Units Owned 11-100 units over 100 units 6% _3% 6-10 units 4% 3-5 units 8% 1-2 units 7996 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/#. 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 N 00 m 0 ON N ON ON ON-I 0 0 0 N O N a0-0I Ol OO ON O 0 0 0 0 ON N Nu1 lND ON CO (11NOl OO N N N (N O N NO M 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 t 1 \\et 200,000 (200,000) 00 m 0 N m d' OON 0 �-� <-1 Lr)O ON Lr) l0 N 0c0 a a�1 N ON N ON NNO O 0 0 OON N 00 NNNNOOOOOOO NONl OM N NO N —Base Case --Lower Rentership Higher Rentership 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 modelingss 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 Types' Percent 3+ Bedroom Rental by Type As of 2011 Source:Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University 70% 60% 50% 40% 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.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 S7 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. se 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 p0r 70 0+ o ott 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.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.' 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. '2 See https://www.huduser.gov/publications/pdf/what happens lihtc v2.pdf and https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/summerl3/highlightl.html. 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-fi rst-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. 0 _ 3 Vtt HAS Avg Percent 5=Rental Units Needed 2016- 2030 >over 2.0% 4 "-> >1.2%-1.5% a sx is�. .°, /"..\ >0.8%-1.2% _ >under 0.8% a:m.> • rte, 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 o 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. i= 1©1 Ouggiggw ; , ' ate... 1 11P HAS Percent PopGrowth by Intl Immigration ""'° 2020-2034 ` >over 100% >30%-100% r.,�P u...,,n, >i0%-30% MEXICO .., >5%-I-4'e ..,_. >under 5% ,q`•'w�PueW.iw s..,o 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. Cmc.., t LL l©1 A w,>,. u P<x w $ mo wxY ,. HAS Percent Rental Households Under Poverty Level b >over 35% >25%-30% tdEY1,,, n„... H >20%-25% ...Vr. ..4mn >under 20% a ." c.nwR °Pue°n 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. �+ 9 • ,,,..,� p� ., HAS Percent Rental Households over 3540 Gross Income to Rent ® >over 44% >40%-44% >355-40% HE) rr >under 32% i 5=0 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 _ I IOI Quels rpt f; :7 rx nr Jsck • HAS Percent of R=ntal Stock 5—Snits Built before 1480 >over 65% >55%-65% >45%-55% MEXICO . >35%-45% c.ffi w.. yawl. >under 35% 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 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. 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, Merr'►phts- - 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 ax, 15.0 -a 4 10.0 • T. • • • • fij 5.0 • •• ®•.: .` • Oa,• • Q ••• 0.0 — -.-• A — • —�• �___ _ _ • •�• '? $ • , -5.0 a • • • -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 x 15.0 • • 10.0 .L • • • • °' 5.0 0.. • •• • ..•..•. .W. • • 0.0 -- •a ........ • • • • • • • •• ® . •. • -5.0 • I -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 • 10.0 • • • • • • 5.0 .'••• •! • • • • �+ .•, •• • ••., • •,• • •• • • • • . . • -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 80,000 760,000 0,000 100,000 80,000 50,000 60,000 40,000iI ' a 30,000 40,000 20,000 20,000 10,000 I. under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k 5100k $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 Natural Increase 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 o 15-24 ®25-34 •35-44 _,45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 14.0 12.0 10.0'c 8.0 111111111111111 c° 6. 4.0 11 11 2.00 o 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N ry N N N N N N N N N N N 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 3.0 4.0 I I I s 2.0 I • 1.0 I 11 o m m o 0 0 a a 2 n m m o 0 0 o N o 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 O 15-24 ■25-34 m35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 8.0 6.0 ' !, ! ! 0 00ki 15 -2.0 ' 1 -4.0 u ' -6.0 -8.0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N N o : o 2 N 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 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 52 Appendix 2: Renter vs. Owner Demographics Housing Tenure by Age 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 111 111 <35 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ ■Owned ■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 a Rented 53 Appendix 2: Renter vs. Owner Demographics, continued. Housing Tenure by Move Date • 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% + a rnrn 0, ti o o rn ate, N N O O O 00 O V O O a Q N Year Householder Moved Into Unit Owned a Rented Housing Tenure by Race 100% rte. 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Owned Rented White ■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 ___ 1 Alabama -17 -18 26 49 48 11 -32 -52 -34 281 __I Arkansas -5 -12 5 18 25 11 -14 -23 -12 164 __ I Arizona 72 97 167 185 173 116 80 58 103 812 1 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 Florida 142 11 163 350 468 296 104 171 401 2,946 I Georgia 80 106 163 193 147 55 6 31 92 871 1 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 --_. 1 Indiana -40 -9 21 68 37 -9 -57 -81 -36 449 __1 Kansas -10 -5 1 38 36 32 -1 -31 -15 223 __ 1 Kentucky 0 1 31 29 23 -7 -29 -43 -17 295 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 __-1 Maine -17 -5 4 10 2 -16 -31 -34 -18 99 ....1 Michigan -158 -98 35 110 35 -97 -170 -192 -88 671 __-_--.-_I Minnesota -20 -24 -31 38 66 48 -24 -72 -13 443 __1 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 _1 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 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 1 New York -259 -21 227 374 198 -154 -382 -419 -198 436 •-......-n Ohio -89 -96 -6 34 67 -57 -157 -202 -91 783 Oklahoma 4 -14 0 42 57 41 -7 -38 -23 232 __I Oregon -8 -6 25 41 51 29 17 -18 -23 282 -1 Pennsylvania -202 -166 -69 103 99 -71 -209 -256 -110 813 Rhode Island -27 -16 -4 20 11 -8 -20 -22 -6 73 ._____ --1 South Carolina 34 31 66 89 80 22 -17 -23 4 392 South Dakota 9 4 10 15 16 11 6 -5 -5 26 .-■n.-__I Tennessee -16 -24 34 73 69 7 -31 -24 16 512 _________I ' Texas 187 169 283 517 569 464 275 179 259 2,263 I Utah 57 44 43 26 51 70 70 27 16 200 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 _ 1 Wisconsin -55 -18 0 64 39 2 -66 -106 -37 423 _ I West Virginia 2 -4 -3 -6 -6 -14 -16 -31 -31 85 ..1 Wyoming 5 -2 -6 0 9 11 1 -11 -12 29 ---- -..1 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. Definitions on back 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 1 1,51y 10,000 Renter Single 45,035 r� 5,000 _ Renter 2-4 units al 18,751 N _ ■ under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 43,284 515k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k 5150k $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 I. 1,646 40,000 - 2010 r\ 35,000 2010 4,052 0 t 30,000 8 1980- p 25,000 2000 19,980 I ;° 20,000 - 1960- a 1980 14,339 15,000 10,000zor1940- - N. _ 1960 2,581 5,000 'f 1 1 61940e , 686 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 a 35-44 .45-54 •55-64 ■65+ 74 a 2.5 N 72 o o 2.0 1 70 1.5 68 66 „ 1.0 a 1111 64 0.5 o 62 ' ' ' ' 111 58 1111111111111111111111 -1.0 r I 56 not adjusted for type of rental -1.5 54 N n N 01 O . N M q VI ,O N N Ch O N CO T O --, N M V Vt lO N CO M 0 N N M d' 1 lO n il a1 0 NNNNNN N M O O O O O O O O O O O O O ON O O p O O ti 0 O O O O O O N O N N N N N N N N M NATIONAL 62 - •���Y''� ff11C HOUSINGOUSIFAh,ILY .► HAS U111Vniii}'I . F ATIOO 50,000 III Owner 40,000 30,000 �� . -.- 20,000 il a10,000 ._ 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 ■Renter •Renter 90,000 180,000 [7, Owner t Owner 80,000 e`" 160,000 70,000 140,000 60,000 120,000 50,000 100,000 40,000 80,000 30,000 r4 N 60,000 jIiI _ .20,000 oo M kr) co 10,000 IcIII o0 sc 20,000 v0 N1 oLri NI — 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) -5 0 s 10 15 -5 0 5 10 15 Mining � 2000-2010 2010-2016 Natural Increase Construction ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing OM Trade&Transport iiiiiii 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcsiiii Net Migration . Professional Svcs 111111111.1111111 Education&Health =101.111111. 11111111112016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality IIIIIIIIIIIIIIMINatural Increase Government iiiNet 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 onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. AATiO;SP.L 63 -""'�-mm i 1 h� IC MULTIFAM1 LY A k �S Unj.Ver5lty. ; _ HOUSING COUNCIL -- !San Diez Strong in migrations exceed natural population increases. Solid economic growth expected across all sectors but mining,manufacturing and infor- "' motion. 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 boc;. DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 7 217 0.4 22% 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 In Owner 2-4 units 7,798 100,000 80,000 Owner 5+units 1 33,530 60,000 Renter Single 304,920 40,000 N m N 20,000 - -- - - ,- Renter 2-4 units . 67,379 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 381,727 $15k $25k $35k $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 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 250,000 since En2010 16,623 2000- 200,000 2010 84,493 - 5 s 1980- co 1940- 0 150,000 2000 169,970 - 1940 T To c) 100,000 1980 92,186 * ... 50,000 i r-.1 f 1960 13,057 Co 1111 before • 5,398 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+ 700 v 25.0600 not adjusted for type of rental o I- 20.0 500 400! 15oIIuIIIhhIIIIhhI ,_ 300 F 10.0 200 I1i-1IIiIuIuI-II- 1111111111111 5.0 100 0.0 tD r CO 01 0 N N m Q U+1 b N CO m 0 N COp0p0 0 .-I N m a 01 b N CO m 0 .-+ 01 d' On b N m m 0 .-1 N N N N N N N N 01 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IN N IV O ,--i 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 N N N N N N N N N :..'°*%S. NATIONAL �/►�► MUILY T h��IC HOUSING I�IV i A HAS 1 Univetsity. ;-. ' coun�ciL _._-.-_-_--�_- �, ��/%----IIVV �5anDieeo, . 300,000 Is` . I Owner 250,000 - 200,000 150,000 rv .r_ • -- v 100,000 a; 0.. n .1 m F o a 50,000 N N I— ii EN 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 I Renter ■Renter 800,000 Owner Owner 400,000 700,000 !r:4: 350,000 600,000 300,000 m 500,000 N 250,000 IA 400,000 ro 200,000 v 150,000 ill � 300,000 LO 1111111 rn _ 100,000 `� p ^ ::: li ...,H ul co Nto u1 Nco .. 50,000 100,000 oLLI - 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 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Mining I 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing • Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs 11 Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs 1111111111 Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality P tY 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 listed in the publication appendix. NATioNAL 65 I= MMIM11101111N , NHC HOUSING MULTIFAMILY I�11 HAS C USanDig xFita COUNCIL _.W. ..—._._-__ ®y____fl` V.a-H. �SanDieo° 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 back �-.. 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 6,730 30,000 0 uV; 20,000 i v Renter Single 79,727 10,000 ' Renter 2-4 units - 37,632 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 179,805 $15k $25k $35k $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 °n since 2010 21,854 100,000 .04 �` 2000- -0 80,000 2010 46,226 0 -c 1980- 0 60,000 2000 73,266 x 1960- c34,579 40,000 1980 cc .moi . 20,000 Mi i 1940- i 1 1960 3,004 before 1876 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 J 35-44 45-54 •55-64 ■65+ 47" 400 14.0 m 350 - not adjusted for type of rental o 12.0 ~ 10.0 I I I I 300 ' ' ' ' ' 250 11111 ' ' 8.0 I ' . 200 3 6.0 150 4.0100 - - 111111111111111111 1 2.0 50 0.0 to r` 00 01 0 s.l N rS sr ul l0 N CO 01 CI 1, 00 01 0 N N M to on lG IN 00 Ol O e-I N r0 C on LO N 00 01 0 O O O O O OOOOO OO r-, O O g N- O N- N 8 N N- N N N N N N- N N N N N N N N 8 ,NN N NNNNNNN N 0,INNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNeN Zigit'L ILY 66 J MULTIFAM1 ��1■ HOUSING r y couraai. '11�±_e-__� HAS Unive'San Diego° Owner . 100,000 75,000 0 _.___._ 50,000 `D . , , _ .,___ _ m m 25,000 N n 00 _ NIA i 1 : 1 ilia M �—' -:aW, - 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 721 Owner 120,000 300,000 100,000 250,000 80,000 I 1 200,000 N m 60,000 c I a 150,000 '� N C.1 CO 03 rn 40,000 N 100,000 N. NI'''. W '4".. N W 20,000 .-1 cr, 50,000 r+ 11111 mi.* III ;Nle nil 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 2000-2010 - 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing O 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 Whftegate 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 _ 'moulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. .64 NATIONAL 67 NWHCMULTIFAMILY HOUSING ��1 HAS t}Ili�'eI'ieg COUNCIL ntve ICQa' 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. .- --_ DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* u 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 60,000 Owner 2-4 units 4,931 50,000 40,000 1 1 1 1 r.s, Owner 5+units 34,146 30,000 N 0 Renter Single 136,366 20,000 '" 10,000 I_. Renter 2-4 units ■ 43,134 under $15- $25- $35- $5D- $75- $100- over Renters+units 174,515 115k 125k $35k 150k 175k $look $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` since 11,208 2010 100,000 - 2000- o 5 2010 16,909 c0 80,000 1980- 0 ':' 2000 62,526 x _, � 60,000 0 '' 1960- 52,592 40,000 - it 1980 1940- 20,000 I-1 I 1960 15,046 before 1940 16,234 under l5% 15%-2D% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast D 15-24 a 25-34 2 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 260 -o 7.0 " 250 not adjusted jor type of rental t 6.0 F- 5.0 240 4.0 -8 3.0 II ' 230 1N2.0 10 t '' 220 � - . • -1.0 � irii , ' I I ' ll 0.0 ii -.' Iii 210 -3.0 • ■ , , I zoo -4.0 190 ,a r w e, O N N w w in w r- w w o N O O o eNN M 'w1 en 4 r rW Ol ,9 e' N mN w iN� mrV mN o O O O O O O O O O N O N O 8 O 000000000000000000000000 N N N N N N NNN NNNNNNNNNNN ,' relic HNOULU;SScINxA„NI,.ILY NAA 68 HAS vol. . , .--- 150,000 . _ Owner k ... 125,000 et max,- 100,000 M 75,000 00 co ol m\ `" .,, .. 50,000 of m r^�^ .1 N , , _ _ -.._ 25,000 I. N I 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 •Renter Owner 500,000 0 Owner 200,000 400,000 150,000 300,000 100,000 1 n m 200,000dii I ti Fi NCO 100,000 0ol 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 El Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing E Trade&Transport 11.111111 Information Svcs 2010-2016 1 Natural Increase Financial Svcs M Net Migration Professional Svcs IMMEMONMEMEniiiiil Education&Health MMEMOMMEME 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality — Natural Increase GovernmentMIME 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 "'..,consulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. v ST1::N.41NAA 69 - a MULTIFAMILY •"-'..._._..v...__._._ A HOUSING �© Un1VCT51ty COUNcl,. �� 0-San Diego 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. 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 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 35,000 Owner Single 273,423 30,000 Owner 2-4 units I 1,018 25,000 20,000 Owner 5+units I 2,731 15,000 - - Renter Single 51,398 10,000 v 5,000 - ui co cri, Renter 2-4 units _ 16,344 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 60,688 $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 since 3,264 50,000 2010 2l 10,590 -a 40,000 2010 5 t ci i., 1980- 19,11421,310 0 30,000 2000 x To 1;99694860 ni 20,000 19,114 CC 1-1 r; ixt in `~ 0- _ 10,000 '.to ii:7 m 0 before9 - 1940 3 �`�` under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast i=15-24 ®25-34 0 35-44 45-54 •55-64 ■65+ 90 -a 1.4 6 80 not adjusted for type of rental a 1.2 I- 70 iIIIIIIf 60fp 11111 50 -0.4 10 0 1� co o, O v., N CO V1 la N CO 01 O N CO 01 O rl N In a th tD N 00 01 O ,-I N M V ,r, 1a h W Q1 O N 8 rl 8 N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSS000000000000N000000000 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 RA7`IONA L 70 -,.- MULTIFAMILY HAS USanDilty Its .-. . HOUSING 70,000 Owner 60,000 50,000 ow 40,000 30,000 �'� M O li i 20,000 e~i ,4 ei i ml e4 01 tD 10,000 , v f53 'k..... Wig: ■ �'z -� �r" ,.- - - 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 a Owner 3 Owner 200,000 80,000 150,000 60,000 100,000 :: jg ,000 iIiIuII . L ,000 50,000 ' il 1 1 .4. in oo Ln 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) -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 0 1 2 3 4 5 Mining ' 2000-2010 ▪2010-2016 Construction 1.11111111111 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration Trade&Transport Information Svcs 2010-2016 Natural Increase Financial Svcs IIIIIIIII Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 111111111.011 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government1111.111111 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 Insulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. r iFA. a - 71 "] MULTLTIFAMILY - o HOUSING ■17//!73- HAS UnA'CIS1L�• < e. of Na. ..._.._..._..._...-_--_ � JSan Diego' 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. Definitions on back 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 78,002 60,000 Renter Single - 95,266 40,000 20,000 Rerner 2-4 units 256,685 under $15- $25- 535- $50- 575- $100- over Renter 5+units 335,107 $15k $25k 535k $50k 575k $100k 5150k $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 2000- 35,476 200,000 2010 1980- 15"00 2000 64,341 1960- I 100,000 • � 1980 99,202 50,000 1940- 1960 35,077 before 87,498 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 2135-44 45-54 •55-64 ■65+ 500,000 20 450,000 15 10 " - a ' 5 ::::: 111111111111111 300,000 -5 not adjusted far type of rental -10 250,000 m N N M a 5 r ro m o n 0 m o N N m o g N m c N u g m N ,o N N N N N N N N h N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NvHe tiv-1 tot..:,;- 72 s MULTIN?ILP HAS A HOUSING �N11 �S UI11VC'TS1I�r WRFA CQUCIi. vv�-�•--.�a • �/-lV d53Tl D�CQO' - M Owner 250,000 . 200,000 y 150,000 o a¢ 100,000 00 i `n CLO ;")14.- 01 O1 a ° O1 , •_ Li') V7 Tr, ul i oo 50,000 ' x ; N II �., 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 ■Renter 350,000 900,000 Owner k A Owner 300,000 800,000 700,000 250,000 600,000 200,000 500,000 co 150,000 400,000 ui Lo 0 0 300,000 100,000 'n I iO N s, ,Ir N Cl 4.0 200,000 n,: v .� m 50,000 n ‘.6oo Vf O I ': 1 o N 100,000 ; 01 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 I 2000-2010 Construction OE2010-2016Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration Milii Trade&Transport 1.1.1111. 2010-2016 Information Svcs I` Financial Svcs Natural Increase Mill Net Migration Professional Svcs IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIII Education&Health .11111.1111111.1111 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 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 ,,,,,gconomic 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 nutting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 73 MUL3FAMILY • ROUSING NPc4 HAS University �... COUNCIL ---.-..-....-...-_.-._ �iSanDie;;o . Net in migration significantly exceeds local natural population increases _ and is important to the economy. New rental households will span all the W 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 back ._ 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 i 1,439 12,000 n 10,,000 O1 Owner5+units 1 4,304 ut n 8000 6,000Renter Single 33,979 N 4,000 +1 2 000 Renter 2-4 units . 14,575 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 36,244 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $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 4,109 2010 30,000 2000- 0 25,000 2010 7,733 t N 1980- o 20,000 2000 13,071 x To 15,000 1960- - 9,385. is N 1980 r. 10,000 N N ...i....i. _ Lci 1940' so 1,109 5,000 ° .4 _ 1960 before ■ 837 - 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 35-44 45-54 a 55-64 ■65+ 90 -o 2.0 3 80 not adjusted for type of rental a I- 70 1.5 6D 1.0 50 `,.u, 111111111111111 c 40 0 0.5 20 imw1!I1UIIW1HH 0.0 -0.5 _ N CO al O 0 0 0 ,-1 ENI 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 N N N N NATIONAL 74 MULTIFAMILY 1I' HOUSING �e■ �S vllA'PI511y Fli d COUNCIL _._.... . 4-Sari Diego` Owner ...,- 40,000 30,000 20,000 o v 10,000 r: 1 11 1 1 3 v X5',9. ,. ■ m 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 ,t ■Renter 60,000 61 Owner 120,000 Owner 50,000 k 100,000 40,000 ro>.' 80,000 30,000 IF 60,000 20,000 nm 40,000 0 i rn10,000 a 20,000 :® 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) -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mining I 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration Trade&Transport 11.11=111 1 Information Svcs 2010-2016 ( - Natural Increase Financial Svcs O Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&HospitalityIiiiiiiilMiMMEMIIMIMMONI Natural Increase Government IMIMIIIIOIIIIIIIIIIIII 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 *molting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 75 ........... I�I MULTIFAMILY I�1 -�V a A ! ,.,. r HOUSING Univry "`^" COUNCIL Diego. , r Already significant,net in migrations become a larger source of new renter r - M14;} 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. ;y Definitions on back DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* x 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 534,144 50,000 - - Owner 2-4 units I 3,209 40,000 Owner 5+units ' 10,835 30,000 Cl ao Renter Single 130,297 20,000 m 10,000 , Renter 2-4 units ■ 30,450 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 135,824 $156 $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k 5150k $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 Al since 13,033 100,000 2010 ` 2000- - 80,000 ; , 2010 28,485 0 r . 1980- 0 60,000 2000 66,146 I >: To 0 1960- cco 22,153 cc 40,000 - p 1980 i 1 i 1 .4'N 1940- ■ 3,270 20,000 I 1960 before . 2,737 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 ■25-340 35-44 45-54 •55-64 ■65+ 250 -o 12.0 not adjusted for type of rental oo 10.0 F 200 8.0 I I I I 150 2 4.0 100I _ _ 1 2.0 I 50 0.0 .,,, -10 - ,o N. w 0 0 0, N m V LI LD r` CO 0 0 N of 0 0 ti N to 7 in SO N W 01 0 0, N m 0 VI l0 N 00 01 0 0,1 O O O N OOOOOQOOO 0,1 01 O p O O O O N O O O O O O O N N N N O N N N N N M NNNNN N NN N N NNNNNNNNN NNN NNNNNNNNN MULTIFAMILY II 76 HAS ` ., HOUSING ULT FA t.)lIl\'eIS cc .. :. _.__...-__.._...-_._.. 4San Diego' . _._ 120,000 •Owner 100,000 80,000 . 6Q,000 mN400iid 00NN20,000 Clc a: — • i II in. _ ''....`r ""`__ 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 220,000 500,000 200,000 •Renter 450,000 - ..... ■Renter 180,000 3 Owner n Owner 400,000 160,000 350,000 140,000 300,000 120,000 100,000 - 250,000 80,000 _ 0' t .zt 200,000 60,000 150,000 N N 40,000 r^ , 100,000 n 00 CI v 20,000 ~ 50,000 - - Np r'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 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mining I 2000-2010 Construction —' 2010-2016 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing g Trade&Transport Information Svcs 2010-2016 I Natural Increase Financial Svcs -- Net Migration —_ Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality ......1111111.1111011 Natural Increase Government1111111111 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 CoStarx 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 Dino 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 �sulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATiO HOUSING 77 HAtitS MULTIFAMILY I�1 �V } ! x HOUSING Univer�sity(i� >♦- -a .„., COUNCIL ^trap 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. Definitions on bock DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE - 34 191 1.6 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 `1041323 200,000 Owner 2-4 units M 135,068 w 150,000 m Owner 5+units 207,617 ti 0 N Da 100,000 ado Renter Single 295,201 50,000 ' 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 It s2010ince . 15,425 400,000 �"`.. 350,000 - 2000- 2010 64,406 _c 300,000 co 1980- , 250,000 2000 136,214 = -° 200,000 to 1960- iv ^: 203,737 'z 150,000 _ ,r1 1980 o ,4 before 100,000 'n 1940. $4429 ry I 1960 50,000 et 1940 136,502 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 •35-44 45-54 •55-64 ■65+ 750 20.0 not adjusted for type of rental ' 725 t 15.0 ~ 700 10.0 IIIIfluiiiu ' i 675 v j 5.0 650 Isim 0.0 1.1 Li u u U-S aii 6.I ini 625 -5.0 1 ' ' 1 ■ I ■ ■ 600 I-1111111111111 111 1 -10.0 575 t0 5- an w a ,ti N m Q an to N CIO 01 0 0, CO 01 0 .--1 N CO CO to l0 IN OO 01 0 N N In no N 50 N CO IT 0 O N IN OO O 1,2 O IN 000 N N N N N N N NO O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 rn !\ N N N N N N N N NNNN NNNNNNNONNNNNNNNNN NATIONAL 78 11 l0 IN '1__ HAS University ssx= k. — 500,000 450,000 Owner _ — - 400,000 350,000 300,000 — ... 250,000 ',x' 200,000 co `n kra �- cO .. 150,000Cn N ^ 100,000 N m 50,000 ii 1111 i -- 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 ■Renter 700,000 1,600,000 3 Owner l Owner 600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 *'.:.. 500,000 1,000,000 400,000 800,000 300,000 0 1D 600,000 N o V] � v� m n 200,000 400,000 N N am 100,000 H . 1 ill mLO 200,000 iN0 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 75 100 125 150 175 203 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Mining 2000-2010 2010-2016 Natural Increase Construction NM ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration Trade&Transport MEM -- 2010-2016 Information Svcs I Natural lncrease Financial Svcs1. Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 1.11111Mill2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality P tY 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,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 .._gconomic 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 nulling,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. IFAP4ILY S UI1NCOrsity- iiiSanDieficir ! HOUS HOUSING ,_Ci17 f.C!I. 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. Definitions on back 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 502,371 60,000 Owner 2-4 units 1 8,668 50,000 40,000 Owner 5+units 1 15,752 30,000 ^� Renter Single 96,160 v 20,000 co ro 10,000 , : Renter 2-4 units El56,730 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 128,729 $15k $25k $35k $505 $755 $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 60,000 100,000 2010since ■ 3'55;.. ,..., 2000- -a 80,000 2010 11,142 0 -c y 1980- 6 98o-6 60,000 2000 39,699 I m40,000 `Na• 1980 s48,195 ,t- , • 0 i 1940- 20,000 1960 11,930 before 14,205 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 13 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 180 4.0 not adjusted for type of rental 'c: 170 3.0 160 o 2.0 c ' 150 1O 1.0 ' 16 0.0 :_� L.1 u u u ...' 1 1 1 1 .. 1 140 -1.0 i. , 130 -2.0 120 lD N- 03 S OCO cr to tD N W 01 o -, CO C .-, N 1' C _ = O: C C ti •(4 M - N. 03 `-, 0 CON N M 8 C -' - �+ ^ - N N N N d N N N N o o O o 0 0 O o 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 0 _ c o o c o a f G c c c o 0 o c = o c c o o N �\ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N i N N . N N N J J N N J -) ;I. 80 his HOUSING MULTIFAN,LY HAS Unnr i`7 COI ,CIL ---..�.-.-...--.-... •SanDiego° _, � 120,000 ®Owner -- 100,000 80,000 ,`-- - 60,000 to 40,000 N I i i ct N 0 in p 20,000 III ■® ""`�'�Lsj -�-� ;,- l -_ _ 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 200 000 iM Owner M Owner 400,000 350,000 150,000 300,000 i' 250,000 100,000 200,000 LA o 150,000 Lo N ul 01 50,000 d' - `o ti 100,000 0^ II 1 RinHiLi .LL 50,000 I 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) -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -5 0 5 10 15 Mining i 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction 1.1.1.1 Natural Increase •2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing Trade&Transport Information Svcs 2010-2016 Natural Increase Financial Svcs "' Net Migration 1 Professional Svcs IIIIIIIIII Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&HospitalityMiiiiiiiiiiiil 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 isulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. MilIC . MULTIFAMILY 81 ! HOUSING U11Nf'ISIty <,;: 17M�7, fSanDiego° 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. .,_a Definitions on back =w 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 516,311 70,000 60,000 Owner 2-4 units ' 13,845 50,000 Owner 5+units I 11,552 40,000 30,000 co Renter Single - 106,905 20,000 D1 co 10,000 1 1 I 1 i : Renter 2-4 units . 55,384 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 137,331 $isk $25k $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 60,000 70,000 - 100,000 ;"- since ZO1D • 2 460 ^ 1 . 2000- En -3 80,000 2010 o a 1980- 60,000 - 2000 24,871 x m 1960- Q., 40,000 in cr 59,209 vs 1980 N 20,000i i 1 1960 -. 21,701 I 1940. before - 1940 21,341 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast ii 15-24 ■25-34 [0 35-44 . 45-54 II 55-64 ■65+ 160in c 4.0 not adjusted for type of rental 0 155 3.0 F 2.0 ' 150 c145 - - j 0.0 _1L,lUj111 1 1 1 140 -3.0 I I 1 I I 11 -4.0 ' ' -5.0 130 - - to N. CO Ot 0 e-I N co ce tel tO N CO Ol O H N. N N N NJ N N N N O e, 00 01 0 N en V in VD e` 00 01 0 NI N M dN lD N CO Ol 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 pp O 0 N 0 '5 0 0 0 ti N 0 0 0 N N N N N N N 0 M ^N ni N ni N n1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Nd MINNINNINNN Tufa 82 e MULTIFAMILY ... HOUSING N HAS Univ tytiott rn i c 1€- - 'San Diiego° 120,000 ■Owner 100,000 ° 80,000 • �s —. 60,000 N _. a._ :: jflg cil _v ®. III ,_ 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 450,000 200 000 Owner 9 Owner 400,000 I. 350,000 150,000 Z,,' 300,000 250,000 100,000 ` ' 200,000 w N 150,000 C E . 50,000 v 100,000 - N o _ i. m 50,000 01 111a;tO ,-1 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 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 Mining 2000-2010 Construction 2010-2016iiiii Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing Trade&Transport Information Svcs 2010-2016 Natural Increase Financial Svcs iiii Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&HospitalityMINMEME Natural Increase Government Miiii 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,CoStar°,CBRE Econometrics®,Moody's Analytic°',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. 1r NATIONAL /�[/�r 83 MULTIFAMILY � !�i! H//AS'lii0C +ry • " HOUSINGlille linive>st COUNCILoiSanDiego° Net in migrations account for half of the new household formations. Good g 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. M ._d Definitions on bock -- 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 - 100000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 60,000 Owner Single 50,000 Owner 2-4 units 7,802 40,000 fflIh Owner 5+units ] '866 30,000 ^ -20,OD0 Renter Single 103,439 u1m m 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 5150k $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 2010 12,372 -a 80,000 200 13,116 0 L 60,000 2019 0- 2000 47,282 s0 1960- 40,000 `�° 1980 44,279 20,0001 i 1 60 9,C52 .:.' I 1940- before 4,434 1940 ' under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 3095-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast L-115-24 ■25-34 L7,35-44 45-54 •55-64 ■65+ 250 43 6.0 3 not adjusted for type of rental o 5.0 r 200 4.0 ' ' ' 150 3.0 2 2.0 100 I1111- -. .- 11 1111 lA ill 1 I 1 0.0 ----- `- _.1_ _ -1.0 l0 N CJ 01 O .-1 N m C N O N W 01 O N W 01 O .-I N m d' 30 l0 N 0D 03 O .-1 N 10 '7 U1 l0 N . 01 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p .ti N y 8 8 N N N N N N N 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 NINNNNNNNNNNNNINNNNINNNNNNN 0 '/'pit. r 84 MULTIFAMILY HAS 111"IC HOUSING I� HL1S Unive151tY '.Fit a ter ,,,, VV VVV�__�-_._ • �/-{ '(San Diego, 100,000- al Owner -, 80,000 f a� ,,,;y e i � 60,000 �' i 4 ` k` N I �-( " ::: , ~ oo 03 iI .i . , „., -. \) �7 i — -.- 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 i , Owner 3 Owner 150,000 350,000 300,000 100,000 250,000 200,000 r, rn ,c, 150,000 N 50,000 11111 . _. c100,00mrnN. M nco NU1 Ool 50,00 rri_ L Mil mow 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 8 10 12 14 Mining I 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction ® Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration ill Trade&Transport IIIIIMIIIIIMMIIMOIIMOMIINIIIIMI Information Svcs 2010-2016 II Natural Increase Financial Svcs - -- Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase I 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 consulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL HrJ III��I��M MULTIFAMILY s HOUSING I�11 �� llI11Y'2TSItY COUNCIL __........�...._.—.. V �lSal1 DICQ0' 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. Defiinitons on back 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 1,383,073 200,000 Owner 2-4 units 1 8,312 150,000 Owner 5+units ] 18,308 100,000 -- - - - Nn ui Renter Single 311,245 0 50,000 v IRenter 2-4 units ■ 105,690 - under $15- 525- 535- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 568,070 $15k 525k 535k 550k $75k $100k $150k 5150k 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 co since 45,626 r't 2010 ;; ...,.m...,300,000 20 010 0 250,000 98,636 S Si 1980- 200,000 2000 253,878 `�m 150,000 z 1960-6146,229 i i 1 Si 1980 100,000 1940- 77,44116,260 50,000 1960 19404 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 III 25-34 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 1,200 30.0 g not adjusted fo a en o 1,000 - - - -25.0 800 20.0 -c __ IIIIIIIIII .. - 8 15.0 t. o i t ,. ,,' f< rs 10.0 :.:; ;• 4 426000000 00 111111111111111111 5.0 200600 0.0 . , W 05 0 - N M Si N Si N W 01 0 N W 01 O e-i N M ,7 N 1D N W 01 O .i N M V N la N W 01 O O O G O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 8 O N N N N N N O N 0 0 M r�NNNN NNNN NN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N HO .'. 86 MUG71FAM1LYVOMIT"M #41 HOUSING � HAS University "`" COUNCIL _.__....-.....-....-_._�� -San Diego. 350,000 ` - _a. - _ D.Owner 300,000 h°e .. '.+.� ......_.a.... - .. 250,000 200,000 £�, ""-'-- 150,000 o ul N 01 a 100,000 N i 50,000 JE1 � L -- 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 II Renter ° •Renter 400,000 - n Owner 1,000,000 ' 3 Owner 350,000 In 800,000 300,000 250,000 to600,000 Tr .1 200,000 m N rn N 400,000 e 150,000 .r w \ In I liHuli .. N100,000 co 200,000 ti 1 0 - 1 - 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) 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Mining I 2000-2010 Construction _ 2010-2016 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing 1 g Trade&Transport mummimmin Information Svcs 2010-2016 in 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 ':onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 87 ...MULTIFAMILY � A�►• •�e HOUSING I� ■ �S UIanDig 0 . couNcii. VVV�-v____��` �JJfl11 DlC;•;O' Net in migrations exceed natural population growth and fuel new rental households from most age cohorts. Good renter incomes with diverse 'y ages and household sizes.Strong economic growth prospects in all but a few sectors. Long term supply restrictions may impact multifamily growth .a as annual demand steadily increases ahead. rt DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE m%, 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 Owner Single 612; 70,000 60,000 - - - Owner 2-4 units i 10,128 50,000 "' v Owner s+units ® 40,125 40,000 N 30,000 N-r Renter Single 123,111 20,000 e-1Renter 2-4 un is . 31,421 10,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 238,855 515k $25k $35k 550k $75k 5100k $150k $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 aao since 17,038 m 2010 120,000 N 2000- 37,378 -0 2010 -6 100,000 i" 1980- g 80,000 2000 78,503 = To 60,000 - _. 1960- 80 942 w 1980 cc 40,000 1940- i i 1 14,598 20,000 # 1960 11111 before 10,396 - 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 2596-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast .115-24 ®25-34 U.35-44 .45-54 •55-64 ■65+ 350 -o c 9.0 3 300 not adjusted for type of rental o 8.0 1 i- 70 250 6.0 I I I i 200 5.0 1 4.0 lso 3.0 2.0 111 100 Oil 1.0 0.0 ' '. m t0 n W T o N N M 7 L LIC N CO T 0 N CO al o .-i N M q us to N CO co 0 .-i N CO er V1 V0 n CO al 0 e-I ei N N N co N N N N N M ,.{ 'y ,.-� ,..� ..•� rl ...� H e-I N N N N N N N N N N M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N N 8 8 8 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 N N N N N N N 1 NATfONAL 88 MATION ltL . 1.)1'11 PSb1 ■ p Lk HOUSING HAS ry , COUNCIL -.__ SanDief • o 150,00070 Owner 125,000 = 100,000 75,000 N ' t -- m 50,000 m oo ' N ,r o n N ^ a 25,000 7a:.. - 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 35+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 280,000 700,000 •Renter •Renter 240,000 Owner 600,000 F Owner 200,000 500,000 160,000 ; 400,000 120,000 0 300,000 m m 80,000 1 il il 200,000 00 mry Iii F. ul 40,000 co o �� o 100,000 r; mco _� _ 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 I 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing NEI Trade&Transport Information Svcs 2010-2016 Natural Increase Financial Svcs 1.11111= Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health MIIIIIIIIIIMMOMM 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality IIII 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,NM or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 89 MULTIFAMILY s i 1 SCA HOUSING HASUniversity �: _ r 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. 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 16,439 100,000 80,000 - Owner 5+units 1 20,113 60,000 Renter Single 230,927 40,000 N a 20,000 I : Renter 2-4 units 61,461 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 231,981 $15k $25k $35k $50k 5756 $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 225,000 - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 200,000111 4,487 o since 201 175,000 2000- 17,900 -0 150,000 2010 0 -C 125,000 1980- 70,113 0 2000 = 100,000 1960- 75,000 - 1980 96,142 50,000 N 1940- 0 1960 2 5,714 25,000 s ' before 17,62255'714 7,625 - 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast ❑15-24 ■25-34 •35-44 45-54 IN 55-64 •65+ 330 a 8.0 19 not adjusted for type of rental 0 320 6.0 '...' ' 4.0 ' 310 2.0 300 c0.0 .a 290 1111111111 11 -2.0 ' ' zgo -4.0 • -6.0 270 260 10 N W 01 O '0 N N Q Vt l0 N 00 01 0 N 00 ON O O O O O O O O O O O ON O NO 0N1 NO NN NN N 0 5N HN NN W NN N N0 NN M NN NN NN N N 0N0 0N1 OM N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N MULTIFAMILY 90 ,A HOUSINGINAA He UI11VP351 Yourr.:.iC..� ■ U�15 SanDie¢oa 250,000 i Owner Iv - 200,000 150,000 t;.1 oo 100,000 0to VD to to •'L Iii. 50,000 , 11 i II , ., _ 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 ,f< 250,000 .1� 600,000 500,000 200,000 400,000 m m 150,000 w m 300,000 ti V N 100,000 N rn co 200,000 c m V7 N t0 M 50,000 •• •. N i u1 O 100,000 Ii rn N 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) -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Mining2000-2010 Construction 2010-2016 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 _ Manufacturing Net Migration mimmi Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration IM Professional Svcs .1.11111111111. 1 Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government Net Migration IIII 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 -onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATION AI 91 NIM S. y MULTIFAMILY HAS w��1 HOUSING 17L1S Unrverslry ' COUNCIi. _._......_-.-._-_. �• 1�-I!1i-V �SanlJieQo° 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. :ck 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 �- ate,r y . 25,000 rni Owner 2-4 units A 1,988 of ti 20,000 I Owner 5+units 35,894 15,000 so e-I 10,000 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 , 1,762 50,000 2000- 113,165 4'3 2010 40,000 1980- 2000 15,270 ti 30,000 1960- 5 40,347 � n 1980 c 20,000 '1 N N 1940- 10,000 $ 1 EA I 1960 ,3,295 before I 890 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 rt 35-44 : 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 135 3.0 not adjusted for type of rental g 130 -_ 125 ;H' II ! IiII1IiIi ! .0 I 6 , " , ' I E - -10 11 "1 6 11 , " 1 E • Fp' N M V ✓1 lD N OO G� O iii!iiiiiiiiii , . N N N `7c N N N M O O 8 N N N N N N M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 N N NNN NNN NNNNNN M1CNATsoNAL 92 HAS Mid= 1 ■ ./'1�1 s HOUSING J Ullll'CI515y .z..- * COUNCIL ..._..._._..___.-__.__ 4SanlDiego' I Owner 40,000 30,000 20,000 v ---, N t-i N C M rl 10,000 ii rn + 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 In 50,000 a Owner 11 Owner 80,000 40,000 70,000 60,000 N 30,000 1 II es) 50,000 a NCO Ir 40,OD0 20,000 m N 30,000 v li .. Ii 20,000 L 10,000 I 10,000 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) -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mining 2000-2010 X2010-2016 Construction EIME Natural Increase III 2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration El Trade&Transport Information Svcs 2010-2016 Natural Increase Financial Svcs I Net Migration III Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality p n' Natural Increase GovernmentMMIMMONNOIMINIM 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*,ESRIu 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. 93 ,� MULTIFAMILY � 1 4 San Diego' L HOUSING Unlvusity l ' 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 '-F cohorts. More new rental supply relative to demand than most metros - with a smaller 22%share of multifamily today in STAR units. w De�'ninens on back r-. 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 1.:.'£'� 140,000 120,000 Owner 2-4 units I 5,144 a' 100,000 80,000 n Owner 5+units 21,787 ib 60,000 v Renter Single - 277,554 40,000 20,000I Renter 2-4 units . 77,643 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renters+units 552,208 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $look $150k $150k 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 46.461 2010 300,000 2000- -° 2010 112,857 0 250,000 1980- E 200,000 2000 182,551 = t' 150,000 0 1960- 183,324 ,,;¶,•.,... 1980 100,000 _ N 0 1 60 50,000 g-4. I I N before - 1940 ' 5,02121,994 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+ 900 30.0 1p800 r not adjusted for type of rental 3 0 25.0 l 700 60020.0 I 1111111 500 N 111111 '. . 15A 0 400III 11111111-I 7E150.00 10.0 300 _ - 200 .. .. _ .. 5.0 100 .. . 0.0 0 N W Ot O .-1 N M Q N '0 N W M O O O N W 01 O .-1 N 0 a N 0 N 0 0ON - N M 01 Ifl l0 W 01 O O N OO Cl O NO ONO ONON NO O pro000000000000000000000NM ,--.� NNN NN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN II"IC NAronn.L 94 MULTIFAMILY �1 HOUSING �1 UAIveosity �'a.^• ���\VV COU �...___...-_-_. -San Diego' 300,000 Cl Owner 250,000 `_,'.. 200,000 ,.;. :. .--•,,.'... % 150,000 a .. _. - .. .._e ' n 100,,000 _ N tr I V IAN 50000 N 41 me iiii MN II. _ 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 - 1,200,000 400,000 •Renter ■Renter 2 Owner 1,000,000 3Owner 350,000 1 d 300,000 800,000 250,000 600,000 200,000 i .. 150,000 ti 400,000 100,000 II v N lO ii tiN 200,000 k •, ■ _. 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 SO 90 Mining ® 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction 111.1111111111111.1 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing g Trade&Transport MiiiiMIMMEMIE Information Svcs 2010-2016 1 Natural Increase Financial Svcs NM Net Migration Professional Svcs IIIMMIIIIMMIIIIMEIMINEM Education&Health IiiiiiMMEM 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality ilMOMMEMMOMOMili Natural Increase GovernmentiiMINIMIN Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among SO 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,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. NATION -- MULTIFAMILY ' ___. 95 MULTIFAMILY A�.. �S e " ■ HOUSING V7 UTllVei51L� .`*s a•, COUNCIL SanDiego. 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. De Initiens on 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 - 100,000 200,006 300,000 400,000 500,000 60,000 Owner Single 50,000 } Owner 2-4 units 1 4,6'2 40,000 Owner 5+units ] 4,063 30,000 1111 rn Renter Single 103,991 20,000 hw O 10,000 Renter 2-4 units ■ 38,443 under $15- 525- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 121,199 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $350k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 125,000 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 since 10,548 100,000 - 2010 .i•o. 2000- 2010 17,328 75,000 1980- 42,578 o 2000 50,000 1960- O 1980 33,859 25,000 '. '"� 1960 1940- 7,781 on M' tv before 9,105 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0 15-24 is 25-34 r2 35-44 -: 45-54 •55-64 ■65+ 250 5.0 not adjusted for type of rental o 200 4.0 3.0 1502.0t 111111111 o 100 _ .. 01 00 50 -1.0 tC N W M O N 00 01 0 ti N M C us t0 N co 0, 0 .--� N M V 1.l) LC, N 001 0 O N N O O O N N N N N N N N N M O O O O O O O O O O O O N • N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NAUNAL 96 , ■ A SIFHMILI' ■ SAV HOUSING J University r A COUNCIL an Diego' I E Owner =I `. 100,000 f .. a"-7—__.. p.- ^� .1��. 75,000 ,, _,, --r..... /� I � 3 -� - _ 50,000 m - 'ea . `k i . ..� _ N. N Irl Ce CO jr /- i :. 2 % 2$,000 ey ill ____ 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 II Renter -' II Renter 400,000 4 ' 160,000 Owner 3 Owner 4. 350,000 140,000 ;I:x.._ 300,000 == 120,000 250,000 !'::st- 100,000 200,000 w s 80,000 i ,, 60,000 �p 150,000 up N N N 40,000 et tr1 b C 100,000 '» n O N pp ci Ln 20,000 1111 'i I 50,000 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 i 2000-2010 — 2010-2016 Construction ' Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing Trade&Transport IMIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOIIIIIIIIII 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs 111 Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality111111111 . Natural Increase GovernmentIIIIIIIIIIIIII 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 consulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. MULTIFAMILY HOUSING H Ap L)II1Vf'I51 r COU NCI i- -...........�.-.-..._... - Y _� lil�l2 .. 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. " Definitions on bock 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 40,000 Owner 2-4 units j 7,240 30,000 Owner 5+units ] e,439 fflIh 20,000 Renter Single 117,693 U, a 10,000 Renter 2-4 units III44,245 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 116,825 $156 $25k $35k $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 since 2010 6,899 �.... 75,000 0•a 10°0 15,573 0 s 50,000 0 2fg 0- = 2000 41,385 m a a 1980 0 36,039 25,000 , I 1940- efor1960 8,684 before 8 245 1940 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 a 25-34 M 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 200 -c 3.5 Fi 180 not adjusted for type of rental ii 30. r 160 2. .. _ .. 2.05 ppiIiiiiii 120140 a ri 1.0 100 0.5 80 - ~ 0.0 Li' y 1af'" - - - - - . -0,5 -1.0 -- - . 40 -1.5 20 -2.0 _ N CO m 0 ,-i N m O in 0 N co al 0 N CO m O .-I N m cr u-, SO N 00 0 0 ,0 N M 7 u) 00 N of 0 0 0000000 O O 00 O 00 O 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N M N N N IN N N N N r, r, cc N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N WIC n,PT1 98 � s MULTIFAMILY ! HOUSING �� HASUniversity niSaersity0` -�'.FA -41 CODA::' NAA r Owner 100,000 75,000 3 a .,-. n., ... ._ 50,000 a ._ a r.N im p25,000 ry m II i' _ 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 III Renter 450,000 160,0003 Owner 400,000 -!Owner 140,000 350,000 120,000 300,000 100,000 250,000 80,000 200,000 i I 11 1 N r-1 60,000 .� 150,000 m 111 .1 tri co p . CA ut $0,000 w .. N NM MIN/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 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Mining i 2000-2010 --- 2010-2016 Construction MN Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing ® Net Migration Trade&Transport 1111111.. ' Information Svcs l 2010-2016 Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health iiiiiiiiiiiiin 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase GovernmentMINIM 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 1-5 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. nAry� 99 MULTIFAMILY o:. University . HOUSING FA tt COUNCIL _ HAS4SanDiego` Net in migrations from al(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. ck 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 a Renter Single 145,052 20,000 p 0 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 $100k $150k $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 _ 2010since I. 5,608 -0 100,00035,942 2000- 0 zolo L N 1980- 75,000 2000 82,672 x 196a ,000 29,735 50 1980 25,000 191 194196G-0 940- 3,454 fe or 1e 940 593 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 •35-44 45-54 •55-64 •65+ 350 12.0 not ad'usted for type of rental 0 300 10.0 250 111111111 II II 1 8.0 g I I limns am .4 200 6.0 150 I- 24.0 111111111111 2.0 100 _ 0.0 50 - - - - - - 1111 -2.0 tO N N 05 O c+ N 05 N N to N N m O oo 05 O - N M G tO N CJ O O N N G N t0 n W Ol O O O O O O O O O S O 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 N N 8' N 0 N 0M NNNNNINNNNNN NATIONAL 100 ... MULTIFAMILY HOUSING- ivetsity' councu. __.___-- ,..!^� UnSan Diego. Owner 75,000 50,000 • M N O N rl J - 15-24 25,000 N 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 ■Renter 140,000 Owner 250,000 C Owner 120,000 200,000 100,000 80,000 150,000 60,000 an 100,000 00 Ii .. � 40,000 cA m II 50,000 II 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 10 30 50 70 90 110 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mining 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs Financial Svcs Natural Increase MOM Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health ® 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase GovernmentMEM 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 onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATION/.i. 10 1 P11 C _. MULTIFAMILY hh HOUSING ��Ay �'�v�1•�' - 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. Defnitions on back 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 Owner Single 1 20,000 ME Owner 2-4 units I 535 15,000 Owner 5+units ' 1,056 10,000 Renter Single 38,743 0 5,000 r' rn Renter 2-4 units IN 13,995 ■ under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 42,354 $15k $25k $35k $Sok $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 since 5,217 2010 30,000 2ooa 8,538 2010 o h• 1980- 0 20,000 2000 14,629 1960- 1980 11,094 10,000 1940- 2,190 960 be1fore . 686 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 3096-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15-24 ■25-34 M 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 70 1.2 0 not adjusted for type of rental 0 60 1.0 50 0.8 40 0.6 0.4 30 T.? 20 10 111111111111111 111111 II LJIIIll -0.2 - t0 N CO 01 0 m C Ul 10 N CO 01 0 N CO 01 0 '-i N I'M ' Ul 10 N 0A al 0 _i N m d' /A tD N CO IT 0 N N N ' N N to H N N N N N N N 0 0 1-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ON 0 ON 0 0 0 S g 8 o 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 NI N N NATIONAL 102 �� ��11�II MULTIFAMILY rq I University COUNCIL HOUSING Diego. Owner 40,000 30,000 N 20,000 m co -.0., N to O N 10,000 m m m m --- 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 •Renter ■Renter 140,0005 60,000 0 Owner Owner 50,000 120,000 100,000 40,000 80,000 30,000 :0;00:: m 20,000 rst - m 011 co i, 10,00D ' ■, ^ 4. ?' La o a 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 Mining ) 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction i Natural I ncrease ■2017-2030 Manufacturing mil Net Migration Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs - ) Natural Increase Financial Svcs S Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&HealthiiiiMiiiniiiiil 2016-2030 Leisure&HospitalityEMINIIMMiiii 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®,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,NM or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. RATIONAL 103 s MULTIFAMILY UniVCi51 • A.- HOUSING HASDiego-7 , ,. NW In migrations in are now similar to out migrations with natural change _______� .a. 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. . DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 17 70 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 1,833,596 350,000 - 300,000 Owner 2-4 units 1 43,689 250,000 Owner 5+units 111132,254 200,000 150,000 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 515k $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 ■ 34,060 2010 o 2000- 800,000 I 2010 94,446 0 L ,, 19so- 600,000 2000 301,108 = To rz Co 196D- w 400,000 m 487,778 cc r-- d' oo 1980 N m -_ `" 1940- 200,000 1960 212,305 before 119,137 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 3036-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0 15-24 ®25-34 U 35-44 _45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 1,500,000 40 1,300,000 -- 30 I I I I 1,100,000 20 . � 900,000 0 10 R o- L ° "1 �--� 700,000 iiiiiiiiiiiiiOiHUI M • 500,000not adjusted for type of rental-20 - 300,000 lD N 00 01 0 ,-i N CO dVI 0 N 00 00 0 N 00 CI 0 .-I N on Co In 00 N CO 00 0 N N ni Q 0 0 N 00 01 0 O OOOO OOO O O O O O O CO O pp O N N 0 N N N N 0 .0 N N N N N N N N CO CO T 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 NATIONAL 1 04 C HOUSING MULTIFAMILY I�I.I M _ HAS Universi F"`. COUNCIL 0ISan Dim. WI I-- _-,_ Owner _�:- - 500,000 400,000 .+ p 300,000 h 200,000 co nr N 100,000 ,ri ct 144. Metro includes Orange County I I I 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 700,000 - 1,400,000 ■Renter ■Renter 600,000 •Owner 1,200,000 M Owner 500,000 1,000,000 400,000 800,000 300,000 m 600,000 0 in ry0 LS 200,000 m 400,000 0 `'r :' w oo m O Ln N • N Cl N 100,000 , 111 200,000 i . 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) -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Mining I 2000-2010 .---- construction 2010-2016 Natural Increase MN III 2017-2030 Manufacturing mom. Net Migration Trade&Transport — 2010-2016 Information Svcs I Natural Increase Financial Svcs Mii Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&HealthIMIIIIIMMIIMINIIMIIMION 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government 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°,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 nonsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. na�IoTIFAMaL ILY 105 MULdit HOUSING HASUnivers t}•' cou NciL San Diego' Net in migrations source most of the new rental households ahead as not- "- 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. '" Definitions on back '... r-. DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* w" 'y" 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 40Q000 40,000 Owner Single 35,000 30,000 Owner 2-4 units 1 3,151 25,000 Owner 5+units 7,405 o 20,000 15,000Renter Single 62,721 10,000 cn o 5,000 n''2- Renter 2-4 units 11;2,72281,538 28,538 ill under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 70,430 $15k 525k $35k $50k 575k $100k $150k 5150k 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 11 since 3,780 50,000 2010 2000- 8,490 -b 40,000 2010 6 .,. L O 1980- 0 30,000 2000 21,096 1964 T.?. c 20,000 ,N '" 1980 23,705 t4 N _ 940- N _ 1fore 7,624 10,000 1960 before 5,735 - 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 B 25-34 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 120 a 2,0 5 not adjusted for type of rental b 100 - - - 15 1.0 III60 v 05 0 0.0 ,_,., _.. 40 - - 1 II � -0.5 - 20 -1.0 0 N w a o N N M O 0 0 N 00 o, 0 N m 01 0 ,, N m C 0 O N 00 01 o ti N m R v, 1.0 N CO 01 0 000000000000000 N N N N N N N N O N N N H N N N 0 H N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 NNN NN N N NNNNNNNNNNNNN '�"'" Mar;, 106 MULTIFA E9ILY �1 4,A ��, HOUSING HAS Uni'ersi "„,: �nl :c - ...-._._._-___ -\/- San Diego° _. --' '"-.. 70,000 r„ Owner .__. 60,000 50,000 x-'- 40,000 30,000 SD rn N m-ay.. .. o1 N O 20,000 ti N ,,: u) N J _i 10,000 I Ilim ll -- 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 ]Owner 250,000 Owner 100,000 200,000 80,000 150,000 60,000 100,000 In 40,000 N o 11 cr 03Ln v m 20,000 N j `ril I t1 o sc- SO,OOD .4- 01O ua r. n1 II ll M MI 1111 am:DAM I=MEM0 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 ■2017-2030 _- Manufacturing Net Migration iim Trade&Transport - 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs - Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health1110111. 1111 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,Costara,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 7onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 107 , ,ASA HMULT OUSIP MILY !7/1 C URiVQ151WY 1 HOUSING I-11 �.■ lUUA1fV , a. COUNCIL '=--�- 'f$aTII�I�QO 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. Definitions on bock 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 279,798- 40,000 79,79 40,000 Owner 2-4 units I 1,314 30,000 Owner 5+units 1 2,700 20,000 Renter Single 90,495 0 N tp 10,000 O1 Renter 2-4 units - 31,915 under 515- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 71,218 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $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 60,000 zooa 12,931 =a ` 2010 0 50,000 yak cu 1980- 0 40,000 2000 24,415 = t� .`� 30,000 1960- 18,464 c' 1980 oo 20,000 1940- 8,807 i 111 11 11 1960 10,000 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 ❑15-24 ■25-34 0 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 140 a c 2.5 120 not adjusted for type of rental o 2.0 +- 100 1.5 uulilillIll I 80 c F 05 60 -0.5 I i u !_i • I II 20 - - .. -1.0 tO N CO CI 0 N 01 V al lO N 00 01 0 N w Op1 0 , N to 7 tr, to N w On o rl N to ct on 0 , 00010 O O O ,-.1 O O O N O O O O O O O S O O 8 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O N O O O N NO NO p 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r, N N N A''..\ NATIONAL 108 IIN�I�P"'E MULTIFAMILY ] �'1 HOUSING !7l \ Udifil I1R'e151Cy a „':. F e cow- _-------•-._---- 06-an Diego. - - 70,000 "-.. 2 Owner _ 60,000 50,000 S. ... _ 40,000 - ' m .--. _. - 30,000 ib - #. M .. oo:: i - - tic n- ,. m 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 I Renter 180,000 ■Renter 100,000 2 Owner :3 Owner 160,000 80,000 140,000 120,000 60,000 I 100,000 80,000 IN 40,000 60,000 N N '�'� 40,000 Lo 20,000 iII .iLL 20,000 m —.® 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 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Mining 2000-2010 -,2010-2016 Construction ® Natural Increase In 2017-2030 Net Migration IN Manufacturing - Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs Ell Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health iiiiiiiiii2016-2030 Leisure&HospitalityIII 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 CoStarn 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',ESRIi9 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. I,Tia;,;L 109 MULTIFAMILY HAS a MULTIFAMILY UIlA"C1511y .w.. FA' "` Co,,NCIL +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. 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 -' itt,ftie 160,000 140,000 Owner 2-4 units , 40,263 120,000 100,000 Owner 5+units 238,819 80,000 1 1 co -- - - - 60,000 n Renter Single 258,244 a1 ai 40,000 i ry Renter 2-4 units - 114,436 20,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 472,141 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k 5100k $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 2010 .21,619 350,000 �� -0 300,000 2000- 64,240 o zolo L 250,000 - - - - 198D- 0 2000 165,142 = 200,000 - m 150000 N 0 m 1980 166,430 N fa b 01 N 100,000 _m - m 00 co n 1940- . II II I I 2000- before 43 912 50,000 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 G 15-24 ■25-34 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 800 o o 30.0 not adjusted for type o rental 0 7700 25.0 L 60500 0 20.0 15.0 400 2 10.0 300 5.0 200 _ I 1 i 0.0 --- __ -- _ . I I 100 - -. -5.0 _ to n 00 0) 0 N M V 0 to n so a) 0 n 00 a) 0 .0 N rn C u1 00 N 00 a) 0 - N ro Q N to n o0 01 0 O O O o O O O N O O O O O N O 8 8 8 0 8 O O o O 8 O o o 0 0 0 N O O N O O 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N f"... NATION;. 110 " OLSIPAPi11Y - • HOUSING HAS University x�.< court:::- _._.....__-.---_.__ _� 1/'1 . dSanDiegcr t- 250,000 Owner ...I; -- 200,000 ,_. 150,000 , 100,000 cr, I r. liii 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 III Renter 900,000 Owner 0 Owner 400,000 800,000 350,000 700,000 300,000 600,000 250,000 500,000 200,000 m 400I , ,000 a0 O NEa: ,mi NNNrlNN, Nu) rico I ., =■ =_ 100,000 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 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mining l 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction 1111111111.11111 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing - Trade&Transport 1 Information Svcs 2010-2016 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 Econometricsn,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 onsuiting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. J I NATIONAL 111 2111111.111 ___ . MULTIFAMILY • . 'HOUSING HAS University �f$aiDlO'COUNCIL ._ .. +....-- 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 fiat for -- .. two years,then increases through 2029. --- Det 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 131, i_ 40,000 - Owner 2-4 units 19,689 30,000 Owner 5+units 1 15,249 20,000 Renter Single 53,596 m 10,000 _ m Renter 2-4 units 85,060 U under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 119,007 $15k $25k 535k $50k $75k 5100k $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 80,000iollii. 2010 11.1 3,410 ▪ 70,000 2000' 2010 11,915 - 60,000 40.1a 1980- 0 50,000 2000 32,626 - 40,000 1960- c 37,490 cc 30,000 1980 befo1960 20,000 1940- 17,,120 10,000 re 16446 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast D 15-24 125-34 0 35-44 45-54 I 55-64 ■65+ 120 a 4.0 5 - not adjusted for type of rental 0 115 - -3.0 ~ 2.0 111111111111 110 1.0 105 r -01.DLu ' IIII 100 1111 - - ... I 95 -2.0 -_ • -3.0 90 . m c, o -, N m Q u'1 lD n 00 c, o n os o, o -1 N on C V1 l0 n 00 at O 1-1 N In - ✓1 ,o n co a, o O O O O O O 0 O O O Q O O O rn O 0 0 0 .1 N ri N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O 00000000000000O N O NO N N N N tea\ IN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NATIO..' 112 s HOUSING ��� HAS • FtA COO NCI, ...__..._�.----_- _ _-.__y. A'San Diego° _. -, 90,000 --- ■Owner 80,000 _ 70,000 -- ,__ 60,000 50,000 ... . _. 40,000 nr _ - 30,000 N II 1-1 1 1 ilili., 20000 -"' `- 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 •Renter 140,000 300,000 LI Owner Owner 120,000 250,000 100,000 200,000 80,000 - 150,000 60,000 crm N 100,000 cr 40,000 m � c-' n LE, o0 „,„, ,,,,, . ii ol 20,000 dO 50,000 o .-.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('0008) 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 I 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing — Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs 1 Natural Increase Financial Svcs - Net Migration Professional Svcs iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMiii Education&Health OMMIEMINIMIE 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality ® Natural Increase Government - - ® Net Migration 1111 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 Econometricsu,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 113 T^'-^°"-^-^'^ g �I1I�I�1 MULTIFAMILY �� Ir Universi HOUSING �JJ217]}IeQO, COUNCIL 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. Oefinihnne o??hack - -_ 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 -j 60,000 Owner 2-4 units ' 13,892 50,000 40,000 Owner 5+units ! 36,426 30,000 p N 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 575k $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 since 12,823 2010 120,000 21:2211290 09 31,093 -0 2010 i i 10 1 0 100,000 °; 1980- 0 80,000 2000 72,363 x 5 60,000 - 1966- 97,694 cc i 1980 40,000 et 1940 18,835 20,000 m. 1960 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 IN 25-34 0 35-44 45-54 IN 55-64 ■65+ 400 v 10.0 ry not adjusted for type of rental 0 350 8.0 1- 300 6.0 250 14.0 "` 200 1111 2.0 I11 150 0.0 I. • I I . :: 100 11111111111111111111 1 -2.0 SO -4.0 l0 N- 00 0 0 - N m. N 111 10 r 00 01 0 Ipps CO 0p1 0 .-I N en N V1 10 I. 00 01 0 N N M en 1.0 lD N 0 0, 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O C O O O C O O O O O O O O O Q b 0 0 0 NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Tom. Nitti114 MULTIFAMILY HOUSING NAA HASUnivetary 114 COUP.CIi. _.! __.- °J San Diego. 200,000 Owner _.. 175,000 150,000 125,000 100,000 M . , 75,000 0 ° Lc) R 01 M �__ 3-.; ._-- 50,000 m co Si N -- 25,000 i cm • 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 NI Owner Owner 300,000 700,000 k 250,000 600,000 E 500,000 200,000 400,000 150,000 :::: M 100,000 m 0 co 0 0 0, L 50,000 I D m r-. v 0 i . —�7*, 100,000 Illmtq mil mo 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 5 10 15 20 25 30 Mining I 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing mom Net Migration Trade&Transport — 2010-2016 Information Svcs I Natural Increase Financial Svcs IMMO 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 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. 1il�Il 1J1 115 MULAIF:AMILY HK7 I YSan DieoyHOUSING WRFA COUNCIL . _ ..-_� Net in migrations remain stronger than natural population growth for new a. - 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. - 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 111111111.11111111111111111 40,000 35,000 Owner 2-4 units ' 7,075 30,000 25,000 Owner 5+units ' 8,546 20,000 15,000 ^ Renter Single 76,522 m 10,000i 1 * Renter 2-4 units ■ 35,329 5,000 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 80,000 since to 0 2010 9,048 70,000 �� 2000- -0 60,000 2010 18,822 t 91 50,000 - '." 1980 0 2000 41,065 = 40,000 6 1960- LI) 30,000 1980 34,607 . 20,000 1940- g to at i i 1960 6,750 10,000 _ C,>, before 1940 1,560 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 Cr 35-44 `45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 180 7.0 ;° 160 not adjusted for type of rental o 6.0 140 5.0 120 4.0 " 100 -'6 c s, 3.0 ' 0 f 2.0 60 1111111111111111 1111 1.0 1111 1111 4000 0.0 - _ r - - III 20 -1.0 - l0 N w 0 1 ,4 r0 ,ttnlONC0010 N CO 01 0 .-I N M d' Ln 10 N 00 01 O .-i IN M d' to 10 N CO 01 0 O NNN N N N N N rt1 O O O O O O O O OO O OOO O pp O 0 8 e 0 N N N N N N N N N M NNN NN NNNN N NNNNNNNNNNNN N N NNNNNN NN 71 NAL 116 _ e MULTIFAMILY HUUSIFA 1. 1 ■ tf iS Univ ry co 1.:: _-.-...____------- 4-SanDiego. .. M Owner 100,000 - 75,000 -- ... I►. 50,000 a o p haL 25,000 till 1 ". .____„ 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 450000 ■Renter •Renter 160,000 400,000 Owner 3 Owner 140,000 350,000 V, 120,000300,000 100,000 r 250,000 1, 80,000 200,000 60,000 Cm 150,000 rn 40,000 ^�uto a 100,000 ,n al 20,000 N' I .i , 3MSai - 50,000 I. co 0 MIN 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 5 10 15 20 25 Mining 1 2000-2010 II 2010-2016 Construction MEM Natural Increase III 2017-2030 Net Migration ManufacturingIII g Trade&Transport — Information Svcs 2010-2016 I_ Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase GovernmentEll 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 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 :onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 117 HOUSIN�,MiLY II! RtHASUCI eF San Diego. 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. ' Definitions on bock - T DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* 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 40,000 Owner 2-4 units 3,353 30,000 Owner 5+units 5,716 20,000 1 i I i .--, Renter Single 64,873 in Ui N 10,000 i D I 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 5150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 90,000 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 80,000 since 70,000 I 201 3,859 ,..."\ -61 2000- k 60,000 - - 2010 8,985 '5 s ' 50,000 -- _ 1980- 2000 19,873 = 40,000To 0 1960 30,000 v o 1980 21,062 ,r 20,000 - S�' 1940- 4,653 1960 10,000 m. � N Net 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 L.]15-24 a 25-34 2 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 90 3.0 fg 80 not adjusted for type of rental o 2.5 I- 70 2.0 601.0IS01.0 11111111 - 0.5 I i 1 M iiii ■ III -0.5 -... II :: 21.0 • ' 1 -1.5 - do N CO Cr, o N N rn 00 ifl o r- co al 0 r` W dt 0 N N m- til la r` N O1 0 •-1 N m 00 V1 �a N W 41 0 N N N N N m 0 N N N N N N N N N N m ryyw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o g o 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 IN N N N NMINNINNINNNNN N r, N NINNNIN N N N N N 118 cc ?.c:.. __-._.�._--•--- sLPirLt - �CI NIMIC ity r ft 0 � ,rSanDiegp- — T,i Owner _ r 60,000 a , ` 40,000 "�. ra r '. alk rcril m 20,000 `^ I III 1 OA 4 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 II Renter 100,000 ®Owner 180,000 - Owner 160,000 80,000 140,000 120,000 60,000 100,000 a N::: u�i 80,000N 60,000 420,0,000 ,J.. c CrN 1111 II b.' COM Ol N 000 r� � ■ o 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 2010-2016 Construction I Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration MINI Trade&Transport Information Svcs 2010-2016 - Natural Increase Financial Svcs , Net Migration Professional Svcs — Education&Health IIIIIIIMIMIIIIII 2016-2030 Leisure&HospitalityIIIIIIIMII Natural Increase GovernmentMININ Net Migration1111 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 listed in the publication appendix. !tt ; 119 Il�l�lr� LSIrL _.__......—.+......._.., HAS_-+ 4SanDiego• 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. DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* r RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE __, 3.. 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 2,717,523 500,000 Owner 2-4 units 403,045 400,000 Owner 5+units 478,765 300,000 200,000 Renter Single MI368,020 100,000 Renter 2-4 units 921,049 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter s+units 2,201,850 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k 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 52:(e) . 57,775 ...++,„1,200,000 2000- -a 2010 153,873 0 1,000,000 cu 1980- 248,857 p 800,000 2000 2 To r' 600,000 0 m 1960- 511,784 "u O 1980 Ir u; c0 400,000 to toLti 1940- co I 484,539 200,000 "i before- 1940 1960 ' 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 M.35-44 -.45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 3,000 v 60.0 8 50.0 s 2,500 40.0 2000 - - 30.0 c 20.0 1,500 - 10.0 !al . >, ~ 0.0 u �.._, �. r Iry 1,000 - - -10.0 ONE = • .' 20.0 ,,,;; 5 ,,, - , , •not�/jus a fo a nial 500 - - -30.0 - to n W Ot o ,-1 N to d' 'A W N W Ot O N W oO .-a N M touto N W tT O - N M srto tO N W OO N N N N ON N N N N T 0S S 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N 0 N N N N N N 0 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 N N N N N N N IN N N N N N N N NATIfl:dAF 120 MULTIFAMILY HAS ' r' . A HOUSING ■ �V UIlIVCI51[) {. c0u.Cu. .{�.Dlego= _-- --- 900,000 .__ i Owner .- 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 t" 11 ,�.{�=ir w 400,000 cn CV vi - - , 'A.:1/4,..r 300,000 p '-i ao ° 200,000 _. o wi ._� 100,000 ,, ;< ,N. 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 a Renter 1,200,000 Wi 15 Owner 2,500,000 IV Owner 1,000,000 2,000,000 A. 800,000 1,500,000 600,000 N 1,000,000 O 400,000 O ,r v o N 200,000 ,�,, v 500,000 , 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) -200 -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 g Trade&Transport ME Information Svcs 2010-2016 Natural Increase Financial Svcs in Net MigrationI Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase ' Government Net Migration MI 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. 1 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. !!?' 121LYFA orSan Diego= 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. .. n-=n -n hock 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 ace-,, 30,000 25,000 20,000 Owner 2-4 un is 1,440 Owner 5+units 1,315 15,000 Renter Single 86,077 10,000 m Nrn 5,000cr Renter 2-4 units III 23,883 ■ under $15- 525- $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 4,626 2010 50,000 2000- -o 2010 8,870 of w 40,000 1980- O 2000 26,437 30,000 v 1960- 22,591 cc 20,000 1980 1940- ME 3,035 10,000 1960 b1940 ■ 1,900 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 E 35-44 _45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 120 a 25 r not adjusted for type of rents! 0 100 2.0 15 1111111 80 o 0 111111111111111111111 1 0.5 I 11111111111111 OA _ , ■ II II u 20 -0.5 -1.0 O r` 00 Co 0 H N m C 0 r` CO 01 0 N W 0, O - N M C v5 tO n CO 0, 0 ti N m C ut JO N 00 CO O O Nco! O N O N O N N M 0 0 0 OOO0N 0N N 0N 0N N onO0OO O OO O OOO 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... .r., NNNN N N NNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNINNNNNINNNNNNNNNN WHIC NATIONAL MULTIFAMILY HOUSING CQLNCii. 122 HAS Um - s {San DiegOImorir II Owner 60,000 .-- 40,000 CM m rc r.. N ti ti 20,OD0 N N 11 11 11 I in 111 ■ . ■ - "- 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 is Owner 250,000 �' Owner 100,000 200,000 80,000 fi'„ 150,000 60,000 40,000 00 100,000 m m to co Lo ii ,20,000 5 ,000 m llrm 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 ■ 2000-2010 `--. Construction 2010-2016MEM Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing EMI Net Migration Trade&Transport — Information Svcs 2010-2016 Financial Svcs Natural Increase NM 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 W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census,CoStare,CBRE Econometricse,Moody's Analyticsxi,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 /'lonsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NIICNAriafaA[, 123 EIMEIMMMIMONOMI MULTIFAMILY I HOUSING � HAS university �_ ” COIrCiL Ivis-- 4 Dims 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 -.economic prospects and annual increases in multifamily demand ahead. Definitons on beck 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 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 60,000 Owner Single r 50,000 Owner 2-4 units 6,936 40,000 Owner5+units 14,000 30,000 �n Renter Single 123,959 20,000 K, 0 10,000 , Renter 2-4 units El 35,828 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renters+units 170,091 $l5k $25k $35k 550k $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 14Q000 since 14,579 tri 2010 120,000 2000- -o 2010 40,551 5 100,000 *:,._,;._ .r 1980- O 80,000 2000 83,178 60,000 N 1960- 28,363 1 N o 1980 40,000 -o N 1940- ll2 517 20,000 - 1960 be94fo0 1 re 1903 1 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 '3 35-44 45-54 •55-64 ■65+ o 400 18.0 F not adjusted for type of rental L 350 16.0 - - 14.0 r-, 300 12.0 810.0 i I IllIllIlIul 200 I II 1111111 lgi 8.0 I- 6.0 1 150 4.0 ll IIIIIIIIII . ! 100 - -111111111 II I - 2.0 0.0 50 -2.0 . n co Q1 O N d' in to f-, W cn O ipp� W Qp1 O '-I N rtl C V1 l� I� O1 O N N M d' N la r W 01 O N N N m N N N 8 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 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 N N N MULTIFAMILY raaTLVIVi 124 i A 1i0U51NG H/Ay Univusi 6 ';F,_ COU NCSL _._...... .�_._ .'HAS MSi;L1 DleQO' tik 100,000 '` Owner 80,000 _. 60,000 ry �. 40,000 w _,. o IN c0 -T __ 20,000 '^ m O o 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 s ■Renter 180,000 ■Renter 400,000 160,000 TA Owner r .:Owner 350,000 140,000 300,000 q 120,000 t 250,000 100,000 80,000 200,000 cr un 60,000 `~ 150,000 N 40,000 U o 100,000 `~ m o N ,, 11 20,000 ,,„ ® =® 50,000 Il co 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 iiMiMMEM 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs — Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&HospitalityIMMiliMMENiii Natural Increase Government Mi. 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 I�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 Insulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATfOt�A1 125 -....._.� y MULTIFAMILY Jr HOUSING II\ HASSi n Dpi' '+x 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. 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 , ... .4r-1111,. . 140,000 120,000 Owner 2-4 units I 21,371 100,000 Owner 5+units I 45,315 80,000 .r 60,000 Renter Single 273,705 N 40,000 i i `^ Renter 2-4 units IM 153,925 20,000 Renter 5+units 298,707 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $SOk $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 350,000 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 300,000 since 2010 IIII 12,282 ir. 250000 2000- 26,278 .712010 6 a) 200,000 0 1980- 66,467 o 2000 2 150,000 1960- 115,645 N. 1980 L5 100,000 N `0 1940- 50,000at co �' a4 t. 1960 39,322 1 . vs' vr co °p "' " before 1940 38,713 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15-24 ■25-34 a 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 410 -a 15.0 5 400 not adjusted for type of rental o 2 390 t- 10.0III 380 370 360: :: IhhhJIIIIhhhhII _J 350III34330 l..J a �..-i ', i9 l I -5.0 _ ii , , 1 3200 111111111111111111111 310 -10.0 300 d N CO 0 0 N rn Q vt 0 N W Cl 0 N W m 0 .ti N M Q N a N M m O ti N Q u; la N on O M O O N N N. O N N O N O OOO OOO OO O O O O H 5 H O N N O N O O O N N N N NN N N NN N M N /-, NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r 126 Nic tdUL,,,.,, 91LY I�1� r 4 HOUSING HAS Ui11\'eT51C� c 9 - rSanDieg° 350,000 ■Owner 300,000 250,000 200,000 �.. yr 150,0001 c cn ..._ ._ � � 100,000 1.," m t° ii.' 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 600,000 1,400,000 IN Renter I Renter 500,000 33 Owner 1,200,000 .2 Owner 400,000 1,000,000 800,000 300,000 600,000 en 200,000 to n 1-4 400,000 c rn O Ni100,000 i m rnj , Otl.i m ti 200,000 M iii 11$ COiir 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic I 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 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction iiii Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration ' Manufacturing MINIM Trade&Transport _ Information Svcs 2010-2016 Natural Increase Financial Svcs _ Net Migration , Professional Svcs IlliMiiiiiiiiiiilii i 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 Dins 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 . "nnsulting,contact NMHC,NM or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. J NATIONAL. 127 MUL7tFAMILY I ,.� S t ;., '7, HOUSING UftiVQ151ty COUNCIL !fSaTl DIL'I;Q' 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. -:: "back DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 5 155 4.8 30% __: Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 140,000 - 250,000 500.000 750,000 1,000,000 120,000 Owner Single 100,000 Owner 2-4 units 1 10,262 80,000 Owner 5+units 1 17,167 60,000 40,000 i Renter Single 272,264 0 0 N 20,000 Renter 2-4 units ■ 69,616 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 273,005 $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 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 + � since 200,000 20101111 14,153 .,. 2000- 52,587 a 2010 t 150,000cii 1980- 0 2000 128,080 3 100,000 r a 1980 66,882 o m rri 50,000Wf co fl 1940- Ell 1960 05 so before I 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 0 15-24 ®25-34 0 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 600 -o 20.0 18.0 r of adjusted for type of rental 0 500 16.0 14.0 400 v 12.0 10.0 - -. 300 vi A 8.0 200 6.0 4.0 100 2.0 0.0 n m a o .-+ N ro v to is N w m o r. w m o . N ro <t to 0 n m m o ti N m v to 0 N. w m o N N N N N N N N N M O O op H N .-i N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o O o 8 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 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 �r.r,Ir:;,L 128 MULTIFAMILY ■■■/�'� �e „ HOUSING I�1117{/_\ ■ AS UrliWerSi coul.cll. 4SanDiego• ^ Owner 200,000 r 150,000 100,000 co N t to iS to N N ,,._ 50,000 v m O Llill I_ N em- ;� ts ti: ll 1111.._ - 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 ■Renter ■Renter 400,000 800,000 It Owner 7 Owner 350,000 700,000 300,000 600,000 250,000 500,000 200,000 11 400,000 Cr) N CO 150,000 t #s n- m 300, 000 O rn N 100,000 pm N m m v 200,000 0 O cn O r; ti I m 50,000 'r.,. I.-. N 100,000 - ii c 0 III • _ 1111 ilPiln 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 2000-2010 ----. 2010-2016 Construction iiiiiiiiiMMINIII Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Mi ration Manufacturing g EN Trade&Transport Information Svcs 2010-2016 i 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 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 ,.....gconomic 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. fI' NATIONAL 129 ... MULTIFAMILY HOUSING HAS l,}i7fi'2TS1Ly v«f��. ,.. tit COUNCIL _._......_._.._._--r. V 4SanDiego• Net in migrations counter the slide in natural population growth to hold 7 _` ,. ,' new households fairly constant. New renters will source from ages 35-54 1' - -� and seniors over 65 with lower incomes reliant on affordability.Economic I growth is modest. Most of multifamily is seen in STAR units,more than -`-` t i` YZ, - most metros. Demand ahead is flat for two years,rising steadily to 2029. ~t__.. a Definitions on back DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE _;. -�:l 47 287 1.8 54% . 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 '' 643,817 60,000 50,000 Owner 2-4 units I 9,133 40,000 Owner 5+units 1 8,806 30,000 Renter Single 114,536 20,000 litl - N 10,000 Renter 2-4 units I. 63,380 ■ under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 117,968 $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 50,000 100,000 since ■ 2,191 2010 2010 6 9,112 L in 1980- 60,0002000 25,587 2 m N N 1960- v 1980 c. 40,000co 41,813 1940 co r. N 1940- 20,000 1960 before 17,018 22,247 under 15% 15%-20% 2096-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast ,115-24 ®25-34 235-44 45-54 ■55-64 165+ 140 ini 8.0 not adjusted for type of rental o 135 0 6.0 ~ 130 - - - - -4.0 IIII ' ' 125 2.0 ' 120 F 0.0 I_J i _ 115-2.0110 ibIIIhiII1-IiflhiiIH -4.D105 11111111111 -6.0 100 tO N 00 Cc 0 e4 N n V us to N CO of o N 00 of 0 0.H N M V In U0 N CO o1 0 N N m a tl5 tO I- w c1 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N 0 0 O1 o 0 8 N o O N 0 o N o N N N N N 0 N N 0 NNN NN N N N N N N N N N NNNNN NNNNNNN N N N NN ,r,, 130 MULTIFAMILY HAS HAf ', I�11�I HOUSING S Uni eosi COUNCIL_ V V\ �• ��// .fSanDiego- _ I i 160,000 r ■Owner — -_ 140,000 k. w 100,000 - —. 80,000 60,000 00 ,n, '. v coOm cci co ., , .,. 40,000 riv la N co 03 20,000 's U i I 11 .1 -,. 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 E3 Owner 600,000 Ll Owner 200,000 500,000 400,000 150,000 300,000 100,000 v I 200,000 N u1 N 50,000 ° m co t" a N CO ® v v 100,000 ul N c ■ CO 1. n NI .mm ■ W 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) ! I -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 Mining I 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction ME Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing IiiiiiMM Trade&Transport — 2010-2016 Information Svcs i Natural Increase Financial Svcs i Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 j 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 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 'nsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. • NATIONAL 131 MULTIFAMILY NAAHAS eFA 14 HOUSING �IllV-fI57t�' a-,.. n 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. , Jefinit'ons on back 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 " ... _ ,.,r'>»< 50,000 7 Owner 2-4 units 3 5, _�' 40,000 Owner 5+units 14,055 30,000 Renter Single 109,921 20,000 mN I i ti 10,000 Renter 2-4 units - 59,101 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 174,831 $15k $25k 535k $50k 575k 5100k $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 2000- 6 100,000 2010 27,700 S 1980- ,, 80,000 2000 64,077 To 60,000 Y 1960- 49,594 ,D 1980 40,000 1940- 20,000 1960 10,068 ersI before 14,193 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 M 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 300 -o 10.0 not adjusted for type of rental 5 250 8.0 i= 200 6.0 -80 i I 150 3 i i 11111111111 100 �iowWWfflffl . / illilqg N N N N N M O O pp e-I 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 /- N N N NNNNN N NNN NNNNNNNNNNNNN N N NNNN NNNNN NATIONAL 132 ®_ _ mil< MULTIFAMILY �'O i}t011SiNGNAA � ` Upiversit j P couac:u. �•��//"��V ,,rSan Diego- - 120,000 D Owner +.q 100,000 t, 80,000 60,000 , n 40,000 I,n a LO T, ,-...4N N Q 20,000 i I 1 I i I i ii e 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 Owner 200,000 400,000 350,000 150,000 300,000 '':e. 250,000 100,000 200,000 Ig m N rmn 150,000 tp m 50,000 vrn 100,000 p v ula O C N Q C 1 III ® ul 0 50,000 ti N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Mack Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('0005) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 5 10 15 20 25 Mining I 2000-2010 2010-2016 Natural Increase Construction 1111111111.1.111 ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration um Trade&Transport MINIMMINIMi 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs — Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality MIIIMMIIIIIIIII 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 Econometricsu,Moody's Analytics*,ESRIx 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 .gconomic 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 nsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL -_ MULTIFAMILY 133 Unrvelsl !- ,I�I�III� HOUSINGHAS_._......-.—.�.-.--.W COUNCIL �SanDieQo° 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. i w Defnih � ons on back - . ,.--.. DEMAND AFFORD- ME SUPPLY STAR* -_ - "- RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE -- 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 21 25,000 Owner 2-4 units I 1,024 ons 20,000 Owner 5+units 1 4,111 15,000 10,000 Renter Single 58,085 co vi 5,000 Renter 2-4 units II19,009 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 78,948 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $10ok $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 50,000 since 2010 9,711 2000- - 40,000 2010 19,740 0 a' Cu 19sa E 30,000 2000 34,378 x 5 `n 1960- 20,000 - o 1980 11,775 ui N 1940 10,000 196I.0 2,111 before m 1,233 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 0 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 200 10.0 m 180 9.0 .. not adjusted for type of rental a F 160 8.0 140 7.0 120 6.0 liii ' 1 ii 5.0 100 F 4.0 I 3.0 148600000 11 40 1.0 1 20 111111 0.0 O N CO 0 O N m C ✓1 lO N CO G1 O N CO m O N N m G V1 ID N CO 01 O N N m d' lA U 00 61 O H NI N N N N N N N N N O O O c-1 c-i NI N N 1-1 ,-i N N N N N N N N M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00000000000000000000000 f-"'--.. NATIQNAL 134 MULTIFAMILY ■ .AS a 4 .,., Er HOUSINGn��r couRIC11 _._-..-.-_-----_._... 'San Diego Owner 60,000 40,000 N e mi __ —_ 20,000 ri fi- 1 i N. C4 I u1 'A!4 m N II a "'-' - 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 Ca Owner Owner 200,000 80,000 150,000 ,3 60,000 uo 100,000 cr 40,000 11 ilt.C1 n1 I..' DO N '. 20,0031 Ln 0 r;',1 50,000 - pp m ... opo co II MI iiim ct NMI_ AIM iiAN _ ON 1111 NM 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 10 20 30 40 50 Mining 2000-2010 Construction ® 2010-2016 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing g Trade&Transport Information Svcs 2010-2016 II Natural Increase Financial Svcs Mil --. ------- - 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 ME 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 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 /..."'',sulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. i. NATIONAL 135 • MULTIFAMILY N/A�%�j v t HOUSING �I V V \ HAS University k F. tit COLT I,C IL _..............+.».-..._. ..-..- ........ ,SaY11�leQ0' 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. Definitions on bock r-. DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 0.`_ 33 188 -2.3 37% 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 295,908 30,000 11. Owner 2-4 units 9 1,809 25,000 20,000 Owner 5+units ! 4,419 15,000 o Renter Single 73,466 10,000 .� 5,000 , Renter 2-4 units • 22,178 Renter 5+units 75,323 under $15- $25- 535- $50- $75- $100- over $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 60,000 since 3,700 ior 2010 �...,„ 50,000 2000- 10,764 -o ,,..,..= 2010 40,000 3 1980- 0 2000 23,507 m 30,000 1960- ,,= 1980 23,553 20,000 rn 0o m 1940- 10,000 ry r-: i E l 1960 5,773 -4 .. a before 1940 8,026 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 1 15-24 3 25-34 035-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 140 3.0 not adjusted for type of rental a 120 o 2.5 2.0 1 1.5 liii 100 80 v c o 1.0 60 ~' 0.5 40 1111111111111 -0.5 ii . , . • . ' ' 2p -1_0 - l0 I. 00 0, 0 .--I N m 01 u1 0 N- w 01 0 r 00 01 0 0-I N 10 0' 01 0 N CO 01 0 .-1 N m N. u) to n 00 01 0 N N 0 0 O .-I N N N N N N N N N 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0001000000000000000000000 .� ...., N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN i �rT 136 IIIIr�� s MULTIFAMILY TM A .HAS dSa1 . con., ,. I Owner 60,000 40,000 m o u, ti i. 20,000 ( d. _ 11.... iiijIii _ 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 II Owner Owner 200,000 100,000 80,000 150,000 60,000 11 11 100,000 ti 40,000 m 11111 0,00020,000 b eto Lco M CVul 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) -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mining i 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction MINIM Natural Increase 1.2017-2030 Manufacturing NM Net Migration Trade&Transport I MIMI 2010-2016 Information Svcs 1 Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health iiMaiiiMiMMME 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(HA5)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'",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 MULTIFAMILY , - w t'71� tit HOUSING �� ��n1V2151t�' `' • . COUNCIL ■■HAtSanDiego° 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. r. _ Definitions on bock ` u DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STARS --_' RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 'W-- -R_ 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 ts ' 6,820 60,000 50,000 Owner 5+unitsuni6,946 40,000 rn 30,000 a Renter Single 260,071 20,000 Renter 2-4 units 1111 64,028 10,000 Renter 5+units 172,985 under $15- $25- 535- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k 5100k $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 1960 9 643 200,000 - 2010 2000- =a 2010 32,713 s 150,000 m 1980. 73,148 a 202000 s 7, 100,000 1960. 47,806 oN - N 1980 ao x 0h. -7r 50,000 m af. 1940- 111118,712 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 ❑15-24 ■25-34 0 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 350 0 10.0 ri not adjusted for type of rental 300 8.0 i- 250 6.0 1111 1111 11 ils, i 200 11111111111111111111111 c 4.0 I i m 2.0 150 .. .. 0.0 Li li L_I U = - III , 100 -2.0 .. r 1 1 ' � ' SD -4.0 - lD N w w O N 01V N N 01 O N W w O N N 1,1 C U1 tD N 00 0, O N N M d" U1 la N 00 al O N N N N N N n1 N 0 0 0 ,-i ,-I N N N N 10 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 O O O O O O N O O O N O O /N N N N N N N N h TI MULIFAL 138 S TIFA L e HOUSING HAS LJfIlVei5dLY ^� .. * me,en ...-.-....._._._-.__ ,f San Diego° .Owner 160,000 140,000 i wr ,i r,.." 120,000 . 100,000 _. 80,000 I 0 0 �� 60,000 cn m �` j rn 40,000 `"-�. _ N ut a _. - 20,000 - - ~ cr ■ III ii "" - -- -- 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 0 Owner 500,000 Owner 200,000 400,000 150,000 300,000 100,000 I 1:7 tD 200,000 n vi m In m 50,000 i 00 100,000 ' LND ■ _ s ■ . 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 0 20 40 60 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Mining I 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing ® Net Migration Trade&Transport Information Svcs 2010-2016 Natural Increase Financial Svcs III -..- Net Migration Professional Svcs MIIIIIIIIIIIIMIN Education&Health IIIIIIIIIIIIIMINIIMIIIIIIIIIIMM 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase GovernmentIIIIIIIIIIIIII 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 1-5 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 —nsuiting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. HOTIDNG 139 HAS i MULTIFAMILY ' .. ,,,*, HOUSING Unners . COUNCIL _._......_—.._..____ "SanDiego- 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. -',,7ck DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE - -- 27 137 4.1 42% _._.� 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 `S r`u- 50,000 Owner 2-4 units I 3,804 40,000 Owner S+units I 4,630 30,000 - -- - vii, Renter Single 152,287 20,000 m ti 10,000 ' Renter 2-4 units - 49,358 Renter S+units 127,150 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $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 50,000 140,000 since 2010 El , 2000- 120,000 „�\ 19,664 2010 5 100,000 L y 19aa 0 80,000 2000 46,936 cm a 60,000 1960- 45,036 cc N 1980 mLo 40,000 mo N ^ 9 1940 9 ,174 1960 3 314 20,000 II before 11. 3,026 - 1940 under 15% 1S%-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 ka 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 1 65+ 250 4' 7.0 not adjusted for type of rental o 6.0 -. 200 5.0 1111111 4.0 3 111111111111111111111111 L 2.0 1DD 150 1.! 1.0 -1.0 -2.0 0o N co a+ o ., N m c LI, Co N co 01 o N CO 01 o .-i N N Cr 0n 0o N CO 01 0 .-i N M Cr 0n LO N CO 01 0 N ral N N N N IN N 0 0 0 .-1 N N H N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0000 0000000000000000000 CO r+1 IN N N IN N IN N N IN N N N N r, N c, N N N N N IN N N N N r. N N N N IN N N N N N ,./i, NATIONAL 140 /j� jII��j MULTIFAMILY � ""^� pp�+ HOUSING HAS University X.: ,.. -- 100,000 12 Owner 80,000 r 60,000 N:::: lin nNll III 1- - '-' ___-_-!..7...1.,,, L- 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 IIRenter IIRenter 350,000 160,000 T Owner n Owner 140,000 300,000 120,000 �, 250,000 100,000 200,000 80,000 11 I 150,000 60,000N rn 100,000 0 O o 40,000 0 D p : N im m m 20,000 fl Him .. = s0,000 IN® ■ I 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 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 Mining 1 2000-2010 '2010-2016 Construction 111.111111111 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration Mil Trade&Transport l Information Svcs 2010-2016 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 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 ---.onomic 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 tilting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NOTIONAL 141 IIIMINIMIIMI Ai, MULTIFAMILY i HOUSING HAAS >JnNP251�' i+..; ',.. swo 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. 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 20,000 Owner 2-4 units 1 4,198 15,000 Owner 5+units 7,701 10,000 o Renter Single 38,108 v 5,000 Renter 2-4 units . 21,369 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 66,196 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $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 30,000 45,000 since 40,000 2010 5,377 +'ro 35,000 2000' 8- 2010 10 930 .c 30,000 at <11 1980- 3 25,000 2000 26,665 = ,' 20,000 °' is 0 1980 16,541 ¢ 15,000 ok 0 0 m 1940 10,000 .rti� i 1960 2,268 5,000 i^ ` before 4,415 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-3S% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast ❑15-24 125-34 w?35-44 45-54 155-64 ■65+ 100 0 3.0 N 90 not adjusted for type of rental 2.5 0 43587600::111111111 ' 111111 F 2.0 1 1 1 1 1.5 11 1.0 o I I- 0.5 11111111111111111111111 -0.5 10 -1.0 - ,o s W Cl 0 c-I N M C N l0 P. CO N 0 1, CO of o ,-i N M C Li., to h w 01 o - N M Cr In Lb r CO 01 0 O N N N N N N O N M O01OOO OOOOOO OO O O p O O N O O O O O O O N N N N N 8 O O O N O a.---, nHr 142 _ s MU SIFAMIl9' �///��.�%'►�� Xtf - r HOUSING I�11.( 1/ \ HAS University -- III 11 cour ; -�..____ . 4-San Diego. 50,000 Owner 40,000 s 30,000 r^ N 20,000 :211°3 'CO'N I ... 10,000L I .hi 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 80,000 250,000 ■Renter ■Renter 70,000 L' m Owner Owner 60,000 200,000 50,000 150,000 40,000 30,000 - 100,000 20,000 N LO ii 50,000 r' U 10,000 ,..----- .1 m N N 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) -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 Manufacturing .. Net Migration II ......._..-._................ ........ Trade&Transport Information Svcs 2010-2016 r Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs MilliMEMEMMONIONIMINIMi Education&Health MEMINMEMIIII 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase I GovernmentUNIMIEMEM 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 Econometricsi0,Moody's Analytics",ESRIx 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. 143tl 1 J MULTIFAMILY f ,1 �IN�I HOUSING HAS Universitydt Net in migrations are 65%ahead of natural population growth,a strong ;.� _v 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. Definitions on back "` 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 - 109000 200,000 300,000 40Q000 500,000 60,000 - Owner single 50,000 Owner 2-4 units I 2,671 40,000 Owner 5+units 1 3,462 30,000 20,000 Renter Single 115,835 m o+ 10,000 i , Renter 2-4 units ■ 36,808 Renter 5+units 144,616 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $Sok $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 m 17,031 since 100,000 Q 2010 ,�,.... at 0 .+ 2000 - 33,963 80,000 2010 a _c u "" 1980- 0 60,000 2000 56,912 I 76 1960- a" 40,000 x 1980 27,936 n Q N 20,000 - a N I 1960 6,206 m a' before 111 1940 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 7 15-24 ®25-34 J 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 300 a 7.0 m . 0 250 111Iril 5.060 I I I 200 „ 4.0 , I' � 3.0 111111 o r- 2.0 100 _ 11 111 _ - 1.0 15050 0.0 not adjusted for type of rental -1.0 - UN W O1 O N N M N u1 N N N O N0 c0c 0 0 0 N N rn d' u1 1D N w D01 O e0- N0 N0 Q0 ui O0 r- W O0t 0 000 0 0000 , 0NNNN0N0 0 N rn0 00 0oOOo 00 000 0N0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ' N N N N =IT IFAMILY 144 II�I�I� u �. a§' xousir,� NAA s LSanDitg cou...� San Die¢o� 100,000 .-a Il Owner - 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 ..--:.. - _-._ - 40,000 - rn al 30,000 20,000 i N 10,000 111 NOVF I 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 180,000 450,000 160 000 II Renter II Renter 400,000 3 Owner A Owner 140,000 350,000 120,000 300,000 100,000 250,000 80,000 200,000 60,000 150,000 ii 100,_ III 111 rn II,...... on 20,000 "� 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) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 S 10 15 20 25 30 Mining 1 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction mmum. Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing I♦ Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs mimmilm Net Migration Professional Svcs immummummumi 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",ESRIQ 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 ,ygpnomic 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. rJF.I Ian:n.L 145 MULTIFA iiIN Unn•eI51 ', ` R rr di HOUSING HAS 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. DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* _ RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 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 495,82 80,000 Owner 2-4 units 1 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 s+units 275,187 $15k $25k $35k $50k 575k $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 ea in since en 2010 . 8,794 200,000 ur ,,r ., N 2000- -D 2010 32,304 .� 150,000 v 1980- 106,967 O 2000 I f-' 100,000 1960- a1980 104,871 ,-; n' C; r. 50,000 r 1940- 16,107 ® 1960 before ■ 1940 6,144 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 Kt 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 500 a 12.0 N 450 - - not adjusted for type of rental o 10.0F, 400 - 8.06.0 !tuts " 350 ' 300 = !t, 250 O 4.0 li 200 2.0 � 15011111 1111 11 1111 0.0 t Li u • .1 12 1 1 1 11 1100 .. .. -2.0 - - 50 - .. -4.0 - to N CO Ct 0 Cl C in tO N W al 0 N M Cl 0 '-I N rn .0t to tO N W Ct 0 c-1 N Dl C' Ln tO N CO Cl 0 N N N N O N O N OOO O OOOO O O O O O O O pp O O O 8 O O O O O O N N O O O O O O N N O „NN NNN NN NNNNNIN n1 ni N NNNN DO NNNNNNNN N N M l'JIvAi LY 146 HAS HOUSING 14 C0111,-- _.__..._. ..____ °SanDieeo. k_ Owner 140,000 :77- 120,000 100,000 80,000 ..--... _ - 60,000 m ' 40,000ili 00 c a Ar' 20,000 liii ii o , 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 IN Renter ■Renter 450,000 200 000 Owner 11 Owner 400,000 350,000 150,000 - 300,000 250,000 100,000 200,000 t1:. 150,000 m O 50,000 v4lip 8 0 100,000 ip cm _.. ' SO,D00 ■ . 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 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Mining ' 2000-2010 Construction ® 2010-2016 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 gNet Mi ration ' Manufacturing immil Trade&Transport MOM Information Svcs 2010-2016 Financial Svcs Natural Increase iiiiiillNet Migration Professional Svcs 1111.111.1111111111 Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase GovernmentiniiiiiMMEMEMII 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•,6551•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 „rwosulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 147 ' MULTIFAMILY .. u e HOUSING I�11,1/ �/ \ ■ U'1S -San l.ieg s.,' . 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. Definitions on bock -- •• .... -, 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 100,000 Owner 2-4 units 41,568 80,000 Owner 5+units 60,044 60,000 Renter Single 222,346 40,000 - - - 20,000 Renter 2-4 units 141,991 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 417,704 $15k $256 $35k $50k $75k $10ok $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 350,000 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 300,000 since - 2010 11,999 t� 250,000 2000- 37,913 -6s -`�s 2010 7, i 200,000 `. 2000 1980- 95,358 t 150,000 E 1960. m 1980 137,433 100,000 - tO im 1940- 50,000 „o _ 1960 50,377 before 84,624 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast ❑15-24 1125-34 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 165+ 43 500 20.0 5 450 - - -- - - not adjusted for type of rental o t- 400 15.0 I ' I 11°5..0° ' 250300350 200 150 00 PP ME I ' ' 150 -5.0 _ 4 N N M VVNl 2 N W,°.°, al O ifilififflifiWiliw , OON O NO G O O OO O O O O 2 0 000000000000 NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNto a�IOY 148 NAA �'1 (611...t; t�u �! ; INVHICEvari- HAS UII11eT51i� , -- _.- 200,000 Owner . - 180,000 _, •-�•- 160,000 I 140,000 - ... 120,000 _. - 100,000 m - m 80,000 m e in 60,000 co --. 40,000 r» m cr I II 20,000 ' - , ■' - 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 350,000 600,000 ■Renter •Renter 300,000 •Owner 500,000 Owner i' 250,000 in ; .,e 400,000 200,000 300,000 150,000 0 co cn 200,000 it 100,000 N rn t� y i in 50,000 Qp100,0001 1 .. . iz$ d 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 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 -10 0 10 20 30 40 Mining 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase ■2017-2030 _ Manufacturing Net Migration Trade&Transport iiiMEME -- - 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality111111111.111. Natural Increase Government illiMi 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 Analytics5,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 ,nsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 149 MULTIFAMILY HAS _ University HOUSING " 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. .. ,-back 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 MIIIIMIMMIIIIIIIIIIIIMIEM 50,000 Owner 2-4 units 1 5,877 40,000 Owner 5+units ■ 17,767 30,000 Renter Single 90,800 20,000 10,000 Renter 2-4 units I= 41,049 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 150,260 $15k $25k $356 $50k $75k $100k 5150k $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 12,055 100,000 2010 in AD 0 2000- -0 80,000 2010 18,748 0 ° 1980- g 60,000 2000 46,550 x 6 1960- 40,000 56,659 1980 n 20,000 �^ i i , -, 1940- 11,90939 M 0 . befor196e - 1940 4, 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+ 250 -a 7.0 not adjusted for type of rental o 6.011111 200 5.0 4.0 150 c 3.0 ,. m t 3 0 2.0 IDD _ _ _ _ _ 1.0 0.0 u u u _ . . I ® ' ' ' . 50 -2.0 LO N CO C1 O N M N . n CO Cl O 1� CO 01 O e-1 N M C N . N CO m O a-1 N rn I. LA tO N CO O1 O N N N N M 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N M O O 0 O O o O O O o O O O O O 0 0000000000 ,0000000000000 ~ 0 N N N N N N N ni N N N N NNNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N .��. 150 4tTtorA MULTIFAMILY �. @ HOUSING .. HAS UniveT51T)•, s.. COUNCIL. ...W....-.__._-..__.___ .___. ,f San Dim° - _ry i Owner 80,000 60,000 40,000 II 11 I — I .... �0'_. 20,000 `�'' Ol ce 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 '-i Owner 200,000 - e,O` ` 80,000 , 150,000 E':. 60,000 11 1 100,000 40,000 tI 20,000 m ,N 50,000 111 0 I OA 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) -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 INN Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration Trade&Transport — Information Svcs 2010-2016 Financial Svcs Natural Increase l El Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health a 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality INN 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 ME 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,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 i consulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 151 , MULTIFAMILY tiv� HOUSING HAS t- ft'er�, couNc13_ ..._ _ itiglo �..,._„„,,,.�.,._ ,San D1CQ0' 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. ._ __ Definitions on bock ___ 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 60,000 Owner 5+units ■ 53,856 40,000 Renter Single 164,450 20,000 Renter 2-4 units - 71,922 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5-4-units 327,307 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $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 I 2010 25,034 �� 2000- 1980 -b 55,165 T) 150,000 n 1980 116,991 0 20002010 = 10 100,000 u-1v 1960 86,981 - i i ,n 50,000 1940-4. 19, R. n 1960 In; y - 1940 before 23825,311 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+ 600 -o 18.0 16.0 not adjusted for type of rental ' 500 14.0 12.0I 400 10.0 v C 8.0 ; flf ' h ' - 't4.0 200 11111111111111111 2.0 iii0.0 — .— — — mi in i iiii r 100300 rni, -2.0 -4.0 - N N N 01 0 .N1 NN 0 N 0 01 o n W at 0 00m N u1 10 n N 01 0 0-+ N CO 00 v1 10 N CO G1 0 N 00 N N N N K1 0 0 0 04 H T. I. N N N N N N N N CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,1 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00, 0 0 00000 �� N N N N rg 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 13 N N N ,• NATIti: �52 �, MULTIFAMILY • HOUSING II HAS U11iveislty A. e coo NGu. -.-...._.-.-...._—_...-.. ,i5an Diego. e_ LUU,UUU 180,000 ■Owner 160,000 140,000 120,000 '_ 100,000 80,000 0 o EE v, ~ oa a^� NN LA11 11 ilIJ "' 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 Owner 600,000 Owner 250,000 500,000 200,000 400,000 150,000 300,000 100,000 M 200,000 N t\ co IvCo in 11111 mia 1 Mil MI 50,000 �n N 100,000 co0 1 II lel 1 2 3 4 5 5 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 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Mining i 2000-2010 Construction 2010-2016 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing ® Net Migration Trade&Transport VPMIIIIIMIIIIIIMIIII Information Svcs 2010-2016 MI Financial Svcs Natural Increase MIME -- 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 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. NATMULTIFAMILY 153 MUITIPAMILY �j �A N� rit HOUSING �� V �1 1 HAS Urn-N_eI57(}' ,.., e 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. Definitions on back 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 Owner Single ` �' ' . 5,000 Owner 2-4 units ] 653 4,000 Owner 5+units ] e23 3,000 ^ Renter Single 8,163 2,000 n N c-i Co 1,000 iIii . . Renter 2-4 units ■ 4,514 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 18,747 $156 $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $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 1,642 8,000 - 2010 tom. 7,000 2000- 2,705 2010 s 6,000 1980-E 5,000 2000 6,527 0 12 4,000 it 14, 1960- 6,337 rr 3,000 �"4' <g_ 1980 2,000 7 .. ,.- -_ 1940- 1,007 1960 1,000 , before 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 ■25-34 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 25 1.0 not adjusted for type of rental o 20 0.8 0.6 15 v 0.4 s111111111111 10 1111111111111111111111 0.2 -0.2 - LU N W 01 0 N m d' LU LU N W 01 O n W 01 O r-1 N m La r` W .0 N M Ci' N to N LU 01 O N N N N N m p O O "4 f-1 `1"Z' N N N N N N m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O S N 0 0 0 0 0 0 LE0 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 14.11.11Cnc;: 154 - a MULTIFARIILY HAS i, ffla HOUSING I�1 .. Universityt: -__ r(�7t DlekTO` 14,000 Owner 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 -- 4,000 r' �+ o nj 2,000 in 1 i i 1 I s .ti in ■ 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 30,000 70,000 •Renter •Renter '' 25,000 0 Owner 60,000 •Owner t 20,000 50,000 t 40,000 15,000 30,000 10,000 F 20,000 v m 5, 000 m a v1 N 10,000 Lrl mter op eNe en 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 2010-2016 Construction iiMM Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration Trade&Transport iiiMiEMM Information Svcs 2010-2016 Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs iiMMEMMEMill Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality 11111.11111.1111111.1. 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 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 onsutting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. t.nat C.. 155 ® Ot.MULTIFAMILY'HOUSING �S UC1WfF -.. r 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. Definitions on back 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 units 1 12,733 50,000 Owner 5+units ] 13,685 40,000 m 30,000 °'_ m Renter5ingle 133,276 iiii 20,000 `.,m 10,000 ■ Renter 2-4 units 11 80,668 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 125,785 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $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 s 2010ince I. 3,914 100,000 - - - 2000- 14,512 -a 2010 0 N 80,000 o1980- 2000 38,378 60,000 m 1960- °J in° 1980 41,599 40,000 m. .m-I c oo co b e-i - -I m 1940- 20,000 a x"47 � < 1960 11,799 .... before 15,583 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 a 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 170 1 6.0 5.0 not adjusted far type of rental 165 ~ 160 4.0 3 I 155 2.0 1.0.0 150 I 0.0 Li Li i_1 � V V, - 145 145 w 1111 -1.0 ' ' I 140 -2.0 -- -- 111 135 .. .. 111 -3.0 -4.0 130 0 N W CO O M CO N lD N- CO 0 O r` ID at O - N T C vi lD N W a1 O .1 N M Cr ut tD N- DO N O N N N N O N O N 1 O p O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N 8' i+.�OOOOOOOO O OOOO INNN N NNNNNNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ni-.7,bN. NAA 156 MJJLTIFAhJILY 4 !\ time HOUSING HAS Ullll'eS5ity �.ax e „� �e�r�- Owner 40,000 - 30,000 _... 20,000 m i 11111.10,000 ... 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 70,000 160,000 , { •Renter ■Renter 60,00D 140,000 ._ 3 Owner Owner 120,000 50,000 100,000 40,000 , . 80,000 30,000r` 60,000 i '' o 1 toI 10,000 _ i,-;• a 20,000 `,72 o Ili As.. , II i‘tE =I,, _ aim,,,,,n i ':t r; 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) -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mining 1 2000-2010 2010-2016I Natural Increase Construction ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing mil Trade&Transport {♦ 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial SvcsMEM Net Migration Professional Svcs MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMi Education&Health 2016-2030 ..11111 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government IMIIIIMIIIIIIMIMI 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 Econometricsn,Moody's Analytics°1,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. HAS //��c�+ NATIONAL 103 HAS s , MULTIFAMILY ' • l.iIlil%QI511�' �.�. HOUSING ,TSaRDjeRo, 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. - Definitions on back ,,-- DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE l 17 70 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 1,833,596 350,000 300,000 Owner 2-4 units I 43,689 250,000 Owner 5+units II 132,254 200,000 150,000 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 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 1,200,000 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 since 1,000,000 a 2010 111 34,060 oo ul r -$ 800,000 0 20� 94,446 o -,- _. 1980- 0 600,000 2000 301,108 ti ti m to ^' 400,000 ao N '- rn tC 1960- 487,778 co .1 N v v m 1980 N m no N N N 1940- 200,000 II , I I , 1960 212,305 before 119,137 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 2S%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0 15-24 ■25-34 £2 35-44 -:7 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 1,500,000 40 1,300,000 -- - 30 '111111 , 1,100,000 20 v 900,000 i 10 oF 0 ,' _1 a 1.� -- 711111111 III ■ -10 • • IN IN ' 500,00000,000 not adjusted for type of rental -20 300,000 - I - tO n 00 01 0 e-1 N N V' 1.0 tO n 00 01 0 n 00 01 0 e-1 N rn Vo 0 n t00 O -t N 0' C/1 o 1 Cr tO n 111 CO 01 0 .y N N N N .N N N 8 8 8 o 0 o o o o 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 6 O N NO N N N O O 0 M N O O O N O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNINNINN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NATIONAL I 104 -�MULTIFAMILY HAS w�1., d HOUSING I�11 H f�\ Universit . COUNCIL ...-.....YII._..�11.��,_-_.-�\ �, ______ of San Diego' ,. fli i' ■Owner _ 500,000 400,000 n 300,000 v . 200,000 - co ti M rn a 1oo,oao a _ le4 � 1 .1 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 •Renter 600,000 M Owner 1,200,000 Owner 500,000 1,000,000 400,000 800,000 300,000 I II 11 I 0 600,000 is L al 200N Ii ii. cn 100,000 . 200,000 D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ WhiteAlone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector('OOOs) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Mining l 2000-2010 -- 2010-2016 Natural Increase Construction ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing — Trade&Transport EMiii 2010-2016 Information Svcs I Natural Increase Financial Svcs 1111iNet Migration Professional Svcs 1.011.1111111111.111111111. Education&Health iiiIIIIMIN.1111111MINIM2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government IMMENIIIIIMNet 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 :onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed In the publication appendix. • NATIONAL 105 HAS A s MULTIFAMILYHOUSING NAA �y/�C lijn,S er eat COI. ca. ...—.....-._—_-._-_ aSanDie 5 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. Definitions on bock �- DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* - .-e 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 305,070 35,000 30,000 Owner 2-4 units 1 3,155 25,000 Owner 5+units 1 7,406 20,000 15,000 Renter Single 62,721 10,000 1 1 1 0 r` 00 M 5,000 , Renter 2-4 units II 28,538 N 1.1 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 70,430 $15k $25k $35k $50k 575k $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 A since 50,000 2010 3,780 -0 40,000 "^ 20 0 8,490 o 1980- E 30,000 = 2000 21,096 '0 c 1960- 0 20,000 1980 23,705 10,000i i i 0 1940- 7,624 c 1960 et ~ before 1940 - 5,735 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 >70 35-44 45-54 1155-64 ■65+ 120 a 2.0 3 not adjusted for type of rental 2 100 - - - - 1.5 ~ 1.0 ' 60 A 0.5 111111111111111111111111 -0.5 -1.0 _ 0 r 00 CT 0 .-i N M Q 1 VC N 00 a1 0 no 00 a, 0 +- N co C u, la N W 01 0 N M Q Jr 0 N. 00 a1 0 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 '� '� "� ci N N N N N N N M 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 N N N N N N N IN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N "......, rsaT3�•rua,. 106 �� MULTIFAMILY 1"PlIC HOUSING HAS ,),SanUniversity .. two COL'.CII- }'$2T1 Diego. 70,000 •■Owner -_ 60,000 50,000 40,000 r ate; "-" 30,000 co m '' { N O 20,000 a � rf i N D ul 10,000 I M - I "'' 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 le ■Renter ■Renter 120,000 e"1.,Owner 250,000 ■Owner 100,000 200,000 80,000 150,000 60,000 100,000 ,n 0 40,000 N L,-;' O 50,000 L o 20,000I i , :I. , _- _e _ o rn i i ;:: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector(1000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mining 1 2000-2010 2010-2016 Natural Increase Construction MN III 2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration um Trade&Transport — 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 1111.111111112016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality mium. 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,CoStar5,CBRE Econometrics•,Moody's Analyticse,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 107 HAS t MULTIFAMILY Up1V2t51ty -,, HOUSING COUNCIL I�1 .� ban Diel±O' 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* 0-, 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 Zi 40,000 Owner 2-4 units I 1,314 30,000 Owner 5+units 2,700 20,000 o Renter Single 90,495 N tD 10,000 m al Renter 2-4 units IN 31,915 III under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter s+units 71,218 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k 5150k $150k 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 4+4 70,000 since 3,470 iii 2010 60,000 n - 2000 -c 2010 12,931 D 50,000 s v 1980- 0 40,000 2000 24,415 = w m 30,000 - -- 1960- 18,464 a, 1980 20,000 1940- 8,807 10,000 1960 before 3,131 - 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 n 25-34 •35-44 -:'45-54 ■55-64 •65+ -o 140 2.5 1 not adjusted for type of rental a 120 2.0 Ii80 1.5 0.0 100 7, 4 F 0.5 60 0 111111 1 1111111111 11111 20 -0.5 -1.0 - w N W of O .-I N N V to l0 N 0 A o N CO 01 0 .--1 N en d' 0(1 tD N CO 01 0 .-i M d' to to N N 01 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N co CO N co N CO CO N N r, /✓r\ N kTIONAL 108 _� MULTIFAMILY �//�►__A► HAS s a rot HOUSING I�V/�]� UI174ei51[}' cows '] v vv-..-. s'SanDie?o' 70,000 M' I ' 3 Owner i 60,000 - `` 50,000 -``'- 40,000 r 30,000 to m ,— e I ti �, 1 .._i 20,000 71; a L �yif ,` 10,000 ..„,, ---...,_ _ L I i • ..o 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 e III Renter 100,000 ID Owner 160,000 i Owner i` .. 140,000 80,000 k. 120,000 t ..: 60,000 e 100,000 80,000 N 40,000 fl I co 60,000 hi1 20,000 m ^ 40,000 Q1 m • 20:00 .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) -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Mining I 2000-2010 r—., 2010-2016 Natural Increase Construction MEM ■2017-2030 Manufacturing III Migration Trade&Transport 1.111111111111111111111101 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Education&Health 11.11111111111111111.12016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality IIIIIMMINIMININatural 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 Analytics0,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 109 1 MULTIFAMILYg ! HAS � Fit IIhI�I HOUSING �S ULIInD I COUNCIL I..11 �Y1 DIC ° 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. zrq De;t ons on back 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 904,748 160,000 140,000 Owner 2-4 units I 40,263 120,000 100,000 Owner 5+units 238,819 80,000 1 - co - - - 60,000RenterSingle 258,244 crIN 01 40,000 I i 11 N- Renter 2-4 units - 114,436 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 472,141 $15k $256 $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 2010 21,619 350,000 'OOP, 2000- -b 300,000 2010 64,240 T, 250,000 - - - 1980- 165,142 0 2000 200,000 To cL n - al 1980 166,430 150,000 NI r, 100,000 v on 0o x 1940 43,912 1960 50,000 I I I I before - - 1940 1.1 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 015-24 1125-34 .' 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 800 a 30.0 t0 700 - not adjusted for type o rental o 25.0 L ~ 600 - - - - - - - 20.0 500 1 15.0 400 17, 1111 2 10.0 300 ~ 1111111111111111111111 5.0 Z00 Ill 100 -5.0 _ LO N CO 01 0 N rrl G to CO N CO 01 0 pN CO 010 O - N rn <t 01 LLD N 00 Cr, O ,5 N Ill Cl. Ln CO N CO 01 0 vti N N N CO g S S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O COO N O N O N O N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNNCONNNN N N N N N N N N ,-rte. NATION,:. 110 MULTIFAMILY HOUSING P7.//-'�lJ Univaslry .-:'. : cour;c„_ 'SanDieeoa 7_ 250,000 `,` '3 Owner `i200,000 'e 150,000 c -�` . 100,000 , N .ai,,,.. v O o v v vai 50,000 m • 1 ,91 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 D Owner 400,000 800,000 350,000 700,000 11 co 300,000 600200,,000 250,000 500,000 200,000 400,000 dii N N 11 ei 100,000 GL F CI LO 50,000 100,000 III oIII - 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 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mining 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction IMMIIIMM Natural Increase III 2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing in Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs IIIIIIIIIIIIIM Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&HospitalityIIIIIIIIMMEMIIII 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°,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. C !P LY 4San ii '_, Er III, �S �' Growth continues to come solely from natural population growth which is -_ _ _" slowing. New rental household growth relies upon householders over 35. -.a 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. - De 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 w r: 40,000 Owner 2-4 units 19,689 30,000 Owner 5+units 15,249 20,000 Renter Single 53,596 m 10,000 N .F-11; Renter 2-4 units 85,060 ■ under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 119,007 $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 90,000 1,,, since 80,000 alflir 2010 - 3,410 70,000 2000- 11,915 2010 c, 60,000 k2 a; z 0 50,000 1980- '" 2000 32,626 = 40,000 1960- cc 30,00011 i i B 1980 37,490 20,000 1940- 17,120 1960 10,000 before 16,446 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast ::115-24 II 25-34 a 35-44 45-54 0 55-64 •65+ 120 a 4.0 not adjusted for type of rental '0 115 - - 3.0 t= 2.0111111111 1 ' ' 110 m 1A ' 105 r 0.0 1 ■ ii i LI ii I I 1 100 _ ..III1111111111111_ _ -1.0 -2.0 M . 95 -3.0 90 tO n N N O -, N M Q In 0 N N Ol 0 N N 01 0 ti N to N Ln ,0 N 00 01 O N N M N In 0 n co O1 0 O O N O O O N O O O 0 O O O O 0 0 0 .-1 N a-I N N N N 0 N N N N . 00000000000000000000000 i1 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 ��� PA7`tOC, 112 �� MULTIFAMILY HOUSING HAS University :a • ..._ .,_ 90,000 ,_. -- r Owner _.- ._. - 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 -- -- -- — •'*-' 40,000 n _. -....R.,.r a®.. 30,000 N- N �-. 1Li O 20,000 ..+ .-i — � 10,000 -- ""' 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ ,i_ l Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 160,000 350,000 ■Renter ■Renter 140,000 Owner 300,000 n Owner 120,000 250,000 �h 100,000 200,000 • 80,000 . 150,000 60,000 ' a 0 11 N 100,000 0 40,000 n ipr. o0 O ut cL 20,000 N N m 50,000 o ■,II ® ai .447 Ewe .. 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 30 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Mining 2000-2010 2010-2016 Natural Increase Construction --- •2017-2030 Net Migration -- Manufacturing Trade&Transport — 2010-2016 Information Svcs 1 Natural Increase Financial Svcs I. Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality ® Natural Increase Government ® 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",ESRI0 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 113 HAS - MULTIFAA#ILY University HOUSING COUNCIL �SaltDiego' 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. DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* -- � 4,.,. 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 j 36,426 30,000 0 111 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 875k $100k 8150k $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 since 2010 12,823 120,000 �� -c 20 31,093 a 100,000 t m a 80,000 20 0- E, 2000 72 363 76 c 60,000 - - - 1960- L _ 1980 97,694 40,000 ,. ^ 1940- 20,000 u�i 1960 18,835 i i 0 before 1940 26,457 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 11 55-64 ■65+ 400 10.0 350 not adjusted for type of rental c 8.0 I- 300 6.0 IllIlilli 250200 - - - 2 4.0 2.0 150 .. 1 1111 11111 0.0 -..., ..� --: - • I I I 100 -2.0 50 -4.0 N N 00 Ci O r. N m N v1 tC N CO Cl o ON N N OON O 0 OO O 0 O O O O 0 O fS 0ON O N NO N N mN O NN O rNON WN 0 N 4N OC rNON o NNN N N N N N N N NNNN �\ ;io:=.,- NAA 114 MOUSIFAM IL? N 1� HAS Uni4�QT51 ; C011AiCli. ____`.._._.�...__...__ ______ gSanDi go' . 3 200,000 = Owner 175,000 150,000 - - 125,000 -.£ 100,000 N. m - 75,000 Cr.a+ ui r.-;a of2 C M - 50,000 m oo Cs N a .� J .01-1 t 25,000 _- __ It I II 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 Owner Owner 300,000 700,000 600,000 250,000 500,000 1 200,000 400,000 150,000 :::::: M 100,000 m I riol I c pi o ,° o a ro 50,000 co II .IJ . . L 100,000 n N M INN IN co im, 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 5 10 15 20 25 30 Mining I 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction EiMiii Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing aimmi Trade&Transport MEM 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality P IY ® 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 Econometricsn,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 115 ® s 1 MULTIFAMILY , .HOUSING HAS Univery 4SanDiego. CouNCIL 'vti_ Net in migrations remain stronger than natural population growth for new u , 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. Defnaons on bock .. 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 'iiii:fir 40,000 35,000 Owner 2-4 units I 7,075 30,000 25,000 Owner 5+units 1 8,546 20,000 15,000 M vi Renter Single76,522 10,000 5,000 i 1--: 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 80,000 sin201ce 70,000 -b 60,000 20 00 18,822 a t °i 50,000 1980- o 2000 41,065 = 40,000 1,5 v 30,000 196a 34,607 cc en 1980 20,000 m _ 1940- `^ 10,0001 i 1960 before ,6,7509,048 1940 1,560 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 D 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 180 7.0 8 160 not adjusted for type of rental o 6.0 l- 140 5.0 120 , 4.0 I I 100 Q f0 I1 I 3.0 ' I I I I- 2.0 8640: 60 0 0.0 - -. . I - 20 -1.0 0N w 010 INc.n , u0 0 , 00 at O N CO 0 0 - N R1 CItrl 0 N 00 a1 0 - N rn ctT 0 N 00 at 0 eO N NO N N N N 4 O S O O O N O 8 8 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OOO OOOO OOOOOO N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNNNNNNNNINNINNNNNNNNNNN NATIONAL 116.-_._ y tSMULTIFAMILY HAS fUaPDe ' rA 41 HOUSING CO, ;4 � I Owner ,......f - f _ 100,000 t:�. / i . --- A � `J'' r 75,000 - ----. 50,000 me O to n N N 125,000 hii V 5 II Mil 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 D Owner 7,1 Owner 140,000 350,000 120,000 300,000 100,000 250,000 80,000 200,000 60,000 nt ^ 150,000 mrt un ai o? 40,000 M Ip 100,000 cn `� 5;:i. u� I. L L 20,000 liii , .l_ _ aT 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 5 10 15 20 25 Mining 1 2000-2010 2010-2016 ConstructionMiNii ■2017-2030 Natural Increase Manufacturing ii Net Migration Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs i Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health -11 =.1111=. 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality S Natural Increase GovernmentNW 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.,ESRI0 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 �..r�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 :onsultlng,contact NMHC,NM or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. • NAT T A}4 117 MULTIFAMILY HAS g R, HOUSING n U]]1}+.j[�> ';..a COU,:c:L ..._........—.._._-_._.., ss�,...®.m,m� ,,Sart Diego. Historic out migrations have halted and new net in migrations slightly o_. 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. Definitions on back -- -"0 ....---- DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* 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 40,000 Owner 2-4 units ] x,353 30,000 Owner 5+units5,�'4 .i 20,000 Renter Single 64,873 Oi as 10,000II m Renter 2-4 units 58,569 ■ under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter s+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 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 80,000 since 2010 3,859 70,000 >.' ....b` ft -n 60,000 2�� 8,985 L F,,, 50,000 - - 1980- ° 2000 19,873 = 40,000 m 0 1960 30,000 0 21,062 m 40 1980 +� 20,000 `n 1940- tz ^CL' 1960 4,653 10,000 4 I ! . le a before 1940 4,789 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 IS 25-34 M 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 90 =c 3.0 ,"5,' 80 25 not adjusted for type of rental _c= 70 2.0 50601.5 111111111 1.0 i : 40 - .o 0.5 0.0 .� � ® ,� _ ® 30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -0.5 - I 1 ' r 1 II I 1 20 - - -. - -.II-I.. -1.0 I I 10 - - -1.5 - l0 N, CO 04 0 .ti N CO � N 0 N CO 01 0 N. OO 04 0 .-I N m Ci u, 0 N CO 04 0 .-1 N m Cr 01 0 N W 04 0 N N N N N O O pp 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 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 IO NAL 118 s MULTIFAMILY ...� �1 hiL HOUSING �\ University s =I FA. tat Co.R.:C1t. ..._-_.._..�..__.-.... V .dSan Diego- L,--_` ■Owner ., 60,000 , „. ''4” ' 40,000 4 .,:,,' 20,000 mc i kci. ® I Nom 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 100,000HO 0 Owner 180,000 '1?Owner 160,000 80,000 140,000 60,000 120,000 100,000 v 40,000 l•IiIUIL 80,000 tr mm" 20,000 N ,-.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) -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 Mining , 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction I Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing ® g Trade&Transport Information Svcs 2010-2016 Financial Svcs Natural Increase , Net Migration Professional Svcs IIIIIIII Education&Health INIMINIMMI 2016-2030 Leisure&HospitalityINIIIIIIIII Natural Increase Government iiiiiiilli IINet 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 Analytic•',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. MULTIFAMILY HOUSING FIAS 1JRIVfS51l�+ s+- COUNCiI- d$aI1 D121?O° •�,. .Y- Out migrations have slowed,but will drag on the significant natural popu- lation growth that fuels new rental households. These today are smaller - 4 _ across a range of ages and good incomes,though nearly half pay over 35% i = of income on rent. Economic prospects are strong. Rental stock is olderf` `` and nearly half seen in STAR units. Demand ahead is consistently strong. Definitions on bock c DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* � �� 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 2,717,523 500,000 Owner 2-4 units ® 403,045 400,000 Owner 5+units 478,765 300,000 200,000 Renter Single MI368,020 100,000 Renter 2-4 units 921,049 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 2,201,850 315k $256 $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k 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 1400 000 since 2010 57,775 1,200,000 1940 ` 22710-0 000- 153,873 v 2010 6 1,000,000 -c 1980- 248,857 0 800,000 2000 = y 600,000 p u-i 1960- 511, 784 r+ 0 1980 = in 00 o 400,01Bui m 1940• 484,539 200,0 1960 before 745,022 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 3054-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 0 15-24 ■25-34 Fa 35-44 -45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ N 3,000 a 60.0 1 50.0 c 2,500 40.0 2,000 - - - - - 30.0 vi c 20.0 1,500 ' 11111 '0 10.0 ~ 0.0 ® 1,000 1 111-11111 -. - - - .. -10.0 - . , I 500 -20.0 , 11 •not oaf use fo pe ental -30.0 q, , . ., 0 N of e O N M C in b N a0 Oi O N 00 appt O - N M N 01 1O N M 01 O N N M d' 01 0O N 00 0; O H N N N N N N N N N M OO S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N NO 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N " N N N /0"..)1 N N NN N N N N N N N N N NAT IOfi.+L 120 - -,_, ,- MULTIFAMILY Ir Ir C Uru�=eisl HOUSING V .Univei ° Fik tit councn ...__...--." .-- 900,000 ■Owner 800,000 T w 700,000 # � 600,000 ;mss ,,. r 500,000 r >. 400,000 ry N °....,� 300,000 0 - - I Is;p n rn ... 200,000 N o _. _ ,.. .,,,, "._. _ 100,000 ' iiI . - j' 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 Owner 2,500,000 Owner 1,000,000 2,000,000 800,000 1,500,000 600,000 1,000,000 - 400,000I 1 11 II 0 „� 0 `o o ui v t. 200,000 ~ v 500,0 m I 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) -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Mining I 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction . Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing 1.1111 Net Migration ............_. .. - Trade&Transport IIM Information Svcs 2010-2016 • Natural Increase Financial Svcs - Net Migration Professional Svcs IIIMINIIMIIIIIIMINII Education&Health MIIIIII 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality MINIMI Natural Increase GovernmentIIIIIIIIMI Net Migration MI 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 onsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. •N IIT HOUSING 121 , 7 q np' MULTIFAMILY _ "'I+, HOUSING HAS UT11lPI51ty L,= FA -..' COUHCII, ...–.......–.._...._._._ SanDiego' _ ,/ --- Net in migrations have exceeded modest natural population growth and \ t - 1 will subside. New rental households are smaller with good incomes,sourc- _ ti,.tt, -- It,j-- ing from the youngest and oldest cohorts. Economic prospects are good o� and from all sectors except manufacturing. Rental stock is older with 44% in more affordable STAR units. Demand ahead steadily grows to 2030. ' 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 300,329- 30,000 25,000 Owner 2-4 units , 1,440 20,000 OwnerS+units I 1,315 15,000 Renter Single 86,077 10,000 m N 7 5,000 m• Renter 2-4 units - 23,883 ■ under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 67,459 515k $25k $35k $50k $75k 5100k $150k 5150k 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 4,626 rai 2010 50, di 000 `s'r 2000- 8,870 - 2010 6 40,000 1980- 26,437 0 2000 , 30,000 1960- 8 960 22,591 cc 20,000 ' ' 1980 4. 1940. - 3,035 10,000 g 1960 Ebefore - 1940 1,900 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 LI 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 120 a 2.5 5 not adjusted for type of rental 0 100 2.0 15 111111160 80 111 0.5 4 0.0 , I IIIi y 20 -0.5 1111111111111111 111111 -1.0 - 1.0N W 01 0 '-1 N N O ut V N 00 000 N 00 Cl 0 ,4 N n1 N v5 l0 N- 00 al 0 ,--1 N ,n V al '.0 h o0 0l 0 N N N N N N N N 01 0 0 0 1- N N N1 N N N N N N N NM O 0 O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 000000000000000000000000 .fir NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 122NAIOAhrimy HOUSING HAS UTIIVtY r WPF0 COUNCIL ...-......_Y_---. ”fSaADea + . ®Owner 60,000 40,000 ,y a, m ry 20,000 ti ti N 1 N .. '- V 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 0 Owner 250,000 3 Owner 100,000 200,000 80,000 150,000 60,000 II 100,000 40,000 m m to m rn o 11 m 20,000 ii II u1 L y 50,000 ^ N r.rn 9. tO vi 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 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mining 1 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration Milli Trade&Transport ..10111.11111.. Information Svcs 2010-2016 Financial Svcs Natural Increase 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 IHAS)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,NM or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. MULTW ,LY 123 fjw � C i g +�°_° HOUSING ��v�/-` HAS University COU Nc i L X5271 Diego. 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. Definitions on bock DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* - F RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 2 149 3.5 18% 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 6,936 40,000 Owner 5+units 14,000 30,000 20,000 d Renter Single 123,959 m 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 since 219;8110 10 14,579 120,000 3 100,000 v 20 40,551 a, 0 0- = 2000 83,178 80,000 20 60,000 1960 28,363 cc N p 1980 40,000 m 1940 1111 517 2 20,000 I 1960 before ' 1940 903 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 r1s35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 400 18.0 350 not adjusted for type of rental o 16.0 L 14.0 ~ 300 .0250 ---12111111111111 1 200 0 8.0 jE 6.0 150 4.0 11111111111 100 2.0 11111111111111111111111 0.0 50 --2.0 - 4 N 4 01 N 01 O00 801 oO 0-1 ,0N NM 0V 0vt 0N 0N 0N 801 0O N--� 0N N01 Nd' N✓) Nl0 0N 0[0 N01 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0oo0 0 O N N N N N N N N N N a Tlota::<- 124 . 3,fr”.'11, HOUSING "'\ UIlives ity ,. 100,000 ■Owner 80,000 .. 60,000 EiIII iIJ m N 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 SI Owner LII Owner 160,000 350,000 140,000 300,000 ,.-�-�: 120,000 250,000 - -- 100,000 80,000 200,000 11 gui 150,000 a 60,000 MI v o m 40,000 „,: i a L o., ^ 1111 50000 , oho_ 1 _ . 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 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Mining I 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction ® Natural I ncrease ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration Trade&Transport iiiiiiMMEIMMI Information Svcs 2010-2016 1f Financial Svcs Natural Increase ii Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health iiiiiiiMMEN 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 snsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. • NATIONAL 125 — I�IJ��� MULTIFAMILY N-. ._ . _. .. HAS. MULTIFAMILY UT]IPf1511y 3' u> COUNCIL — Sa17DICQO Net migrations are slight and negative,rental household growth depends f upon natural population growth. New rental households will source from z '--, ,..-7='.7.77);y ;,,7 - '--r ages 35-54 and seniors over 65. Economy is strong with manufacturing =1'`f r ,'' ` the only drag. Rental stock is older and significant supply restrictions may _ +� --4 hamper new product. Multifamily demand ahead is positive and rising. hf � Definitions on bock DEMAND AFFORD- ME SUPPLY STAR* .T. - 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 140,000 120,000 Owner 2-4 units I 21,371 100,000 Owner 5+units I 45,315 80,000 v 60,000i i Renter Single 273,705 40,000 20,000 N m - - -' Renter 2-4 units MI 153,925 under Renter5+units 298,707 $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $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 ,K 2010 im 12,282 en - 250,000 2000- a 2010 26,278 o 200,000 1980- ° 2000 66,467 ° -=6. 150,0001 c n 1980 115,645 100,000 u� Nr,'.,,y.: i0 1940- c4 IX 50,000774* I 1960 39,322 <ur at+ "� v, s2 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 0 15-24 ■25-34 0 r35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ -o 410 15.0 5 400 not adjusted for type of rental s 390 10.0 380 370 2615111111111111111 5.0 360 350 0.0 u u u -- y • am 340 330 -5.0 _ II , , , 320 310 10.0 300 N N 'r'''' c1 O --I N m N N so n W a1 O N. W O1 O 01 N M C us to N W Ol O �-I N m N Lr, l0 r dJ m O N N N N 'P'.: N O O O N N N N N N N N E, 0 0 0 r', 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 N 0 N N 0 N N NN 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 Nvilin ., 126 C MULT[FAD111Y N� i """7-14` 350,000 Owner — e 300,000 1 250,000 - 200,000 "4^+"°� 150,000 cn ._ 100,000 IdiiJ m_ „...., r., ., •NN a 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 II Renter 500,000 0 Owner 1,200,000 Owner 400,000 1,000,000 800,000 300,000 600,000 m 200,000 ,t `, p N m r. 400,000 N v O is co O N 01 100,000 ?.: aiM n to L tD o M ti 200,000 a ' :. m a ry ry V - c+ a 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 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction MMI Natural Increase •2017-2030 ' Manufacturing MEM Net Migration Trade&Transport — Information Svcs 2010-2016 Natural Increase Financial Svcs M Net Migration , Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality MINEMEMBIE 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 ,.n?nsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 127�IIIr I�I�Ir MULTIFAMILY ^«V Iy ,(San Dim ° r4;. HOUSING COUNCIL 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. Definitions on back DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 5 155 4.8 30% Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure &Type 140,000 - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 120,000 Owner Single 100,000 Owner 2-4 units 1 10,262 80,000 Owner 5+units 1 17,167 60,000 40,000 Renter Single 272,264 0 0 N 20,000 , Renter 2-4 units ■ 69,616 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 273,005 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k 5100k $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 N since m 20101111 14,153 200,000 - 4.ro �� N y a 2010 52,587 _o 150,000 Y2 - 1980- 0 x 2000 128,080 = o100,000 �y " 1960- g v_ 1980 66,882 m 50,000 1940 •4i i 1960 - 10,256 0 re before 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 0 15-24 ■25-34 03 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 600 "o 20.0 6 18.0 of adjusted for type of rental 0 500 16.0 14.0 -- -- -.- 400 .0 12.0 3 I10.0 '.. 300 11111111111111 1111 1110 � 861: 200 4.0 100 2.0 0.0 n co 0, o ti N m v .n w n co m o n co m o .-+ N m a 0 l.n n or m o N m v In a n ca m o OON N N N N N N N N O O S H O H N O O O 8 O 8 N N O N N O N D O 0 0O O O OOOOOO OOO N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N IN N N N IN N N N N N N N N N N re1(279 aL 128 �� MUL21FAMiLY I�`�IIr HOUSING ,� HAS University ®Owner 200,000 150,000 m..w, ....+s, 100,000 co N V7 N I iL 50,000 E11 I 11 II I `` - 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 450,000 900,000 ■Renter ■Renter 400,000 800,000 . ',% Owner `_,Owner 350,000700,000 300,000 600,000 250,000 500,000 200,000 400,000 m 150,000 N2. 300,000 0 c l. N cc-1 100,000 m P 'co v 200,000 o .-i o mo ~ 50,000 II . N ui 100,000 - o Mil MEI 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 0 20 40 60 80 100 Mining i 2000-2010 Construction 2010-2016 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Mi ration Manufacturing g nil Trade&Transport iniiiiiiMEM 2010-2016 Information Svcs i Natural Increase Financial Svcs — Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health _ 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality EMMENOMINIE Natural Increase GovernmentMONOMME 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 -nulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. it NATLTIFAMIONAL ILY 129 .._, — MU Ir HOUSING HAS Ut11VeI5it�r +� FA ' COUNCIL -.--....--.--_...-_.—., --_ ISaR DICQO° 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. • ,, Definitions on bock DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING Am#u'TY RESTRICTIONS SHARE gY.. - ._ _r 47 287 1.8 54% --� _ 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 643,817 60,000 Owner 2-4 units ' 9,133 50,000 40,000 Owner 5+units ' 8,806 30,000 ry Renter Single 114,536 20,000 c,1 c 10,000 ' : Renter 2-4 units 1. 63,380 under $15- 525- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 117,968 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k 51505 Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 120,000 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 100,000 since . 2010 2,191 v 80,000 - 2000- 9,112 2010 Ti L ,n 1980- 25,587 ,, 60,000 2000 = To N 1960- C 40,000 1980 41,813 tt N 1940- 22,247 20,000 1960 before 1940 17,018 under 15% 1590-20% 2051-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast LI 15-24 ■25-34 2 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 140 -o 8.0 not adjusted for type of rental 0 135 6.0 I-- 130 4.0 " 125 n 2.0 ' 120 F 0.0 !J LI L1 t� V 1 1 iii ii 115 -2.0IM 110 IIIIIII-IIIIIIII -4.0 1 , 1 , 105 -6.0 100 LD r-, co 01 O N CO V 1.fl N f-, N N O N co o) o N N rct d' V1 . r CO 01 N N N OO 0- t/5 N N N 01 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 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 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N "°^® 130 MULTIFAMILY , ,w C1ity 147 . HOUSING �. _._ ,l�7,/L11�V\� lint,Diego 111 ca�� -.I� f52T1�1e?0 160,000 '-' ■Owner -__ -.:- ... _ ._ 140,000 ' 120,000 100,000 80,000 -- 60,000 co v 00 ii Ji1 • . __ - 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 D Owner 600,000 Owner 200,000 500,000 1. 400,000 150,000 300,000 100,000 v 200,000 iIiILIi1_ L NNv100,00N EWA p_. . 6 t0 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 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 Mining ! 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Ili Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing ® Net Migration Trade&Transport - 2010-2016 Information Svcs i Natural Increase Financial Svcs NI Professional Svcs Net Migration Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&HospitalityIIIIIIIIIIIM Natural Increase Government1.11 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 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 .nsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 131 ..... s III�� MULTIFAMILY ' � S t II1 HOUSING HAS LJl]1verSty. .,<: COUNCIL _._......_._�...____ ,.. 4SanDiego- Substantial net in migrations fueled a surge in rental households and con- tinue on 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. Defini?ions on back 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, I 50,000 Owner 2-4 units 6,297 40,000 Owner 5+units 14,056 30,000 Renter Single 109,921 20,000 V 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 5100k $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 2000- 27,700 -a 2010 0 100,000 _c cv 19so- o 80,000 2000 64,077 x 76 1960 60,000 co 49,594 c 1980 40,000 b C '^ 1:2:2999090080548:::00(C)) 940- o, to' 1960 10,068 20,000 : 111 I vr before - 1940 14,193 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 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 300 -o 10.0 not adjusted for type of rental 0 250 - 8.0 ~ 200 6.0 1 4.0 I I . ' ' ' II ' II 150 o ~ 100 11111111111 1111 1 1 2.0 0.0 ■iiiiiii _4100 50 -2.0 N OJ c c .-1 N M V LA . N CO CO O N co o O . N m O U) . N CO CO O N N m 7 to VD N CO GI O N N N N N N N N N N M O O O . N .-I N N N N NN N N N N CO O O O O O O c O O O O O O O O 00000 D O O 0000 O 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 ,...".... N N N N N N N N N N csl N N N N N N N N N N N N N rN N N N N N N N N1"IC N1.1 7h';'_ 132 /�MULTMILY IAMril"HOUSING `/ t--iVYei 111 COU::,.:I. _ 4San 120,000 2 Owner 100,000 80,000 60,000 1 40,000 C I 1 o. tD N Lr.; d' to N N N V to ,e 20,000 i cr N 1 l 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 I Renter 450,000 Owner3 Owner 200,000 400,000 350,000 150,000 300,000 250,000 100,000 200,000 N m 150,000 - 50,000 111 iIiL _ L m csi =I 11111 MI all 1.111111E ul vr MI II NIE 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 70 80 0 5 10 15 20 25 Mining 1 2000-2010 _2010-2016 Natural Increase Construction MEMO III 2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing im Trade&Transport 111.1111111111.111111 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial SvcsMEM Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government 11.1111111111M 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 nsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 133 o MULTIFAMILY ,L,.we'� University ;a - , HOUSING .__......-.—.�...-_.� of San Diego. COUNCt!- 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. Def+ninons on back - DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* ___ RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE -. .. 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 280,245 25,000 Owner 2-4 units I 1,024 20,000 15,000 Owner 5+units I 4,111 10,000 Renter Single 58,085 I i w 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 50,000 2010 9,711 2000- - 40,000 2010 19,740 0 s v 0 30,000 1950- = 2000 34,378 Ti c 20,000 0 11,775 1940- 1960- 10,000 1961980 ■ 2.111 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 ■25-34 Q 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 200 0 10.0 r 180 not adjusted for type of rental 9.0 0 160 1- 8.0 140 7.0 1206.0 1i1111IIIII111 c 100 1, 5.0 � tII 111 ° 3.0 6080 111111111111 11 2.0 40 1.0 20H10.0 tD n co L1 O ti N m C ifl lD N CO a1 O i-. w 0 0 .--i N m a ✓1 0N CO 0 0 N en 001 0 r- 0 c, 0 N N N N N N N N O O 8' N .-1 8 N N N N N N N m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n o 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 RATi`ie:1.i1 el �� I J MULTIFAMILY ' 134 ■ S Uni e yHOUSING ��1IDiego.•000NCuI' i_._` Owner ..,� ... _ _ ..�, 60,000 . = __... . 40,000 .. ..�- s 0 N — to 50 N .�. --- 20,000 c' N ei n V D Ip i 1 CD — - _ 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 E.3 Owner - 1 Owner 200,000 80,000 150,000 60,000 • liii 100,000 v 40,000 tfl I:%I L6-'1co,� 50,000 CO CO INIII V N N MOM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic iIi 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 i 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction ® Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing I Net Migration Trade&Transport IMMIMMilIIM Information Svcs 2010-2016 ENatural Increase Financial Svcs IIM ---- - Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&HealthMIIIIIIIM 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality IIIMIIMIIMI 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°,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 ,_g onomic 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 HoOo15eHiG.brHIC I-11 135 V Universi gSanDieKc •, 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. Defin+bons on back DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 33 188 -2.3 37% 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 j 1.0+5 25,000 20,000 Owners+units -x,419 15,000 Renter Single 73,466 10,000 5,000 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 $1SOk 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 60,000 since 700 3, 2010 ti 50,000 v. 2000- 10,764 2010 40,000 1980- 2000 23507 7-=„, 30,000 v 1960- 23,553 20,000 1980 1940 10,000 ;71 x ,' 1960 5,773 before 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 1 15-24 ■25-34 3 35-44 45-54 •55-64 ■65+ 140 3.0 not adjusted for type of rental 120 2.5 2 1113:5 100' 8 005 • 1111 ' ' I 201.01.11 W Oe-1 N N W O1 O WIWWWWWffl , O O O N NO O NO O O O O N O O NO N N N N N N N N N N N NN 0N N N N N NN NN N N N N NN .^� w 136 WINE MULTIFAMILY t�� HOUSING HAS Un2YILJICk'()' VVRE COU _._....._......+.»___ el Owner 60,000 40,000 r` _ rn - m 0 un I N - 20,000 `fi N w' N N ,i •• ' ■ III NC :- -" 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 1 Owner s.. Owner 200,000 r 100,000 80,000 150,000 ' 60,000 100,000 rn 40,000 rn' Co'V1y `y ti a 50,000 o CO Oi 20,000 liii MtO1-1 R 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 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mining 1 2000-2010 Construction ® 2010-2016 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing ® Net Migration Trade&Transport IIIIIIIIII 2010-2016 Information Svcs I Natural Increase Financial Svcs I Net Migration Professional Svcs 11111111111111111.111111111.1.111 Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&HospitalityMMEMENEEMii 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 ""*"'suiting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL ` - 137 MULTIFAMILY I�11�/i�L� l ` ,`' HOUSING Hes tirIlye151gSan Diego- NC —\ ' 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. r. _ Definitions on back DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* .` L RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE -- Wiz- 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 736,164:j. 70,000 1/3 Owner 2-4 units ' 6,820 60,000 I 50,000 Owner 5+units 6,946 40,000 - cn 30,000 c Renter Single 260,071 i 20,000 1 Renter 2-4 units - 64,028 10,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 172,985 $15k $25k $35k $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 oo k '! since 200,000 N 2010 9,643 0... a 2�Q 32,713 _c 150,000 Si 1980- a 2000 73,148 I 5 100,000 c 1960- 1980 47,806 x r x 50,000 It' tD 1960IIIIIIIII 8,712 Aft ., l' before - 1940 963 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 2S%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15-24 ■25-34 ra 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 •65+ 350 o- 10.0 Ri - not adjusted for type of rental 0 300 8.0 E- 6.0 III I ' 250 1 4.0 1111 2, 1 43150200c 2.0 rI- [ ! I 1 1 i 0.0 i , . . t1u �.., --- . 100 111111-11111111111011111 2.0 , I I I I II50 -4.0 _ ,o N o0 T 0 ti N CO C Lo l0 N CO 01 0 N in G1 O . N N C to to N w al o ri N m a in CO N no Gl o GNb ON NN N N N O 0 0 0OO OHOO O N O OOO OO O O O O O O O O O OO O O O O O O 0 N O 54 ON N N N N N N N N N NNN N NNNN td d."TIONA.L 138 s MUL2tPAMILY s i ROUSING �� • CA University couNciLYi!-_ _■■��II'"iiVV ,iSan Diego. ... Owner 160,000 - 140,000 _--•- 120,000 s _- 100,000 __ 80,000 0 0 _- 60,000 ; 11 .1. si.7.-, CCZ al "" - - -.. 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 IIIRenter t='• ■Renter 250,000 0 Owner 500,000 '2 Owner 200,000 4 400,000 C G k-: 150,000 300,000 100,0001 1D N. 200,000 co LA 50,000al `" TM of 00r CO N 11 i - 100,000 rq N N « triIIIII i 1 , tr 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 0 20 40 60 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Mining 2000-2010 Construction 2010-2016 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Elm Net Migration Trade&Transport Information Svcs 2010-2016 Natural Increase Financial Svcs NNE Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality11111111111.1111.111 Natural Increase Government1111111111111 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 -' "nsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. N AT O 139 jj MU TIFAMILY14 HAS !_ ., '. r. HOUSING uT11Y eT'S COUNCIL ...-.....--.---.--.--- .-....,...__,...- 4San Diego' 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. DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 27 137 4.1 42% 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 i 3,804 40,000 Owner 5+units ! 4,630 30,000 -- - ' 20,000 t Renter Single 152,287 N 10,000 '- Renter 2-4 units - 49,358 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 127,150 $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 50,000 140,000 ii since ■ 3,314 2010 120,000 '� 2000- ,, 19,664 0 100,000 5 2010 N u 1980- a 80,000 2000 46,936 I To 60,000 ip M �t 1960- 45,036 ry c 1980 o m a 40,000 cn -. "X* 1940- 1960 9,174 20,000 I i U i before 1940 1. 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 15-24 •25-34 0 35-44 C:45-54 •55-64 ■65+ o 250 7.0 not adjusted for type of rental o 6.0 r- 200 5.0 4.0 111111 150 3 s 2.0 111111 00 1.0 1111111 1 0.0 L U LJ u I. " al , 1 ' ' , 50 - - - .. _ L0 -2.0 - ta N 06 or O N M Cr us u n w of O t` W al O e-1 N M cr itt to f'- us of O -I N M to u) to t\ W of O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000000 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N rat TIONAL 140 MULTIFAMILY ��11\ ■ HAS 771,,, us HOUSING 1J v�•1�2I'Seg u`.,, COUs_;. f D(e�` .. - - 100,000 0Owner 80,000 60,000 A"-- N ice `,�''.* a m ry Y N 40,000 ti ? 4- rM a y — 20,000 lco _ Rnaml 1 rJ' r,..- � 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 II Renter I Renter 350,000 '"- 160,000 t. Owner Owner 140,000 300,000 120,000 250,000 100,000 II 200,000 80,000 150,000 60,000 `,moo rn 100,000 o a so 40,000 •:,, 'a m so 1 i ll 20,000 ii NZ5.raw 50,000 ill 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) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 Mining I 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction 1.11111.1 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration 1.11 Trade&Transport Information Svcs I 2010-2016 Financial Svcs Natural Increase IIIMINIIM 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 Analyticse,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 �..�pnomic 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. NATIONAL 141 HOUSING MULTIFAMILY f 1 HOUSING ----- S UI]IVC'I51�r . .. COUNCIL. ■■�Y/�l 4-San DIQgO' 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. 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 v 20,000Owner 2-4 units 1 4,198 150:00 Owner 5+units I 7,701 10,000 - o Renter Single 38,108 i i a v 5,000 , Renter 2-4 units . 21,369 Renter 5+units 66,196 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $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 30,000 45,000 since 5,377 40,000 2010 ate. 35,000 2000 10,930 -6 2010 s 30,000 h 1980 25,000 2000 26,665 I ;2 20,000 o� 1960 16,541 a, 0 1980 ¢ 15,000 0 10,000 1940- I. 1960 2,268 5,000 i i i biro 4,415 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 i 65+ 100 -oo 3.0 - - N 90 not adjusted for type of rental a 2.5 ' -.11111111 80 2.0 ' 701.511160 El 1.0 o 4 500 - - - 111111111111111 ~ 0.5 0.0 I �. u ,� .7. 20 -0.5 10 -1.0 - tD N. CO CI 0 N N M N In 50 N CO 05 0 N N CC O - N N Cr VI iD N. CO O, O - N m Cr LA is N 00 01 0 N NOO 0 O N N N OOOOOO OOO O O O O O O O O N O O O O O 8 N N N N O O O N O O N N N N N N N N , NNN N N N IN N N N N N N CS N N N CS CS CS N N N N N CS , NAT 142 MULTIFAMILY HAS A�1 HOUSING ,l7uL""1,J University COUN�.u- _._-.....-.__...._._._ 9San Diego° �`,... __ 50,000 Owner 40,000 30,000 m n y--•. _. 20,000 N m Im ... 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 80,000 250,000 -- ■Renter •Renter 70,000 Owner Owner 200,000 60,000 '., ,.fig, 50,000 150,000 = 40,000 ,_ 30,000 , 100,000 20,000 0 f m 50,000 10,000 �o N N I' li f.:1 =_ = 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) -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Mining l 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase — ■2017-2030 Net Migration . Manufacturing is Trade&Transport MiiiiMME 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs EIMMOMOOM Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&HealthIIMEMMOM 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality111111111111.. 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 Econometricsi°,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,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NA.;i� ;zL 143 5H MULTIFAMILY , `_ HOUSING HAVuty 'cou.:c,i. � �SanDieQO' 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 - 100000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 '.. 60,000 - - Owner Single 441 99 50,000 Owner 2-4 units I 2,671 40,000 Owner 5+units I 3,462 30,000 20,000 v Renter Single 115,835 ti m 10,000 Renter 2-4 units . 36,808 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 144,616'., $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 since 100,000 2010 17,031 2000- -a 80,000 2010 33,963 Ti S 1980- 0 60,000 56,912 a ,- 2000 Ti 1960- u 40,000 1980 27,936 x 114 ot. ,N. �.; e4 194o- 20,000 x.. 1960175668,206 5 6,206 before 68 - 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 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 300 7.0 m 6.0D 0 250 5.0 I ' IIII ' I 200 4.0 -0 s150 3.0 111111111111 1111 11111 ~ 2.0 100 1.0 50 0.0 not adjusted for type of rental -1.0 - lo 1. so x O , N f+1 71 0 la N ot, al O N CO IT O N M C 0 La N OJ al O , N 0, Q N 0 N W al O ^ 00 0 e-I N NINNN N N NNN 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 rynn..:a 144 �e�C II USIFAMILY Ni_._. ■ AS r HOUSING UAIVfiol ;4< COUtJCI i. 'San Diego. - 100,000 ii-=�_: Owner 90,000 80,000 70,000 - • 60,000 50,000 �,� ...-.... _.. - 40,000 Sin 30,000 i 200 N 100 In. .. 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 IN Renter ■Renter 160,000 400,000 it ll"Owner . ,^1 Owner 140,000 350,000 , � A 120,000 300,000 i 41 100,000 250,000 r'°' 80,000 200,000 - r 60,000 150,000 100,000 ooN. JILL 50,000 . In r co ,..., 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 I 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction imimi. Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing El Migration Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs I Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health immuNmmnmmommim 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase _ Government immomm 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 ,...pgpnomic 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. NATIONAL 145 MULTIFAMILY A ,,* HAC 1�111VP.I51 � -• HOUSING ..._._.._�.+..-__-_ e� ._z..a.�...... 1)11,, I‘Di,.„0- 0- ,�- .. 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. Definitions on back DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE _ 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 °' - __-' 80,000 Owner 2-4 units i 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 525k $35k 550k $75k 5100k 5150k $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 2010 . 8,794 200,000 "ur /..'N 2000- v 2010 32,304 s 150,000 r° 1980- 2000 x 106,967 fII 100,000 Ln 1960- O to 1980 104,871 iHl 50,000 El 1 1940- _ 1960 16,107 before - 1940 ■ 6,144 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 2S%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast D 15-24 •25-34 :435-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 500 -o 12.0 N 450 not adjusted for type of rental o 10.0 r 400 8.0 1111 III 3501111111300 250 1 4.0 200 - ~ 2.0 ;,.. 150 - - - 1111111 - 0.0 LI U u = Owner 140,000 ._ 120,000 s 100,000 ,. .. . 80,000 N 60,000 ^ m 40,000 '^ m :I: riA20,000 .. ;: 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 ■Renter 450,000 200 000 "13 Owner `i Owner 400,000 350,000 150,000 300,000 rn um 250,000 100,000 200,000 j 50,000 � N 50,000 0 100,000 - o - ry i. .L 50,000 ■ 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) -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Mining ( 2000-2010 Construction 2010-2016 MEE 1 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Mi ration Manufacturing g mum Trade&Transport MIN Information Svcs 2010-2016 Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs iiiiMMiliMIMMill 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 Econometricsi0,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 feksulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 147 ,===== MULTIFAMILY J/�►_/A� HAS M HOUSING V 1/1 ■ <t/�� UT��1^,N^^k.I51L}r COUNCIL �f tl 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. "' e initions an 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 Own erSingle .:: , 100,000 -n .; Owner 2-4 units 41,563 80,000 Owner 5+units , $0,044 60,000 Renter Single 222,346 40,000 20,000 Renter 2-4 units 141,991 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 417,704 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 350,000 - - 50,000 100,000 150,000 300,000 2010 - 11,999 �, Pi o 250,000 rri 2000- v on 2010 37,913 5 200,000 1980- 95,358 0 2000 ,- 150,000 1960- 1 M 1980 137,433 100,000 T m 7 1940- '^ 50,000 0 _ 1960 N 1940, before 50,377 �- - 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 1125-34 35-44 45-54 11 55-64 1 65+ 500 v 20.0 450 not adjusted for type of rental o t= 400 15.0 ' I '' 1 ::: 1100 250 200 1r t.. 150 - 1 11 11 _ 111 'ior\ w 0 o ti N m r 1.n ..a n w o, nm ;/=tiO O N O N 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 Rr!o L ILY 148 MULTIFAM �© HOUSING ���II ■ .AS ,,, e151I}% ' rs' a. couxeri LLLIII�`���--�--yyy a`�311�1eQ0' 200,000 a Owner 180,000 — .—.- 160,000 — - 140,000 120,000 100,000 m 80,000 M ` ' 60,000' L".. — ri co mm of _.:. ,. 40,000 e inS II .._•. s..: 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 350,000 600,000 ■Renter „ ■Renter 300,000r, a Owner 500,000 ts _1 Owner 250,000 400,000 200,030 300,000 I 150,000 200,000 m 100,000 ihIi. _. L al co 100,000 , '. d 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) -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 -10 0 10 20 30 40 Mining 1 2000-2010 2010-2016 Natural Increase Construction 11.111 ■2017-2030 _ Manufacturing Net Migration 0.0 Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration • Professional Svcs 1.111.111111111111.11.11.1.1. 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 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 ,nsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 149 r MULTIFAMILY ■ 'As HOUSING - l.JT17S'21 ieg ... r COUNCIL —......--—_—_ :V San BIeQo° Net in migrations recede against consistent natural population growth. --- -, Renters have strong incomes,a range of ages and will source from all ages "n r 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. back DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY STAR* /-"N RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS SHARE 22 69 3.8 43% - w 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 Single3.+ °. 50,000 Owner 2-4 units 1 5,877 40,000 Owner 5+units 1 17,767 30,000 0 Renter Single 90,800 2 100,,00000 i i 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 $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 60,000 100,000 since 2010 12,055 .,,,,...1 2000- 18,748 -0 80,000 2010 0 115 1980- 0 60,000 2000 46,550 x "To 1960- ai 40,000 '- 1980 56,659 n i i ,.,- 20,000 N 11,909 m , 1940-19 before 1940 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 0 15-24 ■25-34 0 35-44 45-54 •55-64 ■65+ 250 L 7.0 not adjusted for type of rental a 6.011111 F 200 5.0 4.0 150 a 30 s 2.0 100 1.0 -LO u �.., -- MI M. III I ' t ' r II _. -2.0 t0 t. W C1 O M w N l0 N CO Cl 0 N. CO 01 0 , N rn C trf . N CO m 0 N N M <h Ul 0 N W o, 0 r-1 N ci N N N rn 0 0 0 .-i .-� N a-I o f 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 000000000 0 00 0 000 N N N N N N r, r, N NNNNNNNINNN N N N NNNNNNNNN ^` NATIONAL 150 - MULSIFAMILY I�1 HAS L4'171P/iv �h� a HOUSING ''"'MV •l ' COUNCIL --- ,---.., l`S2n ego' D Owner — 80,000 60,000 40,000 — O O __ 20,000 N • [23 rn.. .-... _ warn-_ ' . 1111 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 100,000r2 Owner ili Owner 200,000 - kr 80,000 150,000 I.r 60,000 11 I 100,000 40,000 giiiiii. 1i1 -t T'' m.N. , er i. -, 0,000 50,000 0 11 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) -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 Illi Natural Increase - -- ■2017-2030 Manufacturing ® Net Migration Trade&Transport - Information Svcs 2010-2016 Financial Svcs Natural Increase Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health MENOMEM 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality MIME 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°,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,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 151 MULTIFAMILY r��/►�► (1 Unive - HOUSING HAS rsity ,F . COW.CIT ,may vvv�_'vvv,�.y���` 1/�\V 0San DleRcv 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. .w Definitions on back �\ 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 757,274 80,000 Owner 2-4 units , 12,141 60,000 - Owner 5+units ■ 53,856 40,000 Renter Single 164,450 20,000 Renter 2-4 units - 71,922 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 327,307 $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $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 25,034 200,000 2010 _` 2000- 2010 75 1980- 55,165 .,c 150,000 a, 116,991 0 2000 x fD 100,000 w 1960 86,981 c ggggj1 1980 50,000 1940- 19,825 1960 before 23,311 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 1 15-24 1 25-34 7 35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 600 2 18.0 16.0 not adjusted for type of rental 0 500 14.0 12.0 400 10.0 8.0 IIIiIiiii 4.0 .>' 200 I III 111 I 11111 11 2.0 100 - I .. 0.0 - -2.0 -4.0 _ to N W N 0 N to w lil to N CO 01 0 N CO CO 0 .-N N to 00 01 t0 N 00 01 0 N 04 to c0' vt to N 00 ,n 0 N N N CO N N N N N CO o O N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 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 NNNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NATI,:.;'. 152 MULTIFAMILY .�� t t HOUSING HAS Univetsiq' wpr A, ...,, . LUU,000 180,000 Owner 160,000 - 140,000 120,000 �-_ 100,000 80,000 0 11 - 1 60,000 i .. - ti v cri IL11"'1 -. 20,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-54 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 350,000 700,000 ■Renter is Renter 300,000 Owner 600,000 Owner , 250,000 500,000 li 200,000 400,000 150,000 - 300,000 100,000 m 200,000 N iT N N. , , 50,000 II .i . .:„ 00 mi�; .m-� 100,00 L NISI L. _ I: -:.�..f ■ ■ 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 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Mining l 2000-2010 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration MI Trade&Transport -- MIIMMIONI Information SvcsM. 2010-2016 Natural Increase Financial Svcs MIME 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,CoStare,CBRE Econometricsa,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,NM or the HAS team listed In the publication appendix. 153 "J MUITIFAM3LY �'1 ,a HOUSING �� HAS rSan = -.�' ._. COL;NCIL _.-_..._.�.//.._._��_ � ii�� ✓SaT1 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. ;'back 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 - Owner Single 61,905 5,000 Owner 2-4 units ' 653 4,000 Owner 5+units 823 3,000 ^ Renter Single _ 8,163 Renter 2-4 units 2,000 0 r w III 4,514 1,000 iIii , . Renter 5+units 18,747 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 10,000 - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 9,000 since 2010 1,642 8,000 .r.... 7,000 2000- -0 2010 2,705 .c 6,000 ar 1980- 0 5,000 us 2000 6,527 x as Td N 4,000 u 1960- " 3,000 i 1980 6,337 2,000 0 194a 1,007 1,000 ro 1960 before 529 - 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast D 15-24 al 25-34 3 35-44 - 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 25 1.0 not adjusted for type of rental 0 g 20 0.8 0.6 15 i0.4 0.2 0.0 -0.2 _ LO N CO CO 0 N NJ M d- 01 LO N 00 01 0 N CO CO 0 N N M G 01 LD N CO 01 0 - N 01 cr ul l0 N 00 01 0 N N N N 0O N O N p O O O O O O H O O O O O O O N O O O O N N N M \OOO O . . . co O N O N NNN NN N NN N N IN N IN N NI N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NI MULVIF_. 154 . s y r ARvILY �e r HOUSING ■ A-$ UI1iv lty e coLr.cn. rSanDiew' 14,000 _ a Owner 12,000 — 10,000 8,000 6,000 N _. _. 4,000 m (t)i o N 4.0N ill 1 I III 11* - 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 30,000 70,000 •Renter ■Renter 25,000 0 Owner 60,000 'n El Owner 20,000 50,000 40,000 15,000 30,000 10,000 JJ11 , 1 20,0005,000 N M 90 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 2010-2016 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing ORM Net Migration Trade&Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs I Financial Svcs Natural Increase MEMMin 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 �'..snsulting,contact NMHC,NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. . NATIO L L 155 ® MULTIFAMILY • ' -a HOUSING ����� HASLJIllvCLS a;... 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. Defnibons on back DEMAND AFFORD- ., MF SUPPLY STAR'S 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 708,018 70,000 60,000 - Owner 2-4 units I 12,733 50,000 Owner 5+units ' 13,685 40,000 m 30,000 O? Renter Single 133,276 Do N 20,000 m Renter 2-4 units = 80,668 10,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 125,785 $15k $25k $35k 550k $75k $100k $150k 5150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 140,000 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 120,000to.. since Ell 2010 3,914 e4 100,000 N 2000- 14,512 -a 2010 ,, cu 80,000 1980. 0 2000 38,378 3 • 60,000 01960 41,599 r 1980 • 40,000 e .' ,lk x CO AD - y"ti" 1940- 20,000 `� v 1.. 1960 11,799 ca before 1940 15,583 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 309/5-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+Unit Apartment Demand Forecast E 15-24 1 25-34 1 35-44 - 45-54 ■55-64 1 65+ 170 -o 6.0 165 5.0 not adjusted for type of rental o 40III r 160 3.0 155 .0 2.0 10 11111 150 0.0Li ti Li '-' V Y.1 --- l L . 145 -1.02.0 • ' ' 140 111111111111111111 1 - 135 -3.0 -4.0 130 t0 N CO 0 0 .-, N rn 4 N ID N CO O1 0 N CO Ci 0 .-1 Al CO 4 V1 l0 N CO 01 0 .ti N M 4 u1 0 N CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 8 8 8 8 8 8 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N Al N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Al N Al N Al N N N N N N N Al N Al N NATION... 156 MULTIFAMILY / � �© 4 HOUSING IIIV !/ AS University IMF It ': COU NGII. ...Y....._--...--.--.. ��-�.m of San Dieczo. 17 Owner __ 160,000 140,000 __ 120,000 100,000 .�... 80,000 — • ,�.,-, ... ._ __ 60,000 �--- - v.. u v 40,000 ry N m VD a . 20,000 ■ 1-1 di ow 111 MI IF 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 El Owner 600,000 Owner 200,000 500,000 ,c 400,000 150,000 300,000 100,000 n o0 IIIL. .LL i 200,00050000m 100,000 NN O ti 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 ......... Construction 2010-2016 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing — g Trade&Transport -- 2010-2016 Information Svcs ' Financial Svcs Natural Increase iiiii Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health IIMEMENIMMININ 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality Natural Increase Government 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 1-5 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. 157 r San ._., r ' II��III�� MULTIFAPiILY - .. Ir HOUSING �1 HAS „SanUniversity r .. _.__..._-_.-__._-_ Die�o 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. 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 Owner 5+units 52,801 40,000 30,000 m Renter Single 154,272 20,000 r ti Renter 2-4 units 1111 57,401 10,000 11 under $15- $25- $35- 550- $75- $100- over Renter 5+units 190,956 515k $25k 535k $50k 575k $100k 5150k 5150k 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 �.. 2000- -a 120,000 2010 36,158 0 s 100,000 1980- 78,492 2000 = 80,000 Li 60,000 1980 53,674 40,000 aty,. �}, 1940- ‘.4 ,. .: 1960 8.574 20,000 before - 1940 2,586 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 a 12.0 = 350 not adjusted for type of venial o 10.0 300 8.0 250 2J _60 150100002.0 �D t� W O N N M ? liii 4 O III1IIII1IHIIHHH.HH O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O NO 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 N N N N N N N N N N ,�� 158 MULTIFAt?IL1' J ® ■ NINE HOUm ''\ �S j.IAIBP151I)' i9 tit 5311 DiC - 1512,0W _ - Owner ,t-,- 140,000 i.„+ 120,000 • 100,000 ,. 80,000 60,000 `ymrn o o VI mat 40,000 ry M v c N .. 20, 0001 VIIJ r. 1. ,_ 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 IN Renter ■Renter 300,000Owner 600,000 , x Owner 250,000 500,000 200,000 400,000 150,000 300,000 m N 100,000 m 200,000 N o if tD M CO uY tzO ni 50,000 ' IL. N 100,000 i Mo ii 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) -10 10 30 50 70 90 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mining I 2000-2010 "" Construction r 2010-2016 Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing ® Net Migration Trade&Transport — Information Svcs ! 2010-2016 Financial Svcs Natural Increase e Net Migration Professional Svcs Education&Health ® 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality MIIIIIIIIMIli 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*,ESRIx 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 �� �� } . AR, tit HOUSING V'1 1J an Diego COUNCIL gSan LIf! 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. . 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 140,000 •. 120,000 Owner 2-4 units ' 14,078 100,000 80,000 Owner 5+units , 117,768 60,000 Renter Single II1228007 40,000 20,000 Renter 2-4 units ! 57,111 Renter 5+units 530,024 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k 5150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 350,000 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 300,000 since 33,032 10 ti 2so,D00 2000-20 74,664 -o 2010 S moo, 200,000 1980- o 2000 145,029 150,000 u 1960- 175,009 c 100,000i 1 1980 1940- 72,687 50,000 - .1960 before 29,603 - 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast h 15-24 ■25-34 •35-44 45-54 ■55-64 ■65+ 900 -a 20.0 c 2 800 not adjusted for type of rental o IL 15.0 - 700 600 v 10.0 . 500 m zi 111111111 0 5.0 400 I ! 11111111111111111111111 300 - ! ! 2 . . 200 ' , " 100 .. _ -5.D l0 n . cl C N M N 01 tO n CO 0l 0 N 00 01 0 N N M dto t0 N. W a1 0 . N T N LII t0 N CO 01 0 ,-i N N N N O O .-V a-I N H N 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 8 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 r, N N N NNNNNiNr.INry N N N N N N N N N N N N r, NN -----" 160 MULTIFAMILY j!�%� HOUSING I�1 V V___=, ■ HAS �v ty strit > oSan Diear - 350,000 ■Owner -- .__ 300,000 `-- 250,000 200,000 a m.. - A--- 150,000 N N 100,000 n '^ N o II 11 i 1 N N ry N SD,ODO �.. _1 .■ , ..,„ . 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 •■Renter 800,000 r ;=Owner ii 3 Owner 400,000 700,000 350,000 600,000 300,000 500,000 250,000 v 400,000 200,000 r, 300,000 ol 150,000 ti o 200,000 M h. 100,000 1111111 N iii . is N Mco 100,000 111 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 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mining 1 2000-2010 ..., 2010-2016 Construction am Natural Increase ■2017-2030 Manufacturing Net Migration Trade&Transport mum 2010-2016 Information Svcs 1 Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs immiummiommEN Education&Health uminimmum 2016-2030 Leisure&Hospitality ini Natural Increase Government inummi 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 listed in the publication appendix. �I11�II` MULTIFAMILY .�!_7•./LA'1l Ill HOUSING University COUNCIL d5dr!Diego' 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 aggregate were more like the national trend. Actual 0.12%of population. Actual data were collected for home ownership rates were used from 2005 to 2009 and 2011 to 2015. The forecast did not assume 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.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 upgrading to higher be longer approval and development time lines 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 201.5 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 0114. 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,Al, „_Y'u 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 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. 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 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 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 types. She previously was a Managing Director at RCLCO, leading the pension J 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 Paige Mueller, CRE® 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 pubic meeting on December 6, 2018 commencing at 9100 A.M. In the Bo'd of County Commissioners Chamber,Third Floor, County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami fra°I,Naples,FL. The purpose of the hearing is to conside•; 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 ME 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 TRANSVIMAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATEII: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 3557#ACRES. EPL 01700044191 1terans Me•r :raa BLVD_ J PROJECT LOCATION Ail interested parties are invited to appear and ne heard, Copies of the proposed RESOLUTION will be made available for inspection at toe GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section,2800 N.Horseshoe IJr., 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 the Collier County Clerk's Office, Fourth Floor, Collier County Governme"t Center,32Y9 Tam Trail Fast,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 cons tiered at the public hearing. Any person wno decides to appeal 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 tcst,mary and evidence upon which the appea,is based. If you area persorr 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 Tamior^i Trail Fast,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the heer.ng impaired are available in the Board of Cou-ty Commissioners Office. Mark P.Strain,Chairman Collier County Planning Commission N.)-2'.60738 November 16.2018 24A I FRIG. ,Y, NOVEMBER 16,2018 Il NAPLES DAILY NEWS